Tropes vs. Women / #GamerGate Conspiracies

[Turbo]

Guys, don't try to claim throwaway accounts harassing people in your name are detractors or misguided activists who are not condoned by the overwhelming majority of the group. Only anti-GGers are allowed to do that.

[Mirby]

You do realize that a lot of the "quotes" on that site are faked, right? Not really the best site to support your claim.

[DusK]

Guys, don't try to claim throwaway accounts harassing people in your name are detractors or misguided activists who are not condoned by the overwhelming majority of the group. Only anti-GGers are allowed to do that.

Wait wait wait.

You just typed up a post -- another in a series of posts, actually -- hinting at the concept that it's erroneous to judge an entire group of people based on anecdotal statements...

...and then linked to a blog that continuously judges an entire group of people based on anecdotal statements.

How do you not understand why nobody is taking you seriously yet?

[Turbo]

a blog that continuously judges an entire group

I beg your pardon? Can you go through the process of inference you used to gather that out of "Showing the often overlooked other side of this argument" written out on the top? Can you point out any of the commentary accompanying the posts that is outright generalizing instead of speaking on a case by case basis?

faked

Bias and double standards. Bias and double standards everywhere.

Listen and believe!

[Mirby]

The only thing I believe is the truth. Something you have yet to provide and instead are linking biased and/or fabricated things that do nothing to help your case here.

Okay then.

[Turbo]

The only thing I believe is the truth.

Oh, excuse me then.

You do realize that a lot of the "quotes" on that site are faked, right? Not really the best site to support your claim.

I scrolled back up, and looked at this previous post real hard. I'm afraid I appear to be incompetent at internetting since I cannot see any links or attachments providing definitive proof that your statement is true. It looks like a bare assertion to me, but you insist you care about the truth, so I don't know where the problem lies. Can you please excuse my incompetence and explain to me where the proof is?

Now I'm not claiming that every single instance is legitimately attributable to anti-GG, I was making a statement that GG receives bullying comments, threat implying objects in the mail, and doxxes just as well, except anti-GGer's get to claim that's not from them while the same claim with the roles reversed is totally dismissed.

But, I see now, you've been trying to show me there's a reason for that. You know the truth. That is incredible! But for some reason I can't appear to find it. Can you help me find the damning verification that you have surely provided to supplement your statements of truth?

[Ivan Hakštok]

You do realize that a lot of the "quotes" on that site are faked, right? Not really the best site to support your claim.

I would argue the opposite: a lot of them are real. So there's your truth. Both sides are just as guilty.

[Mirby]

Here's another relevant link to this discussion

Also I didn't say all of them were fake, so yeah. The point of mentioning the fabrication was just that they're at the level of fabricating evidence to support the claim that anti-GGers are attacking pro-GGers. And yes, some of what's on that site is legit, I won't deny it. Just was pointing that out.

[Turbo]

Here's another relevant link to this discussion

Also I didn't say all of them were fake, so yeah. The point of mentioning the fabrication was just that they're at the level of fabricating evidence to support the claim that anti-GGers are attacking pro-GGers. And yes, some of what's on that site is legit, I won't deny it. Just was pointing that out.

You said you believe in the truth.

I asked how you arrived to the truth about the specific statement "most of those are fake."

The answer: "they're at the level of fabricating evidence"

You're not really coming off as a person who should be on the internet unsupervised.

You also took the opportunity pick out another lovely article for some reason. I'm guessing this one is supposed to be "neutral" as well.

FTA:

I'll start believing that people are really against threats and doxxing when they act like it.

Like this? Or is this fake too? I mean those are relative time stamps that could have been taken at different times, and theres photoshop, and...- oh: 25th, 26th

That must mean that GG hacked twitter to make certain tweets display the wrong time, and/or those people were cooperating with the threat poster to manufacture a scenario they respond to. Because it's just not possible for there to be unaffiliated trolls on the internet that are capable of typing out a tag according to your mysterious access of truth.

[Ab56 v2 aka Ash]

You know how religions and political ideologies tend to have "geographical borders?" Like when the "Bible belt" is referred to. It's not perfect homogeneity but indicates a concentration of something. San Francisco is basically home base for third wave "feminism," so someone with SF as location presenting a link to a ridiculously cherry-picked smearing opinion piece as some kind of neutral party is just embarrassingly stereotypical.

This is a long way of saying you're stereotyping San Franciscans as overly aggressive feminists.

[DusK]

This is a long way of saying you're stereotyping San Franciscans as overly aggressive feminists.

Nah, he just really cares about ethics in game journalism.

[Turbo]

This is a long way of saying you're stereotyping San Franciscans as overly aggressive feminists.

Or that a San Franciscan using the pseudologic of proponents of a prominent ideology in San Francisco is just not surprising.

"You can't define something with itself, after all" has the intent that the Mirby's "team" should be the grand arbiters of semantics, apparent by Mirby also linking an article that contains the mocking statement to subtitle an image I think in reference to some kind of "booth babe" quip within it: "But GamerGate isn’t about misogyny." Is this not an arbitrary definition of misogyny? Why?

[Mirby]

The truth I believe in is that this whole GamerGate thing needs to stop. Yes there is corruption in gaming journalism, and always has been to some extent. But if there are any supporters of GamerGate who truly believe in this and aren't just trolls using the name to harass women (which seems to be a lot of them, but I could be wrong), then they should fight for it under a different name. The GamerGate name is tainted and has been from its very origins and serves no good to anyone, if it ever did.

Also I'd appreciate it if you'd stop attacking my character, Turbo, because that does nothing to help your cause. You claim I shouldn't be on the internet unsupervised, yet your actions prove that maybe, just maybe, you are the one who needs supervision. To discredit my claim that was based in fact about the GG wiki being biased, you attacked my location and stereotyped me based purely on that. You constantly ignore the logic in what others are saying to substitute your own, even when proof is brought against you.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't be on the internet unsupervised as you say I am, all I'm saying is that perhaps a little more research into things before you make your claims (or maybe a little more common sense) would be more than beneficial to your cause.

Now if you'll excuse me I'll just continue posting links here that are relevant not as proof of what side I'm on (because there are really no sides here, just those who support GG and literally everyone else), but merely as food for thought. Just as I have been this whole time.

[DusK]

Or that a San Franciscan using the pseudologic of proponents of a prominent ideology in San Francisco is just not surprising.

Guys, don't criticize an entire movement based off of its prominent widespread image perpetuated by many self-identified supporters of that movement. Only pro-GGers are allowed to do that.

As they say over at 8chan, top kek.

Also I'd appreciate it if you'd stop attacking my character, Turbo, because that does nothing to help your cause.

He didn't attack your character. And if anyone ever did attack your character, he'd report them. Hell, you probably just faked all that stuff about your character being attacked. #GamerGate

To be completely serious though, Turbo provided an excellent example of why the "GamerGate" tag, considering its fallacious origins, is still used: There will always be people so opposed to reason that they need to cling to conspiracy theories. Birthers, 9/11 truthers, HAARPers... five guysers?

Edited October 28, 2014 by DusK

[Turbo]

Sorry Mirby is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her.

Okay, this is what I needed to see, assuming you've had the ability to delete posts to create an echo chamber but didn't.

You're twisting words on a facepalm level still, however.

you attacked my location

No more than saying Christianity is the dominant religion in Texas.

and stereotyped me based purely on that

I just elaborated that I gauged you before saying that it figures, but you may have been typing this before seeing.

You constantly ignore the logic in what others are saying to substitute your own, even when proof is brought against you.

I apologize profusely that I don't consider opinions like "they're at the level of fabricating evidence" as proof of anything. Also, did you not notice that I admitted I did not have the details correct on Depression Quest? Or did you simply choose not to acknowledge it while describing to "me" (a.k.a. trying to mischaracterize the discussion to skimming forum readers) what my actions are in the perspective of Super Bias Land?

all I'm saying is that perhaps a little more research into things before you make your claims (or maybe a little more common sense)

Common sense is not a substitute for evidence.

[timaeus222]

Common sense is not a substitute for evidence.

No, but it is quite relevant to the gathering of good evidence. That was the idea.

[DusK]

Common sense is not a substitute for evidence.

Your definition of "evidence" dictates that if someone tags someone on Facebook, or put them in the credits for a game, that means they fucked. Be real. You don't care about evidence.

[Turbo]

No, but it is quite relevant to the gathering of good evidence. That was the idea.

Considering that pro-GGers do not convene in some kind of secret lair, what kind of common sense says you should rely on second/third hand info about them from opinionated blogs?

Is it something like the common sense that infers how to pronounce words like "timbre" "solder" and "vitae," or is it the type that develops particularly after taking gender/justice studies that encourage subjective methodology with a warped sense of peer review?

[DusK]

what kind of common sense says you should rely on second/third hand info about them from opinionated blogs?

The irony is so thick I'm not even sure a buster sword could cut through it.

[timaeus222]

Considering that pro-GGers do not convene in some kind of secret lair, what kind of common sense says you should rely on second/third hand info about them from opinionated blogs?

Is it something like the common sense that infers how to pronounce words like "timbre" "solder" and "vitae," or is it the type that develops particularly after taking gender/justice studies that encourage subjective methodology with a warped sense of peer review?

So sarcastic. Neither. Who studies how to fabricate?

More like "the type that develops particularly [with regards to] gender/justice [situations] that" ask for the critical evaluation of what is clearly biased and what looks incredibly suspicious before the making of claims regarding their qualifications.

Edited October 28, 2014 by timaeus222

[zircon]

Anyhow, this controversy was not what prompted the appearance of gamergate, the concerted censorship of discussion and speculation about these minor infractions followed by outright flaunting of journalists having ties with each other to coordinate manipulation of public opinion with deceptive articles that attack their own audience is what did it. It's not like GGers sit around obsessing over this red herring that I shouldn't have acknowledged in the first place. I don't know who the person DusK ran into is, but it doesn't look at all like anything I've seen from 8c or KiA. It's described as if it was spoken by a stereotypical radical SJW, really.

Regardless of what GG is *now*, the Zoe "controversy" IS actually what prompted gamergate. The person who actually created the #gamergate hashtag, Adam Baldwin, coined it while linking to the InternetAristocrat videos. Let's not revise history here.

Again: Nobody is arguing against ethics in game journalism. But the GG movement comes across as petty, obsessive, and, dare I say a bit misogynist, when it obsesses over people like Anita (not a game journalist), Leigh (who writes opinion pieces), Brianna (not a game journalist), or Zoe (not a game journalist) while seemingly ignoring the far larger ethical issues at hand.

I posit that the movement is NOT actually about harassment or misogyny, but it's not about really about game journalism either. Posting on KotakuInAction under an alt account I've had conversations with quite a few pro-GG folks. The main sentiment is one of camaraderie, and a feeling that their identity as gamers is under attack - that the games they love will not exist, that "diversity" and other "SJW causes" are being forced upon developers, that the media is ignoring them. Sure, some people DO care about ethics in game journalism. But that really doesn't appear to be the focus.

This explains why there is such concerted effort to attack and punish Gawker. Surely otherwise intelligent people realize that doing this isn't really going to effect positive change; Gawker has responded to their tactics with hostility. But GG doesn't care about that - they care about "winning the war" and punishing an organization they don't like. If they DID really care about ethics in journalism, the focus would be very different... say, for example, by creating and/or promoting sites that have stronger policies, or by appealing to journalists reasonably, as opposed to attacking Kotaku by carpetbombing its advertisers.

Objections to that analysis?

[Turbo]

Who studies how to fabricate?

Oh, I know this one! Propagandists.

More like "the type that develops particularly [with regards to] gender/justice [situations] that" ask for the critical evaluation of what is clearly biased and what looks incredibly suspicious before the making of claims regarding their qualifications.

Is cherry picking, as in, omitting a lot of stuff to present a narrative-strengthening view of a situation, readily apparent to a reader when it occurs without requiring the reader to be familiar with the subject themselves?

Like, all you have to do to discount that possibility in this case is just see the misogyny full blown in one of the hives, like here, in one of several threads on the GG subreddit currently supporting Christina Hoff Sommers, the feminist who observed the SJW trend in the making twenty years ago and published a book about it. Such a cancerous mass of woman-hating scum. Yuck.

[DusK]

Christina Hoff Sommers, the feminist

That's like saying "James Dobson, the LGBT advocate".

[timaeus222]

Is cherry picking, as in, omitting a lot of stuff to present a narrative-strengthening view of a situation, readily apparent to a reader when it occurs without requiring the reader to be familiar with the subject themselves?

Sure. I like analyzing language and seeing what rhetoric people fail in or succeed in conveying properly, and when it's done improperly, it can get pretty noticeable. When people start bringing in context that requires inductive reasoning... that's where it gets harder. But not so much that you're completely in the dark. Rhetorical analysis gets you far, but oddly enough, sometimes instinct too (it's a pretty interesting book, and you should read it for fun).

Like, all you have to do to discount that possibility in this case is just see the misogyny full blown in one of the hives, like here, in one of several threads on the GG subreddit currently supporting Christina Hoff Sommers, the feminist who observed the SJW trend in the making twenty years ago and published a book about it. Such a cancerous mass of woman-hating scum. Yuck.

...what?

I'm reading this and seeing quite a few constructive statements. A few egregious and rash predictions here, but I see a fair amount of dignified people.

But maybe her being reasonable will get a few of the viewers to look a little deeper.

OMG hope.

She already responded saying she will take time to talk about the ethics, she will keep them on point!

Optimism.

but then again she is quite experienced in handling hardballs. Also she has done her research so she will be ready, if the host hasn't done the research it will end up being humorous.

Concession to her abilities, plus a little anticipation of failure with a remark.

WE should be throwing gobs of moneey at renewable resources because the returns on that shit is incredible over time. Our main issue is batteries at the moment to store solar energy.

Somehow got here, but unusually progressive.

I have no doubt in my mind this is one of the best candidates for our voice. She has been doing this for some time and will know how to get our point across.

Lookee, a fan.

Since her husband passed away and we sent her the flowers/condolences book, it seems like Sommers has really stepped up her support of GamerGate. At least it looks that way to me; maybe I'm imagining it. Either way, her voice of reason is always appreciated.

Genuine care here.

And that's only halfway down the page.

Edited October 28, 2014 by timaeus222

[Turbo]

Regardless of what GG is *now*, the Zoe "controversy" IS actually what prompted gamergate. The person who actually created the #gamergate hashtag, Adam Baldwin, coined it while linking to the InternetAristocrat videos. Let's not revise history here.

Oh, you're right, I misspoke there. That's the technical accurate origin, but it didn't have a boom of activity right away.

Again: Nobody is arguing against ethics in game journalism. But the GG movement comes across as petty, obsessive, and, dare I say a bit misogynist, when it obsesses over people like Anita (not a game journalist), Leigh (who writes opinion pieces), Brianna (not a game journalist), or Zoe (not a game journalist) while seemingly ignoring the far larger ethical issues at hand.

Constant prodding over twitter and shady fundraisers (ethics concern) have nothing to do with it?

I posit that the movement is NOT actually about harassment or misogyny, but it's not about really about game journalism either. Posting on KotakuInAction under an alt account I've had conversations with quite a few pro-GG folks. The main sentiment is one of camaraderie, and a feeling that their identity as gamers is under attack - that the games they love will not exist, that "diversity" and other "SJW causes" are being forced upon developers, that the media is ignoring them. Sure, some people DO care about ethics in game journalism. But that really doesn't appear to be the focus.

If we're splitting hairs here,

camaraderie - you weren't listing this as an actual promotional subject of the group right?

state of gaming being influenced/ agenda pressed on developers - Holding ratings hostage, representing the ability to smear dev teams as bigoted so they're incentivized to cater to sensibilities not necessarily shared by themselves as artists or consumers they'd like to cater, in order to stay afloat or gain entry to the field regardless of crafstmanship? That would be corrupt behavior wouldn't it? This has been occurring to some degree, has it not?

that the media is ignoring them - whitewashing to protect their media "trade secrets" and one sided narrative is not corrupt/irresponsible journalism?

Sure, some people DO care about ethics in game journalism - Wait what, I already read past the list of stuff not about journalistic ethics? What is your narrow definition of it?

This explains why there is such concerted effort to attack and punish Gawker. Surely otherwise intelligent people realize that doing this isn't really going to effect positive change; Gawker has responded to their tactics with hostility. But GG doesn't care about that - they care about "winning the war" and punishing an organization they don't like. If they DID really care about ethics in journalism, the focus would be very different... say, for example, by creating and/or promoting sites that have stronger policies, or by appealing to journalists reasonably, as opposed to attacking Kotaku by carpetbombing its advertisers.

Objections to that analysis?

Christcenteredgaming or something gets praised for their review method that allows for their subjectivity without applying pressure on game developers, and I believe new sites have indeed sprung up. It's just that "punishing Gawker" is not mutually exclusive, and that depiction of is slightly loaded.

I once did music for commission for a site, and when it came up for talking about handling a bigger solely musical project, the site owner described their desired share for pseudo-promotional hosting of the work to be providing their fanbase as a resource. It was disturbing to me. Sure, I need money, but I didn't get into music to deal in the logistics of literal human capital. I tried to cut ties. Not-so-coincidentally, they turned out to be a big proponent of bullying people into submission for crossing them, and I suspect the smear campaign spewing forth across the internet was due to a character assassination squad they hired.

That's how I see what's happening here, except the resource that was supposed to be being sold is aware for this. That these gaming websites were catering to a not-necessarily-gamer demographic was straight up told to them by identity attack of "gamers are dead." It's not that advertising support is a bad thing, but it was meant to supplement legitimate things. And it might be also something that advertisers would like, to not be lied to about what audience they're expecting to reach with advertisements. Gawker has shown time and again that it's deliberately designed to be clickbaity, exploiting the addictive stranglehold of tumblr delusi-feminoppression-lympics, out to make a profit at the cost of social sanity. Instead of making genuine expressions that a viewership can find useful or appealing in relation to games where games are not just a supplemental tool of inciting and encouraging a histrionic outrage.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Turbo