User talk:Naqoyqatsi/Lies

> page doesn't exist yet
> can already tell it's going to be horrifying
αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 01:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Um, someone should probably change the links on his userpage to have "User:" in them and move these pages out of mainspace. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Rebuttals of Gamergate

"If only the harassers are representative of Gamergate, then by that logic Randi Harper and others represent all of anti-Gamergate."

Notice how the article doesn't imply that the harassers are representative of Gamergate? No? How unfortunate. Harassers are a result of GG, not representatives of it.

"It is also notable that this statement has not been sourced to anyone notable or even forgettable who claims to be a part of Gamergate."

Jesus. Do Gamergaters ever honestly sit back and say, "the movement might have destroyed many people's lives, but ethics in journalism takes precedence", or do they just deny/justify the destruction? I bet the second far outpaces the first.

"As the source article does not even mention Gamergate, this suggests less incompetence and more malice on the part of the writer."

Right. Sarkeesian, hated by internet gamers for years, publishes a video attacking "misogyny" in games, gets harassed, and it's totally unrelated to Gamergate or Gamergate's underlying motives, because the article doesn't mention Gamergate. Oh, look. An article that mentions Sarkeesian being kicked out of her home and also the term "Gamergate". FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 18:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

"Anti-gamergate"

Seriously? How do any of those sources prove that anti-GG is an organized entity? They just attack anti-GG as evil.

1. http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2iwf40/compilation_of_harassmentinsultsdoxxing_from/ - For the first 2 links, see immediately below. For the rest of the linkdump, I'll have to look through -- but I doubt I'll find a conspiracy.
2. https://twitter.com/EleanorVarrot/status/516200456012726272 - A lady fears she'll get doxxed for supporting Gamergate. She supported Gamergate. Did she get doxxed by an organized group of anti-GGers, or doxxed at all?
3. http://s2b20blog.mukyou.com/hidden-face-hypocrisy-randi-harper/ - Randi Harper is a fucking asshole to someone else. And that proves she's part of a huge conspiracy... how?
4. http://i.imgur.com/onQxe4b.jpg - Seriously? A collation of (selected) profile pictures of anti-GGers? This proves what?

FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 18:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

What it proves is that naqoyqatsi continues to be an annoying single purpose editor who isn't exactly concerned with addressing that single point with a modicrum of honesty. Which is sad. Really sad. I feel bad for someone whose identity is so tied up in a shitty movement that he can't abide anywhere on the internet criticizing it. What's worse is how bad he's clearly lying to himself about it. I just... have these guilty pangs that they're basically unreachable in their identity movement shell. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

"Lying by Omission"

Wow someone call Stretch Armstrong cause he's clearly out of his league here. The article at the Columbus Business First blogs website seem to simply state that there was a clerical error stemming from Wu's employee who attempted to contact O'Brien's office for her. If anything, it's clear that she was unaware of this mistake until she was actually notified by the reporter there. Big fuckin deal Naqoyqatsi.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh look we can print corrections. It's almost as if anyone can fix mistakes here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I also like how Allum Bokhari ran the story after all of the updates and corrections were made at The Mary Sue and Columbus Biz Insider.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

What's your point? That Bokhari was highlighting that, contrary to basic journalism 101, they didn't vet their sources? A single phone call would have sufficed to realize that Wu was caught lying again. They didn't even bother because, SHOCKER, they don't really care what the facts have to say. The damage has already been done, which is the whole point. With a character like Wu, who's been caught in a lie over and over again, you really can't take her word for it. Though a rush to print a hit job on GamerGate regardless of what the facts actually say is pretty much par for the course at this point. --72.207.244.46 (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No. Bokhari does not point that out. And there is no proof she was lying. All of the corrections that were made by the other websites revealed that there was a clerical error at Wu's end of things. Bokhari says she's lying despite those corrections having been made. Like holy shit BoN, do you read anything other than Gamergate's annointed websites?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

How the fuck

is a blockbot similar to the war on science? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 01:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Praise was heaped on it from people with, generally, no technical knowledge. The war on science was criticism heaped on science from people with, generally, no technical knowledge. I would have linked to the Science Wars, but alas, no article on that here.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

She wrote a script that exploited #OpSkyNet to prevent 99.9% of Gamergaters from being able to dogpile the people who want to subscribe to her bot accounts' block lists. It's easier to block one new account made by someone who doesn't realize no one wants to talk to them (or just turn on one of BlockTogether.org's options to automatically block certain accounts) than it is to be swamped with several hundred people tweeting and retweeting Gamergate's big wigs. Like what are you trying to prove? Also your links are so fair and balanced. Particularly the one with a honey badger brigade pop up ad.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Respond to me here instead of making a bullshit rebuttal on your page here. Dogpiling is harassment. And Wu apologized to O'Brien for having caused the problem because it was a mistake on her end. I don't think anyone in Gamergate has apologized for anything because they don't have anything to lose for making a mistake.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Dogpiling and sealioning, which is what Gators do best, is harassment you ass.

And Wu pointed out that there was a clerical error by her staff, apologized for it, and spoke to the person she wronged. She wasn't convicted of a crime. And you're the one deflecting with the "Rape on Campus" thing now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I see you're flashing your tone police badge.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

And are you even linking to the right thing Movie Bob said? Because it just looks like you've pulled a random Gamergate tweet out of a hat and pasted it here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

"#NotYourShield"

"It's a public chatroom anyone could have written that" is a bullshit excuse. #NotYourShield was also concocted publically on /v/. The post on /v/ predates both Ninouh's use of the hashtag which itself came before j_millerwork's posting. Also, Ninouh is a frequent poster on /pol/ and j_millerworks is associated with AyyTeam (he also participated in the #BaltimoreLootCrew tag IIRC). Ninouh does claim responsibility for #NotYourShield's creation alongside j_millerworks, but the sincerity of its usage after these two is up for debate as the chatlogs show people wanted to weaponize #NotYourShield. Regardless of it being a public chatroom where anyone could participate. Again, saying that third-party trolls or "anti-Gamergate" was somehow to blame for proving a bunch of people were astroturfing is bullshit.

GameJournoPros was a benign mailing list that only Gamergate thinks means anything malicious. The extent of discussion of Gamergate on that mailing list was limited to "Should we say we support Zoe Quinn?" "No" or "Yo you should close those forum threads where people are harassing Zoe Quinn" "No". If GameJournoPros is bad then all private ListServs are bad.

Good job.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

As usual you are making ridiculous accusations Ryu. From the archive link YOU FUCKING POSTED, the anon on /v/ was responding to this post

“” WHO /MINORITY/ HERE? I'm like 2/3 of the things these faggots say they are fighting for, and when I engage them on Twitter (WITH MY FUCKING PERSONAL ACCOUNT) they ignore me. Jesus Christ this is getting frustrating, I might as well be a white male for these faggots.

with this:

“” Something like >#NotYourShield And demand the SJWs stop using you as a shield to deflect genuine criticism

How does that prove anything other than EXACTLY what the minority woman you're harassing and mansplaining to has been claiming #notyourshield was about?--72.207.244.46 (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Naqoyqatsi is a woman?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, whatever shit was going on on /v/ doesn't take away from the fact that #NotYourShield was hypocritically becoming Gamergate's shield from criticism when women, LGBT, and non-white gamers were AFAIK never really being used as a shield from criticism by the video games media. You know because there was never any corruption stemming from Zoe Quinn's personal life.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Last straw

Naqoyqatsi, stop using my comments on this website to populate this garbage rebuttal page. What I say about the manosphere has nothing to do with the Gamergate page which is what I thought you were using this page for. The constant use of my comments in my opinion edges into ad hominem territory and I am not going to stand for it anymore. You've already filled this page with rebuttals to shit I've said here. I'm not standing for this anymore.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Whatever, if you take it so seriously I'll stop. Obviously this is really upsetting you so I'll quit doing it.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Like what is even the purpose of this page? Why are you populating it with shit we've said to you taken out of context? It's barely relevant to the Gamergate page anymore. What the hell did my statement about Elliot Rodger's MO have to do with video games? Just tell me that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I saw it as another moral panic over new media - video games in Columbine, internet in the Isle Visa shooting.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a reach.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Like we have his manifesto and it's as MRA as things get. At least some of the other shit you wrote about here and on Talk:Gamergate was actually useful in making corrections to the article, even if it still didn't fit your/Gamergate's narrative. I had no idea about the Columbus, OH, attorney mix-up for example.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I just want to make clear that what you did is not the way to start a dialogue on anything and definitely not the way to protect anyone. Take that as you will.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

So what? Pointing out flaws in how your only evidence requires doxxing people means this is free reign again? I think not.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This is mad

I am pro-GamerGate, so? LlamaPastor31 (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Really?

You need to stop drinking JuiceBro's Soylent. The "Gehr Group" shit is such conspiracy theory fodder like holy fuck.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Y'all need better evidence than the pisspoor garbage Cernovich dug up on people named "Lifschitz" considering he's lied about shit in the past.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this your way of saying I can criticize you again?--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It's his way of saying you're deep into conspiracy theory bullshit, and you should get your goddamn head out of your ass. I'm a little more forward about it. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

So what are your beliefs and what have they done for you?--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm saying you can criticize what has been written in article space because it helps us realize what bullshit conspiracies Gamergate still believes in and have to be clarified in the text to account for it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You failed to counter anything she's said in her section on Liftshitz Ryulong other than to engage in ad hominem accusing her, without basis, of believing in conspiracy theories. She presented pretty basic evidence that his father is a wealthy executive, which lends remarkable support to Cernovich's claims. Alex could have easily sued Mike for libel and forced him to issue a retraction. Would not have been hard and they easily could have crowdsourced any necessary funds. Granted, it will eventually come out who his father is and that your wrong and, yes, that you and rational wiki have engaged in serious libel against multiple individuals and will likely get the fuck sued out of ya'll because the real world and civil court do not operate like a wiki article.--72.207.244.46 (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Naqoyqatsi has never once said mentioned their gender IIRC.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

And no, there's no proof of anything about Lifschitz's family or finances. Cernovich has lied and falsified stuff in the past too. If there's any proof of anything about these people's financial status that doesn't come from Cernovich, then by all means present it. Because otherwise you're just full of shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Check the page.

Further, you'll want to consider some politesse if you don't want to be treated in kind.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to believe someone who once said that straight men are immune from HIV and that his semen gets women addicted to him sexually because he doesn't "mastubate".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Right.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

They make fucking surge protectors. Do you think that's trust fund cash?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I see you have changed your argument from "Alex Lifschitz's father is not an executive" to "his company cannot pay him much because one of its divisions happens to sell surge protectors."--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The real question is what does this have to do with ethics in video game journalism cause all you're really doing is spreading dox on people.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not doxxing, but liars are inevitably exposed. It's almost a biological process, really. Kant was right about that.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

What does Alex Lifschitz's family and their employers have to do with ethics in video game journalism? What does it prove to say his dad works at some company that manufactures and sells wires, runs hotels, or sells things to Brazil? Who cares? Why is it so important for Gamergaters like yourself to say "ALEX HAS A DAD WHO HAS A HIGH PAYING JOB"? How does it fit in this asinine mythos that Gamergate insists Zoe Quinn deserved anything? Why are you and everyone else in Gamergate violating the most sacred unwritten 4chan rule? You have all been suckered into becoming Eron's personal army. Or Nero's. Or "Based Mom". Or Mark Kern. Or RogueStar. Or whoever else Gamergate has annointed as their hero. What the fuck is it for? Getting Kotaku shut down because they don't say "8.5/10, too much water" (and praising Hulk Hogan for suing their owners)? Driving people you don't like off the internet? Like I don't get the motivation to keep this going after a year. Quinn didn't fuck anyone for a review. Sarkeesian doesn't want to censor video games and didn't scam anyone. There's like little to no actual conflicts of interest being uncovered and even if there was anything remotely considered one the ombudsmen in charge of actually handling these things are the ones who should be dictating these things and not a bunch of assholes on the Internet. After all, you're rallying behind people who have lied about their intentions and played you all like a fucking fiddle to the tune of well over $100k collectively. At least Sarkeesian puts out videos as she said she would. I don't think anything's come out of the tens of thousands of dollars Gamergate has poured into TFYC, the Honey Badgers, Eron's "legal funds", and the like. The most anyone's gotten is a shitty trailer from Aurini and Owen that even 8chan posters and people at KiA thought was trash. Oh and a schlocky video game with awful gameplay and programming but fuck the SJWs we're going to buy and play it anyway to spite them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This is the part where I stop talking to the angry Anti-Gamergate person. If you're mad about how you think things are run, take it to KiA or 8chan where, unlike Anti-GG, we will not ban or block you for disagreeing with us.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

That's it? You're not going to bother refuting anything I said after you tried to delete it entirely? If you can't handle someone actually going after every single talking point you and the rest of Gamergate are trying to push, then you have nothing left to stand on. Where's the "logic"? Where's the "rationality" that Gamergaters and the rest of the red pill rejects claim to have over everyone else?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Just making note of a little something: 1) RW is opposed to Gamergate (or "part of Anti-GG" as you might phrase it). 2) On RW, as a policy, people don't get blocked for disagreeing with the accepted RW-view. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Just remember Gamergators won't delete info except when they do, but if you have any complaints go to sites full of gamergators.--Owlman (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The difference is that I invited Ryulong to post it on his own page. I wasn't going across Reddit and Neogaf and 4chan demanding any mention of it be removed. I felt it was generally negative and not exactly what I wanted on my userpage - and also something Ryulong may regret saying later. In response to Ryulong's query, I'm just tired of arguing with him. If he wants to have a reasonably civil conversation where we bring up points and present counterpoints and inform each other of our respective views, I'd be happy to have it. I think he has something to offer me and vice versa. However, if he's just going to insult me and bring up his opinions without any sources then my free time is diminishing and I'd rather not spend it on something which benefits neither of us. You can read whatever-the-hell you want into this, but I've got to get up early tomorrow so good night.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Nothing I've said is not already supported by the text all over Gamergate, Timeline of Gamergate, List of Gamergate claims. I've put the onus on you to disprove what's been stated as you seem to have had no problems before this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

What do my beliefs have to do with you having your head up your ass in conspiracy theory land? You need to stay the hell away from the movements that are causing you to think this way. It's not healthy. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather not turn out like you.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you should. Acting crazy doesn't bring you credibility or your cause. It really only makes you look like a fool, and those you don't like look better. While giving them notoriety they wouldn't have if you just walked away. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this addressed to me or one of the guys above me?--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Query

Why do you think people are required to start a dialogue or have politesse with you?
I mean, speaking quite frankly, what you have you done to earn that?
I rather think that tends to be a defining characteristic of the Gator crowd. You guys seem to think that I (and others) are supposed to automatically respect you, have dialogues and debates with you, assume you're approaching things in good faith, be nice to you, adopt "ethical codes" that you think should exist...it's all very nonsensical to me. Why are you due that? What have you done to earn it?
My father only gave his respect to two types of people: Those who earned it and those who bought it. I agree with him. No one is due that sort of thing; it must be bought or earned. Anything else, I would consider unethical.
So, what have you done to buy or earn that privilege from other people? --Castaigne (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Urgh. LlamaPastor31 ^{I don't prefer balsamic vinegar.} 23:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I implied that if Ryulong wants people - me in this case - not to mock what he says then he ought to return the favor. Other than that, people can ignore or address me as they wish, and as you did. Your rant is based on a stereotype and untrue.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)