Talk:Gamergate/Archive8

This is an archive page, last updated 14 June 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <9>, <10>

, (new)(back)

Every few months I try to read this article ...

Every few months I try to read this article and I stop when I reach the first sentence which I find incomprehensible. This time I got to the second paragraph where I find: "This stance, of course, shows that they don't know anything about ethics, considering that the first "ethical" issue was how websites weren't covering the non-existent scandal involving Quinn and Gamergaters have solely used unethical journalistic practices to attack their critics since then."

Ummm - what?--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Replacing the "and" with a stop would work, but I put up a fancy fix. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 20:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

So your complaint is one badly written sentence each time and then you don't bother to correct it yourself and then move on with the rest of the page?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that Bob's complaint is that the whole article is almost totally opaque to anyone (like me) who's not already totally immersed in the subject. Storm - meet teacup. Scream!! (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems that every few months Bob tries to read the page and then he stops at a run on sentence that short circuits his ability to continue reading.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I know I've said this before, but it's practically tl;dr sandpaper. Withoutaname (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The only constant here is run-on sentences being bad and no one has really said much about the structure or content itself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Absence of comment is not evidence of approval. It isn't even evidence of a neutral opinion. It may be evidence of closing the tab and moving on to something more interesting. Flux gate gamma (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that. I'd rather there be people pointing out things that need work other than wonky sentences that they can fix themselves.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

What I am saying is that before someone fixes something, they have to think it is worth the effort, i.e. they have to care about it. Flux gate gamma (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I am with Bob. The article is barely intelligible to anyone who doesn't already have an in-depth knowledge of the subject. Ryulong is obviously proud of his opus, but I am afraid he can't see the wood for the trees. Damo^Hi 07:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Give pointers on how to fix that instead of simply complaining. Because right now this seems like a retread of the "This article is too long", "This article doesn't seem on mission", and "Ryulong should just get a blog" arguments that pop up every two months when someone makes a vague complaint that makes it difficult to improve the page other than this one run on sentence that Bob M complained about.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Bob M literally made this same thread in July complaining about a different poorly written sentence. How the hell is this page going to ever be improved if this is the only criticism that it gets? Say what needs to be explained better. Say what needs to be rewritten. Do something other than give these vague complaints that are for the most part miniscule and not at all helpful into making this any better.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

FFS, it's not the only criticism it gets. Read the seven archives to this talk page. The page will be improved if you actually let other editors work on it without your constant interference. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

These are the only criticisms that keep coming up over and over. No one names specific issues. The only major thing anyone's done to the page is fill the lead section full of snark to where it wasn't even telling anything right about what this shit is.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

My objection is that it is badly written and largely incomprehensible to anyone who does not already have a substantial stake in the issue. I understand these are rather general objections but by their very nature they are bound to be. I regularly honestly try to read the thing in order to understand what the fuss is about, but I simply get put off by the opaque writing style. Furthermore - for someone who is not personally involved in the minutiae of the debate - I find the article to be over-detailed. --Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

You base this off of a handful of wonky sentences that barely get you out of the introduction every two months? And finally the "it's too long for me to give a shit" complaint as I expected. Do you just want the page to be Gamergate#Brief summary? It's such a clusterfuck of every asshole on the Internet that this is as simple as it gets. This page has been here long enough that you, AgingHippie, and anyone else who goes "It's too long and I don't feel like reading it" could have gone through the whole damn thing and copy edit it other than everyone's random ideas to chop out parts that they don't think are relevant. This is as simple as this shit gets.

• Intro.
• TL;DR version.
• Background info.
• How this shit started.
• How it snowballed into the reactionary clusterfuck it is.
• How the rest of the world looked at it and realized how fucked up it was and responded.
• Calling out this cult-like mob's bullshit.
• Pointing out how now they don't mean shit to the rest of the world.

What needs to go? What makes it so impossible for you and other people who keep making these inactionable complaints and criticisms to read the page and understand a lick of itis so impossible to glean from this and the 250 citations? Because these quarterly posts saying "I don't understand this one sentence, this page is therefore all shit" doesn't help anyone.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. I'll look at it again in a few months.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Quickie poll

This is a solid, well-written article that people with a curiosity about, but no real knowledge of, the topic at hand can read and learn from.	28	Vote
This article is a giant mess that is only of interest to, and understandable by, people who have followed the relevant events in an intense manner for a long time.	104	Vote

Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

And great, something to be gamed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Excluded middle. It's possible, and in this case I believe, that neither are true. Question: Wikipedia has a regular page and a simply explained in English page for some articles. Is it possible to keep this and abbreviate sections in to more of a summary/narrative? The Great and Humble Shawn (the Humanist)^{Talk to me} 11:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

+1 for excluded middle. I would suggest AgingHippie do some rewriting, except every time he has he's fucked it up, broken references, got the actual referenced facts wrong, etc.

Ryulong just did a pile of rewriting, which I think is an improvement. Could the voters on the second please review? Don't stop at the first run-on sentence, give actionable objections - David Gerard (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Well I agree, for some reason this version feels much better than the last one. Withoutaname (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

L-L-L-L-L-L-L-LOADED Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 14:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

+1 Excluded middle. AgingHippie, your poll is bad and you should feel bad. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

If you think it's a mess, blank the damn page then. (And I would like to see names attached to those votes.) --Castaigne (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, at least this silly poll shows there are more than 2 people that don't think the current version is utter crap. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:19, 29 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

AgingHippie has been bitching about this page for so long, long enough for him to catch up on the whole thing and rewrite it himself. Anyways, if internet polls meant anything we'd be serving God-Emperor Ron Paul right now. ^{— Unsigned, by: Cykosys / talk / contribs}

If you don't like the way the poll is stacked, there's nothing to stop you adding other options that cover that excluded middle territory. But even with that excluded middle in mind, doesn't the fact that more than three times as many editors have voted against this as a quality article rather than in favour of it suggest that something is rotten in Denmark? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Just because Bob decided to halt his entire ability to read this page at the first run-on sentence and the fact that this page in general has gone untouched for a week doesn't really suggest anything (the "Vote" button exists for people logged out and I bet there was some shitty thread somewhere on Reddit that got like a dozen readers that told people to vote to fuck with us here). And most people have found that the rewrite is better. And Cykosys has a point. This page has been around long enough for any of you to read it through and figure out what needs to go other than the like 10k worth of text I threw out already in the day AgingHippie posted this poll garbage. So maybe someone can read through the whole page for once and provide more than one sentence that is problematic instead of you and others making vague and completely inactionable complaints about the page because it exists.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thing I often wonder before hitting "SAVE" on RW: Will the Weasel approve of this edit? If the answer ends up being in the negative, I typically know I've done something wrong. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to make him happy if he doesn't ever tell me what specifically is wrong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Dick-swinging contest

Out of curiosity - can IP's vote on these polls?--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It might actually be worse than months ago when I last checked. Second sentence: "The group had existed for some time, although unnamed, such as when they..." - Really? "the group existed for some time such as when they?" Two thumbs down. Sarah (HH) 01:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Let's have an opinion from one of the other NRX people here. If it's grammar fix it instead of complaining.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be something like "The group grew out of a reactionary subculture in gaming, having previously reared its head as a misogynistic campaign against feminist video game critic Anita Sarkeesian that began in 2012, and came to full fruition as "Gamergate"..." That's closer to what I was intending when I previously asked Ryulong to make the edit. While Anita's important to this, I don't think it's accurate to claim that the group started with her stalkers.KrytenKoro (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The people involved in Gamergate are the same people who went after Sarkeesian in 2012. Several of them even have the same Twitter accounts that were used to harass her then.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a definite improvement but it won't stand as long as Ryulong edits. He's a shit-slinger. Paint the Mona Lisa and he'll smear shit all over it. The david -> david covered in shit. No matter how perfect your edit it'll never be good enough to stand being covered in shit. I spent months trying to believe otherwise, eventually gave up. I envy your optimism. Good luck. Sarah (HH) 04:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Says the concern troll Gamergater.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You continue to have an unhealthy obsession with bitching about Ryulong. From your parody of his old userpage to your repeated visits to RW only to whine and moan about him. Then again, this behaviour is normal for a gamergator. Typhoon (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You remind me of your Premier Bush: "the surge is working." This article is junk, that's general consensus, not just the opinion of scary Gamergaters. You need a strategy to fix it. You reject my suggestion but offer no alternatives. "Stay the course" won't do. Sarah (HH) 21:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

No you're just a boring fucking Gamergate concern troll so your opinion doesn't really have much weight.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Have Another Poll

This article invokes the colour "black" more than any other colour on this list.	2	Vote
This article invokes the colour "red" more than any other colour on this list.	1	Vote
This article invokes the colour "green" more than any other colour on this list.	2	Vote
This article invokes the colour "blue" more than any other colour on this list.	1	Vote
This article invokes the colour "yellow" more than any other colour on this list.	2	Vote
This article invokes the colour "cyan" more than any other colour on this list.	1	Vote
This article invokes the colour "magenta" more than any other colour on this list.	2	Vote
This article invokes the colour "white" more than any other colour on this list.	2	Vote
This article invokes a colour that is not on this spectrum.	4	Vote
This article invokes no colour.	4	Vote
I feel that I am unable to respond.	13	Vote

Have fun. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 07:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It makes me feel like #0645AD if that makes sense. Withoutaname (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

What the fuck is that shit??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 17:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

What the fuck are you whatthefucking about?? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for corrections

In order:

• video game playing => video game-playing
• "It has its origins in the misogynistic attacks on Anita Sarkeesian which began in 2012": I'm pretty sure a lot of the same actors were engaged in anti-woman reactionary harassment before Anita, and I'd prefer wording that said something to that effect with an "including the misogynistic blahblahblah", but not a strong objection.
• "but what everyone recognizes as "Gamergate" today began in mid-2014 after Zoë Quinn's ex-boyfriend Eron Gjoni tasked 4chan to be his personal army against her. " => "but what is recognized as "Gamergate" began in mid-2014, after Zoë Quinn's ex-boyfriend, Eron Gjoni, sicced 4chan on her as his personal army."
• " all out conservative reactionary mob" => "all-out conservative, reactionary mob" or "all-out conservative/reactionary mob"
• "whose main focus appears to be against whoever they decide is...whatever they decide is" => "whose main focus appears to be agitating against whomever they deem...whatever they deem" (wouldn't give them the benefit of calling those decisions, honestly, they're remarkably inconsistent about who's still an ally)
• "to speak on behalf of all of gaming," => "they are speaking on behalf of all gamers,"
• "(which was a retrospective excuse for the attacks on Quinn)" => "(a retroactive excuse for the attacks on Quinn)"
• "The idea is to claim that clearly coordinated action is somehow not the responsibility of any individual member of the group, or that they are even a group." => "The idea is to claim that they are simultaneously a unified Voice For The People with an important, agreed-upon platform, and an unrelated assortment for whom no action, no matter how clearly-coordinated, can be made the responsibility of the group or any individual member."
• win in the moment => win at the moment

That's about as far as I can get. I hope it improves readability, but if it's bulking up the lead too much, feel free to trim it.KrytenKoro (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

All changed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I may try to do some further copyediting later, I guess I should create a sandbox or something so I don't clog up this talk page.KrytenKoro (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

(necro) I don't know the context (being of the 'tried to read it but failed' persuasion) but I'd have thought that "video game playing" would be better written as "video-game playing". Not gonna bother about it though. Scream!! (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I think however I had originally wrote it it was an attempt to avoid the word "gamer" as that felt like jargon.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think gamer is jargon, it would be a good substitute for video game playing. Tielec01 (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

On reflection, I think it's also there to avoid using "gamer" which has certain connotations in this situation and also because it involves game developers as well but there's an easy fix somewhere in between.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Also the page does currently say "Gamergate is a hostile reactionary mob in the video game-playing or "gamer" community." so it includes all these suggestions already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

And there.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"video game-playing" is correct, as it is referring to those who are playing video games. Basically, because video game is not video-game, neither should video-game playing exist.KrytenKoro (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Evil Tom Preston

Time for a much briefer rewrite. Assuming we all know who Tom Preston is.

^{— Unsigned, by: RakortheTerrible / talk / contribs}

"Evil Tom Preston"'s opinion really adds nothing to this page. All it says is that he, as someone who made an account to solely attack and harass someone else, is an anti-SJW. He just repeats a bunch of libertarian, anti-SJW, and MRA talking points, which you're repeating here.

1. "Positive discrimination" I'm assuming is his codeword for affirmative action.
2. Intersectionality is an issue in social justice and people over the age of 18 recognize that.
3. No one is saying "let's insert 'marginalized' characters into existing games" but asking "why aren't there games that feature non-white/male/straight characters" and suggesting that there be games that feature these. Negative criticism over social issues isn't an edict demanding inclusion. His point about hiring practices is also fucking stupid. Companies aren't hiring people just for diversity. Clearly these people have the skills they're looking for in an employee but they're just not a white dude. Also, "marginalized people" are making their own games (which Depression Quest and Gone Home are) but Gamergate is still attacking them over it.
4. "Chaotic Evil" sort of matches.

So in short, he's an idiot anti-progressive just like the rest of Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Like someone else explained to me, "SJW"s don't exist so "Anti-SJW"s don't really make much sense either. It's more accurate to just say they're "Anti-SJ", i.e. they're opposed to social justice whenever it doesn't apply to them, the quintessential narcissistic middle class cishet white male. Withoutaname (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

People specifically identify as "anti-SJW" though. So while their bogeyman doesn't exist they do.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Basically, even assuming all of that's completely accurate, who gives a shit? Why should some rando's opinion take up space in an article already groaning at the seams? And that's even before your direct quote from him for (3) makes it clear he doesn't have clue #1 what the fuck he's talking about. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 13:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Echoing Queef. What is the importance of this fellow? He's not Milo, Vox Day, or even Gjoni. I'm not seeing the relevance here at all. --Castaigne (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep, if no one heard of them before gamergate, their individual role during is probably not worth noting. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a note for anyone who has no idea where this is coming from, Tom Preston is an artist the Anonymous/ED/etc. crowd has enjoyed harassing for years. --Ymir (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"Under the guise of"

"Under the guise of" means "disguised as." They are not "disguised as Gamergate," they ARE Gamergate. Words have meanings, you can't just use them because you think they make you sound smart. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It took one week for the first paragraph(s) of this article to decay into madman language. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Related

I propose that this entire article be written with simple active voice sentences. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 05:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll help out. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Better writing

As I said earlier, and as someone else proposed, this article must now be revised into simpler active voice sentences, and cleaned up because it has degenerated into unclear language. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I admire your boundless enthusiasm, although if you look at the fraught history of this article you will see that them's are fighting words son. Tielec01 (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I have, but I am actually giving somewhat specific details about how to write it. There's no debate in that if no one's changing the meaning much. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't count on that. I got shat all over for taking out adverbs. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

archive.moe died

archive.moe died, as you can see from following any link to it. The content appears to be mostly saved but we'll presumably have to change all the links once things settle. --Ymir (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

A poll, redux.

What topic occupies three of the top ten spots on the list of longest pages on RW?

You have to ask?	7	Vote
Are you kidding?	1	Vote
This is some sort of joke, right?	3	Vote
I don't know if there's something horribly wrong with me, but I actually couldn't care less what articles are listed on that specialpage.	5	Vote

Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is this always a complaint?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

'Cause it swamps so much else on RW. It's an almost totally artificial topic that affects less than .01%^{(overestimate?)} of our normal readership and it's written in a way that makes it even less accessible to those not already immersed in the subject. Don't bring up Conservapedia and its large presence (as you have before if I'm not mistaken) - that's the original raison d'être of RW so is allowed a free pass. Scream!! (talk) 09:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait, how exactly are articles supposed to swamp other articles? Last time I checked, articles existed separately from one another. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:12, 15 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Big topics get more articles. Little topics get fewer articles. This is the biggest little topic. This makes sense. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 10:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm still amazed by that statistic, though. Where is the list of longest pages? In my tools? Found it in my tools. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 10:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

We clearly need to cut back on coverage of vaginal steaming seeing as it's the 50th largest page on the site.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Or all the LessWrong cruft we got around here. Seriously, what sane person would ever take Roko's Basilisk seriously? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:56, 15 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Someone suggested polls are there to add more options to, so...
Also, AgingHippie, if this actually bothers you that much, why don't you nominate those 2 Gamergate listcrufticles at the top of that list for deletion instead of whining about it on measly #10's talkpage? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:50, 15 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

OK, so I have some suggestions for improvement to this article

I don't know much about the subject at hand, as my seeing it on RationalWiki is the first time I ever heard about gamergate (personal note: I detest most video games and the abuse of the suffix "gate"), but there are some things in this article that, if somebody with a bit more time and knowledge of gamergate wanted to change them, could dramatically help it along the way:

1. My biggest problem in reading this article is that there are so many names thrown around in it that it is, essentially, impossible to keep of track of who is who. This compounds into the problem that, when you don't know who is who, it follows that you lose your sense of who did what by the virtue of not remembering who is who. It would be exponentially helpful to this article to have a section about "Key players in gamergate" with a list of names and a brief, one-sentence description of who they are. That way, I avoid having to completely backtrack all across the article to figure out who people are.
2. Some of these sections are poorly organized, making it that much harder to follow what you are reading. A good example is the "The red pill rabbit hole" sub-section. It starts off with brief bullet points about various "reactionaries" and their involvement in an easy-to-follow bullet point format. But then, it takes off as a large swath of text about Milo Yiannopoulos which seems to have packed a whole ton of information into poorly organized and poorly written sentences. For example:

   "Critics were quick to call him out on his drastic 180, as he had previously expressed "little but sneering contempt"[97] for video games and gamers.[98][99] Not content with bemoaning the level of "sex, drugs and violence" in video games,[100] he even blamed them for Elliot Rodger's genocidal fantasies.[101] And mere days before his "Feminist Bullies" piece, he tweeted, "If you're a grown man with hands clamped to an Xbox controller instead of a pair of tits you need a good slap""

   That part of the paragraph uses multiple sentences to say what only one, compounded sentence could've done.

Anyways, these are some of the things I noticed. If somebody sees this and has more time and knowledge than I do to correct it, that'd be swell. The computer virus^{Get infected} 11:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Your first point: A who's who has been something on a back burner for a while but it seems like that would be a separate page which everyone is going to love.

Your second point: Milo did a lot of shit and there should be a better segue into his paragraph.

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

A separate page for the who's who may not be pretty, but the single biggest issue with this article is that it's virtually impossible to follow who people are with some sort of quick reference. What I constantly run into while reading this article is that a name gets thrown into the mix some paragraphs after it first mentioned. By this time, I have already forgotten who that person was, and find that I have to go back and re-read most of the article just to find who they are, then scroll back to where they became the subject at hand. Either a subsection in this article giving a rundown about the various people involved, or a sub-article (i.e: [[Gamergate/people]] is required in order to make this article more understandable and easier to follow. The computer virus^{Get infected} 22:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate dramatis personae might be worth doing. Basically, anyone bolded on Timeline of Gamergate (which will make that page more readable too). OTOH, it'll be a huge slab of work. Wanna start on it? - David Gerard (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Several people are just "random internet pundit with a YouTube channel" though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

For the second point, how does this compare to the previous revision?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a night/day improvement. Thank you for that. I'm going to give this another read through later, and if I see anything else that I don't like, I'll post it here again. The computer virus^{Get infected} 22:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay with regards to the "dramatis personae" it seems like there are only a few people mentioned more than once on the page (in no particular order):

• Zoe Quinn
• Eron Gjoni
• Anita Sarkeesian
• Brianna Wu
• Randi Harper
• Milo Yiannopoulos
• Alex Lifschitz
• Nathan Grayson
• John Bain, aka TotalBiscuit
• Fredrick Brennan, aka Hotwheels
• Chris Kluwe
• Cathy Young
• Christina Hoff Sommers

So is a lack of clarity on who these people are when they get mentioned a second time really what makes this page hard to read?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

A WAY better explanation of Gamergate than we have done

You can spend a long time reading our three over-written shit articles, or you can spend about 12 minutes listening to this (starting at the 18 minute mark). Everything you need to know, presented in an accessible, compelling, and fun way, in the time it takes to wash the dishes or fold the laundry. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Well that covers two sections of the article (and also gets things slightly wrong in that Gjoni specifically referred to the restaurant in his blog rather than it being an invention by Gamergaters).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, everything you need to know , presented in an accessible, compelling, and fun way. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The GG article is extraordinarily good. Many of us a far more interested in the written word with supporting documentation, instead of or in addition to clever videos.---Mona- (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The way I see it, the article ended up over-written because GamerGate is a huge shitstorm about nothing. GG is entirely based on seizing upon the smallest crumbs of misinformation and blowing them up into smoking guns to justify the outrage over a couple women having opinions on the internet. The article spends a lot of time going over boring irrelevant details because that's all there is to it.^{— Unsigned, by: 186.207.169.118 / talk / contribs}

--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 04:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate is an enormously popular article. The readers observably love it. It evidently does its job of informing the public. I must suggest to the whiners here that the evidence is that the problem is with you, not the article - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

"Gamergate is an enormously popular article.^{[citation needed]} The readers observably love it.^{[citation needed]} It evidently does its job of informing the public.^{[citation needed]} I must suggest to the whiners here that the evidence is that the problem is with you, not the article"^{[Ad hom]}--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 10:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

http://rwdocs.org/statistics/201510.popular HTH! - David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"Popular"? You mean, how many times a particular page was visited?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

If you have a better reasonably available measure, please present it. Hint: there isn't a better reasonably available measure. (It is common for people who have no argument to claim any evidence presented is not good enough, without providing a reasonable criterion of expected evidence. It's a form of moving the goalposts.) What the fuck else does "popular" mean, you fucking black hole of inanity. We're talking in the context of RW here, and that's literally the list of how popular every fucking article on RW was in October 2015. I eagerly await your ridiculous blathering on why the number of times a page was visited isn't actually a measure of its popularity on RW - David Gerard (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Your WHARRGARBL (netlingo for incoherent rambling) is rather amusing, please continue.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Is that all you got, Arisboch? Throwing a lame meme before running away with your tail between your legs? You're completely unable to disprove what Gerard said? Typhoon (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring incoherent rants is not "running away with your tail between your legs", Typhoon.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

THere was nothing incoherent about it, as opposed to your irate response to it. You're running away because you're too afraid of addressing what Gerard said (this is because you know you lost). Typhoon (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

you lost- Typhoon Salam aleikum, Comical Ali.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

When did Appeal fallacies become valid arguments. It could be popular for any reason, like people wishing to perform some Nutpicking on any of Ryulong or narky Sawtooth's comments. The only time I want to see a near undecipherable wall of crazily worded run on sentences that requires me to jump ahead and behind like I'm reading a CYOA book by a madman on Rationalwiki is when I'm on the Timecube article. So far, Timecube is better than this mess because at least it has pretty colours.86.136.30.188 (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Conservapedia's Homosexuality and Evolution articles are both enormously popular, too, if we're using "popularity" as a synonym for "good." Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

No, Popularity means jack shit. It's the IQ of Article correctness. Your article could be popular because it's a great way to dismiss the rest of the site or because it's unintentionally hilarious in some way. It could be popular because it's accurate, or a great breakdown. All of those reasons are valid for popularity. The Pat Condell article is good. The Vaccine Denialism article is good. This article? It's bad.86.136.30.188 (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That was pretty much the point I was making, dummy. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

No reason exists to think the popularity of the piece is unrelated to its high explanatory value. Popularity does not mean an article is good, but it does mean it is perceived as worth reading by many. I perceive it as excellent and it explained the controversy to me in the fall of '14 when I found the whole thing baffling. On Twitter some people were ranting about "GamerGate" all the time and I started getting labeled as an "SJW" and had no fucking idea why or what that is. Because of this article when the kerfuffle over the Hugo Awards and the Angry White males of "Sad Puppies" occurred I knew this cohort of wingnut men existed. I knew that very largely because of this article, which I've tweeted any number of times.---Mona- (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm glad to see you being less of a single-purpose-editor these days. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Fortunately, our article on that is now good enough I just bronzed it - David Gerard (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

"less of a single-purpose-editor" It was never my intention to be that. Simply that I developed outrage when I thought I'd make contributions to very poor, unsourced articles on those topics (which I know extremely well and so can easily edit) only to find that it "wasn't allowed" from my POV. In any of myriad articles touching on Israel and Arabs. Taking that passively is not me. At all. But that is not my only interest. (I just had reason to read our Gore Vidal article and, as my kids used to say, it sucks boogers. I'll have to get to that as well.)---Mona- (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

But the articles on evolution and homosexually are good.86.150.152.171 (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate is a large socio-political phenomenon

It was covered, at length, in the mainstream media; Law and Order SVU aired a wildly controversial episode about it. Those here claiming it is a minor, nothing topic are either dishonestly engaged in wishful commenting, or merely ignorant. (The same cohort of Angry White Males who drove GG also fucked up the Hugo Awards.) Not being a gamer, when this controversy exploded I had no clue what it was about. This article explains it well. It is one of two articles that pushed me toward joining here --the Sam Harris article being the other. (Tho I've made use of the site many times, including for articles on woo.)

Some here are unhappy about attracting the kind of editors who would write the Gamergate article, or people like me who have ignited a ruckus vis-a-vis Israel-related articles. For some, these topics run afoul of their nostalgia for RW in the days when it "was fun." For others, they object to bait that adds to the progressive numbers of editors here.

This article is very well done and could not be more timely about a significant sociological phenomenon. The two strands of objections to it that I've observed and set forth above are not remotely persuasive.---Mona- (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

+1 - David Gerard (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Misogyny on the internet is a large socio-political phenomenon. Gamergate is one instance of that phenomenon, and a relatively important one, but it is not by any means anything close to the totality of the phenomenon. This article would be vastly improved by someone who has actual sociological, ethnographic and historical knowledge about the experience of women on the internet and reading the events that are meticulously described here in a broader context that is not limited to the relatively narrow world of video games.Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Few articles here would make it into scholarly journals, but this one is very good for what it is that is done here.---Mona- (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I never suggested anything about scholarly journals. This one is "very good" as a detailed chronicle of what happened, but, for all its length, is lacking in analysis and is not very good at all at putting those events into any sort of informed context. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the larger context will become apparent once the dust settles, and maybe then a shorter, more pithy article can be written. Trying to cover just the essential with GamerGate just gets the asshole brigade trying to play Character Assassination of The Gaps with whatever bit of irrelevant pseudo-concern you forgot to debunk.^{— Unsigned, by: 179.222.133.47 / talk / contribs}

This is a good point. There was a whole to do about a sentence in the article saying that proto-Gamergaters hacked into Quinn's personal files and found personal photos and a Gamergater came here to insist that the photos weren't found in the hack but were found elsewhere on a (still private) website where Quinn had a profile (that now turns out was also hacked into anyway).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a larger context that needs to be covered, but this page does generally concern the events surrounding the lives of a handful of women being affected.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

For someone not involved in gaming -- but who has any sense of contemporary American political culture -- this article is very good at explaining this convoluted, not easily understood, controversy. I went searching for precisely what this article provides; I wanted to grasp the basics. This article is the best GG primer -- or at last was when I was looking for an explanation in the autumn of '14.---Mona- (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

"even after months of denying that care who Quinn is with regards to their formation."

I'd try and fix that mess, but I have zero idea what you're trying to say. Try again, please. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

You never know what any of this fucking page says so why should this one sentence matter?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Because I generally know how the English language works, pinhead. Read that mess aloud and tell me if it makes any sense. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I left out the words "they" and "even" between "that" and "care". I tried to incorporate the tweet referenced in that podcast that you decided explained Gamergate better than this page and anything I've written ever does. And I knew that after my recent edits to the page you'd have some complaint about it. I didn't proofread that sentence enough before I saved it because it went through two different phrasings and they got mixed up and never fully corrected. It's a bad habit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that you aren't a thousand monkeys on a typewriter. Also consider thanking AH for mopping up after you. Tielec01 (talk) 10:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

How could you insult monkeys by making that awful comparison?!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Why do you two even post here?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Because "fuck you", that's why. I don't need to justify myself before you for posting here, you megalomanical clown.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Me? Because I've been at RW since a few weeks or so after the place opened, I care about the project, and I try to contribute by improving the quality of the writing. Your writing is often problematic, so I try to fix it. A better question is, why would anyone have to justify to you why they choose to post on a wiki? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No, Arisboch and Tielec01. Their only interest is shitting on the page and being brogressives.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

What the devil is a "brogressive"??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 01:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=brogressive —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

And how does that apply to me? For making fun of your anti-GG zealotry or refusing to deify Sarkeesian (and btw, I refuse to attack her either. The guys, who did this are asshole. I'd simply ignored her, if I were in their place)?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 01:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be progressive, but then you're just an asshole when it comes to this topic.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

you're just an asshole when it comes to this topic- Ryulong ^[Clarify].--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

AgingHippie, you hate problems with run-ons but you feel it necessary to blindly revert my attempts to get rid of this sentence:

The group grew out of a reactionary subculture in gaming, having previously reared its head as a misogynistic campaign against feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian that began in 2012, and came to full fruition as "Gamergate" in 2014 after independent game developer Zoë Quinn's ex-boyfriend Eron Gjoni sicced 4chan on her because she dumped him.

Explain.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed it. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Stop fucking reverting everything else.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

No. Your version is worse. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Your version lacks any actual information and is structured weird.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Intro

I don't like the new intro a lot. We've seen it change in a repeating cycle between concise and not explaining GG to convoluted and including every aspect but being really hard to comprehend (because GG is both stupid and complicated).

So I suggest we work out what really needs to go in it. This is before coming up with a wording. What elements must be covered? - David Gerard (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Anita, Zoe, reactionary, all of the band wagoners, how it's not actually about ethics, how it's all about entitlement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Problems with the re-written intro

"cause celebre." Over-written, needless; "these types." Unclear what "types" are being referred to: "spur these attacks." Wordy. ""Freedom of speech" is also cited by Gamergaters". Passive voice; " public Internet spaces." Reads like an AOL manual from 1998. "shit behavior." This is the lede of what is supposed to be a good article. Write like a grown-up. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

" Gamergaters get banned a lot for attacking people." Written in the style of a seventh-grader. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm rewriting it, ass.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

It's fine the way it was. Stop edit-warring me, and do not think of blocking me again as you do so. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Do not block me again over this. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You think I could see this when every time I try to fucking edit the page I'm met with an edit conflict? Reop me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You did not need to see this to know that that is a dick move. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

And yet you started the edit war.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Dead_Trout.svg

See? See what you did? This poor trout. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 07:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

If you ignore the required snark and bias, this version of the lede is about as perfect as it gets. I've reverted to it, that's my vote. If you all disagree, please undo. Sarah (HH) 22:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

gb2/r/kia—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Also that longer version was one I wrote during the whole edit war with AH. The cut down version by AH and Mona, with minor wording changes is fine for now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Going mainstream

We only need a few key points:

• Anita's talk at USU
• The Colbert Report
• GGAB
• WAM!
• AbleGamers
• HuffPost retrospective

Everything else can go. Withoutaname (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The rape fic is something attention grabbing though. Also you've omitted the Wikipedia shenanigans.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

What's your reasoning for those points and no others? - David Gerard (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with David. Exactly why are those the only things of relevance? --Castaigne (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Anita's talk at USU helps show the lengths GamerGate is willing to go to prevent an academic from speaking. The Colbert report pushed GamerGate and 3rd wave feminism into the mainstream. GGAB, WAM! and AbleGamers show some of the pushback by progressive charity websites as well as "good" side effects of GamerGate: anti-harassment policies. We can move "HuffPost retrospective" down to the "A retrospective" section. I suppose we can add the Wikipedia shenanigans if people reading the corresponding article on the Other Wiki think that it is biased in some way, but as far as I can tell the dust has mostly settled and the Wikipedia article is quite neutral. Withoutaname (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The Intel section is nothing more than GamerGate saltiness that doesn't help our readers understand why the movement is reactionary. CON and the OAPI might belong in the same section as GGAB and WAM! but otherwise they hold the same value as the Intel section. "Weaponized porn" introduces more irrelevant characters that don't show at all how the movement is right wing. Law and Order SVU is just pop culture trivia that belongs on the /Timeline page. Withoutaname (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

So more complaints of "I can't read the page because there are too many names"?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

That's part of it, but what about these nonnotable events definitely show to disinterested readers that the movement is just another reactionary hate mob? Withoutaname (talk) 06:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The depths of depravity reactionaries have gone to to attack women.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Intel, LAO: SVU have nothing to do with that. They're minor points people without indepth knowledge of GamerGate will ever care about. Withoutaname (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Intel pledging millions to counter problems with diversity in the industry is the exact opposite of what Gamergate sought out considering that Intel was part of the whole "let's email advertisers" shit they did. And SVU brought Mark Kern and his whining to the shitfest.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

yeah, I thought the Intel thing got a fair bit of attention at the time - David Gerard (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

At the time yes, but they're minor things in the GamerGate debacle and they can go on the /timeline page. But I'm throwing up suggestions on what sections we ought to excise for the sake of readability and you seem adamant on keeping them all in. Tell me Ryulong, are there any sections at all that you want to see go? Withoutaname (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Well you're wrong about what can be removed. Right now it's cutting back parts of sections rather than excising whole sections.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

HEY HEY HEY

I predicted Gamergate in 2006. First section, last para. HA!

More seriously: these people have been an undercurrent in the culture for quite a while, I'm not so sure an amusing Tumblr post in early 2014 (by which time Sarkeesian had been dealing with misogynist ordure for quite a while) is noteworthy - David Gerard (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

People are always making predictions; some turn out to be true and some turn out to be false. They usually turn out to be true if they're vague enough. Which is what this Tumblr post is. So I don't see how it helps our readers understand the article in any way. Withoutaname (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

It was building up for a while. For instance, there were "SJW journalists to avoid" lists going around by March of 2014 [1]. The reactionary anger was already in place, the mob just needed a banner to march under. --Paul S (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

We found a manifesto

http://www.theopengamingsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/the-doctrine-of-gaming-4-0.pdf

From Gamergate's attempt at being in SXSW. Enjoy the read.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Have we used this already? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/14/the-only-guide-to-gamergate-you-will-ever-need-to-read/ Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought this article was "the-only-guide-to-gamergate-you-will-ever-need-to-read." Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, this is biased against it, in a good way. We're basically elaborating what the article claims. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Is Gamergate dead?

Can it die now? Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

So you want to kill Gamergaters just like HITLER? See, SJWs are Nazis!!! --Ymir (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

We can only hope. SolPyre (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

As a thing that will ever accomplish anything of real note? Yes, gamergate is dead and has been for a very long time. As a thing that will keep getting talked about and have some embers trying to relight the fire, no Gamergate is not dead. But that's all it will ever be: dying embers trying to respark the fire it briefly had.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 05:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This "long time" was ten months ago, I presume? Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Given that the article is a few thousand characters longer than it was a month ago, one can only assume that the subject is thriving. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Well it's kind of merged back into the general right-wing MRA/anti-feminist movement that spawned it in the first place. That's not going away anytime soon, unfortunately. --Ymir (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate is just a facet of a much wider problem, which hasn't found a new banner to coalesce under and so gamergate still gets some action, but like I said, dying embers. And it's a shame they besmirched the concept of reforming VG journalism because if there was a ever a corrupt and moneyed interest industry.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 06:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

So now its really just another version of the tea party? Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 06:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate -- named as that -- started on Twitter; it raged on Twitter in the fall of '14. It was constantly showing up in my TL and I didn't know what the hell it was about for months. In Twitter time, it really has been a "long time" since it was a thing. Paravant is right -- it mutated into other things. Notably, the hijacking of the Hugo Awards.---Mona- (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

From what I've read, Mona and all of you, Gamergate was important only about 12 months ago for a few weeks only. Yes, it has mutated into other things such as the regurgitation of MRA/neo-nazi/white-supremacist verbatim. But it still begs the question if they even have a set political agenda.

Speaking of Twitter, the image example of the slut-shaming Twitter post at the beginning of the page doesn't show up, for some reason. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not dead, it's just pining for the fjords. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Gatorgate image

Copyright aside, I think it's a terrible image that adds nothing to the article. Why is this useful, helpful or informative to the reader? - David Gerard (talk) 11:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It's quite a succinct way of pointing out the idiocy surrounding 'third party trolls' excuses. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 11:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a response to "Gamergate doesn't harass people" because no one uses the tag as part of the harassment, but they're still active in the "movement" otherwise. It perhaps has usage elsewhere.—Ryulong (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems like the sort of editorial cartoon that makes sense here? Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

That image has to come back. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Canadian Sikh's selfie doctored into supposed image of Paris terrorist

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/canadian-pictured-as-paris-terrorist-in-suspected-gamergate-smear

Apparently this is *chan's idea of fun after he opposed Gamergate on Twitter. The electrical sockets are a dead giveaway that he's in North America and not in France. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Also Qurans don't have cameras.—Ryulong (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

BUSINESS IDEA!! WalkerWalkerWalker 04:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

We're gonna be rich!!!11! Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ugh, this actually got in a newspaper? How stupid can you be. The American power socket should have been a dead giveaway, as they're only used in the Americas. Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The Sikh turban should be a dead giveaway. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Sky News Italy too.—Ryulong (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, what a great example of unethical corruption in journalism! Shame that all the GG hubs are cheering about an enemy "getting theirs" rather than, as they always claim they would, standing up for their principles whether it is personally beneficial or not, or saying "hey everybody this is what we've been talking about." Gotdammit.KrytenKoro (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Milo immediately blames him http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/11/14/media-fooled-by-deplorable-irresponsible-absolutely-not-funny-trolling-of-gamergate-critic/ Petey Plane (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

...and GamerGaters wonder why people consider them monsters. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This is hardly the act of a "monster". A "monster" rapes and kills children. Carpetsmoker (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

True, monsters maybe a bit hyperbolic. Cretinous dorks with no credibility or respect outside of their echo-chamber may be a better descriptor.--Petey Plane (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

True, it was a bit hyperbolic just out of disgust after all the news. I do think it's pretty evil to implicate an innocent person in another country for a massive terrorist attack for the sole reason of not falling over and agreeing with a group of turds. Either in their own messed up retribution, or in case someone recognizes him and decides to meet out their own retribution. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Aaaaaand it was Gamergate that did it. Shocked, shocked I am! http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/gamergate-members-are-responsible-for-the-terrorist-photograph-of-journalist-veerender-jubbal-503Cykosys (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Something random I noticed

This. It's uncanny. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 04:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Liana Kerzner

Is she an MRA? Does she support Gamergate? Is she anything stupid?^{— Unsigned, by: Dandtiks69 / talk / contribs}

Yes.—Ryulong (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

This just doesn't seem right.

I read this article and it just seems... off. Even disregarding the obvious liberal bias, it's just... wrong. I'm not a GGer (but I support it) so I'm not the one to ask about the problems, though. WittyUsername (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you could be more specific instead of shit posting vague complaints.—Ryulong (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, looking at the sources, you have many non-reputable news sources giving you information. That is very much an issue. WittyUsername (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I asked for specifics you pinniped.—Ryulong (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Kotaku. The Gawker. Probably a few others. WittyUsername (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Fuck off Gater.—Ryulong (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Not a GGer, but I am pro-GG. Lrn2distinguish pls WittyUsername (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no difference.—Ryulong (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

There's a distinction. Sort of an "all thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs" kind of deal. WittyUsername (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Whatever helps u sleep at nite, buddy :) - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 22:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any distinction between "is pro-Gamergate" and "supports Gamergate and is therefore a Gamergater".—Ryulong (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, that GG is a leaderless movement and partially not eben that, but only a hashtag, so you can not be a card carrying member, since there is no place you can get a membership card, since GG as a organization you can be a member of doesn't exist. He apparently wants to tell you, that he just sympathizes with GG, but wouldn't participate in it.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 05:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

If you want proof whether or not something was posted on Kotaku, Kotaku is an acceptable source. BonzoTheBear (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Re:Evil Tom Preston

See the main article on this topic: /Archive8 § Evil Tom Preston

Ryulong, after some meditation and self reflection, I am back to respond to your counter points.

RakortheTerrible (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

To address your points

• I wasn't aware he was using "positive discrimination" to refer to "positive stereotypes" rather than affirmative action.
• No one cares about your Tom Preston hate boner it's irrelevant here. Stop bringing him or "Evil Tom Preston" up.
• The fact that Johnny Storm was made black is irrelevant to the overall fact that the new F4 movie was shit.

And to respond to that other thing: South Park is reactionary libertarian garbage and the only people who still enjoy watching it are people who share the same political opinions as Matt Stone and Trey Parker, and that's that being anything other than an apathetic libertarian and caring about changing anything in the world makes you rife for mockery. That's why they made Manbearpig. The whole "PC Principal" shit was even more indicative of their "stop trying to change the world" philosophy. And still, no one gives a shit about Tom Preston. This thread should have been archived several weeks ago but the archival bots are all broken. You didn't need to respond to any of this RakortheTerrible.—Ryulong (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

South Park is making fun of absolutely everyone, no exceptions. --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 05:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

That's why it's shit.—Ryulong (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Why? Wagging your middle finger at everyone means, that you're not bigoted against anyone. or against everyone equally.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 05:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Read.—Ryulong (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you can say that about some of it's recent episodes. Seems to be pandering to a major aspect of it's fanbase (internet reactionaries). Outside of that, it popularizes the golden mean/balance fallacy (though with an "everyone's shit" angle). - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 05:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

To address your counter points, Ryulong...

RakortheTerrible (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

People like bad things. See: Family guy. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 05:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Dwarvenhobble's edit (9 December)

"Gamergate has, however, pointed out unethical actions by game journalists, including using a mailinglist to blacklist sources and other journalists, admitted conflicts of interest between Patricia Hernandez at Kotaku and some of her sources, and subjective reviews unfairly biased by political stances at Polygon." ^{— Unsigned, by: Dwarvenhobble / talk / contribs}

Try the talk page first, and try using sources. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Those points do run contrary to how the article is currently written. However, that doesn't mean those points are not valid. If you can provide sources to back those claims, then that will help us determine the legitimacy of those points. Gooniepunk (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Every point was already refuted in the claims article. This is a topic with as much PRATTing as creationism or white nationalism, and we already have the answers to hand. Perhaps Dwarvenhobble will do better than past contenders! It would be a delight! We shall see! - David Gerard (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Reformatting

Currently, the article is a bloated chronological history that isn't very useful to those who oppose Gamergate (in backing up their points) or to those who support it (in providing points to rebut). I want to merge in List of Gamergate claims and make this article more similar in format, albeit with more than 4 main sections. This has three benefits:

1. Easier to find what the reader wants to know about
2. Less duplicate content between the two articles
3. A point-counterpoint etc. style makes our article less one-sided, and acknowledging and rebutting the opposing arguments makes our points stronger

Thoughts? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, but do it in user space. Tielec01 (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Given the size of both articles, I'd say it's best to keep "Gamergate claims" split off as its separate page. Seems considerably less of a clutter than the alternative. If the problem is that the more practically useful article isn't the 'main' one, you could always move this page to "History of Gamergate" and use the claims-page as the main one (though I personally think that's not so much a problem as a non-issue). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so, they do different jobs. Also, the claims article is just that - all the claims (they're still coming up with new BS) - it's comprehensive, and this actually shouldn't be. (This is also the problem with Paravant's merge proposal for the timeline.) - David Gerard (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@142: I'd prefer to both down in size.

@DG: But notice how Dwarv, above, didn't (apparently) see our responses to those points? Having them all in one article would also raise their visibility. (And I think this article fails its duty as a history of GG.) oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 00:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You're assuming Dwarv did this from good-faith error, rather than from being a GGer already kicked off Wikipedia for tendentious editing. I would suggest this is not an audience worth doing stupid things to articles for. And if he has actually matured in the intervening months, it's up to him to clearly show it - David Gerard (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Dwarv may not be a good example. But I know from many Reddit posts that GGers are prone to the thought process that "if they didn't cover it, their article is invalid". Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

This is similar to the creationist thing where they forget any point you already refuted longer than five minutes ago. They are human Gish Gallops of startlingly similar behaviour. This is still not a reason to fuck up the articles - David Gerard (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

DG, I've given four reasons. The three in the OP, and the fourth that "Having them all in one article would also raise their visibility." The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 01:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think reducing the content of either page is likely to increase their utility. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:15, 10 December 42015 AQD (UTC)

I'd like to reduce their verbosity. EG:

The mob moved the goalposts and instead claimed that Grayson had given her "positive coverage" in that article and another he wrote for Rock, Paper, Shotgun, another website, months earlier, and months outside of Eron Gjoni's alleged timeline of infidelity; this "positive coverage" consisted of a cheeky title, a list of 50 games which included Depression Quest amongst them, and five words, two of which are the game's title and the third is the software it was made with.

Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 01:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah the article needs a shit load of copy editing. Perhaps, in the spirit of compromise, we can do that first and then revisit the trim / merge idea. My feeling is that once the writing is cleaned up we might find that the article isn't as horrible as it currently appears to be. Tielec01 (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

If you want to improve the phrasing, by all means, dive in and edit to your heart's desires. As long as your guiding principle is the optimization of the article's capacity for transmitting the relevant information to the reader (as opposed to e.g. reduction of the amount of bytes the article contains). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:30, 10 December 42015 AQD (UTC)

Hahah, cheers for the permission humble BoN, I will do my best! Tielec01 (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest making everything possible into a simple sentence (or as close as possible) while you're at it. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 02:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tielec: I was replying to Fuzzy, and you really don't need my permission to do anything, but you're welcome all the same. ;)

@Fuzzy: Technically you can create sentences of infinite length using ;s. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:07, 10 December 42015 AQD (UTC)

of infinite length using ;s

I think you mean "of infinite unclarity"

αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 02:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The two are not mutually exclusive; rather, one entails the other. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm responding in the right way/right place/right indentation, but this is a response to the quote "The mob moved the goalposts and instead claimed" above: The goalposts were never moved. The original Quinnspiracy video that Baldwin shared when coining GamerGate said "positive pieces about Zoe's game, who has given her publicity, and who has marketed her product, while having sex with her, and not disclosing it" (the youtube link is to a mirror at the point this is brought up; listen for 30 seconds for that phrase, then another 30 seconds for screenshots). "Reviews for sex" is a strawman created by anti-GG. ^{— Unsigned, by: Izkata / talk / contribs}

You are wrong on all counts, and have not done anything to prove otherwise. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 06:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The "claim" section in your link is an outright lie. The Zoe Post is still online, and neither the word "review" nor "positive" even appear in it, let alone make the claim stated on this wiki. Izkata (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The very first thread about Gamergate on 4chan claimed that she had sex for reviews. Click that link and ctrl+f 'review' and stop blatantly lying. Typhoon (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I did click the link and ctrl+f for "gamergate" and didn't find any mentions. The people in that "Gamergate" thread seem to have been unaware that they're part of the movement. Probably because it was created before Gamergate existed. Now, it's possible that the participants in that 4chan thread about Zoe Quinn did later join the GG movement, but you'd have to have access to the IPs of the anonymous imageboard to identify them. Hypothetically, the scope of the article could be expanded to include all negative attention that Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn have gotten for years prior to Gamergate. There are already several instances of cyber harassment that are documented in the article, despite the lack of evidence tying them to Gamergate. 64.38.194.13 (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you for real? That thread is where Gamergate began. Every single one of them joined Gamergate. The Zoe Post was what started Gamergate. Holy shit. Typhoon (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

How did you manage to identify "every singe one" of the users posting in an anonymous thread? If you have another source linking those 4chan IPs to later established GG members, it'd be helpful to post it. Also, this 4chan thread seems to predate GG by a couple of weeks. It'd be more accurate to say that the hashtag movement started when people started organizing under the hashtag. Though this is mostly a moot point, it can be easily proven that self-identified members of GG used the terms "reviews" and "coverage" interchangeably, mostly in the early days. 64.38.194.13 (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

"Reviews for sex is a strawman created by anti-GG." <- Is it opposite day today? Typhoon (talk) 08:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

A "review" is, in rough terms, a summary of the gameplay and how well the game pulls off making it fun or engaging. It's always been clear Grayson didn't do a review, and it hasn't been claimed by pro-GG (as seen in my link above) until anti-GG started making the strawman just so they could debunk it. "Positive coverage" is accurate, as in the RPS one usually pulled up, her game was noted as a "standout" and chosen for the header image. Izkata (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Umm, no. I wasn't in coma when GG broke out and clearly remember that GGers were throwing the word "reviews" everywhere. Your lame attempt at historical revisionism is precisely why we have the Timeline of Gamergate article. Typhoon (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Man, that's a desperate attempt at hand-waving away history there. Even if your weird distinction between 'review' and 'positive coverage' was accurate (as if an article can't review more than one game at a time, or a minimum level of depth is required for something to be a 'review'), the foetid corpse of GG is riddled with claims that she was given a good review. Either you don't know the movement's main historical claims (and your objection should be disregarded) or you're being deliberately dishonest about the movement's history (and your objection should be disregarded). You're not talking to easily-gulled passers-by here. Some of us have been following this particular boil on culture since before Gnoji set out to summon a mob of total wankers. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 13:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

To those suddenly running to various places on the internet proclaiming that Ryulong is vanquished and we are open for pro-GG business...

I would caution you all against taking the opposite of Ryulong's most major fallacy: that being that you need to be a supporter of Ryulong to be anti-Gamergate and the converse that being anti-Ryulong means you need to be pro-Gamergate. The onus is still on those who are pro-Gamergate to prove that Gamergate was anything more than a misogynistic reactionary movement. Indeed, it is my personal hope that RationalWiki can prove that we, as a Wiki, don't need to have Ryulong in order to be a good base of criticism of the GG movement. This is not to say that I don't think Gamergators should be allowed to come and talk on the talkpage; but it is to say that anything that drastically changes the anti-GG tone of our current GG articles bears the exact same burdens of proof that a Creationist would need to overcome to change the tone of, say, Young-Earth creationism into something that shows YEC in a better light. Gooniepunk (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

--Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

What Goonie said.---Mona- (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep. All people I've interacted with, I've sent to this talk page, to prove their case. Interestingly, none showed. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 02:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk about Ruylong's daymare doom sayings not coming to fruition. And besides, Ruylong was the one attracting the ones that came in the first place. Them knowing he's off RationalWiki means they'll have no real reason to stick around. No, they'll probably follow their favourite lulzcow to milk him on greener pastures... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

To me, I look at this as a golden opportunity to do what we used to do here: people who disagreed with us would show up to debate, we would engage them, we'd look for additional evidence to refute them with, add it to the article, and thus improve the article. We've hopefully flicked away the anti-Ryulong base, but we're still guaranteed to have GG defenders come here. The best way to deal with that is to engage them and use what we learn in refuting them to improve and enhance our arguments. Gooniepunk (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Very true, Goonie. Ruylong seemed to think that without his personal style of over-involved edit warring and generally thin skin, we'd stand without moderating. We'd be overrun by chaos. When actually, the moment he fucks off, moderation goes from feverishly averting clusterfuck full-time, to actually having time for meaningful participation and interaction. That's what it looks like to me, at any rate. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Basically. It goes with my personal philosophy that if you run out of the ability to debate somebody to the point where all you can do is dismiss them through labels, then it is time to re-evaluate (not change, mind you, but re-evaluate) your own stance. Clearly, if being pro-Gamergateis anything more than a reactionary movement, then GGers should be able to prove it. That follows that if they try to prove it, we need to 1) not go "EVIL GAMERGATOR WANTING TO TROLL ME" and use it asa lever of dismissal and 2) use what we use to counter them as an opportunity for content improvement. Gooniepunk (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

True hooves, Goonie. And Ruylong was overtly opposite to that philosophy in every way (he'd probably consider it "filthy"); CarpetSmoker had to point out to Ruylong after hours of arguing that I wasn't actually a "gator" - the truth was I had to Google that expression to see what the hell he was even so dead sure I was. Spoiler: I still don't know exactly what he was on about. But he was flailing wildly, screeching like a stung pig the whole time, convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that I was yet another facet of his nemesis. Or something. It's as you say though - it was time for him to step back and reflect. Unable to do that, maybe ever in his life, the only sane option left was the one that now lets us have a calm and lovely conversation. All is quiet, the birds gently chirp and even the mods have time over to give the rosebushes an extra whiff. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

"if you run out of the ability to debate somebody to the point where all you can do is dismiss them through labels"On the rare occasion I do that, it is virtually always because I've realized my interlocutor is arguing in bad faith and is otherwise so full of shit there is no reasoned debate to be had. But the labels I resort to are generally things like "fuckwit." Yes, I know that's not helpful, but I do sometimes indulge a desire to express contempt. But again, that's very much the exception.---Mona- (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are PRATTs, but what I was referring to here are unreasonable measures: permalocking pages, branding people "EVIL GAMEGATORS HERE TO HARASS ME" in order to not have to even call their arguments PRATTs, blocking people on-site for even making a casual remark about your candor. Those are things contrary to what our front page says when it says we welcome those who disagree with us to talk to us. It's easy enough to grow tired of an argument, but first you actually have to grow tired of it. Gooniepunk (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Note 9

To those who know better than I, this note pertains to the Intel commits to greater diversity section. Did Sarkeesian make this comment about Japan or not? In the paragraph it heavily implies she didn't, then the note implies that she did and has since apologised. Which is it? I feel it is dishonest to imply that it was a smear campaign and then bury a contradictory statement in a note at the bottom of the article (with no ref confirming the authenticity of any supposed apology). Tielec01 (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless someone can provide clarity on this I will delete the whole section. Tielec01 (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Gotta say, I'm lost there myself, chief. It doesn't look good to have such contradictions. Gooniepunk (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

It was used against her without any evidence it was ever said. Considering how easy it is to modify a page's source to say what you want it to and take a screencap and post it online (Something which I recall Gamergaters having done before to smear her), I think it's important to say this. They use it as a part of a strawman, but there's no proof it ever happened, nor any proof that she's admitted to it or apologized for it. The blog exists, but nobody can prove that what the blog is saying was true, because there's nobody else to corroborate it. It's likely just (yet another) case of Gators/antifeminists making up stuff. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 09:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

So the note is wrong then? Was this a big part of GG, or is this another example of live-blogging every minor thing that has happened? Tielec01 (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I have the memory that it was big at the time, as it was at a time where Gators blew up so loudly and so obnoxiously that it probably felt more important at the time than it ultimately wound up being. We should still allude to it in case any Gamergater tries to look for the proverbial God of the Gaps in this article, but it could do with a rewrite. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 09:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

As I think about this some more, I think it all alludes to a problem people seem to have with this article. You have to understand-- when GG first started, you could barely escape it. Every little thing they used was used as a "gotcha!" as disingenuously as possible. I believe that the purposes of this article may have shifted slightly because Gamergate's relevance has waned into near complete nonexistence. What you might think of as "Live blogging" was once a really useful thing for this article to convey, but when we do a rewrite, we should keep the distance from the spectacle in mind. We have to manage to convey why all these little things made up the core of Gamergate, because they were intended to be used as "death by a thousand lying cuts" towards Zoe Quinn et all. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 09:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, you might not have been able to escape it, but trust me, most people certainly could and plenty of people would still have no idea what it is. Opinions may differ on whether live-blogging every development was ever useful, but I agree it is no longer useful. To the point, do you have better sources for the specific claim made in this section about Sarkeesian? At the moment the only reference is a blog post. Would this section be better moved into the timeline of gamergate article? It seems an entirely insignificant event that is poorly sourced to me, and more suited to the timeline which is a collection of such incidents. Tielec01 (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

General comment from Reddit

/u/FuzzyCatPotato made a request on Reddit for critique of specific assertions to be posted on here, which was then shared on /r/KotakuInAction; my comment was more of a general annoyance (no specific points) so I responded on Reddit, but was still told to post it here. So, copied/pasted/fixed links:

The base assumptions made while writing the page are far enough off base, that the page falls under the category of "not even wrong". It's all off-kilter, and reminds me of a creationist trying to explain evolution - someone who can't suspend their personal beliefs to understand what the other side is saying.

If you want a heavily-sourced article, this was an attempt to write a neutral Wikipedia page, at Jimmy Wales suggestion, over a year ago.

Izkata (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking for specific things to see if they were even mentioned, I did almost immediately spot one falsehood: "Perhaps an even bigger stain on their record was dubbing the site "The Encyclopedia Dramatica of Games Journalism".[267]" - The cite note links to a photoshop made to mock GG (admitted to by the poster in this response). Izkata (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

(EC)That linked article is off-topic and... Wow, that that grammar grammar, yo yo. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 04:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

At a quick glance can confirm that this sentence is incorrect, I am going to delete it. If someone wants to reword then go ahead. Tielec01 (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

"If you want unbiased, just look here!" *Links to a Gamergate populated and supported wiki* Uh.... - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 06:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Nobody said we had to eschew our SPOV for theirs, but it doesn't mean we can't mine through it and use it for sources. Wikia wikis themselves are not source-worthy material. Gooniepunk (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I mostly just find it amusing they are promoting an article as being "unbiased", something (poorly) written by Gamergaters that was rejected by Wikipedia. You can almost feel the bad faith bleeding from the text. It's comparable to if someone from Conservipedia had come here with their article, with the attached text being "Now here's how you write an article!". ...You know, thinking about it, that's probably happened here before. Sigh. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 07:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I think they're linking you to the other wiki page for the reasoning that it might be biased but it's actually readable. This page is a gall darned mess. I was linked from Reddit to look at it and see if I could get a laugh. I couldn't, it's written as well as a paper started 5 minutes before class by a 6th grader. You'd be better off deleted it entirely and restarting it at this point. From what I have been told by random unconnected people who have looked at other wiki's the spanish language wiki seems to be decent. I can't vouch for it, I don't speak fluent Spanish(I speak 5 languages, live in the US, and somehow one of those wasn't Spanish!) but it might be worth looking at. 65.29.77.61 (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

"Actually readable" Ahahahaha. Also, buddy, it's not a good idea to admit to bad faith off site brigading when you're trying to come into here and make a point. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 11:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out it was /u/FuzzyCatPotato who told people to come here to air their grievances with the article. Kind of hard to take a brigading accusation seriously when someone that works on the article specifically stated people should come and talk about it.--205.193.112.245 (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Then it's a user who doesn't speak for the rest of the site (I don't recall anyone asking about doing this) encouraging other people to come in from a hostile subreddit and brigade. I honestly do not care about the difference. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 13:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You mean like how one individual doesn't speak for all of GamerGate 8^) -- 205.193.112.245 (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

One individual doesn't speak for all of GamerGate. Many individuals' words being applauded by swathes of the GamerGate community, however, does.KrytenKoro (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You're putting words in my mouth, Kitsunelaine. I said "attempt to write"; I'm not saying they succeeded in making it unbiased. It's also unfinished, as the project was abandoned and is about a year old. 65.29.77.61 got half of it, and Gooniepunk the other half; not only is the one I linked well-organized and easier to read, it's all referenced and free for anyone here to click through. Izkata (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, as far as I know, it was ignored by Wikipedia users, not rejected. Rather big a difference. Izkata (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

And I said they attempted, and failed. It was never going to not be biased. That was the whole point of the Wikipedia founder telling you to do it. He knew you'd endlessly squabble amongst yourselves and never be able to produce anything up to a reasonable standard because you're all in it to justify harassment. It was an ingenious move. Ignoring you in this case is rejecting you. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 13:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Or, to put it bluntly, we could say it was a miserable failure. Jimbo himself said that he was very unimpressed by what he saw. And considering you keep revising history above on this talkpage, we could say it even failed to make you less uninformed about GG. Typhoon (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Writing.

This page may not be open to Gators, but it is open to people who can edit and write. This page needs desperately to be put together in such a way that the narrative and analysis are not buried in thick detail. TRIM. For example, there was a paragraph describing in detail 3 or 4 different studies showing that there have been shifts in the racial/gender makeup of gamers. That is a fact worth a sentence or two. The links to the refs are there for people who want to read about the studies in detail. The rest is trimmed away to preserve narrative flow and bring our analysis to the fore. There is a good article hiding in here. Bring it out. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I can get down with this if you strive to condense without unjustly removing content, or neutering language. It's a difficult thing to do and I think the input of more than one or two editors is needed here. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 08:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I never said anything about doing either. As long as it's clear that "content" doesn't mean every painstaking detail repeated several times, live-blogging unfolding developments, modifying literally every verb with an adverb, and acknowledging that linked-to refs are what the internet is for, and thus it is only necessary to briefly summarize quoted sources, preferably in groups ("Several journalists wrote that...." as opposed to detailed recountings of 3 news articles about the same event.) Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Aye, I'm just making sure we know where I feel like the line should be. And I'm not 100% cool with a lot of the grammar and flow some of your edits changed, so we're going to need other editors to clean it up, as I can't wrap my head fully around what needs to be done just yet. Blitz has been doing a good job. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 08:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Not much time now, and I'm off for a few days with the girlfriend, so I'll just voice my complete support for AH here. This page's writing is awful. I've never been able to actually read though the damn thing, and I did try more than a few times. Not blaming anyone for this, as this often happens with pages that evolve over time as events unfold, not sure if I would have done better, but it's high time for a serious cleanup and rewritting. Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

" so we're going to need other editors to clean it up," That's pretty much how wikis work. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I ask you again to take more care, you're changing stuff so that you think it flows more smoothly at the expense of being factually incorrect. The trouble with Gamergate is that it's (a) huge (b) fractally stupid (c) doesn't make simple sense. Trying to force it won't make that work. You also keep trying to edit something you literally don't understand, e.g. this edit is just incompetent. To a large extent, you can have it simple or you can have it not wrong - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh my god, that edit is just hilarious. Now I get the "Aging" part. Typhoon (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a great example of how this article has become a battleground rather than a collaborative effort at improvement.

1. The linked reference never mentions polygon count or framerate, or refers to them.
2. Polygon count has not been a relevant factor in computer game conversations since the Nintendo 64 or possibly Quake 3 at the latest.
3. Framerate is a very relevant factor in games, but is not fully controlled by the game developer. I can guarantee the games mentioned in the article would be concerned with framerate (even the Stanley Parable for example) and would optimise their code to increase the framerate.
4. The article in question goes only a tiny way to proving the statement it is a reference for - it' an opinion piece of a few game developers. Sales data would be a much better reference.

AH's insertion is at least as accurate as the original insertion, which is to say, both largely mis-represent the reference. At least AH's makes some sense, the original sentence refers to an obscure measure of a game's "prettiness" and a still relevant measure of performance. Anyone that understands the jargon is left thinking the sentence is uninformed, and anyone that doesn't is left wondering WTF the sentence is saying.

This is part of a larger pattern of mis-representation of sources, and sentences that substitute verbosity for parsimony. Every time I have dived into this article it is contradictory (or contradicted by its own sources), ill-informed or plain wrong. As long as we have partisan actors trying to score petty points it won't improve. Tielec01 (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Reverted edit

Hi all,

I'm an experienced Wikipedia editor (couple thousand edits, some article writing, some vandal reversion). I removed a Venn Diagram from the section "Gender and gamer culture", which @Typhoon reverted. I'd like to know why; that Venn Diagram had very little relevance to the page. Specifically, a) it didn't mention gamers; b) it refers to right-wing movements, but I don't think GamerGate is solely right-wing; c) CryinWilson isn't a player in this, or so much as mentioned anywhere else; d) movements of some kind are inevitable. I guarantee there'll be some sort of left-wing movement in the next 5 years. Does that make me a prophet? IBelieveinNPOV (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Dude, GG is absolutely right wing. Their fellating of Breitbart is proof enough. CryinWilson reposted that since it accurately predicted Gamergate. It fits so it stays. Typhoon (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That is kind of a stupid diagram, if you ask me. Just an anecdote off of Tumblr and not much else. Gooniepunk (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it's funny and this depressing article needs something to make us laugh. Typhoon (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I must say I wasn't impressed with it before either, considering I predicted Gamergate in 2006. That said, Gamergate is right-wing to the point of reactionary as fuck - David Gerard (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, well if you want it there for humor, that's fine enough I suppose. But can we stay away from the "successfully predicted" fallacy? Gooniepunk (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

If you insist. My main problem was with his claim that it's not right-wing. Typhoon (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think Gamergate was right-wing; you feel it is? Okay; however, I didn't really think the graph was humorous where it was and as it was. IBelieveinNPOV (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't feel. We know from experience. Typhoon (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, gotta agree with Typhoon, there's plenty of evidence that they're right-leaning, to the extent that I'm "leaning" when I sleep at night. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

If you ask me, IBelieveinNPOV saying they didn't think GG was right-wing is moot point compared to what they were trying to parley about that graphic. Gooniepunk (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, when that graph was originally created, it was to point out (in a humorous, not scientific way) the increasing radicalization among many people on the internet. Sarkeesian, for example, was targeted long before GG began and 4chan was already in uproar about "SJWs ruining games". GG only acted as an umbrella, bringing together all those already existing right-wing and reactionary groups. Typhoon (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Thank you GP. I'm still not sure how the graphic is relevant to the article, nor how the comedy works. My points A, C and D are still valid. IBelieveinNPOV (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

"b) it refers to right-wing movements, but I don't think GamerGate is solely right-wing;" Oh, you poor, poor naïve, trusting soul. I have such sights to show you. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 19:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm curious. I didn't take sides during GamerGate (I try to stay away from very-contentious WP pages), so I'm a bit confused still. The article itself says "A recent study found that nearly 48% of gamers [i.e. people who play 3-4+ hours/week] identified as conservatives, compared to 38% identifying as liberals," so 38%, or nearly 2/5 of hardcore gamers, self-describe as liberal. I'm not sure why my other edit was reverted either--it's an association fallacy, and it can be presumed some hardcore gamers are not "libertarian MRAs from 4chan". IBelieveinNPOV (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not you were a gamergater during the peak of the temper tamtrum doesn't matter because you're taking sides now. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Address the point not the person. Tielec01 (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, then. It's not an association fallacy because the whole page talks about how Gamergate is a right-wing (conservative) movement. Pointing out that a survey of "gamers" skewed conservative is relevant, but even then-- You don't fall on a political side because of what you say you are, you fall on a political side because of what you believe and do, and I believe Gamergate's tendencies are well documented. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry? I'm doing my best not to take sides. As my username says, I do believe strongly in NPOV and not editing on sides. It's just that some sections seem to have a lot of fallacies and aren't written anywhere near neutral. And your proof is that the rest of the page says they're conservative? On WP, the sources shape the article, not the other way around. IBelieveinNPOV (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

So you are a firm advocate for the Balance fallacy on cases that do not deserve it. "No point of view" means nothing because reality is biased, and in this case, it is biased against gamergate. You are essentially advocating for agnosticism on a site that is heavily populated by atheists who think we should take strong but reasoned stances on topics, especially on crank and the like. "Neutrality" is a nonsense word that treats having no position as ultimately better than any position, and that will not fly here. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Another situation where the source doesn't support the wider point that the sentence is trying to make. Look at this chart of the results of the survey and tell me that gamers are "conservative" in the traditional sense of the word:

1. 76 percent said they believe humans play a role in climate change
2. 67 percent said they support stronger investment in renewable energies such as solar and wind
3. 61 percent said there should be a more equitable distribution of wealth in the U.S.

Or how about this poll?

Another shitty piece of research to justify a point that doesn't even need to be in the article. The more layers you peel back on this article the worse it starts to look. Tielec01 (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That's great and all, but this isn't Wikipedia, and we don't have a NPOV policy. As far as the issue of "is Gamergate right-wing", well, we've got a whole list of prominent right-wing figures who have publicly supported it. Is there a single left-wing figure who has? --Ymir (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, what they SAY is not what determines their tendencies. Gamers are historically reactionary, and being reactionary is a defining trait of conservatism. We can point to a number of instances of this. Anything relating to feminism, anything relating to Gamergate, any major backlash (more recently: the initial response to FF7 being split into parts, but further back: ME3's ending), all the stuff about SJW's infiltrating gaming, etc... You can't treat it as if it's entirely unfounded. I think trying to dig into this point with cases of tangential whataboutism is disingenuous at worst. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

GG is right-wing, of that I have no doubt. The rest of your post is just opinions, opinions that are somewhat contradicted by research. Unfortunately people such as you have mistaken your opinions for compelling arguments and inserted them into this article. Tielec01 (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

GG wouldn't have happened if it didn't strike a chord with a reactionary core of gaming. It would have stayed a fringe movement at best. The problem is, it played on pre-existing tensions and tried to amplify and magnify them. Gamergate shines a light on a subset of gamer culture, and I think it's important that the article acknowledges that these aren't just solely Gamergate's fault. It's due to the way gaming culture has been incubated by it's traditional marketing, and now that gaming's reaching a wider audience, that part of gaming is lashing out in a reactionary manner. It'd been happening well before Gamergate, Gamergate just gave it a name. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Find good sources and substitute your thoughts above for the first sentence in "Origins of Gamergate". The current sentence cherry picks data from a survey, ignores other surveys (with a better methodology) that contradict it and then makes a wild assumption that hardcore gamers are more conservative than non-hardcore gamers (god knows how what criteria is used for hardcore and non-hardcore) and finishes with a rhetorical flourish that some gamers are "libertarian MRAs from 4chan." It's pathetic. Tielec01 (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘(edit conflict) I concede the point on GG being right-wing--but what does that have to do with anything? And (back on topic, finally) why is the graph there? "Something like Gamergate was bound to happen" means nothing (see point d in my original post--also, nobody's mentioned point a), and "some of whom are libertarian MRAs from 4chan" is still association fallacying. IBelieveinNPOV (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Because this has been a part of gaming culture that Gamergate has only given a name to. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind the graph to be honest, but could go either way. It's not trying to make a serious point as far as I can tell. Tielec01 (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The Mission is to point out the Right Wing leanings and dissect the woo and idiocy in the movement. Don't look for NPOV, look to remove the absolute bullshit that was put up uncontested when it was mainly edited by a guy who was already kicked off Wikipedia for tendentious editing, and look to improve what rebuttals are solid but lacking. Rationalwiki doesn't - shouldn't need to misrepresent GG to criticise and make fun of it, and now is a perfect time to fix this Wiki's thrilling rendition of timecube.comKeter (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

But the point we're making is that it's not currently misrepresenting Gamergate. Also, Ryu was caught in splash damage for even editing the Gamergate article as ArbCom had decided to lay down an iron fist on everyone involved with the page. It had no bearing on his specific behavior on the site. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay--SPOV, not NPOV works here. Not sure about pointing out "the Right Wing leanings" (there are left-wing nuts, such as some alternative medicine crazies), but we should be able to represent GG properly here and still make fun of it, like Keter said. Also, not sure why Ryulong's ban has any relevance in here one way or the other-this isn't WP. IBelieveinNPOV (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That would be a reasonable point if GG had any left wing supporters. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Any?Keter (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The site's mission has nothing to do with left/right wing positions, although it is concerned with authoritarianism (which can be present in both ends of the spectrum). SPOV also stands for scientific point of view, which is why we try and base our articles on rigorous science. As it currently stands this article is not missional, and I doubt it ever will be. However, since it exists, and there is little will to remove it, we may as well attempt to ensure it reflects well on the wiki. Tielec01 (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

All of their noteworthy supporters are right wing reactionaries. That being said-- yes. Any. Because I don't think anyone still in the game after this long has any genuine doubts as to what the movement really is. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

LMGTFY. In no particular order. And although I hate to cite KIA, you're asking for left-wing supporters, which these people claim to be. IBelieveinNPOV (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I have said all along that someone claiming to be left wing does not make them so. Also, a lot of your sources are debunked already in [2] - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

No true Scotsman has milk in his porridge. Tielec01 (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That's disingenuous reasoning, because it's hardly a no true scottsman argument. Being right or left wing has defined values. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, yes, we get it. They don't meet your definition of left wing, because by definition, no left wing person support gamergate. Tielec01 (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That argument is disingenuous as hell and you know it. Stop trying to strawman me. Gamergaters falsely claim to be left wing by pointing to the same faulty surveys that NPOV posted, as explained in List of Gamergate Claims. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You're an idiot for claiming that no left wing person supports gamergate. Your arguments are imprecise, ever-changing and sloppy and I gather you have never had any serious scrutiny of them. They are weak, even if the conclusions are nominally correct. Tielec01 (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not a way to debate someone, Tielec. Calling me an idiot and shouting at me without actually addressing what I've said is not a good look. Instead, what you could have done, was question my absolutist claim in particular, which is false. I fully admit that that was a wrong thing to say, though I call into question the level of sincerity of any self professed left winger if they sympathize with Gamergate (But this is just me.). You can criticize that without calling me an idiot and essentially flipping me off. The point is that Gamergate is incredibly right wing over all, barring those who haven't put that much thought into it or don't have all the facts. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, GG for the most part reflects right-wing ideas. Also, since I figure our relationship can't sink any lower, stop making 5 edits to make a talk-page post FFS (use the show preview button). Tielec01 (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. This is a bad habit of mine, but I have a habit of coming up with points so much later than the posting. I'm a very impaitent woman. It's one of my flaws. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 04:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm a Gamergater and I work on the Sanders campaign, so that can't be right . And I'll eat my hat if Kitsunelaine isn't (at least occasionally) Ryulong. Good job solving that problem BTW, finally I can help with the article. Sarah (HH) 05:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think, that she is, judging by her manner of writing.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I think she's trying hard not to sound like Ryulong. The occasional rambling, run-on sentence that slips past, the "gator mobs are out to get Ryulong!" refrain, obsessive response to every pro-GG thread comment and her inexplicable attachment to every factoid Ryulong's inserted suggest maybe otherwise. It doesn't help her case that wikipedia's Kitsunelaine is a confirmed Ryulong sock, which I'll elaborate on if you're interested (and your outing policy permits it.)

It shouldn't be a problem so long as she doesn't repeat his mistakes, but it took almost a year to solve that mess and I'm concerned if she does it will take another year. Meanwhile, the recent wave of moderate pro-GG-ers from reddit will be driven away by hostility. Leaving only die hard POV pushers, which doesn't help anyone. I will try to stay positive! :) Reading through the article now looking for low-hanging fruit. Sarah (HH) 20:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You sure? I read her Wikipedia user page and it said nothing about her being a sockpuppet of Ryulong (Ryulong is banned from the English-language Wikipedia, so id she'd be a confirmed sock of his, she would've been baned, too).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 08:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

"This person who thinks the same way Ryulong does about Gamergate is clearly a Ryulong sockpuppet!" ...Um. No? - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 22:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Game Journo Pros List - Why Is It Not Covered?

I was wondering why, amidst all the other discussion of various things in Gamergate, the RationalWiki article on it does not contain one single mention of Game Journo Pros (or GJP), a secret mailing list that is widely considered a proverbial smoking gun in Gamergate-related circles. Though the origin of the report does stem from right-wing journalistic outlet Breitbart, all accounts indicate that the leaks of it are legitimate and it's widely considered a major catalyst for Gamergate's early activism in 2014.

Even if we are in agreement that the net result from Gamergate has been negative, one cannot look at this piece of evidence and deny its merits as far as Gamergate's claims. If we are to cover our bases, we'd be well-advised to at least analyze their claims so we can better understand how this movement got so completely off the rails.

This particular leak - one which covered over 130 known games journalists, including Jason Schrier, Ben Kuchera, Nathan Grayson, Mike Wehner, and Kyle Orland, among many others. It would be fine to dismiss it out-of-hand considering it was originally sourced by Breitbart London - but a problem arises there - Kyle Orland, one of the many individuals on the last, already verified that the leak was legitimate, apologizing for his involvement with it on an article on ArsTechnica.

Additionally, a leak of the group's members was made by a member of this mailing list, William Usher, from Cinema Blend. Right out the proverbial gate, we have two members of this group confirming its existence and the veracity of Breitbart's claims. Christopher Grant and James Fudge, both members, have also gone on to confirm that the group was real and the leak was legitimate.

With this in mind, we cannot pretend that this leak is not a legitimate one - and what it covered was a number of salient facts that Gamergate supporters have been extremely vocal over. The entire report, indeed, seems to directly feed Gamergate's initial claims over Journalistic ethics breaches, and indeed, also establishes a concerted and devoted effort to attempt to quash discussion of the issue - another claim notoriously made by Gamergate supporters. Whilst Gamergate essentially became more and more synonymous with harassment as time went on, we cannot look at the revelations of this article and dismiss that Gamergate did, indeed, at least partially stemmed from opposition to journalistic breaches of ethics, if we want to remain intellectually honest.

That they eventually became harassers is its own story; we need to analyze this article and add it to the Gamergate article because of its import. The major salient facts of the leak are as follows:

1. There was a concerted, intentional effort to block attempts to cover the initial Zoe Quinn scandal. Some of this was out of a simple desire to keep a friend out of the line of harassment - which is fine, in and of itself: Kyle Orland is quoted in it as saying: "I would LOVE to use my platform to reproach this kind of behavior… but that would go against Quinn’s valid and understandable desire not to have this personal matter publicized by the media… Maybe we should just stick to Twitter to boost the signal on this one, rather than our 'front pages.'" The problem comes in when other members of the group advocate much more direct methods to keep Quinn's scandal under wraps. Polygon writer Ben Kuchera and Games Politics Writer James Fudge both attempted to convince Escapist editor-in-chief Greg Tito to censor discussion of the Quinn scandal on their forums, which Tito refused.

2. It confirms that there were multiple attempts by various members of the group to use the scandal to "signal boost" Quinn's work, including Nathan Grayson, who suggested that the escalating situation be used as "as an excuse to give more attention to Quinn's work". Similarly, Orland himself advocated the group to craft a public letter of support and get as many "Sympathetic journalists/developers as possible" to sign. As Quinn was already embroiled with controversy, this establishes that they were knowingly attempting to assist Quinn, whatever their reasons, despite it.

3. William Usher's later reveal, likewise, confirmed that the group was directly involved with attempts to blacklist a Destructoid writer, Allistar Pinsof. This blacklisting was surrounding something that multiple game news sites covered - that an indie game developer, Chloe Sagal, was crowdfunding "lifesaving surgery" on Indiegogo which she claimed was intended to remove shrapnel from her body. Indiegogo pulled the campaign for fraud, leading to Chloe Sagal streaming an attempted suicide on twitch. The reason Indiegogo pulled the campaign was that Pinsof revealed that Sagal's campaign was entirely done under false pretenses and had intended to use the money to pay for sex reassignment surgery (SRS). Kyle Orland, Jonathan Deesing, and Danielle Riendau of Kotaku are all on record in this leak suggesting to Yanier Gonzales, owner of Destructoid, that Pinsof should be fired. Following Pinsof's sacking. Destructoid's Editor-in-Chief Dale North, in an email correspondence with members of the Game Journo Pros group, advised the group to not respond to communication attempts from "A certain problem child." Orland would later identify the "problem child" as Pinsof.

What these establish are legitimate breaches of journalistic ethics. Though they are relatively minor, the timing could not, possibly, have been worse. Many of the individuals claiming there was no story to be had in covering the Quinn scandal were directly exposed by the Game Journo Pro leaks. For example, Ben Kuchera was especially vocal about there being no story to be had in covering Quinn, yet it's revealed by the leaks that he was directly involved with trying to suppress discussion because he was friends with her. Similarly, the leak establishes that several member of the list were knowingly showing Quinn preferential treatment, again, at a time when widespread speculation as to the nature of Quinn's relationship was happening. This resulted in a lightning-rod effect and ensured that many of the claims Gamergate made at its initial push had ground to stand on. Thirdly, the list also establishes an attempt by the group to blacklist a journalist in a fashion that happens to be, by my accounting, illegal in the state Destructoid is headquartered (Florida). Even if we ignore the coverage of Quinn in GJP entirely, the list reveals attempts to control discussion and intimidate individuals who covered things the others found objectionable. Pinsof later, in a three-part interview with Techraptor, confirmed this.

Gamergate eventually would become more about controversy and about attacking certain personalities online than anything else, but there is no question that this document establishes that the initial claims that Gamergate supporters made - that there were, indeed, breaches of journalistic ethics, had evidence to stand on, and we'd be remiss to ignore this. If nothing else, this article was a major component of why Gamergate was able to claim such ethical concerns for so long. We should discuss this evidence and add it accordingly.

-- SupremeLogician December 12th, 2015 - 19:32 (EST)

Please go read List of Gamergate claims#GameJournoPros. All of what you said has been previously debunked. Though it's also important to note that GJP is covered in the main article, but only in relation to Milo's posting of it. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 00:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

i did and like a lot of things here its a huge weakman that defines the goalposts in such a specific way as to justify wayyy too broad claim. you've already said here you're going to assume anything i post is in bad faith and a load of crap so i will not waste my time writing out something long to convince you. instead i'll just post a link to artices from Ryan smith was a former av club writer who was on the listserv for a while and wrote about it after those revelations. these two short articles show firsthand knowledge of stuff worth taking seriously.

https://medium.com/@ryansmithwriter/a-weird-insider-culture-d1c3cc644c29#.6ag044hai https://medium.com/@ryansmithwriter/a-lack-of-critical-distance-b021f84ca0c3#.4jjfmx9n6

that type of stuff doesn't prove the weakest gg claims but they do show how GG has valid points about GJP and games journalistic groupthink and a tendency to cover each other and at least weakly coordinate. a high quality enclyclopedia article should at least point in this direction. ^{— Unsigned, by: Baaliscoming / talk / contribs}

A medium article is not a reliable source as they can be written by anyone. Essentially, you're advocating for video game journalists to lack any sort of social life within their field. This sort of stuff happens all the time in any given journalistic field. It is not apparent of any ethical breach. It is par for the course. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 04:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

This page currently cites six different medium articles, is this a proposal to remove them? 64.38.194.13 (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Why is a medium article(from a person who participated in GJP) a lower standard than many of the sources used within the article currently? For example, for the claim that "The mob claimed Quinn and Fish were organizing a false flag operation, based largely on their belief that Quinn's then-boyfriend Alex Lifschitz was actually Fish.", the proof provided is an article that has embedded tweets from Quinn making the claim(the article itself does not mention this or try to substantiate it).176.12.62.113 (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

what? did you read what i wrote? the medium article was written by the specific avclub writer who was part of the group. lack any sort of social life within their field no that's you projecting. i explicitly chose to pretty much make as few claims as possible. i'm pointing to the work of a specific person in the video game industry with local knowledge and telling you to read the darn thing and consider how point exist other than the weakman you gave. it is 100% clear to me you didn't attempt to engage with what i wrote and instead attacked with a lazy autopilot.^{— Unsigned, by: Baaliscoming / talk / contribs}

He is coming at this with a chip on his shoulder, and his opinions are just that: his opinions. You have not presented me with a reason to give his opinions any weight, other than "he once worked somewhere" (was he fired?) Also. You have not explained why he's relevant? - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 04:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

who avoids accusation of bias in relation to GJP stuff? the question was why GJP doesn't deserve a place on the wiki unlike everything else. its hardly more biased than the house slant (you do realize some cited sources are editorials about GJP?)

also it disproves

The only people seeing any issue with GameJournoPros are Gamergaters who were already prejudiced to think there was something resembling collusion and corruption going on

relevance: nothing here attempts to deal with the nature of the close relationships between games journalists, groupthink and how these both may relate t cause some of the gamers are dead stuff (besides the narrowest, weakman version) or to examine what GG was reacting to.

you can hold that it's ethical or inevitable yet ignoring it (and ignoring that people didn't/don't generally know about it before it is discovered) helps create the wonderfully pure facts description of gamergate embeded in the wiki that suffers from no biases whatsover.

perhaps a comparison that doesn't reflect too well on gamergate would help you: http://www.vox.com/2015/10/27/9619924/hulu-vox-nbc-comcast

that miniGG blowup really illustrates how people don't have a great grasp on how consolidated the entire entertainment business is. even if you think "GG" ought realize these examples of conflicts of interest and pressures to conform are normal its worth at the very least mentioning this sort of thing given the only alternative you leave is women hating reactionary bigots who troll and dox for spite and fun. your origins of gamergate just categorically denies to legitimacy of anything like these things being good faith problems people had.

It does not disprove anything. GJP is not an indicator of groupthink. The article does mention it but only in relation to Milo bringing it up. It is likewise covered in List of Gamergate Claims. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 04:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

List of Gamergate Claims is a disaster of an article that relies on refuting nothing but straw and haggis poorly.Keter (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I find that article highly valuable in debunking all the ridiculous GG claims. Typhoon (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

which again triggers the obvious weak man point. that reduces everything to the easiest argument to defeat and pretends there is nothing left after that. I wonder what you would think about it if it went against your "tribal" (scott alexander sense) predispositions. i'm betting outrage ^{— Unsigned, by: Baaliscoming / talk / contribs}

For the love of the flying spaghetti monster, please use indents and sign your posts. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 12:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

And, of course, they are nor strawmen. What happens is that a different cluster of haemorrhoids complains loudly about it being a strawman, seemingly blind to their brothers-in-arms stood right next to them doing exactly the thing they claim GG doesn't do. Short of shouting out 'He's behind you!', it couldn't get more farcical. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 13:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

don't know this wiki's formating and don't plan on sticking around. the claim on the table is weakman. look it up. your claim goes for insult-ignore over a minimal attempt to comprehend my argument. the actual claim is weakman which "refutes" all points by going for the weakest claim and pretending there is nothing left over. people make the weakest claim. its a weak man fallacy to claim everything is refuted by attacking the weak man. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapons/baaliscoming

It would only be weakman if the situation wasn't symmetric. Refute claim A, supporters of claim B accuse you of side-stepping the point. Refute claim B, supporters of claim A accuse you of avoiding the point. That has actually happened here, today, on the talk page of the very article you're currently complaining about. If we ignored some of the stranger claims, then supporters of both claims A & B would argue that we hadn't addressed valid points. This whole weakman angle would only make sense if there was a coherent list of point to respond to rather than a mish-mash of conspiracy theories and debunked claims that rise from the dead over and over again. Queex_{chthonicmurmurings} 13:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

notice how that doesn't attempt to engage with the stuff i pointed to above. "some of the stranger claims" here just means stuff i can't dismiss in 5 seconds. "symmetric"? this is directly related to conversation claimed to be debunked about GJP grouppthink, bias, collusion allegations, etc. you're just going for the weak argument and literally saying "stronger argument addressed and debunked". this is a common theme

Importance of the GJP to Claims

To elaborate on the above, even if you feel that GJP was essentially nothing, its importance for Gamergate supporters remained fundamentally critical to their movement. To understand why this is, one needs to try to analyze the above from the standpoint of a Gamergate supporter at the start of this affair, when the GJP incident broke. There is a critical reason to do this, and that is to establish context.

To do this, we must analyze the prevailing viewpoints at the time - there is a widespread belief among these early supporters that there was malfeasance on the part of not only the likes of Zoe Quinn, but on the part of the Games Journalists themselves and indeed, the wider internet. It's essential to point out that these accusations did not arrive in a vacuum - rather, they centered around three specific tenets that had become major talking points of Gamergate supporters - so with that in mind, let's momentarily touch upon each and analyze them:

• The seeming blackout on the issue. This is well-known, but there was multiple sites that went out of their way to pretend there was no issue involved with the Quinn scandal whatsoever. Many of these can be forgiven for not seeing a story here, but this came directly on the heels of the Brad Wardell scandal, which was extensively covered by the same individuals, and that, ultimately, was a hoax. Further, we know now that several of those involved had a personal stake in this, if only because they were a friend of Quinn's. Whilst there is nothing inherently wrong with this per se, it reeks of questionable legality and raises a lot of ugly questions, all of which ties into Gamergate's adoption of these points.
• The Ongoing Attempts to Silence the Discussion. These are too numerous to cover in a single one-paragraph segment but mass reports of shadowbannings, topic locks, and even outright thread and discussion topics on everywhere from video gaming sites to image boards became so well-known and so widely-documented that we can't even pretend these did not happen. There are, by all accounts, hundreds of cases of it, ranging from Reddit to 4chan. The reason for these lockdowns are irrelevant; several undeniably were closed for justified reasons, but others appear to be mod overreach or outright graft. all of this plays into GG assumptions.
• The Ongoing Accusations of Conflicts of Interest. This ties into the two above, but in both cases, personal friends and acquaintances of Zoe Quinn were documented as being involved, and actively trying to help steer the conversation, during a time when there was concern about illegal behavior or preferential treatment going on.

In all of the above, we can try to dismiss these with logical analysis - Quinn's personal story by all accounts probably shouldn't have made for news, there's nothing openly illegal about friends of hers being willing to stand up for her, and the conflicts of interest, by all accounts, are minor - but these are all sticking points for the Gamergate supporters - and with good reason. It's one thing to say that Quinn's personal life isn't a fitting subject for analysis, but then, why was Brad Wardell's, when that, ultimately, was a false accusation? It's another thing to state that Quinn's friends supporting her on Social Networking is satisfactory, but when they're able to de-facto lock down a topic or outright ban any voice that attempts analysis or dissent, you directly impede upon the rights of others. Similarly, indeed, the accusations of conflicts-of-interest were minor - mostly the petty concerns that come with the Indie gaming scene - but it's a logical fallacy to pretend that these cases are not legitimate simply because they do not cross an arbitrary bar of how relevant or important they are in the eyes of onlookers.

Now, into all this chaos, now insert the sudden revelation of Game Journo Pros.

Even if many of the revelations aren't terribly alarming, look at this from the perspective of someone who is in what would be Gamergate, and is already suspicious - they've long since thought that there was a legitimate issue here, similarly believed that Quinn had been receiving preferential treatment, and likewise believed that there were ongoing attempts to stifle discussion of Quinn and related issues.

Suddenly GJP hits, and they have corraborative evidence - however minor - that Quinn was recieving preferential treatment, that Quinn did have a relationship with the press, and that allies of hers were trying to silence discussion.

This evidence is mostly circumstantial, but it's illogical to think that anyone using basic common-sense logic would see all of this before them and not potentially come to similar conclusions given what they currently know; In their eyes, this serves as complete vindication of their viewpoint, and however conspiratorial the average Gamergate supporter at the time might seem, this isn't exactly a response that is devoid of logic or reason - after all, it's one thing to deny the GGers analysis as conspiracy theory, but the likes of Game Journo Pros did everything to encourage that notion that it was, indeed, conspiratorial, and, by the admittance of multiple people involved in it, GJP only served to act as a catalyst for Gamergate as a whole.

From this point onward, the Gamergate supporters can be seen constantly referencing the GJP incident because, in their eyes, it proved their concerns legitimate. How we, specifically, feel about it is irrelevant - that was critical to the Gamergate supporters and their mindset, and gave them the bulk of their leg to stand on. Even if the bulk of the revelations were minor - tiny things, unimportant in the broad scheme of things - they contained enough substance to be picked up on by multiple news organizations and, similarly, had people in said group attempt to own up to these facts. At this point, the opportunity to claim that the claims against GJP are "debunked" fall flat when people in GJP were claiming its legitimacy. This is where Gamergate supporters got their "evidence" of malfeasance. It's illogical to claim that these facts are not relevant - and moreover, it's entirely possible to think that if GJP hadn't happened, Gamergate may not have gained so much ground so quickly.

-- SupremeLogician December 17th, 2015 - 20:35 (EST)

GameJournoPros is irrelevant because there was no malfeasance. It's all an imagined situation by Gamergate. So that's why this page doesn't cover it in detail, and instead List of Gamergate claims#GameJournoPros does. Gamergate's views of GJP are backwards and irrelevant.

• "The seeming blackout on the issue" was that no one was going to write about such an incredibly unethical invasion of Quinn's privacy.
• "The Ongoing Attempts to Silence the Discussion" was everyone trying to prevent their websites from being used to organize harassment and spread libel.
• "The Ongoing Accusations of Conflicts of Interest" were totally baseless. A conflict of interest isn't a friendship. It's monetary.

GJP wouldn't have been anything had these conspiracies not existed prior because they have to build Zoe Quinn up to be some sort of vile entity that needs taking down. It's just like everything else they do. They begin the attack and then claim to have found justification after. And there was no actual proof anything said in GJP did whatever Gamergate thinks it did. The conflicting emails and the lack of any action aside from enforcing terms of service do not a wide-ranging anti-Gamergate conspiracy make. Stop pushing this. Your "logic" is poor.

Also stop trying to manually sign your posts. It's not working. Just type ~~~~ like het rest of us.—Ryulong (talk) 04:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Asked for suggestions

https://www.reddit.com/r/GGdiscussion/comments/3wb6rd/fix_rationalwikis_gamergate_article/ 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 03:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Did you seriously just invite Gamergaters over here? No good will come from that. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

To quote Goonie: "It goes with my personal philosophy that if you run out of the ability to debate somebody to the point where all you can do is dismiss them through labels, then it is time to re-evaluate (not change, mind you, but re-evaluate) your own stance." Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 03:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Gamergaters aren't coming here to debate, boyo. It's not cowardly to keep people known to argue in bad faith away from the conversation.179.222.133.47 (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

But this is like asking conservipedians to fix our articles on religion. Asking holocaust deniers to fix our article on holocaust denial. It just isn't done. All we'll get is bad faith edits, JAQing off, and poor attempts at history revisionism that our own page can already refute. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

What will come from it? Most of them are saying it needs to be deleted, which is useless for improving the article. They can't do anything to the actual article, since it's autoconfirm-protected. And maybe they do know a reason to support GG which we don't. Nobody supports a cause without some reason--nobody's the villain in their head. IBelieveinNPOV (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

"All we'll get is bad faith edits, JAQing off, and poor attempts at history revisionism that our own page can already refute." Also we've had people on this site threatened with superfluous legal action and doxxing already. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

We also tell them to come here and argue with us,it's right on the MP, because in theory it will make our articles better. either through being able to refute them or admitting "yes, you are right" and editing the article accordingly. You aren't going to make a strong article that is accurate if you only let discussion of it exist in a echo chamber of "GG sucks." "I agree, GG sucks". If those who come abuse our trust, then we can show them the door from our offered discussion, but we should not be telling Pro-GG users to not come, then the only ones we do get are going to be the ones who want to shit all over the pages. also, Not every Pro-GG person is an irrational monster capable of only screeds, you know. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 04:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I have not seen evidence to back up your last sentence, and indeed, the activity gathered here already suggests the opposite. By inviting Gamergaters here, you are inviting everything that comes with them. I hope you're prepared to take responsibility for that. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 04:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

We invited Gamergaters and anybody with a non-anti-GG opinion here the moment we added "if you disagree with us, come to our talk page!" to the main page, the door was open before it was ever closed. And I don't have to take responsibility for anything, I didn't write RW policy. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 04:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

"Non-anti-GG" is a gamergater, paravant. And there's a difference between "encouraging" this and opening the floodgates to a userbase known for doxxing, harassing, and trying to destroy people who disagree with them. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 04:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Wait, what? So you're either with us or against us? The world isn't black and white. Also, there's been, what? 1? 2 GGers? It's been a year. I don't think anybody really feels strongly on the matter anymore. IBelieveinNPOV (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

There's Gamergate and there's the rest of the world, and the rest of the world leans heavily towards anti-gamergate. How's that? Also, on the "strongly on the matter", you do realise someone's trying to doxx this site and threaten it with legal action already, right? That's the sort of behaviour I'm talking about, which GG is frequently known to engage in. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 04:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey there. I'm new here (as you can probably easily check) but I just want to let you know that this attitude is exactly what made me lean towards supporting Gamergate in the first place. It's the sort of irrational, emotional response that clearly shows that a person has personal biases that keeps them from seeing all perspectives. "There's Gamergate and there's the rest of the world..." Do you not hear how bad this sounds? After reading this talk page, I can't say I'm too keen on attempting to talk reason with you guys, especially with an attitude like that. From the second I said I support Gamergate, you have already dismissed my opinions. How is this any worse than a Christian dismissing an Agnostic Atheist's opinions or a Conservative dismissing a Liberal's opinions? Think about the words your saying and try to realize that there's more sides to this than just the one you believe.--Heliades (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

"irrational" "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 04:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying you are being irrational. I don't care what the wiki is called. I don't even care what forum we're speaking on right now. If you don't want to address your personal biases head on that's on you. Brushing everything I said to the side with a link is not particularly convincing.--Heliades (talk) 05:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

You haven't made an argument worth addressing. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 06:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow. That is incredibly boorish. I said this before: "From the second I said I support Gamergate, you have already dismissed my opinions." And you've already proven me right.--Heliades (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

And we'll ban anyone who tries that shit. Notice how many people have been banned so far? 1. For legal threats. Let's hope it stays that way. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 04:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I just don't appreciate painting a target on this site (and it's users) for them, when before, we could just deal with them strolling in, unprovoked. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 04:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

FCP, I suggest we could probably do with not going out of our way to actively invite sociopaths over, the evidence is we've got enough and that they're not coming up with anything but PRATTs - David Gerard (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

And unfortunately, they're not the Chris kind of Pratt. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

A post

and you're doing a bangup job signalling to anyone who wants to discuss rather than yell at you not to bother. who do you think comes when you make it clear people aren't welcome? those looking for a fight or to troll.

not sure where to put this/how to make special new sections but two small changes

• Gamergaters attempted to remain relevant in multiple ways, such as their joining Theodore Beale in pushing a slate of conservative and reactionary science fiction and fantasy authors at the 2015 Hugo Awards.[263]

• United States Congress [spoke out against gg]

not based on the source: inviting a speaker to a committee hearing isn't a statement from congress. a statement from congress would be say a nonbinding resolution passed in the house. given the context i'd just remove congress from that list.

seems completely wrong based on a basic knowledge of sad puppies (file770 has a good couple of roundups on the basic topic from a neutral to antipuppies position). Beale didn't found sad puppies his rapid puppies were a splitoff from tourgenson's group of the exact name.^{— Unsigned, by: Baaliscoming / talk / contribs}

A Post Again

sidenote: in "a post" i made two tiny points that easily should be changed. how do those get changed? obvious the deep house slant isnt going to change and everyone signals a complete unwillingness to moderate analytical claims before anything is offered so that just points to two easy factual mistakes in the article. ^{— Unsigned, by: Baaliscoming / talk / contribs}

Okay, good, now can you write that again in such a way as we can understand it? I have no idea what you want. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 12:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Errors in decline of gamergate section

The end of their relevance

After over a year, Gamergate is at best a cult. When The New York Times, the BBC, the United States Congress,[267] G

US congress claim doesn't work. this isn't a pro gamergate point its a basic source saying something else problem. inviting someone to a hearing isn't congress denouncing gamergate. congress denouncing gamergate would be something like a nonbinding resolution that passes one or two houses of congress.

> amergaters attempted to remain relevant in multiple ways, such as their joining Theodore Beale in pushing a slate of conservative and reactionary science fiction and fantasy authors at the 2015 Hugo Awards.[263]

"joining Theodore Beale" seems an odd way of explaining sad puppies given beale's rabid puppies was an offshoot of the sad puppies phenomena the kerfuffle was named after Torgenson's sad puppies movement. Joining Beale seems like a dishonest framing of the fox news variety.

its also an odd thing to put into the "decline" section since it shows say "the continued but limited reach of the evil reactionary doxing hateful satanspawn" had enough clout to cause cultural ripples that similar groups hadn't had before (this wasn't the first sad puppies). thus such evil things seem to belong more in going 'mainstream' than decline.^{— Unsigned, by: Baaliscoming / talk / contribs}

You can sign your post with four strings of "~"'s at the end. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 13:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

A Post Again Part III: The [Misplaced] Salt Must Flow

It would be easier to just add a section at the top saying explicitly anything coming from someone we think has semi-favorable opinions of gamergate is unwelcome. it would have saved me some time Baaliscoming (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understand quite why what nobody's doing is working so far. Also, study how other people use indents. Also you keep posting things in places where they don't make sense and that's why they end up here. You are signing correctly, though, so thank you for that. :) - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 13:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

responding to a person trolling me via username flair and the like. That was in response to the trolling and continual insistence that people are unwanted not points.

"I don't think you understand quite why what nobody's doing is working so far." doesn't seem to make sense in that context. I've made a few minor good faith points and i've not seen you engage with them. insult formating sure but not engage with those minor changes that don't threaten the evil shitlord gamergate narrative. ^{— Unsigned, by: Baaliscoming / talk / contribs}

It rather looks like you're the one trolling us at this point. Also I have not insulted your formatting, I have simply asked you to use the correct formatting (albeit in an admittedly exasperated way initially, but I chalk that up to having dealt with so many bad faith editors in one day on here), and told you how to do so, and thanked you when you made correct use of things. Also, nobody is engaging your points because you haven't been able to bring them up in a way that makes sense, and you constantly rely on insults scattered through them to point out just how wrong we are, like you've done here. One shouldn't throw stones in a glass house. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 13:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Would this be the 'username flair' that the editor was using a week before you even had an account here? Because your paranoia is showing. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 13:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It feels like a lot longer than a week to me. Possibly a month? Or am I wrongheaded in thinking this user signed up today? Forgive me, it's getting late where I am and I should be doing other things. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 13:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

More than a week. But I only bothered looking back 500 of your edits to find a date when it was in use. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 13:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

....It's very sobering to me that I've made more than 500 edits in a week. @_@ - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 13:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

queex was i talking about you? No as the context of the initial post makes very clear. http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate&curid=167863&diff=1588149&oldid=1588148

not going to engage with trolling except to point out that its sort of impossible to make your argument while editing titles to random insults. " you haven't been able to bring them up in a way that makes sense" i cited the gamergate page and pointed out the direct flaw. how does tat not make sense to you. you also backtracked on that claim

I made an honest good faith attempt to engage. clearly not wanted. curate this place as you see fit.

"just how wrong we are, like you've done here. " What? I've pointed out how incredibly biased this is but i've not advocated for specific changes based on that. the specific changes have been reasoned out. i've accepted this is always going to be horribly biased and making change suggestions based on that.Baaliscoming (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You claimed that someone was trolling you with their user flair. Over here, it's called a sig, and they couldn't be trolling you with their sig since it had been in used since long before you coined that user name. That shouldn't be a hard point to grasp. It's not insults - you are genuinely struggling to make whatever point you have in a readable way. It's a communications issue, exacerbated by your habit of inserting your replies, unsigned, into any old place with no regard for readability. Sometimes, it's not bias - it's just that you're wrong. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo, hippie,

You moved "Other women in the gaming industry feared being targeted next, [...]" to a place that makes no sense. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 07:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It made less sense where it was -- in a section about the emergence of the hashtag. Best I could figure it comes after the initial harassment of S and Q, as it shows the earliest escalation/expansion of the movement. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Please, please do this stuff in a userspace draft, then we can actually look over it - David Gerard (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Fine Young Capitalists

It is unclear from the article what kind of organisation this is. Can somebody explain so I can get that in or edit the article accordingly themselves? Thanks. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Most people believed that they were a game charity that wanted to create a woman-produced game. But TFYC is actually an Ontario for-profit corporation, not a charity. They also initially excluded trans women from their purview, or basically required a trans woman have to clear a number of hurdles, and only changed after this was brought up publicly. Also, they're sketchy as hell. Outside of Rappard, it isn’t clear who is staff in there. Typhoon (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, a corporation. What kind of corporation? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

As I said, they're sketchy as hell and seem to be tied to this Autobotika company. I think writing that they're a for-profit company should be enough. Typhoon (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

They are a for-profit company that donates their profits to charity. The source you linked stated this clearly. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

TFYC didn't claim to be a charity, they merely claimed to give the majority of the profits from their crowdfunded game to charity. The 'trans woman' thing is a ridiculous attempt to slander them based on needing some way to define what a woman is to prevent men from applying; this has to be done somehow, to prevent men from claiming trans status to abuse their program. If anyone can claim to be a woman, the 'woman-only' label is meaningless, and the only 'hurdle' was that you had to self-identify as a woman before a certain date. It's right here. http://www.thefineyoungcapitalists.com/TransgenderPolicy 192.249.132.237 (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

GGers paraded it as one of their "weaponized charities", that's for sure. And regarding their policies, they changed them after it was brought to public. Because it was clear to everyone, except to transphobic GGers, that it was placing ridiculous hurdles. Typhoon (talk) 09:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon: Do you even read your sources? That agrees with me, not you. Nothing was changed. There were no hurdles. @AgingHippie: They made an Indiegogo campaign to fund a video game, and ran a contest for women to send in design pitches. The funding went towards making the game of the winning female would-be game designer. They served as a middle-man, connecting someone with an idea to the resources required to make the game exist. The profits of that game, Afterlife Empire, were then donated to charity. I have no idea what TFYC has done outside of this event. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

"A for-profit company" is not enough. A plumbing supplies store? A business making violin bows? A venture capital firm? A bank? A whorehouse? What kind of company are they? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 09:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd knew what kind of if they weren't so incredibly shady. Matt Rappard, who heads it, is the only staff we know about. IIRC, we know more about his other company, Autobotika, than we do about TFYC. Typhoon (talk) 09:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Saying 'shady' over and over again without anything to back your dislike up doesn't reflect very well on you. Here's another thing they did: http://www.thefineyoungcapitalists.com/SNlessInfo. It looks like Rappard is the business of connecting women/minority creators with professionals in Colombia to make their creations reality. Autobotika are the professionals they used to make Afterlife Empire; presumably they are TFYC's 'video-game people'. They used other people for the graphic novel linked above. The profits of their products are split up as follows: 74% to charity, 8% to the creator, 10% to the people who make the product (Autobotika for Afterlife Empire), and 8% to TFYC. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you know how much Afterlife Empire made? :3c - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Go back to sucking off Ryulong in the corner, adults are talking. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry bruh, Ryulong doesn't swing that way ;) - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

They are an evil-company known for producing shadiness, misogyny and evil. It's kind of amazing how eager you guys are to smear anyone even vaguely connected to the other side of your stance. This is what fanatics do, people. For what it's worth, wikipedia describes them as "The Fine Young Capitalists (commonly abbreviated as TFYC) is a self-described radical feminist group[1] founded by Matthew Rappard set up to organize production initiatives for underrepresented labor in the media industry." Seriously (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Uh-huh. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 13:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The Flounce That Never Was: The Prequel

This right here is why your article is garbage, guys. I tried. I'm done trying now. Enjoy being the most laughable repository of obvious propaganda I've ever seen. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

♥ you too, buddy! - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Throwing around insults doesn't count as trying, BoN. Typhoon (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

So I guess you aren't trying either, given that you've insulted TFYC in every comment here, where I made one to someone who came here in bad faith? 192.249.132.237 (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Facts can be insulting. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Learn to participate constructively, Kistunelaine, and stop trying to drive off any editors that disagree with you. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

If I wanted to drive you off, you've given me more than enough justification to ban you. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, I'm so terribly afraid of this disposable IP address losing access to a cesspit of propagandist bullies. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 10:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you like goats? - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

ITT: GG cheerleader complains about 'propagandist bullies'. Priceless. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 10:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

There are some things money can't buy. For everything else, there's FCP going to a Gamergate subreddit and encouraging the sociopaths to come here. (god I wonder how many people get that joke) - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't count unless you use the #mastercard hashtag. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 11:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Curses! - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 11:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, labelling people who support ethics in games journalism and free speech as propagandist bullies does in fact make you a propagandist bully, as does mocking rather than engaging with attempts to point out lies and libel. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

"people who support ethics in games journalis" sorry, but absolutely no one outside of GG echo chambers believes this. Your "movement" is a joke and little more than a 4chan meme writ large. Milo is your spokesperson, nothing else beyond that fact needs to be said to display how completely disreputable Gamergate is.Petey Plane (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The Society of Professional Journalists agrees that it's about ethics; the biggest outcome of SPJ Airplay was the creation of the Kunkel Awards. Izkata (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

do you honestly believe Milo is a journalist? Any "journalism" organization that dose, regardless of pedigree, has lost all credibility.Petey Plane (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You're assuming facts not in evidence (that GG has anything to do with ethics, games, journalism or any combination of those).179.222.133.47 (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

ITT: GG cheerleader claims GG has anything to do with ethics in game journalism. GG cheerleader also fails to appreciate the irony of a group that harasses people into silence and shouts down contrary opinions with slurs claiming to be for 'free speech'. Read up on the Heckler's Veto before you make yourself look more foolish. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 11:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

"ethics in game journalism" This silliness has become a meme for ridicule on Twitter. Lotsa folk now ironically quip: "X is about ethics in [journalism, sports, tweeting, studying, yoga etc]." No sensible people take it seriously.---Mona- (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Besides multiple professional journalists and the people involved with both airplays and the savepoint panel. But sure, they're less sensible than people with a chip on their shoulder like the journalists whose integrity was called into question and cannot be expected to give unbiased or fair reporting or the fine editors of these wiki pages who admit to spending 5+ hours of their day each day trying to convince themselves and the world that "those evil gooble grapplers" are the REAL crazy ones.72.185.115.170 (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Goalpost is the other way. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 09:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Number of actual journalists on the airplay panel: 1, IIRC. No, Milo does not count. Anyone who thinks that what he does is journalism does not understand the word. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 11:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

BoN72, I'm not a gamer and spend very little time discussing these issue. But I do know from direct personal experience that GGers can be irrational, unreasonable and vicious. And as I said, the "ethics in gaming journalism" meme has become a joke among many outside of this wiki (certainly on Twitter), most of us not involved in either gaming or the GG controversy to any significant extent.---Mona- (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Just want to add as an outsider that I used to visit Rationalwiki because of its rational, scientific, rigorous articles. And I no longer visit Rationalwiki because people like Ryulong and Kitsunelaine. Their personal crusade against Gamergate and the fact that they are allowed to do as they please (case in point: Ryulong just returned to editing on Rationalwiki again after declaring he was leaving permanently only 6 days ago. What a joke) makes me not want visit Rationalwiki any longer. I am sure I will be called a sockpuppet or w/e as quick as possible in order to dismiss my voice so that you all can continue living in your echo-chamber. I guess this site might be interesting for a future study on how community-driven sites can self-destruct and make themselves irrelevant. 82.72.46.178 (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 23:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Citations

Since your talkpage is what it is... I thought I'd comment here instead, going through all the references in your article. So, here we go... I'll start with the first 20, and depending on your response, I might go further.

1. Reference does not support the claim made.
2. Reference does not support the claim made. It directly states the opposite.
3. Reference does not support the claim made.
4. Reference does not support the claim made.
5. Cherry picked data in the source article. As a side note. When you have a newspaper that talks about a published paper. Why would you use the newspaper rather than the paper itself a source? The only possible scenario for when that's better is if you know that the newspaper has misunderstood or is misrepresenting the data.
6. Same as 5.
7. Same as 5.
8. Reference does not support the claim made.
9. Reference does not support the claim made.
10. Claim put under an incorrect title as this is under "The Origins of Gamergate", but it has nothing to do with GG. The entire thing is years prior to GG became a thing.
11. Same as 10.
12. Reference does not support the claim made.
13. Reference does not support the claim made.
14. Reference does not support the claim made.
15. Reference does not support the claim made.
16. Reference does not support the claim made. It specifically states the opposite.
17. Reference does not support the claim made.
18. Not related to GG.
19. Have nothing to do with the section it supposedly gives a reference for.
20. Reference does not support the claim made.

So, that's the first 20 references to the article. Not a single one belongs there. 13 of the references does not support the claims made. 2 of those even directly states the OPPOSITE of what the article claims, but either way, that's still an unsubstantiated claim. Claims does not become true just because it's repeated by someone else. 4 of the remaining, have nothing to do with GG at all. And the remaining 3 are newspaper article about the same study so there's no reason to have them as separate references at all. Heck, they shouldn't even be used as references. You don't reference newspapers reporting on a paper. You reference the paper. So, not a single one of those 20 references are actually references for what is being claimed, and that's why we're saying that the whole article is just plain wrong. It's FILLED with making the same claims over and over, and never proving them. The whole thing, is a massive gish gallop fallacy and given that you've edited the RW page on that very fallacy, you know full well what that fallacy is and you know full well that the GG article is one. You're just refusing to acknowledge it, which is why no one has any interest in helping you with anything on the article. You're already shown that you're not rational when it comes to the subject.

https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/3vwjwo/on_rationalwiki_ryulong_is_now_indefinitely/cxvw4k5

Can we respond to this without saying the word "Gator"? Thanks! FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 12:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Given how often pro-GG people attack our sources, it would probably be useful to quote from them. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 12:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

This would be informative if he actually bothered to say why he thinks those references don't support the claims. I've randomly checked a couple of the references he complained about, and they seem correct to me. I think this might be because he's got a different definition of what 'support the claim' means. This isn't surprising, as they are infamous for misreading the "gamers are dead" articles. Also, I love his final complaint about a lack of rationality. DRINK! Typhoon (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Notes 4 & 5 at random, the only way in which they could be said not to support the claim, is if one thinks the salient issue is "adult" v "teen." That would be a point. But the references do support the greater number of females. That's all I'm going to check. If the person objecting doesn't say in what way all of these citations supposedly fail it's too tedious to read each and try to determine in what way s/he feels that is so.---Mona- (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Reading link 1 ATM. It's talking about "Poachers" like Olivia Munn and that guy who bought up a bunch of rare comics to drive up the prices, it's talking about how angry nerd-culture is at getting more women in it, seeing them all as poachers (Reference to the jackass reporter asking Felicia Day if she's done anything but be a celebrity) "But then, you have these models-cum-geeks like Olivia Munn and practically every FragDoll. These chicks? Not geeks. I think that their rise is due to the fact that corporations are figuring out that geeks have money, and they want it. But they can't abide putting a typically geeky face on camera, so they hire models to act quirky and sell this marketable geekdom. So, I can understand why someone completely ignorant could look at Felicia Day and see a pretty woman who is making one heck of a career starring in roles celebrating fandom, and mentally file them along with the fake geek G4 hostesses. Ryan Perez is a shoddy journalist and failed to do any research." It doesn't reference if gaming culture was marketed to men, just a ranty opinion piece on how gamers are paranoid over bigger companies and leeches invading and appropriating the locality, and noting how it's only women who get targeted for this.Keter (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

New Blurb.

The Old blurb was as bad as saying WW1 was caused because a tourist was shot, or the Scramble for Africa was caused because Nigerians were selling a discount on slaves in Lagos at the time. You know the Venn diagram here: http://cryinwilson.tumblr.com/post/131668645817/cryinwilson-these-are-my-predictions-for-how It described GG better than the blurb. I fixed it.Keter (talk)

Workshop it here before pushing it to the article, the writing on that was terrible and you should honestly focus on making something good before saying "the old blurb was bad" when that's your suggestion for replacing it. Right now, the opening is sufficient, serviceable, and accurate, and I think that any suggestions for changing it need to be agreed upon by the community. Also, Gamergate has nothing to do with AAA publishers being too close to gaming websites. That's a little too close to "Actually its about..." when we know Gamergate advocates for the least ethical practices ever "Everyone who doesn't pander to me and me alone must be DRIVEN OUT OF THE INDUSTRY" - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 23:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not accurate. Firstly: GG is not a "subculture" and never was. It is touted by several subcultures, yes; but not A subculture. Secondly: It has more than one origin, and to essentially claim it's only a sudden moment where a bunch of idiots get irrationally mad at some former developer is incredibly wrong. Like I said, it's the same as going "WW1 was caused because a tourist was shot".

It's not accurate, so it is neither serviceable nor sufficient.Keter (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It is a subculture. It gave all the people who previously held to it's core values a name to fall under. It's a subset of gamers that previously had no common identifier, and now it does. Also, we need not needlessly overcomplicate a blurb. A blurb is supposed to give a general idea, not a full summary. And yes, it is exactly accurate. Everything that happened after that was an attempt to justify previously existing harassment. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 00:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not. It's a movement - currently the husk of one. That's what it is. Not only that, it was made by a combination of several brewing issues online in the places GG was strongest, such as Reddit and the NumChans. The Zoe post was the straw that broke the camels back, and if you think stuff like Jennifer Hepler's harassment until she quit Bioware, Outrage over the "Gamers are Entitled" response to the Mass Effect 3 petition and rage at Olivia Munn for being a "fake gamer" aren't caused by the same people, I have a bridge to sell you.Keter (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's like Gamergate is speaking to a certain sect of gamers and their culture that existed before it. A... Subculture, if you will. We don't even completely disagree, since we both understand that these are the same people. Gamergater has sort of grown into an identifier for that kind of person -- a label that now exists when before one could just deem them assholes. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 00:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Surely by now a sociologist or two, or some cultural journalists, have categorized GG? What do they say?---Mona- (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Sociologists have tried to cover Gamergate, every time they've tried, they've received a complimentary background check by gators. :) - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 04:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Uh, no. Saying Gamergate is a subculture is like saying any long-due movement caused by the boiling over of tensions like Occupy X or BLM is a subculture. ^{— Unsigned, by: Keter / talk / contribs} 01:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a subculture. Also, the people that originally called out the ethics issues in games journalism are firmly against GG, with GG being part of the issue. Also also, sign your posts. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 02:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

People really should use teh google to resolve this kind of dispute. A simple search finds myriad sources referring to GG as a "subculture." For example, the Columbia Journalism Review states: "The difficulty of reporting on Gamergate reflects faulty PR from the movement, but also the difficulty of covering any digital-era subculture that works in anonymity." It's pretty commonly applied to GG.---Mona- (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

...if you twist the definition hard enough. for example: "I’m using “subculture” to mean a group of people who come together to share their thoughts and culture and time in the context of some shared interest. A group composed of multiple individuals that share ideas and that thus becomes something of a Thing itself." And this here: " To use a definition of subculture I recently used in my thesis for school it is "a system of values, attitudes, modes of behavior, and life-styles of a social group that is distinct from but related to the dominant culture of a society."" Even then, the majority of articles I find mentioning gamergate and subculture don't call gamergate subculture at all, but refer to "gamers" and "tech industry" and even "WASP/SAWCASM". LA Times: "It may be tempting to dismiss these incidents as random threats by clearly disturbed individuals, or a problem relegated to an angry fringe group within the gaming subculture." And another from Guardian: "It’s tempting to believe that this online row – a toxic combination of misinformation, anger and anxious masculinity – is just about one specific technology industry’s subculture, or that it will blow over." there's a lot more articled calling GG a "Mob", "Failed Crusade of bigots" and even - shockingly to you - a "movement". tl;dr Using "Subculture" to refer to Gamergate is like conservopedia using "Theory" to refer to Evolution. It's being shoehorned to tell a story that Honestly isn't accurate.Keter (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Evolution is a theory. And a fact. Evolution occurred; how it occurred is the stuff of theory. In any event, multitudes of smart people categorize GG as a "subculture," and I decline to accept that they are all making an error. Certainly I decline absent strong evidence that they are all mistaken.---Mona- (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate is left-libertarian / anti-authoritarian

1. Gamergate is predominantly left leaning. The GamerGate folks have early on documented the distortions and countered them. It's implausible that a large number of people who are really right wing somehow conspire to present themselves as left wingers. The article should be prepared to either accept what people say about themselves or state openly that it relies on "other ways of knowing" or conspirational thinking.
2. Plenty of data exists, pointing all into a similar direction. The overwhelming impression is that the trenches are 90° rotated, and between authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism, both on the left side. This also matches the content and talking points.
   • http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/663.880368-A-comprehensive-look-at-GamerGate
   • http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/841842-gamergate
   • http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/media-culture/is-gamergate-a-classic-case-of-left-wing-infighting/
   • http://gamepolitics.com/2014/12/29/editorial-gamergate-political-attitudes-part-1-movement-right-wing/
3. Right wing media and personalities emerged later to benefit from the situation, such as Breitbart.
4. Racefail, Occupy, Elevatorgate and GamerGate have many common features, one of them is that these sort of conflicts have a cultural context that is clealy on the left. All of these conflicts are on the left/liberal spectrum.
5. The "Regressive Left" hot topic is likewise part of the same pattern. The people who oppose this trend are themselves left wingers. The right wing sits back and laughs, they otherwise would rather agree with Regressive folks, since their concerns and fears are quite similar (safety/safe-space, law and order/rules-regulations, infantilisation, puritanitcal).
6. The anti-gamergate crowd is notorious for othering, and as such without proper evidence nothing should be believed what they say.
7. The content of the conflict is not left/right in nature, at least not in an honest portrayal. Criticiam of e.g. Sarkeesian is not anti-left-wing but goes against authoritarian methods and assumptions that come from certain corners of gender/post-colonial/media studies, postmodernism and feminist theory, i.e. pseudo-science, in particular of the Harvard Law School variety (intersectionality, standpoint theory, critical race theory etc).
8. The rebuttal List_of_Gamergate_claims#Gamergate_is_not_right_wing is very weak tea, based on assumptions and seeks to undermine the political compass. But even if the RW thinks the Political Compass is not entirely calibrated to personal tastes, it does not magically transform large numbers of people into another quadrant.

That's it for now. — Aneris ✻ {talk/ideas} 04:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Or, GGers are generally just butthurt sexist assholes, often vicious ones. Yeah, I think that's it.---Mona- (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Mona: you're mixing up your articles and you misspelled "Palestinians." Sarah (HH) 07:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Careful where you swing that, I might get blunt trauma from *that* edge. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 07:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I've had rather extensive interactions with GGers, including their self-appointed lawyer, Mike Cernovich. They are sexist assholes. By contrast, the several Palestinians I know are very fine and respectful men.---Mona- (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Your perspective might be different if you'd served in the IDF. The failure, which I hoped to illustrate, is in judging a group by its worst actors. I sympathize with the Palestinian cause but you must admit objectively heinous acts have been committed in its name, even if you accept terror as a legitimate tactic. I just find it baffling you can at the same time sympathize with such a group while unequivocally condemning another group whose worst offense is mean tweets. Sarah (HH) 22:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The Political Compass undermines itself, as the section explains. And the content is very right wing in nature-- It's very irresponsible to class what Sarkeesian is getting day in and day out from Gamergate as "Criticism", when it's so often reactionary attacks, general harassment, death threats, etc etc etc. Also, I find it amazing that you have the tenacity to link to The Escapist and KnowYourMeme, as those are sites that sought to pander to Gamergaters as hard as they possibly could, thinking they'd be a new source of revenue. So, is what you're saying trying to be the exact opposite of what's debunked already here without actually addressing it? That seems like trolling to me. Also, what Mona said (We agree again! How does that keep happening?!)- Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 04:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

People still think gamergate is left wing or even centrist? I honestly thought this was some joke claim aGGers took seriously...Keter (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

They're conservative, at least according to most automated metrics. See eg. here, which shows the close connection between conservative anti-abortion users on Twitter and GamerGate members; note in particular that the analysis shows that 90% of the accounts tweeting the Gamergate hashtag are pro-life. I mean, their politics should be pretty obvious from the fact that they consider Breitbart a credible source. But I think that some of them legitimately believe they're "classical liberals" -- a common meme among a certain strand of libertarian is that liberalism was hijacked at some point (often by FDR, though the exact point differs) and that they are therefore the real liberals; Gamergate seems to appeal to many people from that crowd. They hold similar views about feminism (ie. they say they support real feminism, but that it went astray in the 1980's and since then has been bad!) Or in other words, to quote Robert Anton Wilson, it only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea. --Aquillion (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

+1 for the RAW quote. The automated analysis is interesting, it's counter-intuitive (at least for me). That makes it all the more interesting, but not that surprising — if true. It's a noted problem that all these sites, search engines, Facebook, Twitter tend to create an echo chamber effect. Like when you are surrounded by Bernie Sanders, who's surefire winner by landslide, only to learn when you click on a link outside of your own social media feed that he doesn't do that well compared to Hillary Clinton (I have no grasp on the situation). But the case isn't that clear here, either. That's how I understand it:

When I search for Lindy West and GamerGate, I find there is a different connection. In other words, she is known to people who are also connected to GamerGate, but not for reasons of abortion. The article spents some time to discuss how people learn of some hashtag at all. Of those people who then learn about this abortion hashtag, 90% will come out "pro-life" (AND who are conservative!) which I don't find surprising at all. In other words, throw Lindy West's tweet at 200 gamergate people, each 100 pro-choice/pro-life who all don't like her for other reasons: 90 of the pro-lifers will then also oppose her on these grounds, compared to only 10 who will support her hashtag despite previous animosities. There you have your number. Which tells you basically nothing about the whole set. Let's say a Creationists tweeted about Climate Change tomorrow and it was a stopped-clock good tweet: how many people in the secular movement would support this? Few. But far more people who opposed the Creationist before and who ALSO deny climate change would be in vocal opposition here, too. But saying that "most people in the secular movement are climate change deniers" would be false.

To your or my defense, the article is muddled and messy. And it is even unclear why there are four different types of conservatives and what is different about them, which suggests at least that GamerGate is not "typical" conservative (again more parismonous, it's not conservative at all and this was an apriori assumption). This is also reflected in the description: "conservative, Christian or Catholic, and a Gamergate". Three of these obvious fit together, but GamerGate doesn't without some serious explanation. "90% of users with strong views in the Gamergate and conservative communities are pro-life" seems to hinge on the AND. Again, unsurprisingly. Conservative people tend to be "pro-life" and 90% of Conservative people who also go swimming every thursdays would be pro-lifers and it tells you nothing about other people going swimming on thursdays. Finally, when that number was that high as 90%, the GamerGate tag would top the charts below, but it's not even mentioned. Again consistent with my take.

There are therefore good reasons to doubt your interpretation, not because I have obviously no clue about how popular gamergate is among Christian Creationists, since my confirmation bias/echo chamber only shows me secular Bernie Sanders types -- the reason is GamerGate as a conductor and selection bias. However, I stress that I don't actually know. I still try to make sense of the Clinton/Sanders situation. — Aneris ✻ {talk/ideas} 13:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I left RW a long time ago with no plans to come back to contribute regularly again, but in the spirit of the season, I wanted to come back and clear up a few things. And yes, just to get it out of the way, I'm pro-GG, but I'm not going to try changing anyone's mind or argue against anti-GG positions, just wanted to offer some insight on where GamerGate supporters sit politically. Also, as for myself, I'm a classical liberal sex-positive egalitarian, which means I support equality of all sexes who should be free to express their sexuality in any way they deem fit so long as it does not violate the rights of others as defined by law. As for where GamerGate sits politically, here are my observations on the various wings, as GG has more than one political shade under it's umbrella:

• The conservative wing: Thanks be to publications like Breitbart urging an alliance with the ideals of GamerGate and promoting what they call "cultural libertarianism", GamerGate has a lot of political conservatives who are members primarily in opposition to what they see as the radical left's subversion and diminution of free speech and primarily oppose the social justice promulgated by what they consider the radical left as forcible imposition of cultural values they do not adhere to and believe are being forced via overt and subtle means on those who have no interest in them.
• The libertarian/classical liberal wing: This wing of GG support comes from those who believe social justice has become a cultural movement meant to restrict freedom of expression that may be offensive yet not illegal and thus oppose the anti-GG clique on what they see as a stand for cultural and political freedom.
• The neo-liberal wing: This wing sees themselves as rebels against what they call the "Regressive Left", beliving the social justice crowd has gone completely round the bend and has become so focused on achieving their ideals for cultural inclusiveness they have become the very censors the left once feared and opposed.
• The anti-feminist/MRA wing - These GG supporters see feminism as something that has been co-opted and perverted into enforcing gender based bigotry under the shroud of feminism, which has been used to subvert not just the gaming industry, but also gender relations to be anti-men.

In short, GamerGate is a multifaceted movement that cannot be slotted into any particular ideology. In fact, to some greater or lesser extent all of these views are held by myself to a degree. Also, just to counter the above post, I'm pro-choice and a member of GamerGate, and while Breitbart has said a lot of nice things about GamerGate, they have made some errors, one of which Jesse Singal rightly pointed out in an artlcie written by Milo Yiannopolous. Also, classical liberalism goes all the way back to the time of the Constitution if memory serves, with classical liberalism holding personal freedom as sacrosanct, as opposed to classical republicanism, which holds the public good in the highest regard. Arcane (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but none of those are remotely close to what I would consider 'left-wing' the way the original poster said, and the unifying beliefs (a belief that "political correctness" among their ideological enemies is a serious, nefarious threat that needs to be stopped, or that the language of multiculturalism is a product of some sinister liberal agenda) are essentially a list of tired right-wing talking points from the early 90's. I can understand why some members of the group would want to portray themselves as left-wing -- as Singal has pointed out, the real underlying message of "progressivism has gone too far" wouldn't do very well -- but surely you recognize that when people say "we're a liberal group!" and whisper "by which I mean classical liberal libertarians" under their breath, that they are being less than honest. --Aquillion (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

More importantly: who cares and why does it matter? Oh wait, it doesn't. All both sides are interested in is putting labels a.ka.a snarl words on a group of people so they're more easily "dismissed" and seen as "the enemy". Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Both sides in this dispute are not monolithic entities, so dismissing either as such is just irrational partisanship. Arcane (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The point is, Gamergate as a whole skews right-wing, in spite of a flawed political compass test. Also, egalitarian is often a code word for MRA. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 00:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thing is, though, while I do sympathize with some MRA positions (particularly their contention the legal system is somewhat biased against men in areas like alimony and child custody), I don't count myself among them. I also sympathize with some feminist positions, originally started out as one, and I still adhere to many principles of sex positive feminism (my main disagreement with anti-GGers in this regard is what I perceive to be a bunch of sex negativity on their side of things), so since I would likely average out to being a moderate, egalitarian is probably the best descriptor I could be labeled as, since both men and women deserve equal rights and dignity. I cannot speak for all GGers, and I'll further concede most are likely to lean right instead of left, but when you consider which side has given them less contempt of late, it's not hard to see why, and while I do not support any particular political party, I am pro-Donald Trump, though I otherwise have no allegiance or identification with the Republicans at present, as my support for him is based mostly on his positions on illegal immigration and political correctness, which I concur on entirely. Arcane (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Really, both of them? How does a position on immigration in support of discriminating against people based on their beliefs mesh with a position in support of an absolute freedom to express one's opinions? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Illegal immigration has always been something I have opposed irregardless of whatever political alignment I have held, and if someone has immigrated to a country to which they have not legally been granted citizenship status, they need to be punished for that as defined by law. I do not care as to the reasons they illegally immigrated, they knowingly committed an offense and it should be dealt with, as defined by law. Freedom of expression does not conflict here, as an illegal act is not protected.Arcane (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you intentionally missing my point or... If the government arbitrarily decides to declare immigration illegal for a group of people that express themselves as belonging to a certain faith, isn't that something you should be concerned with? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

As for that issue, I find it highly disturbing to ban immigration for anyone other than for reasons relating to entering the country illegally, on that I agree banning someone for skin color or faith would be highly offensive. I merely concur on enforcing harsh measures on those who immigrate using illegal means. Legal immigrants should not be punished. Arcane (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

We have an article on the MRA movement to help you with that. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss

We went from Ryulong watching the article 24/7 and reverting to Kitsunelaine. No difference from my perspective, I'm out. I'll check back in a month. Peace. Sarah (HH) 08:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

i mean you missed the part where I put one of your edits back in and another member undid me, and the parts where I worked with AgingHippie even though I disliked where he was taking the page, but sure. Also if you're butthurt about not being allowed to put the Zoepost in, then stay gone. :) - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 08:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I made 3 edits. You reverted all 3 immediately. You expect a "thank you" for the one you chose to read after reverting, which you restored? Lol, no. Admit ponies are cooler than dragons and we might believe you're not Ryulong. Sarah (HH) 08:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Nah, I did read it, I just changed my mind. It's hilarious you accuse me of not reading them, especially when I gave you a very firm reason in my third revert. Also, ponies suck. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 08:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean that literally or figuratively? She's not Ryulong. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 08:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

You mean Literally or Literally, right?Keter (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

On The Link to Zoepost

There is no sensible reason to keep removing the link to The Zoe Post. It's the chief primary source in the origins of Gamergate & anybody with an interest in how & why this started should look at it or at least have the opportunity to. Linking only to secondary & tertiary sources just validates the perception that we present a distorted account based on biased sources. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

1. There is nothing in there that's useful to cite, and we have a billion other primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

2. The Zoe Post is not a reliable source in any sense of the word and we do not need to include it for the sake of inclusion

3. We should strive to avoid linking to actual libel and slander where we can avoid it

4. Just because it is a primary source does not mean it is necessary

5. Literally nobody denies the Zoe Post's existence

6a. We shouldn't care what Gators think of this article because they will never be satisfied without it being 100% pro-gamergate

6b. The only people who genuinely care about the article's supposedly biased sources are Gamergaters, because they think it's a "gotcha!" when it isn't. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much what Kitsunelaine said. Wikipedia too avoids linking to it, instead opting to link news articles talking about it. Typhoon (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Gamergate article is also ran by a guy who couldn't answer a question about Pecan and pumpkin pies without mentioning Gamergate. I don't tolerate cranks.Keter (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Weaseloid, there is no good reason to remove that link. Gooniepunk (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I third Weaseloid. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{YES, OUR LOVE MUST BECOME STRENGTH.} 15:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I also endorse Weaseloid's position. Even Stormfront shit should be directly linked (or at least a cached version) to support claims about it.---Mona- (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I concur with all those in favor of including a link. Even if The Zoe Post is considered GamerGate's Mein Kampf (which seems to be the predominant belief espoused by those in opposition to GG), it's best to have a direct copy of the source on hand if only so it's arguments can be examined, criticized, and debunked. Merely going off a commentary written by a second party (for or against) would dilute such analysis with an added bias, and while RW does not strive for NPOV, I personally would find it rational to take apart the arguments of the actual Mein Kampf by having a copy on hand so I can source my citations when I make my points and so any skeptics can easily find I made a proper citation of the actual source and not a cherrypicked or out of context quote from a secondary source. Arcane (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

We link to the full text of Mein Kampf[3] in the Hitler article. By not linking are we saying Gjoni is literally worse than Hitler or The Zoe Post is worse than Mein Kampf? I think that's taking GG a little too seriously. Sarah (HH) 02:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

On that point, we concur entirely. Arcane (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

"By not linking are we saying Gjoni is literally worse than Hitler" My mind is changing on this matter. The post at issue is not a diatribe of hate speech directed at abstract groups. It's an individual-specific and degrading, extremely personal attack on a living person. That is to say, it is not comparable to Mein Kampf. ---Mona- (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, it did spawn the movement at the core of this article, a founding document of its ideology, if you will. Therefore, despite any disgust one feels with the content, it's worthy of linking if only to rip it's arguments to shreds, is it not? Arcane (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, it is a critique of an individual but we include those (published in RS) all the time. In fairness it's more personal than most but it's also better sourced. My strongest argument for inclusion is it provides necessary context. I feel like telling the readers: "you don't need to read this, someone else has read it for you" is too much like what the Jehovah's Witnesses or other religious cults might do. Sarah (HH) 03:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

"critique"

.... - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

My point was just that this is not akin to hate speech and our deciding we can (and even should) link to hate speech sites at RW. I'm undecided about the Gjoni link and am -- independent of our policy on hate speech links -- considering the merits of linking to that particular kind of post. And, that kind of post is not properly characterized as merely "a critique of an individual." It's a degrading and disgusting diatribe about a living person; it is irrelevant whether some think it is true and well-sourced.---Mona- (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

"Critiques" tend not to be a fifth the length of Slaughterhouse-Five and filled with "Look! While I'm acting like everything's fine, she's going with the false idea that everything's fine! What a whore!" Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 03:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I would consider the hate filled diatribes of various spree shooters to be disgusting in the extreme, but if only to show the motives they held, the fallacy in their arguments, and the vileness and pettiness of their hate, I would still expose it to the world while tearing down its hatred for how wrong it utterly is when compared to the actual truth. Arcane (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

But you've admitted you're pro-gg. Your interest isn't in tearing it down, because you believe every word. It's in getting us to link it. I believe the site already does a good enough job in "tearing it down" without needing to directly link to it. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I came to be pro-GG long after it was written, and it had no bearing on my decision to be pro-GG, so I have no interest in it either way. However, it does have bearing to topic at hand no matter what side you take, and if only so you can point out how wrong it is, sourcing it is the only rational thing to do. And while I do have an admitted bias, I am capable of putting it aside and seeing things from the other point of view, and in this case, if it's filled with error, then I say link it and rip apart it's fallacies. If it turns out to be utterly false in its message and intent, good, one more irrational thing this wiki has debunked, which is part of it's mission statement. Arcane (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

We do not need to source it directly to refute it. This has already been well established. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Then use an archive link if you need to, but since it has bearing to very core of this article's subject, it deserves linking to so people can see why it's being refuted as BS. If Breitbart published an article full of blatant lies on a topic within the scope of this wiki, would that not be sourced in some way so the lies can be ripped to shreds? Arcane (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree as I said above. Mona, its accuracy isn't my concern, I'm not even vouching for it. I'm saying: it's dishonest to critique it ourselves while depriving readers that same opportunity. Sarah (HH) 03:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, none of that is persuasive. Nothing is dishonest in failing to link. Nor are we "depriving" readers of anything. If they can make it to this site they also have the capacity to use search engines. If we should link to the Gjoni diatribe it is not for the reasons you argue.---Mona- (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

About linking the post

Even if it's been linked "throughout most of the article's history," that "most" would be shoved toward the past. the mob decided back in April-ish to not link it. To my knowledge, it hasn't been linked since. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 10:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The site's been lagging, and adding a section doesn't EC, so this section is a duplicate. Also, I may have been mistaken on it being in April. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 10:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The link was removed in September by Ryulong. I've had a cursory look at the talk page from this time (archive 7) & can't see that it was discussed here. I'm not aware that there was ever a "mob" decision not to link to it. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

(EC, damn lag) Well, searching is nearly impossible for me right now, hence the-... Oh, darn it, I forgot to say "[...] being in April or maybe even it having happened at all.". So, what *did* we vote on omitting? I'm so confused. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 10:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

A note

We just voted in the Saloon Bar to allow hate-site links when necessary. If it's as bad as Kitsu makes it out to be, this certainly qualifies, and can be allowed. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 17:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. The vote was for more than I am comfortable with (the mob voted to even allow "External links" to the hate sites per se). But that was the vote.---Mona- (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it might be useful if we quoted relevant sections from the Zoe Post, to show its ridiculousness. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 20:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The Zoe Post isn't just a hate site, though. And the debate is over whether or not it's necessary. "Hate site" is a vague terminology, this is more a targeted hitpiece with the intent to libel and slander and bring as much of a mob towards a person as possible than a hatesite, and I think that's dangerous territory. And, for once I (at least in part) agree with FCP's thoughts on the matter, because the way it's linked right now adds nothing useful to the article whatsoever, and if we must include it, include it in a way that makes sense for its need to be cited. And at the very least, I propose we include an archive version as opposed to a direct link, to avoid giving it hits. The thing is, "hate site" is a vague terminology-- I know we voted on it, I was a part of that vote, but at the same time, I think stuff like this is almost a category unto itself. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 00:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I've pondered on it, and I think there's merit to both sides. On the one hand, the post is an outrageous, bitter, highly personal attack on Zoe Quinn and her purported sex life. An ex-boyfriend is basically calling her a whore in very extended detail. This is not the same as "hate speech." As Kitsunelaine says, it's different in critical ways. It's hateful, but not mere hate speech. It may be worse than that. On the other hand, the contents of that post are widely discussed and quoted all over the Internet. Zoe Quinn cannot be unsmeared in the exceptionally degrading way that post smears her. So, I really can see both sides of this argument. ---Mona- (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Mona! I'd also like to bring up the fact that we have a bazillion other primary, secondary and tertiary sites around the Zoe Post, so I think that's an important thing to consider over whether or not we should link to this piece. It's not essentially a matter of "unsmearing" her, but a question of whether or not we're above needing to link to that in order to support this article, where I would argue we already have things that should support it without the need to link it directly. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It's the personal, individual-specific nature of that horrid thing that makes it different from "hate speech" about abstract groups. This distinct type of post should be considered on its own "merits," or lack thereof.---Mona- (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's individual-specific, but I'd say the original needs to be linked. If anything, it'd support the anti-GG side; I've never read it, but I mean the length and content are just ridiculous, and I'm sure that people would feel similarly. Why not post an archive link (disclaiming that RW supports no ideas within) and let the readers decide? IBelieveinNPOV (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It is a question of morality, NPOV. Not a matter of "sides". - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 05:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

One problem, RW doesn't have a NPOV statute, merely a rational one, so while the source itself may not be endorsed by RW as good, bad, or indifferent, the views expressed about it here are almost certainly guaranteed to have a rationally based bias due to the site mission, so if there is a side, it would be the side that aligns with RW's site mission. Arcane (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The user's name is NPOV. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 06:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, my mistake, thanks for catching that. Arcane (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

A pro-GGer perspective on the pro-GG camp

This is not intended to persuade anyone to side with GamerGate, merely to provide information how the pro-GG side sees things and how they conduct themselves in their communities and how they see other communites.

• GamerGate (particularly on r/kotakuinaction) is seen as both a movement in gaming culture and, due the secondary, overarching influence of external political factors, a culture war.
• GamerGaters have ideological splits even in their own ranks. Some prefer to focus merely on the gaming journalism side of things, some prefer to focus on the political consequences that overarch GamerGate (such as censorship, freedom of expression, and cultural freedom), and some prefer to focus instead on discrediting their opposition. Some do wish to combine these goals into a cohesive stratagem, but some do not.
• GamerGaters believe in the dictum "trust but verify", as a reaction to what they perceive as the "listen and believe" dictum of the opposition. Basically, they take sources, trust they are telling the truth, but immediately try to verify it before accepting it as gospel. GGers have been guilty of listening and believing blindingly as they accuse their opposition, hence the tendency towards the former.
• GamerGaters have the following feelings on the following:
  • Breitbart: Liked and fairly respected for being willing to not demonize gamers, but some are uncomfortable with the hard right bias and some have even criticized their errors despite their appreciation of Breitbart not assuming gamers are Hitler.
  • Wikipedia: Has been almost entirely been written off as a corrupt hovel of bias, and not just on the GamerGate topic.
  • Gawker (and its subsidiary publications and verticals): Universally reviled as utterly corrupt, full of blatant bias, having encouraged the hatred between GGers and their opposition, and most in the GG camp would like nothing less than to see them cease any further publication forever.
  • Voat: Generally well liked, though there is a fair amount of disdain between the Voat and Reddit KIA communities, and even Voat's KIA has some disdain of it's sister subverse v/GamerGate, which shares similar feelings.
  • 4chan: Viewed with a fair degree of contempt ever since moot's "selling out" to the SJW clique.
  • 8chan: Liked, but has a mixed reaction. Some view it as a necessary bastion of free speech but dislike some of nastier elements on 8chan associated with GG either overtly or by implication. Some welcome 8chan no matter what seediness may be attached to it as a staunch enclave against political correctness and a bastion of anonymity. A fair majority of GGers are convinced the SJW crowd would do anything to shut down 8chan and use it as a scapegoat for practically everything they can, and many believe SJWs deliberately hunted down child porn to post on 8chan to achieve these exact ends.

I will provide further information and answer questions to the best of my ability as pertains to the intent of the above if further information is needed. Arcane (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

>immediately try to

No. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 06:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

>many believe SJWs deliberately hunted down

The CP issue was one of the first things Brennan mentioned when advertising the site to GGers. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 06:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Do note I'm merely giving the pro-GG arguments in a condensed format for easy analysis and breakdown, and am putting aside any bias I might hold so you guys can use them as a foundation to analyze, critique and debunk them. For the record, GG has jumped the gun on many things despite their own "trust but verify" dictum (despite most of them counseling each other each other not to), and I have no idea if the CP issue regarding 8chan is true or not, I'm merely presenting the view so it can be debunked here. Arcane (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I have an immediate, visceral, negative reaction to the use of the terms "SJW" or "political correctness" other than ironically. And I say that as one who formally published on the issue of the PC problem on campus several decades ago. In my strong view, the PC term has been co-opted to usually mean "progressive views I don't like." As for "SJW," it's thrown around so promiscuously it's even been applied to me by several GGers, which is hilarious.---Mona- (talk) 06:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind this is the pro-GG POV summarized so it can be easily examined and broken down. I'm just presenting a PG rated version of their POV so it can be easily proven or debunked in line with RW's mission goals. Arcane (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Notable luminaries of GG opposition and how they are viewed by GG

Like the above section this is based on my observations of the pro-GG perspective of these individuals, which should be useful for further coverage, debunking, and so on in the article itself, and no dox of any kind will be linked here, this was all gleaned from information found on public pro-GG sites like r/kotakuinaction, presented here to concisely sum up how the pro-GG community views them so it can be analyzed/criticized/debunked in the main article and related sub articles if need be.

• Zoe Quinn - Viewed as a relentless charlatan, particularly after teaming up with Anita Sarkeesian. The reasons for such (that are not in direct relation to the Zoe Post) are: her quite likely abrogation of Eron Gjoni's civil rights (as discussed by Eugene Volokh), the mediocre standards of actual contribution she made to gaming as a whole in proportion to her media portrayed importance. To wit, many GGers feel she was little more than an appetizer for the main course of corruption in the gaming journalism business and that Depression Quest itself is not really anything more than a middling CYOA that does not factor into much of anything one way or another except as proof their enemies want to lower the bar for gaming to the point anything that wears the trappings of gaming can be trumped up as GOTY material by corrupt media outlets in the anti-GGers pockets, even if the objective quality was critically panned by non biased outlets.
• Anita Sarkeesian - Widely seen as a charlatan, possible tax fraudster (though the evidence for this is based on slanted readings of Feminist Frequency's public tax records for the most part), and little more than a puppet of Johnathan McIntosh. Other points of contention are that Sarkeesian's pop culture analysis is poor and easily debunked, and it's often cited as point of argument that Sarkeesian has asked for a ton of money, yet has produced very little (and is grossly late on the deliverance of) the Tropes Vs. Women series she originally solicited most of these funds for.
• Randi Harper - Universally agreed to be the very bully she allegedly wants to combat, and in the tech community, even her colleagues in the FreeBSD community have reacted to her with hostility on their own public mailing list, arguing she has made middling contributions to the code and is more focused on pushing her own gender politics agenda.
• Brianna Wu - Widely seen as an Anita Sarkeesian wannabe, a notorious liar, and while her efforts at making a game are viewed more positively as a sincere effort at making an actual game and not just something of Depression Quest quality, Wu has been criticized on the gaming front as being incredibly late with delivering a tangible product and spending more time constructing a harassment narrative than actually doing meaningful work to either produce a game or promote any socially just cause.

This is but a brief overview, please submit any further questions about other luminaries so I can present a concise summary of how GGers view them for more detailed analysis/critique/debunking in the main article when compared to the facts. Arcane (talk) 06:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Quite unimpressive and unpleasant. "relentless charlatan" "a charlatan, possible tax fraudster" "to be the very bully" "a notorious liar" Galloping ad hom.---Mona- (talk) 06:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

These are the very views as expressed by pro-GGers (I am presenting this merely as information, I will refrain here from making my own stance on them either way here), and this is the sanitized version (some comments about them are incredibly crass and not worthy of repetition). This is just a condensed view of their stance for analysis, critique, and debunking, though I definitely agree with your point on the ad hominem, and I merely hope RW can take these talking points and either add weight to them or utterly refute them. Arcane (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it's rather arrogant to assume the editors here have no exposure to a Gamergater's views. Our article is written in response to those views-- especially List of Gamergate Claims. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 06:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Granted, but since the article is in need of a rewrite and condensing, here's a condensed version of the pro-GG side of the story so it can be proven or debunked with a similar condensed rebuttal or assent by RW in line with it's stated goals. Arcane (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

We already have that. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 07:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

"This is just a condensed view of their stance for analysis" Our articles already copiously state GG claims and views and analyze them, as well as debunk many of them. You should state what specific points you feel the article omits and why you think the omissions are significant. The litany of personal insults you set forth do not appear to be essential.---Mona- (talk) 07:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Very well, Mona, here's what I feel needs to be cleared up:

• In general: Are any of the claims that any of these parties have lied about (insert random GG claim here) true, and if so, why? If not, why haven't they lied?
• Zoe Quinn: Has Quinn actually violated Gjoni's civil rights at any point and is there an arguable case for it from any legal persepctive.
• Anita Sarkeesian: Is there any weight to her potential tax return indiscretions and is she guilty of proving dishonest concerning any aspect of her Tropes Vs. Women series? (content, financing, etc.). Also, is she really a "puppet" of Johnathan McIntosh, and if not, why is this a baseless claim?
• Randi Harper: Is any of the proof about her being an abusive person like the people she allegedly wants to stop true. If so, why? If not, why is this information false?
• Brianna Wu: Is any of Wu's claims about anything (harassment, game development, legal issues, etc.) false, and if not, why are the claims Wu lied false.

Overall, RationalWiki does a lot of dismissing the arguments from what I can see, but doesn't do a lot to rip them apart to their small parts and show why they don't construct a logical argument when put back together (not to mention a lot of the sources need verification by secondary sources to confirm some of the claims), and if you guys want to utterly debunk GamerGate, you're going to have to take the above and utterly discredit it as valid, as they are commonly argued points by the pro-GG side. Arcane (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘"you're going to have to take the above and utterly discredit it as valid, as they are commonly argued points by the pro-GG" No, we do not "have to" do that. 1. You do not demonstrate that these are common GG complaints, and 2. How specifically is anyone supposed to have violated "Gjoni's civil rights?" Please provide a link. 3. Vague accusations someone has lied do not merit serious attention, certainly not "debunking." The burden is on those claiming another lied to show it, not on others to show the person did not lie. 4. Our articles give general over-views of people, organizations and events; we do not litigate the minutiae of disputes.---Mona- (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It's the onus of the people accusing them of lying to prove their cases, and they have not. You're asking us to prove a negative. Also, isn't most of this covered on that list I keep telling you to look at? - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 07:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually looking through that very article, and I plan to publish a point by point analysis of it on Medium once I'm done researching it in detail, which I will share here. Also, to address your point, it's always intellectually honest to try attacking your own argument, if only to make sure it has no holes. Assuming your arguments are correct and need no changes once you've made them for all time just strikes me as intellectual inertia and hideously arrogant, but that's just me. Arcane (talk) 07:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate's arguments haven't changed since Day 1. Your side doesn't exactly practice what you're preaching. This is why we are so brazenly dismissive of their claims. It's also rather arrogant to assume we don't update our article when enough people try to revise history (i.e a new party slogan is formed). It's a common tactic of a Gamergater to try and make people have the same arguments over and over and over again, starting from square one each and every time (Which is what it looks like you're trying to do here). This is why the List of Gamergate Claims page exists. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 07:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, if it makes you feel any better, I'm doing what I said I'd do right now and looking through that list of claims, and I've already confirmed several of them as accurate, so before I get accused of trying to argue in bad faith, I am finding some proof you guys have argued from some basis in fact, but I'll save the detailed blow by blow breakdown for when I finish. Arcane (talk) 07:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Part 1 of my analysis of that article is done. Due to the sheer size, I'm breaking it up into parts, this covers the "GamerGate hasn't harmed anyone section. Arcane (talk) 10:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh hey, you got suspended from twitter for stalking Brianna Wu. Yeah, not rising to that bait, mate! - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Twitter has never confirmed that, I published proof of my innocence (check the Lolcow Wiki, they have screencaps of our conversations) and that is not the subject at hand. Can you attack my arguments, or do you wish to attack me by trying to discredit me based on an incident I haven't brought up at all but which you are attempting to do so as a reason not to engage anything I have to say on what appears to be a flimsy pretext? Arcane (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

>Lolcow wiki

........... >Lolcow wiki

lol nope done with you - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Would you prefer it if the screencaps in question were hosted on a different website? Does imgur work for you? 64.38.194.13 (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Gawker reported Jace Conners as a legitimate threat, and has yet to retract that even though Jan Rankowski admitted it was a hoax (and he created the character), yet you dismiss a source simply because you don't want to see if I'm full of crap? Being rational means examining arguments on their merits, not whether you like them, and I heard yours out first. Arcane (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Just for fun: RW isn't linking to anything remotely considered dox so a lot of your complaints are bullshit. Also just because Rankowski claimed it was a hoax doesn't make it any less real for Wu, who thought that someone flipped his car on the way to attack her. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It was still later proven BS, and feelings don't equal facts, and the facts are, it didn't actually happen. Also, WHY are my arguments BS? I know you consider them BS, but why? Arcane (talk) 10:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's part 2 of my analysis. Arcane (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

hey friends what going on up in here --Likeicare (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, not much, just me, that guy your friends on ED have called a moralfag, trying to debate someone who can't be bothered to tell me why my arguments suck, instead looking for any pretext not to engage me at all. Arcane (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

well are you a moralfag though? thats an important question you know --Likeicare (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, if having a massive hangup over telling the truth and getting upset when others don't makes me one, guilty as charged. Anyway, if you'd like to try arguing this battle, good luck, you can see how far I'm getting. Arcane (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I think a simple question that has yet to be answered by you, or any other pro-GG poster her at RW is: Why has Milo (and Breitbart) been allowed to become the spokes person for a movement with the stated goal of improving ethics in journalism? It seems the overall movement's either tacit or explicit acceptance of him as a leader contradicts any argument and any counter examples you present as to the true goals of GG.Petey Plane (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Since you asked, and I can only speak for myself, I don't consider Milo to be my leader or spokesperson. Nor do I really care what he or Breitbart has to say, on any topic not related to Gamergate. Based on what I've seen, I think the majority of GG is in the same boat, as they've railed against him when it came to topics outside the scope of GamerGate (encryption rights, free Bahara Mustafa, general politics). Prior to Gamergate I was heavily involved with progressive politics, and have written about a thousand comments on the internet explaining to gullible conservatives the various Breitbart hoaxes (starting with ACORN). So I'm pretty aware of how their past narrative-hunts were the direct cause of thousands of innocent ACORN employees losing their jobs during a recession. I was also certain that their scoop about the Anthony Weiner sexting scandal was a hoax, up until he resigned. It was at that point I stopped automatically dismissing things based on their source. I got involved with GG because a lot of the reporting on it reminded me of the right's reporting on ACORN. 64.38.194.13 (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I've had a distaste of Milo from Day 1. I appreciate his... willingness to look beyond the slander thrown around, but I personally cannot help but feel like he's there to just be loud and in control. There is a lot, and I mean a lot, I disagree with him about politically but I generally appreciate his frankness, even if it comes with an equal amount of dismissiveness a la Kitsunelaine. Regardless, I personally find him a good example of Gamergate's desperation to find someone loud who would stick up for them. It's just too bad it had to be someone as divisive as Milo.--Heliades (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair point. I even thanked Jesse Singal once for correcting at least one thing Milo got wrong, which is mentioned in my Part 2 article. Arcane (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Can't be bothered reading it, don't care honestly, i just joined to see whats up on RW and naturally got attracted to the drama --Likeicare (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Arcane, beyond kitsune's traditional dismissal of her opponents, her point appears to be that, without you actually providing any specific claims with attempted evidence, the rebuttal would simply be "There's no evidence this is true, GamerGate appears to be pulling scurrilous accusations from their nethers." Furthermore, most if not all of the allegations you raised are already addressed on the correct article.KrytenKoro (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Right off the bat, you claim that "As for “designed”, this is inferred based on the reaction by some of the parties who reacted to it, his intentions as stated are"

There is far, far better evidence than that. Here's one from his current girlfriend, who helped him write it, and her claims are especially telling in light of the evidence and logs thezoepost itself provides, undercutting what claims she does make about the post not being designed to cause harassment. Fuck, he himself has said that he thought this would be the result of his actions, he has explicitly stated he was trying to break her psychologically, and his original post on 4chan, advertising his rant, includes many of the long-debunked accusations GGers like to claim he didn't start. Even after seeing that thezoepost was causing those effects, when he can no longer claim plausible deniability, he has laughed about it, and he has threatened to release a new chapter of it if he ever gets punished for continuing to mudsling her online. Put simply, he knew what the fuck he was doing, and not only did he do it anyway, but he has said he would do it again. Retract your claim, please.KrytenKoro (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Is there any proof that 4Chan post is him? The post later on is him, but the original is not. Claiming he's "taking ownership of Zoe's harassment" is odd logical grasping when there's no proof of such a thing outside of a single 4chan post. Honestly, it's incredibly difficult to read that blog post because it just drips with confirmation bias at every turn. Cherry picking various tweets, framing them in the worst way possible. Spinning stories around to form the worst picture possible. It was written with a biased intent. Much the same could be said about thezoepost too.

See, the thing that got me into GG was not the post itself but the immediate reaction to it. I had never seen anything like it before, primarily the censorship of conversation even remotely related to it. At the time, and still, if anything related to the things Gamergate fights for is brought up, it is either shouted down or deleted. It's honestly a goddamned miracle that I'm still here right now. I care for the issues of Gamergate because I care about discussion. And in case it's important, I do not condone harassment and I have never engaged in it myself.--Heliades (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Your sources don't support your claims. Your summary of his statement ("He has explicitly stated that he was trying to break her psychologically") is longer than the tweet you're summarizing. It read "Except the goal of trying to get Zoe into therapy", of which getting someone treatment is pretty much the opposite of making them more sick. Unless you have a highly negative outlook on the state of psychological services, as some people do. That's more understandable, even if I don't agree. 64.38.194.13 (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@64: so you didn't read the full citations, then. Shame. You would probably get more of value out of them if you took in the full context, which the sources portray them in, rather than quibbling about word count. Hint- eron's tweet was part of a conversation.66.87.76.97 (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Parsing through the larger citations shows the same problem. A lot of your claims are outright contradicted by the content of your sources, starting with the blog post from his current girlfriend. She was in the same room as him when the ZoePost went live. Despite being a direct witness to the event in question, and being the one to tell him to post it on "just Wordpress", she has no knowledge of him posting it to 4chan. His initial comment ("Fuck, 4chan found it") seems to show Eron being as surprised. Additionally, there's no evidence that Eron is the author of the 4chan post you're citing, and he has consistently denied ever sharing her contact info. Not that it would be particularly hard for him to anonymously post her phone number or address on 4chan, but this never happened. I'm sorry if my earlier post was brief, I wanted to focus on the most serious assertion in your post first (criminal emotional abuse). The idledillenttante blog reads like a much long version of your post, in which the author uses one or two dozen citations which don't support their often hyperbolic assertions. Even the (multiple) instances of Eron directly telling people to leave Zoe alone are cited as evidence of a covert plan to get people to attack Zoe. Also, do you have the larger context of the conversation you're referring to? I didn't see it in your links. 64.38.194.13 (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Excellent riposte. I suggest these be used as sources then, as what is currently present does a poor job of proving the point. Arcane (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Part 3 of my analysis is here.

Part 4 here. Arcane (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Quick follow-up question, does RW include GG claims based on their prominence in the GG community? Or is the criteria for inclusion based on the ease of debunking? An entire book could be filled with all the true and false claims made in various GG forums over the years. Sorry if this is written in RW's policy somewhere, I wasn't able to find a relevant rule. Thanks! 64.38.194.13 (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to know myself, as the metric does not seem to be very clear to me either, and I haven't finished examining all the points they have tried to debunk yet. Arcane (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Lurking GG here. I would say Arcane's OP and follow-up section is a pretty accurate representation of our viewpoint. 99.157.110.94 (talk) 05:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Question about and for GGers

Is there any proof that Gamergate consists of anything beyond some guys getting extremely butthurt/hysterical over a handful of people they only know of cuz of the interwebs and who have no way of exerting any influence on these guys' personal lives doing something they don't like to the point they somehow feel their rights are being infringed upon? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:15, 14 December 42015 AQD (UTC)

Well, the main hub for GamerGate is the subreddit KotakuinAction, which has 55,000 subscribers. A number of men and women in Gamergate have gotten doxxed and death threats, which they feel is an infringement on their personal lives, in addition to the few instances of people attempting to contact the employers of GG members in an attempt to get them fired. 64.38.194.13 (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Um... every example I can think of of GGers getting doxxed came from within GG itself, generally as a result of perceived treason, so it's not really a justification for its existence. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 22:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see some citations for this if you don't mind. Arcane (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

They got caught? That's relieving to hear. Do you have a link or two? 64.38.194.13 (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, if anyone was doxxed I would hope the police apprehend the suspect as quickly as possible. Of course, trying to consider the actions of an individual as the fault of the group wouldn't be a rational way of framing it. After all, Islam as a religious group shouldn't be judged by the actions of the extreme individuals who commit atrocities worldwide. I would hate to see any other group fall under such frivolous logical fallacies. 65.78.150.19 (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I think collective responsibility would fall more to GamerGate if they ever actually encouraged people to send threats or contact Zoe or Sarkeesian. To date I have never seen anyone in GamerGate do such a thing. But I'm eager to be proven wrong on this. 64.38.194.13 (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. Either GamerGate is a small number of people using huge amounts of sockpuppets accounts, in which case it shouldn't even have an article devoted to it. Or GamerGate is a huge number of people across Reddit, Twitter, YouTube, 8chan and Steam, in which case it should. But then it would also be nonsense to portray all of them as harassers fighting over nothing. To me personally GamesJounoPro and the attacks on the developers of Hatred that went so fas as slandering them as Nazis based on a Facebook like for an anti-immigrant organization, shows that GamerGate is indeed necessary. The Atheist community got destroyed as a result of Atheism+, and I wan't to prevent the same thing happening to the gaming community. ^{— Unsigned, by: 212.130.116.215 / talk / contribs}

Neither of these replies really straightforwardly addresses my question, but "The Atheist community got destroyed as a result of Atheism+" makes things clear enough. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:17, 15 December 42015 AQD (UTC)

For clarity's sake: "some guys" is not intended as an assertion of diminutiveness. Focusing on the former imagined aspect is likely to make you majorly miss my point. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:49, 15 December 42015 AQD (UTC)

Imagined aspect? That's a direct quote from you. Maybe you initially underestimated the number of people involved in GG, and that's okay. However your entire initial post under this topic reads like an assertion of diminutiveness. Maybe it wasn't your intention, but statements like "hysterical over a handful of people they only know cuz of the interwebs" and putting extra emphasis on "somehow" seemed intended to trivialize. Again, not saying that this was your intent. To be fair, most online political debates and hashtag movements can be described the same way. But if you'd like additional info, the various GG discussion boards have had numerous threads for discussing the ways in which GG has impacted their life, personally. Most of them come down to broken friendships, salvaged friendships, dispelling negative stereotypes of gaming to peers, the occasional instance of getting stalked and harassed, and having to explain to college lecturers that they haven't taken part in any criminal conspiracy. 64.38.194.13 (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It sure sounds that way. And the problem is that our opponents are exerting influence over our hobby. Everything from corrupting game award shows, censorship, and demonizing an entire demographic as harassers simply for having different opinions. In the case of Hatred, if Gaben had not personally intervened, the game would have been taken of Steam leading to the likely bankruptcy of the studio. ^{— Unsigned, by: 212.130.116.215 / talk / contribs}

Sigh, I guess I need to be more blatant still. My intent is to be strongly dismissive of GGers' main concerns; the amount of GGers that have these concerns is completely irrelevant to my point and I didn't intend to make any claim concerning the latter in either direction. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:37, 15 December 42015 AQD (UTC)

Ah sorry, I thought your intent was to gather information on this subject in order to help contribute. You could have better issued your dismissal by not stating it in the form of a question. Otherwise the typical result is people attempting to answer in good faith. The fact that there are people who don't care about this subject doesn't really surprise me, as most people don't. 64.38.194.13 (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I am actually interested in the answer to my question, but so far people have mostly avoided giving one in favour of talking about the assumed number of GGers my use of the phrase "some guys" apparently suggests. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:52, 15 December 42015 AQD (UTC)

Well that's good to hear. Now, of the 14 or so replies in this thread, only two addressed the actual number of GG members (not including your two replies specifying that it doesn't matter) . Both of these replies also included numerous examples of irresponsible press pieces negatively impacting the lives of innocent people. Additional examples are also included in other posts. Mine in particular: "But if you'd like additional info, the various GG discussion boards have had numerous threads for discussing the ways in which GG has impacted their life, personally. Most of them come down to broken friendships, salvaged friendships, dispelling negative stereotypes of gaming to peers, the occasional instance of getting stalked and harassed, and having to explain to college lecturers that they haven't taken part in any criminal conspiracy." 64.38.194.13 (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not a useful example, though. Reddit and 4chan are angry churning outrage machines, especially when it comes to politics; and even if you take the anonymous things people post there seriously (which is silly), most of the complaints you listed amount to "my feelings are hurt because people don't accept my new political positions." I think that part of the danger of things like this is that subforums on reddit and 4chan and the like can become bubbles where people lose sight of how extremist or radical their positions have become (because the bubble is filled with people who agree with them), then experience shock when they go out into the real world and eg. their friends react badly to their sudden belief that there is a vast esjew conspiracy that forms a serious threat to Western Civilization. Then -- when they start saying things that they see as normal (because it's what everyone says in the bubble) but which come across as bizarre-sounding screeds about Cultural Marxism and the like to their former friends -- they get the cold shoulder and end up pushed back into the bubble, becoming further radicalized. I think that this article covers the effect that that sort of thing can have very well; obviously it's a common effect, not something limited to this situation, but when you report people saying "my old friends rejected me when I told them about the beliefs I got here", that's what I think of. --Aquillion (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

"even if you take the anonymous things people post there seriously (which is silly)" You're aware that this article cites several anonymous, unverified sources, right? If the standard of proof is enough for RW to take seriously, then it's good enough for me. Additionally, your quoted paraphrase isn't entirely accurate. GG members don't take much offense in having non-identicial political positions, there's currently a discussion on kotakuinaction on this subject. The general consensus is that most people there don't actually care what political positions people hold outside the cause of improving games journalism. A more accurate one would be "my feelings are hurt because the non-conservative media which I trusted to uncover the truth instead falsely reported that I was part of a sexist terrorist cell, leading to my friends asking me if talking to me puts them into legal jeopardy". It's more difficult than you think to explain to regular people that the media which they trust to be credible can actually be wrong. And no one likes to be called vile names, especially from credible sources. As for the scenario you described, is this based on one of the stories you read? Or is it a hypothetical you created? I haven't seen one like it before. I agree with what your assertion about internet forums creating selective echo-chambers, resulting in an increased radicalization. But 4chan and reddit are poor examples of information shelters, the rules allow nearly anyone to post, and the users are exposed to more debate and dissenting opinion than most other forums. The only reward is generating replies, which passively encourages users to post topics that they know will go against the ingrained beliefs of those browsing. The end result, ironically, is more interracial porn being posted in /pol/ than any other board on 4chan, including the ones dedicated to porn. A better example would the the forums and comment sections of news sites, whether they be related to tech or partisan politics. Not only are the discussion topics guided by whatever articles editors choose to post, but they're also often moderated along partisan lines. This isn't true for all sites, but many. Lastly, "my old friends rejected me when I told them about the beliefs I got here" is not an actual quote of mine, and I'm not sure where it came from.64.38.194.13 (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Interracial (and I presume cuckold) porn gets posted a lot on /pol/ because it goes hand in hand with racism a lot of the time (even a simple google search for those associated with text gives me a swarm of black brutes). It's no challenge to anyone's views in there.191.190.225.192 (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I definitely think that /pol/ is more of an echo chamber than most other forums on the internet. Echo-chambers aren't, mostly, caused by moderation; they're caused by users self-selecting, visiting places where they feel they fit in and spending less time in places where they don't. The fact that you don't understand how /pol/ culture is a bubble is why you're confused by the way people are reacting to you and your behavior elsewhere; I think this post covers it really well -- the culture and views on many parts of 4chan (and /pol/ in particular) are a bubble of views and behavior that is radically divergent from the perspective on what's normal and acceptable almost everywhere else. This leads people from there to engage in behavior (like the extreme level they went to post attacks on everyone who had earned their ire on every available forum for a while, thinking they were just trying to "get the truth out there", or the more recent witch-hunting against Srhbutts) which, from the perspective of almost everyone else, is harassment; it leads them to get confused and defensive when friends and teachers and so on react badly to those views and that behavior. As far as the sourcing in the article goes... I mean, yeah, it relies on a lot of primary sources for stuff that could be cited elsewhere, but the core of the history is cited to places like the New York Times, the New Yorker, the CS Monitor and so on. Like you said, the most credible sources have denounced Gamergate, and I think that the issue comes down to that culture clash -- you don't accept that /pol/ is a bubble of fairly extreme views and outlandish behavior, so you don't understand why (when you start trying to export /pol/ behavior and /pol/ views elsewhere) everyone you previously trusted suddenly says you're harassing people. But they're not wrong; it's just that your definition of harassment (and the acceptable behavior you can engage in when confronting someone before it qualifies as harassment) is broken because you've spent so long in an Internet bubble that you can no longer accurately assess what you look like from the perspective of people in the real world. --Aquillion (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm well aware that /pol/ contains a lot of extreme views that wouldn't be accepted in most other places. So does 4chan in general, which is partially accounts for it's ongoing popularity. Nor have I ever been accused of 'harassment' on any of my social media or forum accounts. Maybe you meant "you" in a general sense? What I did argue was against the notion that 4chan boards are isolated from mainstream or countering views. It's virtually impossible to start a thread about any topic without facing disagreement. Additionally, your definition of an echo-chamber would effectively apply to all forums, as they are all composed of users who self-select and post because they feel accepted. But there's explicitly political forums who's moderation policies don't allow for the expression of views that are considered liberal/conservative, no matter how accepted they might be in mainstream society. Such as the free republic, Breitbart, daily kos, etc. I do agree that there is a cultural divide in play, a lot of internet jerks feel that posting information can't possibly be rude, as long as it's true. You have one side who grew up on the internet, viewing rude anonymous comments as just something to be expected, and their internet profiles to be segregated from their real-life identities. A side that received death threats over video games their whole life and can't figure out why it's newsworthy when it happens to women. On the other side are people who's internet experience began within filtered social media bubbles, who see their internet profiles as extensions of their real-life selves, and are legitimately surprised to face pushback when venturing out onto their first public forum (Twitter). I don't envy twitter's position at this point, I don't think they realized that they were tasking themselves with moderating the world's largest message board. 64.38.194.13 (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

As long as this article links to places like Kotaku, Polygon, Jezebel and Boing Boing you don NOT get to lecture anyone about what a credible source is. It is painfully obvious that 'credible' on RW just means whatever the editors agree with.

Why aren't they credible? Because GamerGaters have a collective hateboner for anyone who doesn't entertain their delusions?191.190.225.192 (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, those aren't the highest-quality sources in the article -- like I said, the best sources are places like the New York Times, the New Yorker, the CS Monitor and so on. Other sources are useful for their opinions, positions, or responses, provided you remember where they're coming from. Even then, there's no one source that provides divine unvarnished truth; you have to use your head, compare them with each other, and try to figure out where people are coming from -- as I did above when I analyzed why the most credible, mainstream sources have a clear, well-sourced, nearly-unanimous view on the subject that is so completely divergent from yours. Someone who thinks that /pol/ represents a wide viewpoint or that the way people behave there is normal is going to experience major culture-shock when they try to export that elsewhere; they're going to do and say things that are acceptable on /pol/ and find that the rest of the world thinks they're harassing people. This isn't a matter of people disagreeing over what happened, it's a matter of a culture-clash over how it's acceptable to confront people and which sorts of accusations can be viewed as credible or relevant -- from the perspective of most of the world, when anonymous people constantly spam reposts of accusations against a handful of individuals on every single forum they can get their hands on, or flood them on Twitter with accusations or the like, that's harassment. But either way, even the sources you complained about are vastly superior to YouTube channels, anonymous Reddit posts, imgur jpgs with no clear author and so on, which (as far as I've seen) are most of the sources that fuel Gamergate's rage. Those are easy to fake; and there's no question that many of the people who see Gamergate as a recruiting ground to exploit are entirely eager to fake whatever is necessary to keep the emotional outrage at Gamergate's core burning hot. Again, this is a culture clash -- on someplace like 4chan, using a photoshop to attack someone is considered entirely normal and acceptable and anyone who falls for it only has themselves to blame. In the real world, it's harassment. This paper captures the it (and both the emotion and planning behind it) extremely well. --Aquillion (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Holy wall of text batman. Re: "the best sources are places like the New York Times, the New Yorker, the CS Monitor." Can you explain (in as few sentences as possible :) why, if these sources provide all the necessary commentary, the others are included? Adding lesser quality sources to "improve" an article seems counter-intuitive. – Sarah (HH) 00:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Like I said: Other sources are useful for their opinions, positions, or responses, provided you remember where they're coming from. I absolutely don't feel that the sources you're complaining about are bad sources (in the sense of "remove everything sourced to them immediately"), just that eg. the NYT or Ars Technica is better -- and, looking over the article, the core of it (the main structure of the history) is sourced to relatively high-quality sources. If you have places where a lower-quality source could be replaced with a higher-quality source that says the same thing, go ahead! But if your argument is "this is only sourced to sources I feel aren't absolute highest-quality, so we should remove it entirely", we'll have to go over those on a case-by-case basis analyzing what's being said and how credible the source is for it; a lot of the in-depth drama (and analysis of it) is not going to be relevant or interesting to eg. the NYT. That doesn't mean that we don't cover it, it just means that we have to cover it carefully; part of what makes RationalWiki distinct from Wikipedia is that it goes into detail on the personalities involved in that sort of fashion. But overall, while it goes into detail on stuff like that, this article strikes me as reflecting the mainstream view of the subject as you'd see it in most mainstream high-profile sources; the description here isn't substantially different from in eg. the academic paper I linked. If there's a specific claim in the article you disagree with, point it out and we can try to dig up more sources and discuss them... but my feeling is that most of the objections are less about the specific content or claims and more about the tone (a general sense of "it doesn't present this the way I see it; it doesn't present us the way I want us to be seen; it's putting emphasis on the wrong stuff.") That's not something that comes from the fact that we cite Polygon, that's something that comes from nearly every source outside of the narrow Gamergate bubble (and the few politicized outlets, like Breitbart, that find the controversy ideologically useful.) And that's fine -- you can be counter-cultural, declare the entire mainstream media biased, say that the whole world should be like /pol/ or whatever -- but it doesn't make sense to seek out an ideological bubble of like-minded people, then turn around and ask why none of the things you're reading outside of it agree with your perceptions. _{(I have only made this reply so long because I have not had the time to make it shorter.)} --Aquillion (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, none of that answers my (rather direct) question though. Thanks anyway? I think you'll find Gish Galloping is less effective here than Wikipedia. We have a bias against galloping in general (don't ask!) – Sarah (HH) 01:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Going over source on a case-by-case basis sounds like the ideal approach. Most of GG's complaints about the sources come from instances where they reported on events that never actually happened. Which puts one in the position of having to prove a negative. How does one prove that GG never SWATed anyone? You can insist that the evidence doesn't exist, or defer to the words of a major publication, and most casual news readers are going to do the latter. Going through the talk history, the biggest flaws stem from a sort of selective standards that get applied depending on whether or not the source supports the article's current tone. A few days ago, a medium article was rejected for citation because medium is not a reliable source, anyone can write them, there's no editorial process. Meanwhile, the article still cites 6 medium articles that will probably get removed over someone's dead body. Additionally, screenshots of tweets and reddit posts are considered reliable when coming from GG opponents, but not from the people that are being implicated for criminal activity. As a general rule, I think tweets can be considered a reliable source when citing a direct witness. A similar problem affects the Wikipedia article. The personal accounts of thousands of people who deny ever witnessing or taking part in a harassment campaign aren't worth a mention, an OP-ED in a major publication is. Even if the article is objectively wrong in recounting events, it remains as a citation unless another 'reliable source' debunks it.70.162.81.250 (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, a long post isn't considered 'gish galloping'. We have all the time in the world to fact-check written posts. 70.162.81.250 (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• I answered your question specifically in the first few sentences (and, as I pointed out, I'd already answered it in the post you were replying to.) If you don't like that answer, that's fine -- that's what the rest of the post was for, since I suspected you wouldn't! But if you want to get anywhere, you have to engage my points rather than ignoring them; find the claims in the article you disagree with, point out the places where sources can be improved or where you don't think there's sufficiently high-quality sourcing for a particular part of the article and so on. --Aquillion (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

How is the article from The New Yorker even relevant? It starts by quoting an anonymous 4chan post, and it is obvious that Zoe is the reporters only other source of information. "She is now working with authorities to find the faceless attackers." How does the reporter know this? Did she contact the police to verify? The article does not say. Then it gives us a completely one sided account of how people got mad over Depression Quest that never mentions WizardChan. Never mind if it is reliable, the article is completely useless. ^{— Unsigned, by: 212.130.116.215 / talk / contribs}

But that's not possible - Aquillion says "the most credible, mainstream sources have a clear, well-sourced, nearly-unanimous view" – Sarah (HH) 04:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 not being released in the West is a good example of GG's concerns existing in a place outside of their collective imagination. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Not really. There's very good evidence that the game wouldn't have sold well, regardless of any potential outcry, and as seen with Dryvyng, there's ample evidence of companies trying to take advantage of the "anti-SJW market" with bad faith claims. Not to mention it's cowardly beyond belief for the producers to blame the "potential" for outcry for choosing not to release the game, rather than any actual pushback against them.KrytenKoro (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

DOAX3 is actually a powerful counter-example to GG claims. The actual publisher explicitly disavowed any censorship angle. The 'SJW' angle was purely a marketing gimmick by the importer - or rather, by one of the importer's marketing people that the company itself tried to distance itself from almost immediately. If you're going to invoke that example, you should consider all of that example instead of the tiny snippet that supports your point. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 12:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

A few minor corrections, the publisher never commented on the censorship angle either way. They simply iterated that the single facebook representative doesn't represent them(?). Where that facebook rep got the idea that the game would cause controversy is up for speculation, but it's something that multiple Japanese game developers have acknowledged. Nor did Koei ever 'distance' or comment on the importer, or the importer's tweet. 70.162.81.250 (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty good example of Gators going apeshit over something insignificant and blaming it on the wrong people.191.190.225.192 (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

As well as them being played like a fiddle for cash. Post a tweet about how you're a victim of the SJW Menace and watch GGers trip over each other to throw money at you. See also TFYC, HuniePop's developer, Hatred, Postal 2. --Ymir (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

This is pretty on the mark in general, but didn't they go to TFYC to try and prove GG wasn't a hate campaign because "we donate to charity"? And when they tried to donate to actual charities, they all refused Gamergaters' money because they saw the donations for what they were and wanted no part in it? I guess the point I'm trying to make is I don't remember if TFYC explicitly baited gators into donating to them or if Gators just stumbled into someone who would be willing to take their money and be used as a scapegoat. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 06:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

From what I remember, there was only one charity that rejected GG donations, as they prioritized hurting GG's reputation over their actual cause. The surge in donations to TFYC came after they made reddit post explaining how Zoe got them DDoSed, and they felt that supporting actual game development was a better way to help women get into the industry than simply dumping it into a personal patreon. I was only personally involved in their Extra Life stream and the PACER National Bullying Prevention Center drive. A list of other charities is provided in a deepfreeze infographic on this page 64.38.194.13 (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

ITYM 'prioritised their own reputation and future donations over a one-off pittance'. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 18:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

TFYC already had a beef with Zoe Quinn, so it was a case of two bands of assholes who deserve each other having sloppy makeouts.191.190.225.192 (talk) 13:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate Claims Round #237

• Seen this one spreading around and offer it for debunking.
• Also learned about this site: Deepfreeze

I'm of course of two minds. On the one hand, bringing in some perspective would be great. On the other hand, the sheer incompetence looming over the whole article cannot be denied (I'm also one who could never entirely make it through). So, it's either illuminating or more lulz. — Aneris ✻ {talk/ideas} 12:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Deepfreez is a laughing stock. 90% of the entries just say "Member of GameJournoPros" or boil down to "wrote something we don't like". Also that infographic is also laughable.

• They don't provide any evidence they've uncovered cronyism
• The FTC guidelines weren't changed by Gamergate, it was already under revision when Gamergate began their email campaign
• No one's been fired
• The "blacklist" they're talking about is GGAB
• Exposing a private mailing list where nothing happened isn't an achievement
• "New, ethical sites." Don't make me laugh
• "Every brand withdrew ads" yeah then restored them
• That "heavy corruption in Wikipedia" is a lovely dig at me seeing as they won't get over the fact one person helped me pay my friend back
• Their "frauds" are probably Anita Sarkeesian listed repeatedly
• Their "radical authoritarian agendas" are "SJW cultural marxism" bogeymen
• Protecting CHS isn't an achievement
• Anything about #NotYourShield is garbage
• "Defended game companies...from SJWs" should be laughable
• "Created several spaces on the Internet to discuss corruption" yeah you mean 8chan and /r/KotakuInAction and that Github thing that got shut down
• I'm guessing this "exposed several websites that blacklisted game devs" is bullshit and/or related to GGAB
• "Funded a lawsuit against Calgary Expo" yeah they helped the Honey Badgers hire a disbarred lawyer
• The "blockbot" mention is more GGAB garbage
• That Denver con stuff is also laughable

That $70k in charities is to TFYC, and I'm really surprised they list that sea lion they adopted as a "charity". All in all a trash infographic.—Ryulong (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Some of these bullet points do a good job in adding to our understanding of the events in question. Not so much the other half consisting of "x is garbage, x is laughable, I'm guessing X is bullshit". Also, is it possible that the aforementioned Wikipedia corruption refers to people other than you? 70.162.81.250 (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

That's because they are garbage, laughable, and bullshit. #NotYourShield is weaponizing marginalized voices for Gamergate because Gamergaters actually thought that's what the "SJWs" were planning on doing. Gamergaters are deluded into thinking anything they do is defending a gaming company from anything like "SJWs" which I'm assuming is either referring to Hatred, Witcher 3, SFV, or DOAX3. They give no evidence that they've found any website that blacklisted anyone, and I'm still sure that this has to do with the GGAB blocklist which isn't a blacklist or maybe the Pinsof interview which was found to be a complete and total lie. The blockbot's threat to Gamergate is making it so no one hears their garbage. They forced a convention to say Gamergate wasn't a hate group, which isn't itself an achievement but only proving that they were one and the organizers at the Denver convention had no spine. And I am fairly certain that the only person on Wikipedia who received any money and that is somehow ven minimally involvd with anythign Gamergate would give a shit about is me. They're so salty over a phone bill.—Ryulong (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

"They forced a convention to say Gamergate wasn't a hate group, which isn't itself an achievement but only proving that they were one". I don't know the details behind this, but shouldn't the definition of a hate group consist of a little more than "something which a Denver convention denies is a hate group"? I've heard gators make the same "they have no spine!" justification when some advertisers got back on board with Gawker, instead of acknowledging that another organization made a rational decision. Also what is "weaponizing"? Does it refer to any instances of marginalized groups speaking for themselves, or just NotYourSheild? Additionally, most of the information in the Pinsof interview was accurate. The only part that didn't pan out was his assumption that there was an effective blacklist against him. In reality, the only journalist that proposed blacklisting him was Kotaku's Patrick Klepech, and there's no evidence that anyone else took it up. 64.38.194.13 (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Ha. More than half of the 'charity' money listed there went to crowdfunding a for-profit. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 13:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The only thing original with these charts anymore are the typos. Ugga ugga, they kick woman out. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 13:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that TFYC did not donate to charity as they promised? That sounds pretty serious 70.162.81.250 (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes because no one bought the video game.—Ryulong (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

With all these reviews someone must have [4]. It's a haunted house puzzle game apparently, maybe you'd like it? Only $5. – Sarah (HH) 05:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

No one bought the game. The only people who have the game are the people who got it for supporting the crowdfunding campaign.—Ryulong (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what that's supposed to show. – Sarah (HH) 07:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It appears to show the average play time is 30 minutes? Interesting site that. Tielec01 (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It shows estimated total owners (2,406 ± 1,175, and that's not people who bought the game just people who have somehow acquired licenses to the game through various means), average play time (20 minutes), and a whole host of other metrics like peak concurrent players (a whole 3 people were playing the game at the same time on November 18), user reviews going back 2 months (somehow there was -1 positive reviews on one day), and 34.48% of people who played the game played for less than 10 minutes total, among other statistics. IIRC, there were only around 3 thousand people who supported the crowdfunding campaign, so it appears that's about how many people actually own the game and it seems very few people if ever bought it. That's clear enough because no one bothered to review the game outside of I think William Usher and he hated it.—Ryulong (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

SteamSpy is still in Beta and is far from a reliable source for how much a game has sold. It is clear that the game didn't sell much, but regardless of whatever point your trying to make, if it did sell (which it likely did some,) those profits went to charity. So trying to invalidate that by saying it didn't sell at all isn't particularly relevant when you don't have any true source for that info besides a site that already claims on its about page that it isn't 100% accurate.--Heliades (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

That's some margin of error but if the numbers are correct you may be right. – Sarah (HH) 08:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the margin of error is simply there because of a relatively small sample size. Let's see what a more popular game looks like. Like, I dunno, Depression Quest. Owners: 219,859 ± 11,227. Average play time: 51 minutes. Peak concurent players: 10 yesterday.—Ryulong (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how comparing a free game to a paid game is relevant at all. Of course it would have more "owners." However, those "owners" didn't purchase anything.--Heliades (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the cost, the average play time metric is far more relevant as an indicator of game's quality.Petey Plane (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

But the quality of the game itself is kind of irrelevant when discussing whether or not TFYC committed charity fraud, of which no evidence has been posted. 64.38.194.13 (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Also a fair point. There are countless Kickstarters and Indiegogos that failed to deliver any product or less than what they promised, which most wouldn't consider "frauds." This project actually delivered. It may not have been as successful as the creators hoped but that's not fraud by any definition. – Sarah (HH) 21:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

That is a very good point that we should all keep in mind. Such a very, very good point.KrytenKoro (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, the critically acclaimed indie darling Cibele has statistics roughly on par with Afterlife Empire, so popularity with user base alone isn't a very good metric for the 'value' of a game. Clearly, a game exists, as per the agreement between TFYC, the game developers and the funders. A young woman who might otherwise have never gotten her ideas off the ground got to develop a game with a reasonably diverse game studio and received a share of the admittedly small profit as compensation. She made more as a developer than Quinn made from Depression Quest, so technically I guess she's been more commercially successful than Quinn? A non-zero amount of money from the sales also went to a charity. The whole thing was labeled as 'for-profit' from the start so I'm not sure what the confusion is here. Everyone involved got paid for their work and some of the money was set aside for charity, as promised. Sales are disappointing, sure, but then the game is basically buggy indie grade trash that rips off the older Ghost Master. Also virtually no one except the usual Gamergate sites covered it, while equally buggy indie grade trash Cibele received glowing reviews and nominations and didn't do much better. Calling the game a fraud is a bit of a stretch. 72.222.112.74 (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't call Anita's Kickstarter a fraud. Bad value maybe, mismanaged ($160K for a few videos) but "fraud" is more like this Tor router pitched as an anonymous torrent service. Bittorrent over Tor lol. – Sarah (HH) 22:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Neither do I. Her kickstarter is several years behind schedule, but they've been posting updates about the delays so all is good. The PC and mac ports of Brianna Wu's game are also a year past their kickstarter due dates, but that's between her and her backers. Zoe Quinn's patreon might skirt closer to fraud, as she's been receiving over $5k a month to make free games for the past 14 months and so far hasn't produced any. I don't know if the money she collected for RebelJam was ever returned either. But again, that's up to her backers. Hope it still happens! 64.38.194.13 (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Actually, /u/moon_shoes over in /r/againstgamergate does a decent rebuttal of most of the logic behind "Tropes vs Women is a scam" arguments and deriritives, by both breaking down the funds and explaining what's exactly happening with Anita's own quotes. Her funds aren't mismanaged because she expanded her goals, like most successful kickstarters (That actually produce the damn product) do.Keter (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay let's get some things clear here. TFYC's whole set up was a scam to make money to make this game. TFYC is just Matthew Rappard and his job is to make money for Autobotika and he did it in the tried and true method that has helped out Hatred and now Play-Asia: by saying the SJWs are after them, particularly during the early stages of Gamergate when it was still just "#BurgersAndFries". They had preselected the winner before ever announcing the contest, as she was fully aware of Autobotika's team before the game "contest" was ever announced and she is the only contestant who was ever identified by name at any stage.[5] [6] [7] [8] TFYC lacks transparency on how their organization runs, and directly obscures any and all male staff at Autobotika to present themselves as falsely supporting solely women in the industry. And there are plenty of other video games that are made by women that are put out there so it's not like "Danielle" is special in this regard, particularly becuase it doesn't even seem like she was that involved in any stage of the creation (she checked in every 2 weeks), all she had was an idea (and a derivative one at that), while you have other women in indie gaming who have learned software engineering and all manner of other skills in order to make their dreams a reality. Also, HuskyHarlot, your mocking of Anita Sarkeesian is weak. She's making videos on a higher budget than she ever did before and she's putting time into making quality content with that money that she never thought she would have had because by the end of her project she had $50k instead of the $6k she originally asked for, so give her some fucking credit as to going at these things as professionally as possible while you have complete lunkheads like Phil Mason and Carl Benjamin downloading her videos and reuploading them to pause them every 5 minutes to yell at her as if that actually ever counted as criticism.

Also stop putting carriage returns before every single one of your comments it fucks up the formatting of the page.—Ryulong (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

This conversation's interesting but I don't see "fraud" mentioned in the article, so I don't think the debate's productive. I added the developer's name here since she deserves credit. – Sarah (HH) 23:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

That seems like a stretch to imply that the winner was preselected simply because they knew of their existence beforehand. And to specify, TFYC blamed Zoe Quinn and her followers for taking down their website, not "SJWs". Your claim that Danielle doesn't deserve support because she doesn't know how to really code, she's fake, her ideas are 'derivative', there's ~other~ better female devs to support, etc is veering dangerously close to gator rhetoric. And I'm not seeing how it's a scam for a for-profit company to try and make money. A scam would have to involve them collecting money and failing to deliever a promised product or service, which they did. 64.38.194.13 (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

"Danielle" - even if she does exist - is just a fake gamer girl, clearly. She probably couldn't even master the complexities of Twine. Women who are part of the wrong side are fake and dumb. 72.222.112.74 (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I see, Ryulong is back. Once again, I learn nothing and the list of "reasons" are on a glance sheer nonsense. For example, the gamejournos thing seems to be a good starting point. It's a good practice to list names that are merely on the list, and for example where it's not known that they contributed anything. That's falsification data and it's good to have. Ryulong of course operates under the assumption that anything must be hit-pieces and smear-work and as such it is incomprehensible to him that people might make a transparent list of what they know, and don't know (yet) or found no evidence for. So that "90%" are merely listed but not confirmed is actually a good thing. The point are, however, the other "10%". The top of the list is Leigh Alexander and that looks pretty solid to me, on a glance. I still find it unconvincing why anyone would produce such websites when they were not at all interested in game journalism (which is always mocked as a reason). I think the RationalWiki should be more frank and say that it believes in a conspiracy theory. — Aneris ✻ {talk/ideas} 12:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You see, the whole of deep freeze is complete and utter nonsense because it's simply the Gamergate official blacklist based on their ass backwards concept of what "ethics" is. Pretty much every entry has people who did nothing wrong except belong to a mailing list or said something Gamergate didn't like. Leigh Alexander is a prime example of the latter. Gamergate supporters went out of their way to dig up anything they could on her and chose Nicki Minaj lyrics she tweeted once as their "gotcha". The curators of the website also go out of their way to not list a single person who has said good things about them. Look up Milo or Allum Bokhari or Lizzy Finnegan and you'll find nothing.—Ryulong (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why they should be concerned with people not in games journalism. And how come you want something "balanced" when I see complete blatant one-sidedness from you? And here's the page on Leigh Alexander I'm seeing, just grabbed from there...

• Wrote at least three times about games by [some bloke], without disclosing their personal relationship
• Wrote about [some other person], also an occasional contributor to her site Offworld, at least in seven total articles, 2010 to 2015, without disclosing their friendship
• Wrote about [yet another person] on three occasions, without disclosing their friendship.

...and so on and on. These names could be names of American footballers to me, but random google fu on some tells me they are game developers. So that whole thing seems, at first glance, quite legit. The problem, Ryulong, you are over-playing your hand so much that at this point I wouldn't believe you when you claimed you had breakfast this morning. This is of course my general bias anyway, which I readily admit, but somebody could have easily dispelled it somewhat with a little bit more care. In some sense this is good. It advertises its extreme distortion and complete lack of critical thinking that much that nobody but people seeking confirmation will believe anything. You could introduce lizard-rulers of Xorx who mind-control the Buddhist minority at the Yukon to give it an air of legitimacy at this point. — Aneris ✻ {talk/ideas} 16:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Having friends and writing about their projects is not necessarily an ethical breach but Gamergate is particularly fucking pants on head idiots when it comes to what constitutes a "friend" because so many of these "friendships" constitute "mutually follow each other on Twitter" or "tweeted at each other" or "sneezed in general direction". Patricia Hernandez talking about a roommate's work? Yeah that's borderline conflict of interest. These other connections? Not so much. Also, going genetic fallacy on me is nice and just shows how ignorant and pigheaded you are. But you also think Anita Sarkeesian wants to ban video games so it can't be helped.—Ryulong (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit conflict?

I just submitted an edit [9]. In between my loading the page and submitting, another editor had edited it [10]. The site let me submit, restoring the older version of the page, without warning me of an edit conflict. What's the deal? – Sarah (HH) 23:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

When you submit and there's a conflict, you are shown the new version in a top field, and your writing is shown below in a separate field. Simply copy your edit, load the page anew and paste it in, but of course take the changes made in between into account (if applicable). This is standard behavior, since the wiki can only store one version at a time. — Aneris ✻ {talk/ideas} 12:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That's what I expected, but it didn't happen. Maybe because only whitespace was edited in both edits the edit-conflict-detector ignored it. TMYN – Sarah (HH) 19:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

An open letter to RW

https://www.reddit.com/r/GGdiscussion/comments/3wb6rd/fix_rationalwikis_gamergate_article/cy2tw06

Dear RationalWiki:

You won't get a fair, honest look into Gamergate with your format.

Your site is set up as a progressives delusional playground where they get to expound upon their conspiracy theories, crazed ideologies, and general cultural Marxism.

Your own format will not allow for a fair representation of things. Which is why people will have to go elsewhere to get factual information. Have you seen your Anita Sarkeesian page? It's garbage.

I love how they don't explain what our "format" is or why it is problematic, and then descend into worrying about Cultural Marxism. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

This is hardly a "letter"... Not sure what to call it; even rant seems too much. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

An open Youtube comment to RW.Keter (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if that's correct, as it's lacking in details as to whose cock my mother last sucked. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Our format is skeptical rationalism. If what they say does not survive under scrutiny, then it is not our fault that they can't defend themselves. Sorry, but rationalism relies on thinking and questioning, not on anecdotes or feelies. Gooniepunk (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, the same arguments against RationalWiki are regurgitated by New Agers and Creationists and have been since we were founded. "It's not fair that you don't show our side!" It's because your side hasn't proven itself correct and, at least in the case of homeopathy, creationism, and others, and as I suspect in the case of Gamergate, your side is the wrong side. Gooniepunk (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The difference with New Age, creationism, etc. is that in those cases I can rather confidently say that "we (RW) are right" based on fairly simple and clear hard evidence. With GG, this is a lot less clear to me. Much of our evidence seems to be based on things someone once said, various interpretations of events, etc. None of this is really "hard evidence", and much of it is disputed by GGers—and not all of them are foaming-mouthing misogynists. Combined with our very dense are rather difficult to follow GG pages (for me anyway), often somewhat less than constructive attitude from some "anti-GG" people here, and the fact there are so many people disputing this, I am sometimes a bit fearful that maybe we're not always completely right here... Don't get me wrong, we definitely could be, but it's not obvious; not to me, someone who is only casually interested in the phenomenon.

There is much more I can say on this, but I feel that perhaps we should strive to make it plain as daylight that we are right in easy to follow and concise text, instead of documenting everything GG-related down to the microscopic detail (in Dutch we would call this obsession with small details "mierenneuken", or "ant fucking"). That would certainly help people like me a lot, and in the end, I'm sort of the target audience: someone who hasn't made up his mind but is open to all possibilities. You're never going to convince the hardcore GG-ers, much like RW is never going to convince hardcore creationists. Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

In Germany, we call it "Korinthenkacken" or "currant shitting". Your term is much more awesome :3--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 01:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It's disputed by Gamergaters because they are extreme history revisionists. It's the only way they can justify what they do to themselves. It's gaslighting. In response to some of your other points-- this is because Gamergaters worship the god of the gaps. Their entire strategy is to twist logic in such a way as to try and refute any clear-cut statements and draw as much ambiguity to them as possible. Then they sink their teeth in and try to tear it apart, piece by piece, in the most disingenuous way they can, searching for "Gotcha!"'s in every noock and cranny. They're like creationists trying to argue against evolution in this regard. I feel like the page is written in this way as a response to that, to make it harder for Gamergaters to pull their usual lines of questioning. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Creationists use "god of the gaps" every other sentence, we're not going to refute every gap, as that would be futile, rather we point out how the strategy works with two or three examples. This is much more useful for the readers. You can also refute everything down to the microscopic detail if you have the inclination to do so, but it shouldn't be at the cost of "the big picture", which seems rather lost at the moment. Again, you're not going to refute hardcore GGers, I've learned this much after several discussions with some of them, but many more people seem rather more reasonable, and more open to reason, and others (like me) don't really have an opinion at all...

This is just some reader feedback; do with it what you will... Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, we don't disagree. But a lot of this article was written at a time where gator's worship of the gap god was at an all time high. I think a lot of it was written to try and shut down these sorts of arguments before they started, as to save everyone on this site a massive headache. There was an extreme amount of gaslighting going on the first year of Gamergate, and this article sort of needed to address the common arguments in that way. However, as the truth about the movement has basically reached everyone it can, the purpose of it has changed, and indeed, it should be rewritten, and other steps should be taken to prevent trying to gaslight uninformed editors of this site. HOWEVER: For the purposes of rewriting, we should have a communal sandbox, as to avoid destroying the integrity of the page as it stays. I remember David once said something like -- Paraphrasing here, also relying on memory so it might not be entirely accurate-- Gamergate is such a mess. You can either have it concise and easy to follow or you can have it not wrong. I think that's something we need to keep in mind when editing the page. Right now, it's not wrong-- but our edits will mess things up until we have many different people comb over them and fine tune everything. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes. These are the people a mod sought out to improve our pages. I bet they're regretting that now. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 00:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

A little. It offered a little evidence that we're closeminded, and a lot evidence that Gamergate is really bad at refutation and/or closeminded. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 01:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that we're the close-minded ones. We just have the ability to recognize when others are close minded and arguing in bad faith. That's not being close minded, that's knowing when to argue and when to just shake your head and walk away. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't follow everything in detail, but I don't think the current discussion on Sarah Nyberg is very open-minded from "our" side, for example. It's a detail of little importance in "the big picture", so I'm not going to worry about it, but the uncritical acceptance of her "I'm not a paedophile, it was just a joke, haha"-response is a little worrying... Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Because it's a part of an ongoing and pre-existing slander campagin by gamergaters, who are the boy who cried wolf a hundred thousand times over? Gamergate loves to accuse every target of theirs of being a pedophile. Which is amusing when you consider what 8chan exists to do. The problem here is you don't really have the experience with these people like Ryu and I, among others, do. As such I don't think I'll take your word for it here. I think your concern is coming from an honest place, but extremely misguided. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

All I see are the chat logs and her reply to them. Not sure why I should have more information? Sure, they may have accused 500 other people unjustly of paedophilia, but that's doesn't mean they can't be right in this case... Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It means that they will say anything and everything to try and twist this into absolute proof that someone is a pedophile. I think what you also need to be concerned with is who the person is. She's had a twitter presence for ages and certainly doesn't come across as a person who could say any of those things genuinely. I also think the fact that she invited the police to go over everything and they found nothing of substance (and saw through all the bad faith immediately) is not something that should be ignored.- Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

(ec) That's just handwaving it all away without actually refuting it; If I look *only* at the logs and her reply, I see a not-so-flattering picture of her conduct... Sure, I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, but right now it seems that "we're" defending her over something she *actually did wrong* simple because either she's on "our" side, or because GGers have accused many other people (perhaps wrongly) of similar things. Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

And if you only look at the logs and her reply, that's cherry picking. You need to look at the greater context surrounding this in order to have anything remotely resembling a full picture. - [[User:Kitsunelaine| Kitsunelaine] ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

So what other information do I need then? Things like "long history of lying" (like below) are not valid. Anti-vaxxers have been right once or twice about mildly dangerous vaccines, in spite of the mountains of bullshit. Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You can't say they are not valid without giving valid excuses as to why. "Stopped clock" doesn't work here when if we had irrefutable evidence, this wouldn't even be a discussion. If a person is intent on trying to accuse someone of being a pedophile, they will see proofs where none are reliable. This is much like creationists searching for god in science. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

"long history of lying" and "intent on accusing someone" are not valid because it's a simple appeal to motive, not an actual refutation of what's being said. And the chat logs seem reliable to me; Nyberg even confirmed they're real. Again, I'm more than willing to give Nyberg the benefit of the doubt here, but we don't need to defend her, just like we don't need to defend Richard Dawkins when he says something silly. Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Nyberg explicitly said they were her being an edgelord and that they were not actually representative of her beliefs. Saying that she "Confirmed they're real" in this context is INCREDIBLY disingenuous of you, Carpestmoker. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

"confirmed they're real" simply meant they weren't completely made up, which would have been my first suspicion (perhaps I should have said "confirmed the contents are real"). And the uncritical acceptance of Nyberg's "I was just an edgelord"-explanation seems to me to be the sort of closed-minded thinking that started this conversation (so we seem to be back full circle). I don't understand how anyone can uncritically accept that from the person being under suspicion... Benefit of the doubt: sure. Defend her: nah. In any case, I'm off to bed now ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

If by "closed-minded" you mean "Based entirely on personal experience with both sides in question and the evidence at hand" then, uh... No offense, but it sounds like you're being pretty close-minded towards what I'm putting forward here right now. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see anything except appealing to the motive and affiliation of the accusers, which doesn't refute the points being put forward... Is this reason to be wary of any claim they make? It sure as hell is! But they do offer evidence in the form of chat logs with confirmed genuine contents... I don't see how you can just dismiss that or accept any ol' explanation from the accused... Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The contents aren't confirmed to be 100% genuine. Any actual evidence, any links, that may have confirmed this, have long since been dead. The fact of the matter, Carpetsmoker, is if we judged everyone by the shit they said online years ago before they knew any better, the world would be a worse place. Also, "Personal experience with both sides" is not just a reference to my dealings with Gamergate, but with Sarah as well. She is not the type of person who would do any of this genuinely. The fact is, you have to take into account the type of person you're talking about, and you can't do that just based on one response. It seems like you're talking about a subject you have very little experience in or knowledge about (Besides what you've been told on pro-gg subreddits) and as such I don't think you really have much say one way or the other. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, I haven't "been told" anything about this on pro-GG reddits. I just look at the edits and discussions here. And "type of person she is", well, Bill Cosby always seemed like a great guy to me. Many people often claim that the next-door paedophile or serial killer was "such a nice person". You can't tell a person's darkest thoughts and secrets from the surface. And she was 20 during the time of the chat logs; I mean, that's young enough to make stupid mistakes like this, but not so young that we can just dismiss it as we can with a 13-year old. Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Bill Cosby also has like 50 fucking women accusing him, Carpetsmoker. You seriously think these are as legitimate as the pile of evidence stacked against Cosby? Really? - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You're using your personal experience with Sarah as the basis of your argument? You sound like you're stubbornly trying to protect the reputation of a friend, facts be damned. Warzu (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't actually know her personally, if that's what you're implying. :) - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

But you just said that you did. "'Personal experience with both sides' is not just a reference to my dealings with Gamergate, but with Sarah as well." Maybe you don't have personal dealings with Sarah, Kitsunelaine, but I bet Ryulong does. Are you helping him get around his vandal binning? Warzu (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

"I followed her on twitter while Gamergate was going down so I have as much experience with her as I do the amorphous gamergate mob" is what I meant but I suppose you're just going to believe what you want to, Mr. Gator who joined today just to shitpost on this article. Also, for reals-- if I was, the mods would have shut down that shit immediately. The gator conspiracy theories just get cuter and cuter each time they're reiterated. You're looking for Ryulong in everything. But nah, it's just me. :) - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Except that makes no sense at all. No one but the most obsessive stalker would refer to a one-sided following of any twitter user as "personal experience". There are a few holes in your explanation. Warzu (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I did a quick lookup and the only source is Srhbutt's "I was a teenage edgelord" medium article. "I retained a lawyer and proactively contacted the police. They saw right through the avalanche of bad faith reports, and under independent scrutiny, have stated they have no reason to believe any crime ever took place." Note that the only testimony is Nyberg herself.Keter (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

One side has a long history of lying and the other doesn't. This falls into the "looking for any reason to call her a pedophile" category. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong also believes nobody can disagree with him and be against harassment, as if he's the hero of some 90's cartoon show. His prominence here is only because of his utter unbridled zealotry, not anything else. ^{— Unsigned, by: Keter / talk / contribs}

Correction. I think he believes that nobody can be pro-gamergate and be against harassment. Because the two are incompatible. Which I think is entirely reasonable. It's like trying to say you can be a member of the KKK without being a racist hatemonger. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Find me a site that Ryulong hasn't been banned from. He's an OCD turd on a one man holy mission. It DOESN'T matter what the subject matter is either. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

new phone who dis—Ryulong (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about being Pro and railing against harassment; I was talking abut dislinking Antis and being against harassment.Keter (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You're also not making any sense whatsoever in your attempted stramwanning of another user's worldview. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You're actually right; I was repeatedly stating how I don't need to agree with him to dislike harassment and he waas going into Zapp Brannigen rants about the evils of neutrality. I concluded wrong because his 1,000 plus word rants were in replies to comments explaining this three times. Obviusly he was talking abut something else.Keter (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's because GG is merely a front for cliches of people to engage in ideological Point scoring. Nyberg is the biggest example of this; a ton of people quickly circling wagons because for once, the boogeymen howling stupid crap might be right for once.Keter (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I find Gamergate about as interesting as watching grass grow and don't really understand it (nor do I wish to), I do find this whole "if you are not with us you are against us" mentality somewhat amusing. Kitsunelaine hits it on the head above:"The problem here is you don't really have the experience with these people like Ryu and I, among others, do." Therein lies the reason why there is no balance in our Gamergate articles and, specific to this discussion, why Ryu and a few others can't see the wood for the trees on the Nyberg subject. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

This one woman's alleged sexual proclivities have no basis on her muckraking of Gamergate. And there doesn't need to be a "balance" because there is no gray area. Gamergate is a 4chan raid that's gone on for far too long that claimed "ethics in video game journalism" as a pisspoor excuse to justify their actions because one man put down the wrong month in his rant. This isn't a "both sides have points" thing.—Ryulong (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Every zealot claims, that the world is only black and white and that he's on the rightwous side...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 02:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Pretending that the world doesn't have instances of being black and white is a failure of imagination. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The KKK aren't racist hatemongers though, the Grand Dragon told me they're just being edgelords. Seriously (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Psst. The KKK has a long history of being lynching shitwads. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

If you knew the KKK like I did you'd know they'd never do such a thing seriously. Also a bunch of witnesses have confirmed it's lies but they're afraid of being doxed by the KKK's detractors so you'll just have to take my word for it. Seriously (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch, I'm really tired of your "oh there has to be a middle ground" nonsense. Tell me, where is the middle ground here: Zoe Quinn wants to live her life in peace and quiet and make video games that have social messages, while 50 thousand people (going by Gamergate's estimates as they always like to repeat that /r/KotakuInAction's subscriber count is evidence of whatever they claim it to be) want to call her a whore and find out where she lives so they can falsely claim to her local police that there's a bomb or active shooter in her apartment. Let alone people who have threatened to physically harm her. People who she has discovered have been hangng around near her old home. This is what people are using "ethics in video game journalism" to defend. This is Gamergate, Arisboch. It's not Keter or Arcane who believe there's some dangerous and unbridled influence of puritanism or an overly censorial nanny state being implimented by women like Anita Sarkeesian. This is why there's no gray area, Arisboch. It's a bunch of women who just want to live their lives in peace and do what they want to for a living without having a bunch of complete lunatics leaving them threatening messages on the Internet on a daily basis and claiming to do so under the complete farcical claim that all they want to do is eliminate perceived cronyism in websites that post socially conscious reviews of video games. It is such a stupid hill to die on. And this is what you're willing to do. Defend people like Seriously here who just compared a woman being harassed on the Internet to the KKK because of "ethics in video game journalism".—Ryulong (talk) 04:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't make the KKK comparison, your friend Kitsulaine did. I was making fun of how silly it is. Thanks for backing me up on that. It is silly, isn't it? By the way [[11]] looks like doxing to me. Please do not dox other RW editors even if it's just an IP lookup and then posting their location. This is obvious "I know where you live" intimidation tactics and it's disgusting and (probably) against the rules here. Seriously (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Geolocation of an IP owned by a hosting company is not dox.—Ryulong (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

ya it is "Personal information about other RationalWiki users that is not volunteered by that user should not be posted on this site. This includes IP addresses, and even where an IP address is volunteered, discussion of the user's geographical location, place of employment, or other private information based on their IP address (even if publicly available) is frowned upon." Seriously (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

In addition, it's completely irrelevant to the actual discussion. Don't do it.KrytenKoro (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Dude, you invited these people in. This is your problem now. You and Carpetsmoker go own it. --205.145.18.5 (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

As it has been mentioned here before, GamerGate is not a right/left wing conflict, it is an authoritarian/free-speech conflict. But unlike 80 years ago the authoritarians aren't marching in the streets in leather booths, they go to college and wan't to ban hate-speech, where hate just means anything they disagree with. This is the exact same thing that happened in Atheism with Atheism+, where those opposed to it to their own surprise suddenly discovered that they were harassers and rapists. RW portrays the conflict from the authoritarian side, and consequently it is just a giant mess to anyone who believes in free-speech.^{— Unsigned, by: 212.130.116.215 / talk / contribs}

What do doxing, slut shaming and death threats have to do with advocating for free speech? If it is not a left/right issue, then why has the far-right had such and easy time hijacking GG? I don't see any campaigns by GG to denounce Breitbart.com's exploitation of the so-called movement for their own gain. And if the majority of GGers disagree with people like Milo, he doesn't seem to have gotten the memo. The continued reliance on gutters like 8chan also point to the complete absurdity of your claim that GG is non-partisan. Petey Plane (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Especially hilarious is the fact that free speech loving GGers are doing their hardest to silence Anita and many more. Typhoon (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Good question, especially considering Brianna Wu recently helped dox a trans woman on Twitter, Arthur Chu attacked the artist of Bayonetta for the design of the character, and Leigh Alexander was suspended from Twitter briefly for making a death threat. Arcane (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

A good question that you merely deflected by saying "well the other side does it too.", which may be true to some extent, but to say the volume of and intensity from the anti-GG crowd is equal to what comes out of GG is silly.Petey Plane (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It's funny how you got all these stories of GamerGate engaging in what is clearly illegal activities, yet not a single one about how they get arrested and put on trial. Almost as if you're just making stuff up. Did any of all those rapists who opposed Ateism+ ever get arrested? Didn't think so.^{— Unsigned, by: 212.130.116.215 / talk}

Usually don't respond to BoNs, and this one is clearly trending very low on the "worthy of reply" spectrum, but i'm pretty sure at least a few have been charged, and at least one with domestic terrorism.Petey Plane (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Huh, didn't you yesterday told FCP that you "plan to stay away from the GG topic"? Oh well. Typhoon (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Arcane, tu quoque and non sequitur do not advance the discussion. And what Goonie said above. This site is (or should be) devoted to rational skepticism. If that approach doesn't result in articles beloved by GGers, that's too bad. #notreally---Mona- (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That's a fair rebuke. I merely was trying to point out neither side is an angel here, and I suggest any debunking of GamerGate include as much evidence of incidents where their opponents have shown the same reprehensible conduct as what has been attributed to the GG side if only to see how well the claims the overwhelming weight of shameful conduct falls on one side hold up. As for staying away, that was the plan, but as they say, the best laid plans of mice and men.... And I'm currently trying to add soem content that will not lead to a political mudslinging match on the subject of cryptography as an attempt to make a more worthwhile contribution to RW than this particular conflict. Arcane (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That's...dumb as hell. Even if it turned out tomorrow that a counter-GG person incinerates puppies to get off, that would do not a damn thing to justify the behavior of GG. Smoking isn't healthy just because Hitler was against it, etc. That's just a deeply, deeply ignorant way to look at the issue.KrytenKoro (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

There are really two objections. One to the double standard: when objectionable acts are committed in the name of GG, GG is held responsible but when objectionable acts are against GG the actor doesn't represent the group. The other to hypocrisy: nothing objectively wrong with homosexuality or prostitution but we rightly criticize Ted Haggard for hiring a homosexual prostitute. – Sarah (HH) 21:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Those are fair objections, but they don't address the differences in volume and intensity of objectionable acts. Those performed by pro-GG far outweigh though performed by anti-GG, giving anti-GG's argument that those acts from the anti-GG side are performed by non-representative outliers much more credence, and only side has an (alleged) domestic terrorist in its ranks(who also happened to have the ear of one of GGs leaders). Petey Plane (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

A little ugliness is to be expected with anonymous actors, if it's disproportionally coming from one side we should point that out, no objections. But I can't see the argument for dismissing the bad actions of named actors, especially central figures like Nyberg, Wu, etc. Bullshit should be called out based on the level of the bullshit, not on which team the bullshitter plays for. – Sarah (HH) 21:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Nyberg isn't a pedophile so stop treating her like one. Wu didn't dox anyone (No evidence for that? No infographic made hastily in MS Paint?). What purpose is there to go "these people who have been put under 24/7 web surveilance by a mob of bad faith reactionary trolls have been mean on 3 occasions"? What sort of tu quoque bullshit is that? And we're not sweeping their behavior under the rug. It's just completey irrelevant to explaining Gamergate in any fashion and the only people who seem to be arguing that this information be included are dyed in the wool Gamergaters who are realizing that they'll never be able to rewrite this article so it shows them in a positive light so they may as well try to find some way to continue to libel their victims in whatever way possible and are convincing a handful of regular users who can't see through their bad faith attempt at slander.—Ryulong (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Too much BLP-hazardous rubbish here

from driveby users. I've set protection to sysop and emailed the other mods about it. Please desist - David Gerard (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Horrible overreactions of the GamerGate kind. Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

A comment

Dropping this here: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ye7j7/trackreddit/cycya6c/

Lol. Rational Wiki is an anti-conspiracy wiki, it's right about pretty much every topic I look up, Wikipedia is also considered to be pretty good, and I'm supposed to believe they're the trolls? The Wikipedia article just reflects what the journalists have said about gamer gate. I can get that being liberal biased. But Rational Wiki calls out bullshit. Between the two, I'm pretty sure the trolls and the crybabies are the people trying to turn a bunch of outrage over some random woman cheating on her boyfriend into some sort of consequential movement... it's not. It's just a culture war between tumblrinas and gamers, of no consequence. For the love of god, find something important to care about, please.

oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 00:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Not hyperbole

https://www.reddit.com/r/BestOfOutrageCulture/comments/3yj90x/this_is_a_calculated_and_organized_attempt_to/ FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 15:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

"Brief summary"

Currently it summarizes nothing for the casual reader. No dates, no names, no facts, no story. It reads like a humorous (or humorless) overview of, say the Star Wars octology (or whatever they are up to) written by one die hard fan for another. ħuman 02:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It was put in for people who thought words were too hard to read. See archives - David Gerard (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The Onion

The Onion has a new article slightly related to GG. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 01:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

RationalWiki moaning thread on /r/fstdt

https://www.reddit.com/r/fstdt/comments/44qkw8/rationalwiki_moaning_thread/ Just gonna leave this here. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 00:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Far-Right, Really?

You people only now noticed it? Well, too bad. Made bed, lie. They're your natural allies for your cause. Go and buy some jackboots. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

And your source is some random guy on Reddit? No bullcrap they'd want to portray "us" as nazis. BonzoTheBear (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

A nice look at KIA's commenters

Quotes:

It was definitely a wake up call for me. I used to be a bleeding heart socialist who unironically read RationalWiki in my free time. Now I consider myself to be a right-wing nativist and a nationalist, and it's all because of how corrupt and useless the left has become after extremists fucked it over.

I didn't want to be a nationalist, at least at first. But I became one after I felt it was needed. As it stands today I don't believe, in the slightest, that most politicians on the left honestly love or care for the countries they inhabit. Honestly when we don't have nationalism, what do we have? A bunch of people inhabiting a single place with no reason to care for or feel any loyalty to their neighbors. We hear "I'm a citizen of the world!" but that always seems to entail being a citizen of nothing, instead viewing things through simple materialistic "I want this, this country has it, it's better than OUR country!"

I was a social democrat (or democratic socialist, or what have you) because in spite of all my zeal I thought, honestly thought, that it'd make the world a better place and that for any issues the left had, it could lead us into a bright future. I supported Obama in both of his campaigns and hated Bush (and the Republicans as a whole)... now I have some sympathy for Bush, fucking Bush, the guy I pretty much considered "the ultimate evil" growing up. He may have been incompetent in many ways, but at least it was better than the constant guilt-trips for "western imperialism" or whatever bullshit the SJWs scream about currently.

I'm too humbled now to say that "I'll NEVER be left-wing ever again!", after all I said that only idiots support the right quite a few times, but it needs to discover something other than guilt. It needs to unify people, not divide them.

Good to know that KIA commenters consider the alternative to being liberal and dealing with SJWs to be "raving right-wing nationalist". Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 02:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The sentiment certainly exists, but I read often also among respected people (such as Coyne) how he hates it that the Left is betraying liberal values and won't often report about matters, so that he has to get certain news from right rags. This is also a very common sentiment regarding GamerGate, Milo and Breitbart. Actually, among the people I'm surrounded with, it's the typical response. There's nobody who would ever read Breitbart under other circumstances. The denialism surrounding the whole situation is making matters even worse. ~ Aneris ✻ 02:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

One thing, perhaps, to use ideological enemies to fact-check each other. Quite another to change your entire ideology. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 02:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It's also known that far extremists switch from one extreme end to another, e.g. Horst Mahler. See horseshoe theory. But it's interesting that you bring this anecdote up. There's an entire meme around Nazi social justice, google "Stormfront social justice warrior". But you are correct, those people didn't have to change their entire ideology, just approach it from the opposite end. ~ Aneris ✻ 03:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you're getting your news from Breitbart (a tabloid on par with Weekly World News) and Milo (a tabloid hack writer), then I highly suggest that you upgrade your news sources to something more reliable and factual, like the Daily Mail, WND, Natural News, or the Daily Stormer. Just sayin'. --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

As I wrote, I don't like any of those and nobody I know does. But I'm glad you found something adequate for yourself, too. I once suspected you don't read at all. ~ Aneris ✻ 03:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

They can't tell the difference between economic policy and jingoism either. Since when does a "democratic socialist" care that much about nationalism, or lack of it? Heh. Lord Aeonian (talk) 08:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

KotakuInAction moaning about moaning thread on FSTDT

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/459pba/dramapedia_rationalwiki_editors_leaving_because/

Can we please stop talking about RationalWiki? It's literally a propaganda website run by paid shills. There is no reason to ever go to RationalWiki.

I think They forgot this month's check. Alas. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Please stop with Reddit thread of the day until it's actually relevant to the topic - David Gerard (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Seriously. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Protection

I've removed protection from this page and the article as edits have slowed down to a trickle here. We can always restore it if necessary, but my feeling is that this article is no longer under the same spotlight it used to be. Tielec01 (talk) 08:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Before the edit wars...

I'd just like to remind everyone that this page has 281 sources detailing a niche phenomenon that was completely irrelevant to the mainstream western narrative and completely unknown everywhere else. Great job! Lord Aeonian (talk) 08:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I like the optimism but I can't agree with the sentiment. On that topic, can anyone enlighten me on how to make sense of this sentence (which I reworded slightly)

It shows how completely unaware they are of their own hypocrisy when they used Jeff Gerstmann being fired from GameSpot for giving an insufficiently high score to a video game being heavily advertised on the site[123] as one of the examples of unethical journalism they wish to combat

I don't get the reference to hypocrisy; the provided source gives no further guidance except to say the writer was possibly fired for the stated reason, or may have left for other reasons. Tielec01 (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it's likely talking about the "pander to us or we'll try to wreck your professional career" attitude they were wheeling around like a giant hammer early on. It's rather ineffectual as a tactic on their end now though because they've faded away quite significantly. Ideally, a group with the stated goals they have wouldn't employ such tactics, but it's an example of them saying one thing and then doing another. It's poorly contextualized, but there's a point there. - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 08:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

And R.E: Bayo 2, via the block convo: They launched a harassment campaign at Polygon because they gave Bayonetta 2 a lower score due to sexuality presentation issues that the reviewer noted. I think you could find info on the Timeline of Gamergate page if you ctrl+f "Bayonetta". - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 08:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so the premise is that it's hypocritical because GG are boycotting journalists for saying things they don't like in a similar way to game companies boycotting journalists for saying things they don't like (low review scores)? However, a consumer boycott is different to a company paying for deceptive review scores. I wouldn't call the campaign to boycott Chick-fil-A due to it's anti-homosexual stance as hypocritical either. If this is the argument I assume we all agree that it's a weak one and should be removed from the article. Tielec01 (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

They do more than just boycott (well, they don't even boycott, they just say they do and pretend it's the same thing). They talk about it like it's the end of the world and so-and-so should be fired or quit whenever they write things they don't like. A lot of people are targeted for harassment mobs and the like just for saying things they don't like. So it is pretty hypocritical, yes. - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 08:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

No no no, you guys are doing this wrong. Tielec is supposed to make an edit removing the whole paragraph, with no explanation. Then Kitsunelaine reverts that edit, with no explanation ofc. Then Tielec must revert, at which point another editor arrives to revert Tielec. Tielec reverts again. Kitsunelaine reverts. A fourth editor arrives, reverting Kitsunelaine and conveniently protecting the page. The page is now locked with Tielec's edit standing triumphantly. Everyone is amazed at his victory, while dissident elements wait for the protection to be removed and plot their revenge. Lord Aeonian (talk) 08:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

OK I get your point more clearly now. I think it's a long bow to draw to claim hypocrisy. A journalist should be largely free to write without being fired, but there are limits to this. If a group of people push to have a "poor" reviewer fired that is very different to a company pushing to have a good reviewer fired. Either way that sentence needs to be rewritten so it is clear. Any takers? Tielec01 (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I feel like we could devote an entire section to GG's ethical claims and what their ethics actually are in practice. That might be a good way to go about it, actually-- all the context in one place with a clear purpose. I'd offer, but it's late, and I'm in the middle of drawing some art stuff right now. Plus, there are numerous other cases of this sort of hypocrisy in their ranks-- their stint with intel and gamasutra and the mentality behind that might be a good example here too. - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 09:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's how I recommend we go about it: Create a sandbox, without changing the main page. Write up the new section there, open it up to scrutiny, and once it gets fully developed, we integrate it to the main page, and try to weed out any redundancy it might cause in other places of the article. Sound like a plan? - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 09:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, but in the meantime that sentence needs to be beaten into shape. I don't think the argument holds, so if no-one else can shore it up I will delete it. 02:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I gave rewriting a go. How's it look? I figure arrogance is a better word than hypocrisy, even though I feel like hypocrisy is also accurate. I feel like the case for a large scale page rewrite could be made, one that's less chronological and more all encompassing, as there's very little current activity on that front (other than searching for minor nontroverseys to whine over). We'd use the current page as a base, of course, and it'd have to be sandboxed to hell and back before implimentation. - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 11:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I mucked around with it too, but I'm still not happy. I think the problem is that firing a journalist over giving bad reviews to an advertised game is unethical, and the sentence seems to downplay it. I also think that there is a difference between pressuring advertisers and targeting journalists. If GG had tried to get journalists fired for criticising them, rather than pressuring advertisers to leave sites then this sentence would be stronger. Can anyone else weigh in here and resolve this impasse (I still lean towards removing the sentence)? Tielec01 (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The point is that they kept referring to that incident when they were pressuring advertisers to leave, and therefore (by proxy) the site editors into firing people they don't like. When you try to get advertisers to bail from a site for negative coverage, what exactly is the difference in the message you're trying to send? Only the angle you're attacking from. The resulting outcome they want is pretty much the same thing as the unethical practices they claimed to be against. - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 23:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Sidebar?

We have a reasonably-stocked category and the hatnotes are doing what a sidebar should be doing. Should we have a sidebar? (And, most importantly, what would the picture be? The tagline of course should be "Get your ethics in".) - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not particularly into the GG stuff but it seems like a good idea.--JorisEnter (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

A fedora? - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 13:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Fedora. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Worn by a sea lion. --Paul S (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

On one hand, a bit of a waste for what seems to be a topic that's almost dead, but on the other there's substantial material that could usefully be collected. We should probably revisit the sidebar every so often to see if it's time to change the tagline to 'Remember these wankers?' or 'Ethical Farm Remembers' or something. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

No. If we are going to have a sidebar, it would need to be about the anti-"SJW" movement -- eg, should include Cultural Marxism and Regressive left. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 16:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure that's a natural category. What would it be? Is there a cat already you're thinking of? I suggest GG because it has a cat for DPL to fill out so it's pretty easy - David Gerard (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope. But it's clear that all of the concepts are linked -- people who are mad at liberals who don't hate on feminism, all of Islam, etc. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 16:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

So what would you call it? Internet Reactionarism? Anti-Social Justice? Or hell, some take on their self label of "cultural libertarianism." Hmm, perhaps "Cultural Reactionarism?" --Paul S (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘How about this then?

(Incomplete on purpose.) Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, I don't think it's a bad idea -- but it'll be a small category, and a very small template. A larger and more useful category is perhaps "cultural libertarians" or whatever we're going to call the people who rant about SJWs. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 21:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Ain't the sobriquet for them on the net "neckbeards" (and they call the so-called "SJWs" "legbeards")?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 21:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC) 21:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hence why instead of a sidebar perhaps a bottom bar would be more useful. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Get Real Philippines

Likes it. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 17:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)