Information icon.svg The election booth for the RationalWiki 2019 Moderator Election is now open. Cast your votes today!

Talk:List of Gamergate claims

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon internet.svg

This Internet related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png


This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>

Change request[edit]

Suggesting this change --87.179.47.101 (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Also note that this event has gotten almost no coverage by the media, which is an indicator for there probably not being much evidence of it -- it's a "he said, she said" thing. In light of the alleged purpetrator having already received death threats, we should be very careful when reporting such claims --87.179.47.101 (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Brad Glasgow[edit]

I don't want to get into this much but apparently, Brad Glasgow believes he has been misrepresented on our article. Any thoughts?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

We have cites, he has tweets and assertions of Ghazi suppressing him on opinion grounds. We'd need him to provide something more than retweets by eggs - David Gerard (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for Silver[edit]

Again a ridiculous number of sources. The only objection I might have is the Side-by-Side of claims in the middle might be a bit too jarring. Thoughts? Zero (talk - contributions) 20:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I support Silver. Also, that precise portion of the article is one of the strongest parts of it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
+1. This page is the go-to on what the fuck Gamergate actually claims, and reality-based refutations. My only qualm is that some of the writing could do with calming down. (I do bits of it from time to time but never quite get around to it.) - David Gerard (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Extreme cases of generalization and several assumptions[edit]

This article is anything but factual or, dare i say, rational. It attributes anyone who disagrees (strongly or otherwise) with people who leverage their positions with victimhood narrative as "Gamergaters", and assume that the actions of singular people that are, or at the very least claim to be part of GamerGate to represent everyone in the movement or their views. This is wrong on the exact same level that claiming Black Lives Matter wants to kill all whiteys/cops or that third wave feminists want to kill all (white) men. Very few of the people cited here as sources in any way shape or form claim to be GamerGaters. A post under the hashtag is simply not good enough to assume membership, as by that logic Zoë Quinn is an avid and active member of GamerGate. 87.92.242.60 (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Drink! And this is a whole lot of saying No True Scotsman. Zero (talk - contributions) 08:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Just because you can quote a fallacy passingly similar to what a cursory reading of the criticism of glaring issues of generalization in the article would suggest, does not mean the fallacy is there. That's what a useless pseudointellectual on the internet does instead of debating or arguing their point. My argument was not even similar to "Not all gamergaters", which you would've very easily gathered had you even bothered to read the short few sentences above prior to dismissing the argument altogether on an argument from fallacy, which you'd find is a fallacy in and of itself. In fact, had you even bothered to actually read the description of the fallacy you posted, you see neither of the examples come even close to being relevant.
Furthermore, having wasted some of my time scouring through your edits, you are an idealist, not a rationalist by any stretch of the imagination. You jump to conclusions without evidence or reasoning and have an ideological, instead of an objective standpoint on several issues. This explains the typical irrational reply and immediately dismissive attitude to something you believe you're irrefutably correct in because of your ideological standpoint. Do not bother replying again unless you intend to actually debate like a mature, rational person. 87.92.242.60 (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I see you can present no single error in the article and have been reduced to saying you don't like it. Hipocrite (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Alternatively: you could actually read what was being said. The vast majority of the quotations and attributed actions (including the conjecture of their assumed purpose) supposedly representing the movement are from people who do not identify to have anything to do with at all with GamerGate, the hashtag or the movement. I think these should be expunged because they are nothing but assumptions. The article also promotes the laughable idea that the actions of a singular person in the movement not only represents the views and beliefs of the persons within, but dictates the way they are supposed to think, and attributes the words of singular opinions to be the claims of the entire movement, instead of those the movement has collectively agreed upon. It should be noted here that not one of the collectively agreed views of the GamerGate movements actually claims to represent is shown here. This reply is mainly a reiteration and rewording of what i said in the very first post, but apparently this is required as so far an even borderline rational reply has not been achieved to address or even defend the perceived issues. 87.92.242.60 (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Since this argument has happened before: if you make a decentralized movement without an organizational structure, the movement, by necessity, must own some elements seen very commonly in practice to have any identity at all. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
While that can be used as a justification of some of the quotations loose relations to GamerGate, attributing actions of 4chan or 8chan, or the personal attacks on Phil Fish's character for instance, to GamerGate is not only wrong, it's disingenuous. In the case of Phil Fish especially, he has a longstanding history with 4chan and SomethingAwful being aggressive toward him, which predates GamerGate by years. The same goes for Sarkeesian, as she personally spammed for attention on 4chan prior to GamerGate among other forums and imageboards, such as NeoGAF, to gain views and in the process gained their ire. There are many more of these kinds of relations, among other glaring flaws in this article producing not only numerous poorly sourced rebuttals and rebukes based on narrative and conjecture, but a glaring bias from the word "go". It should also be noted that many of the sources, such as "we hunted the mammoth", is deeply biased and therefore highly suspect. Source criticism should always be exercised when dealing with anything that labels itself as rational. 87.92.242.60 (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
So if the people that made up Gamergate had animosity to people before they made up Gamergate and than animosity continued through Gamergate, we can't say that Gamergate had that animosity?
Further, you write that Sarkeesian spammed 4chan prior to Gamergate. Do you have any evidence of that behind just making shit up? Hipocrite (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Attributing the actions of 4channers, or really anyone else to GamerGate is one of the glaring issues present here. This wiki article does it from the very first citations and simply assumes the relation to be there, when in reality there is nothing to show the affiliation. The spamming happened during the same time on multiple locations i frequented back then, and on certain forums like NeoGAF the same account that basically shoved the links to promote the video & kickstarter page anywhere within borderline confines of spamming rules answered questions about the source material identifying to be Sarkeesian herself. I'll try to find that poster on NeoGAF, but as you understand it was/is one of the largest forums on the internet. As for the 4chan posts, there were about 10 a day for several days. They all follow the similar formula, and after the first day she, or the person posing as her in support started to actually use a tripcode. http://i.imgur.com/I3NuyhZ.png There are many more pictures than that(and all of crap quality), but it's a sample of what was going on. Furthermore because Sarkeesian's views are often highly offensive in nature, she has gained the ire of many people, not just GamerGate, 4channers, or any other easily categorizable group. It's debatable whether or not they're intentionally trolly to get a reaction, such as her tweet about the mass shooting being "fault of men and boys" and the result of "toxic masculinity" before the bodies had even been counted. 87.92.242.60 (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
If I were to distill your word salad down to it's essence it would be "I TOTALLY THOUGHT IT WAS ANITA AND I'M REALLY SMART." Also, strong out of context there, person who complains about taking things out of context. Hipocrite (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
An excellent twisting of what was actually said, a masterful hyperbole if it were a college debate. Unfortunately i'm looking for reasonable debate on the matter, not special olympics of idle claims and constructed narrative. 87.92.242.60 (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Pfft, it's not like 4chan is totally anonymous except tripcodes and has notorious amounts of impersonation for "satire" or anything, hipocrite. That would make any such claim literally impossible to verify. I mean, could you imagine saying what the BoN did if that were true? It'd be pretty crazy. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The internet is totally anonymous and has notorious impersonations for "satire", sockpuppeting, and anything else. This is not simply limited to 4chan and/or "tripfags". 87.92.242.60 (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
" A post under the hashtag is simply not good enough to assume membership,"
Do y'all remember when we were told "it doesn't count as Gamergate if it doesn't have the hashtag"? LMFAO. Anon, would you like to actually point to someone you *would* consider to be gamergate? Because while disavowing is what is supposed to be done with bad members, you're supposed to at least acknowledge that they were part of the movement and reflected on its message in the first place, rather than this revisionism.204.11.142.106 (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
An excellent quote out of context. Perhaps you would next time try to actually quote an entire sentence, instead of stopping at the comma and then having fun knocking out the strawman that's dispelled by actually reading the second part of the sentence that you decided to cut off. As for identifying members of GamerGate, it's quite simple: Does the person identify, or ar they known as a member of Gamergate? 87.92.242.60 (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
By all means, make an edit to this page as user:ikanreed and show us all how all the internet's the same, and you can impersonate anyone anywhere. Please. I'll pay you real money to prove your insane point. Or, more likely, lie more. Please continue to sell your personal integrity out for the sake of "winning" a debate. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I think you replied to the wrong post 87.92.242.60 (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Mercedes Carrera has just been arrested for child rape.[edit]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/gamergate-porn-star-accused-of-child-rape-obsessed-with-calling-people-pedophiles-2 LuodiWang (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Crash Override Network[edit]

Stumbled across a Tumblr blog claiming to contain "receipts and lore" about abuse, doxxing and general ineptitude from the Crash Override Network. Most of the links are Twitter testimonials but also included are a Pastebin of edited chat log highlights (possibly leaked by Ian Miles Cheong) and a Storify article. How much of this is verifiable/relevant? 146.200.176.60 (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)