|
Disinterested posted:This attempt at a reversal fails by simple virtue of the fact that the argument at issue is precisely whether gamer culture is misogynistic. Except for the point that showing someone is a hypocrite doesn't make you misogynist, even if that hypocrisy is related to their feminist values. Popular Thug Drink posted:there's really not much else to do with gamergaters because they don't advance any valid points. all they have is conspiracy theories and targets. since their stated goals are demonstrably absurd, we can move past that and get right in to the mockery I'd say censorship, ethics, and corruption are valid points to advance. You and other's keep pushing the conspiracy that every single gamergater's objective is to silence women because we don't like them in video games, despite all the counter evidence to the contrary. Like you are singling out an rear end in a top hat minority that infiltrates any movement they can find that is condemned, that would be like me claiming all Social Justice Warriors want to kill all men because a few of their numbers literally want to do that. However I have the rational to recognize that doesn't represent a majority. Popular Thug Drink posted:if gamergaters believe in free speech, why are they trying to hound certain people to the point that they quit participating in public discussion? Again I'd say that's a radical minority.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:42 |
|
|
afeelgoodpoop posted:Where have you gotten this information from? littlegreenfootballs? the marysue? The gently caress are either of those things? How many meds have you stopped taking?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:But that's not really a debate because it undeniably is. Well, not so much a conspiracy, at least not in the insane lizard-government variety, but it definitely was formed with hatred for women at it's very core and that hasn't changed because no one on the GamerGate side is the least bit interested in changing it, just in hiding it. And a lot of times they aren't even interested in that. I'd like actual evidence for this outside of some troll on twitter or Zoe Quinn's loving Photoshopped and edited IRC log that had people calling out and banning people for trying to coopt what Shield thing was. Popular Thug Drink posted:if gamergaters believe in free speech, why are they trying to hound certain people to the point that they quit participating in public discussion? That Mary Sue writer left because people called him dumb on twitter without tagging him or went 'lol' to his article on twitter. If that what hounding and harassment is then everyone here is guilty of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 04:56
|
|
Shadoer posted:Except for the point that showing someone is a hypocrite doesn't make you misogynist, even if that hypocrisy is related to their feminist values. It can if your motivation is demonstrably of a certain type.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:But that's not really a debate because it undeniably is. Well, not so much a conspiracy, at least not in the insane lizard-government variety, but it definitely was formed with hatred for women at it's very core and that hasn't changed because no one on the GamerGate side is the least bit interested in changing it, just in hiding it. And a lot of times they aren't even interested in that. How, again by the logic you guys are using I can say that the SJWs are a conspiracy to push men out of everything. This is a ridiculous claim, but if we use what you guys pass for logic it makes sense. Men are being harassed and doxxed, there are people in the SJWs who have outright stated that we need to eliminate all masculinity, by your guy's logic this would mean that's what the SJWs are about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
What does this have to do with the GamerGate push for better ethics in video game journalism as it was originally stated to be?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
Shadoer posted:Except for the point that showing someone is a hypocrite doesn't make you misogynist, even if that hypocrisy is related to their feminist values. What goals specifically about censorship, ethics, and corruption do you believe GamerGate is advancing and what have you personally done to help advance those goals? Complaining that no one here in the GamerGate thread will talk about them isN't valid because this isn't your only venue of advancing those goals. And on the matter of radical "minorities" why the hell aren't you doing a better job of keeping them from being associated with your movement?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:The gently caress are either of those things? How many meds have you stopped taking? What justifys you pushing such an extreme narrative ? you think that at its core its a hatred of women. What did you read that made you think in such an extreme way about it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I refer you to my more recent post. Yeah, but the anti Gamer Gate just goes "your sexist" and then offers no proof or very bad, misleading proof that often slides into "see THEY are the hypocritical ones". Like half the big "GamerGate is sexist" tweets are either from trolls legitimately making fun of both sides and stiring poo poo up (and say as much on twitter profiles and timelines) or like the confedrate flag thing recently contextualize their agrument for uncensored historical games for support of slavery. It is nothing but poo poo flinging.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Shadoer posted:How, again by the logic you guys are using I can say that the SJWs are a conspiracy to push men out of everything. This is a ridiculous claim, but if we use what you guys pass for logic it makes sense. Men are being harassed and doxxed, there are people in the SJWs who have outright stated that we need to eliminate all masculinity, by your guy's logic this would mean that's what the SJWs are about. I really don't give a flying gently caress about what you think or say about SJW's so if that's what you wanna do then he, by all means, go nuts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:You don't know what ad-hom means. If I say 'you are a misogynist' that is not ad-hominem per se. If I say 'you are wrong about your view on the taxation of derivatives because you are a misogynist' that is ad hom. you don't know what my post means, and youre a closeted racist
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
Shadoer posted:I'd say censorship, ethics, and corruption are valid points to advance. You and other's keep pushing the conspiracy that every single gamergater's objective is to silence women because we don't like them in video games, despite all the counter evidence to the contrary. Like you are singling out an rear end in a top hat minority that infiltrates any movement they can find that is condemned, that would be like me claiming all Social Justice Warriors want to kill all men because a few of their numbers literally want to do that. However I have the rational to recognize that doesn't represent a majority. The claims of censorship seem hollow, given that pointing out problems in a game and even petitioning and boycotting a game is not in any way censorship. The claims of ethics seem hollow, because gaming journalism has always been unethical and corrupt. It's also strange that gamergaters tend to focus on the ethics of organizations that have unpopular, leftist opinions rather that outlets that are broadly influential and have mass readership. Even if it is only a minority who harass women, they have been the most productive members of the movement and have come the closest to achieving their goal. This is why gamergate, in the broader media, is percieved as an organized harassment group.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
NutritiousSnack posted:Yeah, but the anti Gamer Gate just goes "your sexist" and then offers no proof or very bad, misleading proof that often slides into "see THEY are the hypocritical ones". Like half the big "GamerGate is sexist" tweets are either from trolls legitimately making fun of both sides and stiring poo poo up (and say as much on twitter profiles and timelines) or like the confedrate flag thing recently contextualize their agrument for uncensored historical games for support of slavery. #NoTrueGamerGater
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:03
|
|
Morkies posted:you don't know what my post means, and youre a closeted racist Oh?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
Shadoer posted:How, again by the logic you guys are using I can say that the SJWs are a conspiracy to push men out of everything. This is a ridiculous claim, but if we use what you guys pass for logic it makes sense. Men are being harassed and doxxed, there are people in the SJWs who have outright stated that we need to eliminate all masculinity, by your guy's logic this would mean that's what the SJWs are about. While it is never permittable or excusable to doxx or harass anyone, it seems that the agg crowd is attempting to doxx and harass prominent harassers themselves, whereas the gg crowd is attempting to dox and harass female game developers and social critics - not journalists, as such - who have unpopular opinions, as part of resisting some intangible SJW push.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
So, let's talk for a minute about social media and echo chambers in relation to GG. Many people here, including some of the mods, have adopted the "It's only censorship if the government does it" mantra. This is interesting, because rarely on the progressive side of the aisle did you see this point of view until a certain point in GG. There was tons of talk about folks being "silenced", the "chilling effect on speech of harassment", etc. The entire script flipped, however, when GTA V got banned by retailers in Australia. The argument went overnight from "Nobody wants to take away your games, you big, dumb, babies", to "It's not censorship unless the government does it". Now, you have self-described progressives blatantly ignoring the definition of censorship as put forth by progressive organizations for years in favor of closing the ranks around people who they feel the need to "protect". Not only is this behavior patronizing as gently caress to the people they seek to "protect", it also puts those people in the hilarious position of arguing in favor of the legal expertise of people like Bob Chipman, Jon McIntosh, and Sarah Butts over the actual experts at the ACLU. https://www.aclu.org/what-censorship
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:What goals specifically about censorship, ethics, and corruption do you believe GamerGate is advancing and what have you personally done to help advance those goals? Complaining that no one here in the GamerGate thread will talk about them isN't valid because this isn't your only venue of advancing those goals. And on the matter of radical "minorities" why the hell aren't you doing a better job of keeping them from being associated with your movement? Not GamerGate but I'll field this because these are dumb. FTC changes and disclosures have been major and real victories for them. For the second: It's a hashtag. While people like RogueStar or Ralph Report are legitimate example of GamerGate hypocrisy as these are people they have gone to the bat for numerous times for being assholes of the highest order. Burner troll account or Baphmoet doxxers or Ayy jokers posting #GamerGate whatever is beyond their control and always will be. You can't block out someone's use of hashtag.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:While it is never permittable or excusable to doxx or harass anyone, it seems that the agg crowd is attempting to doxx and harass prominent harassers themselves, whereas the gg crowd is attempting to dox and harass female game developers and social critics - not journalists, as such - who have unpopular opinions, as part of resisting some intangible SJW push. If you really believe this, then I have a bridge to sell you. Here is the head of the Online Abuse Prevention Initiative, a prominent group founded by Zoe Quinn in response to GG, and the way their primary agitator interacts with people who disagree with her on the internet. http://www.breitbart.com/big-journa...-harper-part-1/
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:While it is never permittable or excusable to doxx or harass anyone, it seems that the agg crowd is attempting to doxx and harass prominent harassers themselves, whereas the gg crowd is attempting to dox and harass female game developers and social critics - not journalists, as such - who have unpopular opinions, as part of resisting some intangible SJW push. They 'doxxed' (not really) a poo poo load of indie developers, because many of them were meeting with journalist and feminist game academics constantly. Everything gamergate discussed were open documents or files being hosted on developers or academics website for people to look at. the people who really got doxxed, as in name/adress phone number was quinn, phil phish, a few journalist, who i think i remember mostly being male. those obvious unethical doxing were done anonymously and never talked about and only represent the channer spurs that hang off of GG. afeelgoodpoop fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Jun 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
natetimm posted:If you really believe this, then I have a bridge to sell you. Here is the head of the Online Abuse Prevention Initiative, a prominent group founded by Zoe Quinn in response to GG, and the way their primary agitator interacts with people who disagree with her on the internet. This article isn't editorialized at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
Unfunny Poster posted:This article isn't editorialized at all. I thought we all just got done agreeing that editorialized articles about gaming are OK?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:#NoTrueGamerGater I'm sorry you can't offer any proof your any less dumb then the Gators. Popular Thug Drink posted:While it is never permittable or excusable to doxx or harass anyone, it seems that the agg crowd is attempting to doxx and harass prominent harassers themselves, whereas the gg crowd is attempting to dox and harass female game developers and social critics - not journalists, as such - who have unpopular opinions, as part of resisting some intangible SJW push. They threatened to rape a women with a knife you creep.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
natetimm posted:So, let's talk for a minute about social media and echo chambers in relation to GG. What is funny is a lot of censorship in media has been done by private groups. The Comics Code Authority wasn't a governmental body, nor was the League of Decency in the early days of film. The Family Council on Television is responsible for restricting content on TV by writing networks. About 90% of all complaints came from them, leading to censoring of content. The MPAA is not a governmental body and it can make or break a film. If it doesn't like your content, like female orgasms, it can rate it NC-17 and no one will ever see it. Censorship is not just done by governments, and to say that only governments practice censorship it is one of the most idiotic loving arguments I have heard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
afeelgoodpoop posted:They 'doxxed' (not really) a poo poo load of indie developers, because many of them were meeting with journalist and feminist game academics constantly. Why is this an acceptable rationale to release someone's personal info? natetimm posted:I thought we all just got done agreeing that editorialized articles about gaming are OK? It's not about gaming. It's about someone from Twitter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Unfunny Poster posted:This article isn't editorialized at all. Please argue the merits of the article and not engage in ad-hom attacks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
afeelgoodpoop posted:They 'doxxed' (not really) a poo poo load of indie developers, because many of them were meeting with journalist and feminist game academics constantly. Everything gamergate discussed were open documents or files being hosted on developers or academics website for people to look at. the people who really got doxxed, as in name/adress phone number was quinn, phil phish, a few journalist, who i think i remember mostly being male. those obvious unethical doxing were done anonymously and never talked about and only represent the channer spurs that hang off of GG. You're admitting that most of the people who were harassed and doxxed were not journalists, which indicates that 'ethics in games journalism' is a smokescreen for silencing critics. NutritiousSnack posted:They threatened to rape a women with a knife you creep. I just said this was not acceptable. It is in the post you quoted. Did you not read my post?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
NutritiousSnack posted:Please argue the merits of the article and not engage in ad-hom attacks. The article is skewed because the writer has had personal issues with the subject and thus is not an objective and ethically pure piece of journalism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
Unfunny Poster posted:Why is this an acceptable rationale to release someone's personal info? They actually didn't. They dug up twitter posts about she said/he said about things to prove a case of bias. Not phone numbers. home addresses, or whatever. Someone claimed that aGG doesn't doxx or harass people without a 'good' reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
NutritiousSnack posted:Please argue the merits of the article and not engage in ad-hom attacks. There are no merits to that article. It's just accusing an individual who has nothing to do with gaming journalism of being a bad person. Who cares if this person is a bad person? The tribal aspects of gamergate is the least interesting and least useful thing to argue about. I don't care at all about specific individuals being angry over twitter, I'm trying to talk about gamergate's stated goals and its as of yet apparent failure to make any headway in achieving those goals. It's also odd that someone defending a movement which claims to be about ethics in journalism would cite an article which is a specific hit piece against an obscure individual who is only notable as being apparently opposed to the author's own tribe. This is not journalism, nor is it ethical, it's a partisan attack shined up in an op-ed and published on a blog aggregator.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
Unfunny Poster posted:Why is this an acceptable rationale to release someone's personal info? Something Hellthread mostly agreed on a long time ago in relation to GG and Twitter in general is how much hatred there seems to exist between groups with only a few ideological differences. AGG and GG, both viewed as a whole, are made up of largely the same type of people who agree on lots of things, but passionately hate each other over a few disagreements. It's like a Sunni/Shia type thing. In the old days they would have just rolled their eyes at each other across the table and proceeded to make lots more awkward children, but the relative safety and distance of the internet have created gaping wounds out of relative paper cuts. It doesn't help that Twitter is like catnip for narcissists and rewards stupidity and outrage on both sides.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:I just said this was not acceptable. It is in the post you quoted. Did you not read my post? You said aGG does it for good reasons and to good people. Unfunny Poster posted:The article is skewed because the writer has had personal issues with the subject and thus is not an objective and ethically pure piece of journalism. That's the hypocrisy of the writer/reporter, not the factual merits of the article by the logic ongoing in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
What does a skewed article focusing on Randi Harper have to do with GamerGates push towards setting better ethical standards within the video games press circuit, of which Harper has no role in?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:There are no merits to that article. It's just accusing an individual who has nothing to do with gaming journalism of being a bad person. You just got done arguing aGG is more moral and justified in their arguments and methods than GG. That article was in response to that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
NutritiousSnack posted:You said aGG does it for good reasons and to good people. No I did not. If you're going to quote my posts, please read them and respond to the arguments I'm putting forth. NutritiousSnack posted:That's the hypocrisy of the writer/reporter, not the factual merits of the article by the logic ongoing in this thread. Isn't that unethical? And again, who cares if this person I've never heard of who is involved in a twitter fight I don't care about can be proven to be a bad person? Let's say I accept she is a bad person. How does this help gamergate advance ethics in gaming journalism?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:No I did not. If you're going to quote my posts, please read them and respond to the arguments I'm putting forth. "While it is never permittable or excusable to doxx or harass anyone, it seems that the agg crowd is attempting to doxx and harass prominent harassers themselves," is a direct moral and equivalency argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
Hey has anyone called out the elephant in the room, and that is that the only person who was even potentially harassed by "gamergate" was Zoe and she isn't around anymore, so everyone else is just attention whoring for patreon bucks? If you disagree all you have to do is post some of the harassment that these damsels in distress received.Unfunny Poster posted:What does a skewed article focusing on Randi Harper have to do with GamerGates push towards setting better ethical standards within the video games press circuit, of which Harper has no role in? She created the "gamergate auto-blocker" which seems pretty related to me? She is also one of the serial harassers mentioned in the twitter harssment report. Weird huh?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:You're admitting that most of the people who were harassed and doxxed were not journalists, which indicates that 'ethics in games journalism' is a smokescreen for silencing critics. The primary goal in that beginning period was linking together the collusion that occurred with the simultaneous release of gamers are dead articles. The ethics aspect is the collusion over those articles. The eventual corruption uncovered showed significant lack in ethical practices by games journalist. It can be hard to see, but it is there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
afeelgoodpoop posted:The primary goal in that beginning period was linking together the collusion that occurred with the simultaneous release of gamers are dead articles. The ethics aspect is the collusion over those articles. The eventual corruption uncovered showed significant lack in ethical practices by games journalist. It can be hard to see, but it is there. I think it is hard to see, because it isn't there. A handful of articles appearing roughly at the same time is not evidence of a conspiracy to destroy gaming.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
What does it mean when someone addresses only the most convenient posts possible? What if a Gamergater only addressed the most absolutely vicious and rabid anti-Gamergater and ignored absolutely everyone else responding to him? What would you think of that person?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:42 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:There are no merits to that article. It's just accusing an individual who has nothing to do with gaming journalism of being a bad person. Who cares if this person is a bad person? The tribal aspects of gamergate is the least interesting and least useful thing to argue about. I don't care at all about specific individuals being angry over twitter, I'm trying to talk about gamergate's stated goals and its as of yet apparent failure to make any headway in achieving those goals. Leigh Alexander has been exiled to the Siberia of the internet. Bob Chipman got fired. Native advertising has to be declared. Almost all sites have updated their ethics policies. The influence of gaming journalism is at an all time low and continues to dwindle in favor of streamers and twitch. A successful campaign of counter-shaming and hashtag activism has been created and maintained specifically for rebutting views and exposing hypocrisy. It's nothing like a clear victory, but the landscape of gaming and gaming journalism in particular has become fundamentally altered by the existence of GG and no amount of media cohesion has been able to stop it. All of that is moot, though, because Gaben killed lovely indie games and in time their mouthpieces with Steam refunds. It's why they're hilariously now demanding the government pay them to make their Newgrounds-level garbage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 05:25
|
|