Topic: Brianna Wu
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ started this discussion 11 years ago #40,545
That is all.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 54 minutes later[^] [v] #539,919
du arg
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 3 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #539,959
who's that? a porn star?
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #539,965
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #539,968
@previous (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
I don't think Brianna Wu is transgender.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brianna_Wu
I don't think Brianna Wu is transgender.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brianna_Wu
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 52 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #539,969
@539,965 (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
I'm not sure she can be considered a fake victim when she most likely has been harassed extensively on Twitter and other places.
Gamergate supporters are notoriously vicious. Some women have even left the gaming industry or their homes because it got so bad.
I'm not sure she can be considered a fake victim when she most likely has been harassed extensively on Twitter and other places.
Gamergate supporters are notoriously vicious. Some women have even left the gaming industry or their homes because it got so bad.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx double-posted this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #539,971
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 5 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #539,972
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ (OP) double-posted this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #539,973
@539,969 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
He has been caught using sockpuppets to make threats against himself, lied about being driven out of his home, and lied about getting a restraining order against Jace Connors.
He has been caught using sockpuppets to make threats against himself, lied about being driven out of his home, and lied about getting a restraining order against Jace Connors.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #539,976
@previous (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
What, this? This was a parody, not a sockpuppet. The home thing I don't know about, but I am assuming she could return to her home later, and the Jace Connors thing is odd I suppose but hardly worth demonising her over. The GamerGaters have done far worse than tell small fibs.
Buspuppie, I find it odd that you seem to be siding with GamerGate. They're known for having pretty storng anti-feminist views. They basically want gaming to stay quiet on issues relating to women, and quite a few of its supporters are openly against feminism.
What, this? This was a parody, not a sockpuppet. The home thing I don't know about, but I am assuming she could return to her home later, and the Jace Connors thing is odd I suppose but hardly worth demonising her over. The GamerGaters have done far worse than tell small fibs.
Buspuppie, I find it odd that you seem to be siding with GamerGate. They're known for having pretty storng anti-feminist views. They basically want gaming to stay quiet on issues relating to women, and quite a few of its supporters are openly against feminism.
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 10 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #539,983
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I dont believe that it was a parody at all.
I dont like either side of gamergate, because they use the same tactics. Bullying, lying, threatening, and then claiming to be persecuted.
Also, it isnt small fibs, when they are made to further a political goal.
I dont believe that it was a parody at all.
I dont like either side of gamergate, because they use the same tactics. Bullying, lying, threatening, and then claiming to be persecuted.
Also, it isnt small fibs, when they are made to further a political goal.
(Edited 52 seconds later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #539,985
@previous (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
It obviously is a parody. Look at it, how is "Yes, lol, I am real life bro. I like gaming, crushing the cheat codes and being a real male." in any way not parodic?
But the GamerGate side is far worse, really. Just for their overall goal. They're cultural reactionaries, they want to keep feminism out of gaming and to silence anyone who makes feminist criticisms of gaming.
Again, I am quite surprised that you of all people seem to be apathetic about what GamerGate is doing. Thought you was all about feminism.
It obviously is a parody. Look at it, how is "Yes, lol, I am real life bro. I like gaming, crushing the cheat codes and being a real male." in any way not parodic?
But the GamerGate side is far worse, really. Just for their overall goal. They're cultural reactionaries, they want to keep feminism out of gaming and to silence anyone who makes feminist criticisms of gaming.
Again, I am quite surprised that you of all people seem to be apathetic about what GamerGate is doing. Thought you was all about feminism.
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #539,987
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Check out his encyclopedia dramatica page and you'll see the fake threats.
My problems with gamergate.
1.people exchanging sex for favorable video game reviews
2. People making threats of violence
3. People cashing in by pretending to be afraid or faking threats
4. People claiming to care about the depiction o f women in video games, while making sexist games themselves
5. Tumblr and the red pills involvement
Seriously, I care about real problems way more than this manufactured outrage from both sides.
Check out his encyclopedia dramatica page and you'll see the fake threats.
My problems with gamergate.
1.people exchanging sex for favorable video game reviews
2. People making threats of violence
3. People cashing in by pretending to be afraid or faking threats
4. People claiming to care about the depiction o f women in video games, while making sexist games themselves
5. Tumblr and the red pills involvement
Seriously, I care about real problems way more than this manufactured outrage from both sides.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 13 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #539,994
@previous (swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/)
> 1.people exchanging sex for favorable video game reviews
Hmmm, well in regards to Zoe Quinn at least, this seems to have been debunked. I agree that the idea of this happening is wrong, but I don't think that GamerGate is the right movement to campaign against it. They have too much of an anti-feminist agenda to focus soley on journalistic ethics.
> 5.Tumblr and the red pills involvement
I agree, there's extreme sorts involved in both ends of it. But I try to look at the overall picture of it, what each of the sides seems to be pushing for on the whole. And in that regard, Gamergate seems to be the more damaging force.
> 1.people exchanging sex for favorable video game reviews
Hmmm, well in regards to Zoe Quinn at least, this seems to have been debunked. I agree that the idea of this happening is wrong, but I don't think that GamerGate is the right movement to campaign against it. They have too much of an anti-feminist agenda to focus soley on journalistic ethics.
> 5.Tumblr and the red pills involvement
I agree, there's extreme sorts involved in both ends of it. But I try to look at the overall picture of it, what each of the sides seems to be pushing for on the whole. And in that regard, Gamergate seems to be the more damaging force.
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 48 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,013
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Both are bad, and I dont care which is worse. I fight with both groups all over reddit, anyway.
Both are bad, and I dont care which is worse. I fight with both groups all over reddit, anyway.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 19 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,014
I just thought that I should share this with the fora. It made me very sad.
http://zennistrad.tumblr.com/post/113151511988/gamergate-is-killing-video-games
In a nutshell, Gamergate is causing games to be badly perceived in academia. Research into games, funding of game-related projects, and the archiving of games are all being damaged.
http://zennistrad.tumblr.com/post/113151511988/gamergate-is-killing-video-games
In a nutshell, Gamergate is causing games to be badly perceived in academia. Research into games, funding of game-related projects, and the archiving of games are all being damaged.
Green joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,017
Do people still care about Gamergate? God. This is why I stick to gameboy games.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,019
@540,014 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
https://aideedystopia.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/16-reasons-why-chess-is-not-good-for-you/
actually there used to be a lot of people in the 1800s that thought time spent playing chess was a waste and that too many young men were wasting their lives playing that game and that it is actually bad for you. the claims never truly disappeared and even today crazy people will claim the activity itself is to blame.
don't worry, games aren't going anywhere no matter what some tumbler blog says.
https://aideedystopia.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/16-reasons-why-chess-is-not-good-for-you/
actually there used to be a lot of people in the 1800s that thought time spent playing chess was a waste and that too many young men were wasting their lives playing that game and that it is actually bad for you. the claims never truly disappeared and even today crazy people will claim the activity itself is to blame.
don't worry, games aren't going anywhere no matter what some tumbler blog says.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,021
@previous (squeegee)
I don't understand your point. How does a satirical article about chess relate to what I posted?
I don't understand your point. How does a satirical article about chess relate to what I posted?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx double-posted this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,023
@540,019 (squeegee)
I am aware that things become more accepted as time goes on and that games will likely find such acceptance in due course. But the point is that Gamergate has created a setback that did not need to be there. Progress was being made, but now some of it has been erased.
And that wasn't just a "Tumblr blog". Read it a little, real academics are reporting this stuff. There's also tweets from an media studies student who notes says that her institution is no longer allowing students to become train as video game archivists. It's not talking about fringe loons who want to demonise gaming, but actual researchers and academics. People who could advance the acceptance and application of gaming considerably if they lent their support/approval.
I am aware that things become more accepted as time goes on and that games will likely find such acceptance in due course. But the point is that Gamergate has created a setback that did not need to be there. Progress was being made, but now some of it has been erased.
And that wasn't just a "Tumblr blog". Read it a little, real academics are reporting this stuff. There's also tweets from an media studies student who notes says that her institution is no longer allowing students to become train as video game archivists. It's not talking about fringe loons who want to demonise gaming, but actual researchers and academics. People who could advance the acceptance and application of gaming considerably if they lent their support/approval.
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 12 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,027
and as an aside i'll say that the "gamergate problem" is actually more of a symptom of anonymity than a problem with games. attach yourself to everything you say and do online and i guarantee people will modify their behavior accordingly.
but, that's hopefully not going to happen because the market place of free ideas is better for society than one in which any random tweet can end up having, like, national consequences. it irritates the fuck out of me when i read, "some random white girl from the midwest sent a racist tweet while wearing a college sweatshirt," and she gets expelled or something. she's just some random nobody that doesn't deserve to be thrust in the spotlight and reprimanded on national TV and expelled!
but, what'll eventually happen, is, like, full on forcing your identity when online. If they can do it they will certainly try and they'll get most people. a few savy folks might evade and keep on trolling, but i guarantee that if a persons name was used instead of xX420_noScopeXx then there would be a lot less harassment. a site like Facebook, i think, is setting a precedent. Of course you can make fake accounts and all that, and the PM function can certainly be used for harassment, but you certainly don't have a Facebook-gate going on. yet, who knows, maybe they will.
But, a good example was that kid on the Xbox or wherever who let a new "friend" access his Destiny account to exploit an XP glitch. The "friend" ended up deleting the kids characters and much lols were had until the shit made the news and the "friend" was doxxed basically on national television. He of course said he didn't do it and that some unknown friend must have done it when he wasn't looking, but, the "friend" was super upset over all the death threats and spam in his PS inbox. he was crying to reporters and asking people to please stop harassing his family and shit. it was embarrassing to see the news media DO that, but, they did. so the veil of anonymity is what really allows this kind of behavior to perpetuate. As soon as it's seen as YOU doing it then all of the sudden all the old social rules begin to apply. what is allowed/isn't allowed becomes relevant only when there are personal consequences. consequences to your "virtual self" are irrelevant because it is very easy to evade any actual penalty.
and in fact all of our virtual selves have infinite lives, we can reinvent ourselves at any time, disappear and reappear, and whatever reputation a previous self had you can always wipe it clean and start over. i've probably used hundreds of different handles through the years, i can only imagine what it would be like to have a virtual self as continuous as my actual self. i would probably be a lot more myself and a lot less squeegee. but, anonymity is what makes squeegee possible. squeegee can say anything. i can not, for fear that someone may take a joke too seriously.
but, that's hopefully not going to happen because the market place of free ideas is better for society than one in which any random tweet can end up having, like, national consequences. it irritates the fuck out of me when i read, "some random white girl from the midwest sent a racist tweet while wearing a college sweatshirt," and she gets expelled or something. she's just some random nobody that doesn't deserve to be thrust in the spotlight and reprimanded on national TV and expelled!
but, what'll eventually happen, is, like, full on forcing your identity when online. If they can do it they will certainly try and they'll get most people. a few savy folks might evade and keep on trolling, but i guarantee that if a persons name was used instead of xX420_noScopeXx then there would be a lot less harassment. a site like Facebook, i think, is setting a precedent. Of course you can make fake accounts and all that, and the PM function can certainly be used for harassment, but you certainly don't have a Facebook-gate going on. yet, who knows, maybe they will.
But, a good example was that kid on the Xbox or wherever who let a new "friend" access his Destiny account to exploit an XP glitch. The "friend" ended up deleting the kids characters and much lols were had until the shit made the news and the "friend" was doxxed basically on national television. He of course said he didn't do it and that some unknown friend must have done it when he wasn't looking, but, the "friend" was super upset over all the death threats and spam in his PS inbox. he was crying to reporters and asking people to please stop harassing his family and shit. it was embarrassing to see the news media DO that, but, they did. so the veil of anonymity is what really allows this kind of behavior to perpetuate. As soon as it's seen as YOU doing it then all of the sudden all the old social rules begin to apply. what is allowed/isn't allowed becomes relevant only when there are personal consequences. consequences to your "virtual self" are irrelevant because it is very easy to evade any actual penalty.
and in fact all of our virtual selves have infinite lives, we can reinvent ourselves at any time, disappear and reappear, and whatever reputation a previous self had you can always wipe it clean and start over. i've probably used hundreds of different handles through the years, i can only imagine what it would be like to have a virtual self as continuous as my actual self. i would probably be a lot more myself and a lot less squeegee. but, anonymity is what makes squeegee possible. squeegee can say anything. i can not, for fear that someone may take a joke too seriously.
squeegee double-posted this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,028
@540,021 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
oh, was it satirical? i didn't read that one. i actually read a very serious one a few months ago attached to a reddit post about victorian era dislike of chess as it was seen as a very wasteful passtime and that young men were lured to it. cba to find it
oh, was it satirical? i didn't read that one. i actually read a very serious one a few months ago attached to a reddit post about victorian era dislike of chess as it was seen as a very wasteful passtime and that young men were lured to it. cba to find it
WSD !VBNtXmsnv. joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 31 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,029
Both sides are fucking garbage.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,031
@539,969 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
poor widdle babbies were bullied on twitter the meanypants gamergate supporters and were triggered ;'(
cry me a river
this whole gamergate is like a kindergarten playground fight. pathetic. these people should either shut up and play videogames or just get a life already
poor widdle babbies were bullied on twitter the meanypants gamergate supporters and were triggered ;'(
cry me a river
this whole gamergate is like a kindergarten playground fight. pathetic. these people should either shut up and play videogames or just get a life already
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,033
@540,027 (squeegee)
Anonymity is more the tool than the problem itself. The problem, basically, is that there are lots of loud people in gaming culture who are against issues of progressivism being discussed in gaming, or they're just outright bigoted. You see this a lot in wider "nard culture", what with the complaints of women being harassed at conventions and stuff like that. Yes if you took anonymity away there'd probably be less harassment, but I don't doubt there'd still be quite a lot, and those attitudes would still exist.
But anyway, not quite sure what you're getting at. Yes anonymity exists and its good that it does, nobody reasonable is saying it should be taken away. So then there still exists the problem of these reactionaries in gaming, who are damaging its reputation.
Anonymity is more the tool than the problem itself. The problem, basically, is that there are lots of loud people in gaming culture who are against issues of progressivism being discussed in gaming, or they're just outright bigoted. You see this a lot in wider "nard culture", what with the complaints of women being harassed at conventions and stuff like that. Yes if you took anonymity away there'd probably be less harassment, but I don't doubt there'd still be quite a lot, and those attitudes would still exist.
But anyway, not quite sure what you're getting at. Yes anonymity exists and its good that it does, nobody reasonable is saying it should be taken away. So then there still exists the problem of these reactionaries in gaming, who are damaging its reputation.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx double-posted this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,035
@540,029 (WSD !VBNtXmsnv.)
You conflate having idiots with the whole position, I think. The anti-GG side is largely defending the rights of women and feminists to voice their opinions on games without harassment. And having read a few things of Anita Sarkeesian's, I can say that what's being said doesn't seem at all unreasonable or anything.
@540,031 (C)
You're downplaying it quite a bit. I don't imagine you'd enjoy around-the-clock harassment, your personal info being posted everywhere and death threats.
You conflate having idiots with the whole position, I think. The anti-GG side is largely defending the rights of women and feminists to voice their opinions on games without harassment. And having read a few things of Anita Sarkeesian's, I can say that what's being said doesn't seem at all unreasonable or anything.
@540,031 (C)
You're downplaying it quite a bit. I don't imagine you'd enjoy around-the-clock harassment, your personal info being posted everywhere and death threats.
(Edited 57 seconds later.)
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,036
@540,023 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> I am aware that things become more accepted as time goes on and that games will likely find such acceptance in due course. But the point is that Gamergate has created a setback that did not need to be there. Progress was being made, but now some of it has been erased.
progress is made with the "box office" money games pull. They will never go away as long as there is money there and researchers will always be nerds and, in general, nerds love gaming. ipso facto there will always be gaming as long as there are nerds to code big titties.
> And that wasn't just a "Tumblr blog". Read it a little, real academics are reporting this stuff.
academics are always reporting all kinds of stuff, like how cell phones might cause brain cancer and how gerbils are responsible for the black death. (i'm sorry, i meant to say the media takes research out of context and report scandalous stories that are scarier than they are easy to understand.)
> There's also tweets from an media studies student who notes says that her institution is no longer allowing students to become train as video game archivists.
i wonder why "video game archivist" isn't a college course anymore. SJW activism, or maybe that is an incredibly useless course that adds nothing to whatever curriculum they are studying. and i refuse to believe "video game archivist" was a whole program. it sounds like an elective class. If the school was literally offering a degree in "video game archiving" then the school should be ashamed of itself. it really sounds like a class you might take if you were training to be a librarian or something. without knowing anything more than what was stated i would guess that some professors pet "school of rock" class or "symbolism in the Simpsons" class got cancelled for budget reasons.
> It's not talking about fringe loons who want to demonise gaming, but actual researchers and academics. People who could advance the acceptance and application of gaming considerably if they lent their support/approval.
gamersgate will be no more meaningful than the old GTA witch hunt days when the media held violent games up as a cause of school violence and misbehavior.
> I am aware that things become more accepted as time goes on and that games will likely find such acceptance in due course. But the point is that Gamergate has created a setback that did not need to be there. Progress was being made, but now some of it has been erased.
progress is made with the "box office" money games pull. They will never go away as long as there is money there and researchers will always be nerds and, in general, nerds love gaming. ipso facto there will always be gaming as long as there are nerds to code big titties.
> And that wasn't just a "Tumblr blog". Read it a little, real academics are reporting this stuff.
academics are always reporting all kinds of stuff, like how cell phones might cause brain cancer and how gerbils are responsible for the black death. (i'm sorry, i meant to say the media takes research out of context and report scandalous stories that are scarier than they are easy to understand.)
> There's also tweets from an media studies student who notes says that her institution is no longer allowing students to become train as video game archivists.
i wonder why "video game archivist" isn't a college course anymore. SJW activism, or maybe that is an incredibly useless course that adds nothing to whatever curriculum they are studying. and i refuse to believe "video game archivist" was a whole program. it sounds like an elective class. If the school was literally offering a degree in "video game archiving" then the school should be ashamed of itself. it really sounds like a class you might take if you were training to be a librarian or something. without knowing anything more than what was stated i would guess that some professors pet "school of rock" class or "symbolism in the Simpsons" class got cancelled for budget reasons.
> It's not talking about fringe loons who want to demonise gaming, but actual researchers and academics. People who could advance the acceptance and application of gaming considerably if they lent their support/approval.
gamersgate will be no more meaningful than the old GTA witch hunt days when the media held violent games up as a cause of school violence and misbehavior.
squeegee double-posted this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,037
@540,033 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
these reactionaries exist anywhere there is anonymity. the problem in gaming is no more a problem than the problem in Youtube comments.
but, the media loves a good scapegoat and anything with -gate on the end of it, ergo, we're still hearing about it.
also the last Mavericks game i went to there were like 10 girls there that got cat called as they were walking by (not by me, mind you, but different drunk dudes in the seats).
this is not a gamer problem, it is a people problem. like, in general.
you can no more fix this in gaming than you can fix this anywhere. to focus on the "problem in gaming" is to look at a cancer patient and obsess over the hairloss. it's a symptom of a larger problem, and buying the person a wig isn't going to cure them even if it covers up the hairloss.
talking about it as being a "problem with gaming" is talking about a straw man. just like claiming that gamers are aggressive and violent people is a straw man.
these reactionaries exist anywhere there is anonymity. the problem in gaming is no more a problem than the problem in Youtube comments.
but, the media loves a good scapegoat and anything with -gate on the end of it, ergo, we're still hearing about it.
also the last Mavericks game i went to there were like 10 girls there that got cat called as they were walking by (not by me, mind you, but different drunk dudes in the seats).
this is not a gamer problem, it is a people problem. like, in general.
you can no more fix this in gaming than you can fix this anywhere. to focus on the "problem in gaming" is to look at a cancer patient and obsess over the hairloss. it's a symptom of a larger problem, and buying the person a wig isn't going to cure them even if it covers up the hairloss.
talking about it as being a "problem with gaming" is talking about a straw man. just like claiming that gamers are aggressive and violent people is a straw man.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,038
@540,036 (squeegee)
I already said that I thought that games would win acceptance in the end. Again, my point was that this was a needless setback that has had immediate negative effects on gaming within academia.
> i meant to say the media takes research out of context and report scandalous stories that are scarier than they are easy to understand
There's not really any distortion happening here. Real academics have come forward to talk about Gamergate's effects in their professions.
> i wonder why "video game archivist" isn't a college course anymore. SJW activism, or maybe that is an incredibly useless course that adds nothing to whatever curriculum they are studying.
I'm not sure you understand the importance of it. Read this part:
The "no future" part is a little overdramatic, but otherwise it makes a good point. If films are worth archiving in this way, then games are too.
I already said that I thought that games would win acceptance in the end. Again, my point was that this was a needless setback that has had immediate negative effects on gaming within academia.
> i meant to say the media takes research out of context and report scandalous stories that are scarier than they are easy to understand
There's not really any distortion happening here. Real academics have come forward to talk about Gamergate's effects in their professions.
> i wonder why "video game archivist" isn't a college course anymore. SJW activism, or maybe that is an incredibly useless course that adds nothing to whatever curriculum they are studying.
I'm not sure you understand the importance of it. Read this part:
Even worse, without academia the task of preserving, understanding, and maintaining the cultural history of games becomes a daunting task. Half of all American films made before 1950 are lost forever, and were it not for the work of archivists and academics, it’s likely we would never have been able to preserve even that much.
So what happens to video games when academics don’t take them seriously at all? What happens when people refuse to archive games or study their cultural significance?
To put it bluntly, video games will have no future. If we do not take care to study the cultural history of games, it may forever disappear to us when cartridges and CDs inevitably die, emulators become obsolete, servers shut down, manuals are lost, and the publisher history fades into obscurity.
So what happens to video games when academics don’t take them seriously at all? What happens when people refuse to archive games or study their cultural significance?
To put it bluntly, video games will have no future. If we do not take care to study the cultural history of games, it may forever disappear to us when cartridges and CDs inevitably die, emulators become obsolete, servers shut down, manuals are lost, and the publisher history fades into obscurity.
The "no future" part is a little overdramatic, but otherwise it makes a good point. If films are worth archiving in this way, then games are too.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,039
@540,035 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
both sides aren't really doing anything other than defending their rights to stir up drama like the borderline little shits they are.
the gg side are edgy teenagers from 4chan and reddit trying to live up the days of chanology, the anti-gg is like the PMRC or any other "parents" organization of censure, except that instead of soccer moms, they are twitter sub-celebrities with hurt feelings
they are shit on a different package and use methods that would put the NKVD to shame
both sides aren't really doing anything other than defending their rights to stir up drama like the borderline little shits they are.
the gg side are edgy teenagers from 4chan and reddit trying to live up the days of chanology, the anti-gg is like the PMRC or any other "parents" organization of censure, except that instead of soccer moms, they are twitter sub-celebrities with hurt feelings
they are shit on a different package and use methods that would put the NKVD to shame
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,040
@540,037 (squeegee)
> is no more a problem than the problem in Youtube comments.
The key difference is that the Gaters are organised. You don't genrally see YouTube commenters organising things like harasment campaigns or email campaigns.
> this is not a gamer problem, it is a people problem. like, in general.
> you can no more fix this in gaming than you can fix this anywhere.
A gross oversimplification. Gaming has its own unique nuances and culture, distinct from say sports, that make it unique and thus worthy of specific attention. And to say it cannot be fixed is both defeatist and incorrect. All throughout history, bigoted attitudes have been challenged successfully. This isn't much different, the culture can be improved and made more accepting.
> is no more a problem than the problem in Youtube comments.
The key difference is that the Gaters are organised. You don't genrally see YouTube commenters organising things like harasment campaigns or email campaigns.
> this is not a gamer problem, it is a people problem. like, in general.
> you can no more fix this in gaming than you can fix this anywhere.
A gross oversimplification. Gaming has its own unique nuances and culture, distinct from say sports, that make it unique and thus worthy of specific attention. And to say it cannot be fixed is both defeatist and incorrect. All throughout history, bigoted attitudes have been challenged successfully. This isn't much different, the culture can be improved and made more accepting.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx double-posted this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,041
@540,039 (C)
> both sides aren't really doing anything other than defending their rights to stir up drama like the borderline little shits they are.
Okay then. It is as simple as that. Thanks for clearing that up.
> both sides aren't really doing anything other than defending their rights to stir up drama like the borderline little shits they are.
Okay then. It is as simple as that. Thanks for clearing that up.
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,042
@540,038 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
well, i want to clear this up firstly, i understood the relevance to that, but that wasn't my question. my question was did the program shutdown specifically because of gamergate, or some other logical reason? that is actually important to the discussion. I agree, it would be a good idea to preserve games, but that has no bearing on my point.
the author directly attributes a 404'd site to Gamersgate, and offers no shred of proof. did that site 404 because of gamer's gate? did that class get cancelled because of gamers gate?
who the fuck knows? not the author it would seem! he's taken two random factoids and woven into a tumbler blog implying that academics and researchers have given up on gaming. you should probably read it with a little more of a critical eye.
well, i want to clear this up firstly, i understood the relevance to that, but that wasn't my question. my question was did the program shutdown specifically because of gamergate, or some other logical reason? that is actually important to the discussion. I agree, it would be a good idea to preserve games, but that has no bearing on my point.
the author directly attributes a 404'd site to Gamersgate, and offers no shred of proof. did that site 404 because of gamer's gate? did that class get cancelled because of gamers gate?
who the fuck knows? not the author it would seem! he's taken two random factoids and woven into a tumbler blog implying that academics and researchers have given up on gaming. you should probably read it with a little more of a critical eye.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,043
@previous (squeegee)Yes, Gamergate is specifically cited as the reason. Pic related.
And that 404 link appears to be the chain of tweets that follow immediately after it. "Storify", the site linked, seems to be a way to make social media posts into a story. I assume that it was included to make the multiple twitter posts more digestible.
I must ask you, is it so hard to accept that Gamergate is a flawed movement that has had negative effects on gaming? I don't see why they're worth defending. It's okay accept that Gamergate is rather shit.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 13 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,046
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
so she had her funding cut and she went to the internet and blamed something external
i would be interested in what the university had to say about it as opposed to a person who perceives an injustice.
there's always two sides to a story, the first one you read is not always unbiased. there is likely more to the story here, and i just don't trust twitter/blog armchair journalism. where is the follow through? you don't just take someone's angry tweets and post them as absolute fact.
and to be clear here i am questioning the veracity of the reporting here, not the message. now, i believe the message is wrong because of the shady way the information is presented in this pseudo-journalistic fashion, but if it's right then i'll agree that gamer's gate has had some influence in the curriculum at this particular school and that it has had additional repercussions, but the material presented here is dubious at best.
also, my opinion is that gamer's gate is no more a problem than the violence in video game problem in the 90s and then again in the 2000s and BOOM here it is again, in all it's glory, except this time video games are the cause of harassment instead of just causing school shootings. the media is just cloaking the same tired argument in a new mantle. it will blow over, games will not die, the setbacks are inconsequential compared to the gains being made in gaming today. the player base has never been higher, and games have never been more profitable. most development is tied to standardized platforms and small studios have more ability to share their work than ever before with steam and app stores.
don't buy the media hype, and stay away from conspiracy sites like tumblr.
so she had her funding cut and she went to the internet and blamed something external
i would be interested in what the university had to say about it as opposed to a person who perceives an injustice.
there's always two sides to a story, the first one you read is not always unbiased. there is likely more to the story here, and i just don't trust twitter/blog armchair journalism. where is the follow through? you don't just take someone's angry tweets and post them as absolute fact.
and to be clear here i am questioning the veracity of the reporting here, not the message. now, i believe the message is wrong because of the shady way the information is presented in this pseudo-journalistic fashion, but if it's right then i'll agree that gamer's gate has had some influence in the curriculum at this particular school and that it has had additional repercussions, but the material presented here is dubious at best.
also, my opinion is that gamer's gate is no more a problem than the violence in video game problem in the 90s and then again in the 2000s and BOOM here it is again, in all it's glory, except this time video games are the cause of harassment instead of just causing school shootings. the media is just cloaking the same tired argument in a new mantle. it will blow over, games will not die, the setbacks are inconsequential compared to the gains being made in gaming today. the player base has never been higher, and games have never been more profitable. most development is tied to standardized platforms and small studios have more ability to share their work than ever before with steam and app stores.
don't buy the media hype, and stay away from conspiracy sites like tumblr.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 21 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,052
@previous (squeegee)
She says that the teachers themselves cited Gamergate as the problem. She wasn't disorting things, that was the opinion of the professors. But it doesn't stop at that one particular school, the part above that from the social scientist shows that the damage is much wider than that:
I will grant you that it shows a lack of understanding on the part of the academics that they see Gamergaters as representative. Even so, they've appartently been loud enough to foster this impression, which is definitely not good.
> also, my opinion is that gamer's gate is no more a problem than the violence in video game problem in the 90s and then again in the 2000s and BOOM here it is again
It's not quite the same. Those were more like external problems, the old fogies seeing a scary new scapegoat to pin things on. This is a bad group within gaming itself getting very loud and making gaming look bad to professionals. It's an internal issue rather than an external one.
Granted, I suppose one could make the argument that Gamergate (or something like it) was inevitable, and as I've already agreed, gaming will ultimately triumph beause it has become too powerful to stop. What this should demonstrate to the Gamergaters and everyone else, however, is that Gamergate is having tangible negative effects upon gaming. Rather than helping gaming, they are actively harming it.
> the media is just cloaking the same tired argument in a new mantle
The mainstream media has actually been supportive of games in general, I think. What they're disavowing is this reactionary, anti-feminist culture within gaming. If it was about hating games then they wouldn't be supporting Sarkeesian or Quinn, who are gamers themselves and supportive of games.
> stay away from conspiracy sites like tumblr.
Tumblr is just a blog site, you know. Not everyone on there is an SJW zealot. Like not everyone on 4chan is some fat, bitter sexist. They both actually cater to a wide range of hobbies and interests.
She says that the teachers themselves cited Gamergate as the problem. She wasn't disorting things, that was the opinion of the professors. But it doesn't stop at that one particular school, the part above that from the social scientist shows that the damage is much wider than that:
when I go to talk about games to industry groups or fellow academics, GamerGate always comes up as an example of how terrible and immature people who play games are. It will take years and years to repair the damage, and it is absolutely devastating to the serious study and application of the power of games to real problems. We are going to have trouble getting grants, getting foundations to fund games, and getting people to take us seriously.
I will grant you that it shows a lack of understanding on the part of the academics that they see Gamergaters as representative. Even so, they've appartently been loud enough to foster this impression, which is definitely not good.
> also, my opinion is that gamer's gate is no more a problem than the violence in video game problem in the 90s and then again in the 2000s and BOOM here it is again
It's not quite the same. Those were more like external problems, the old fogies seeing a scary new scapegoat to pin things on. This is a bad group within gaming itself getting very loud and making gaming look bad to professionals. It's an internal issue rather than an external one.
Granted, I suppose one could make the argument that Gamergate (or something like it) was inevitable, and as I've already agreed, gaming will ultimately triumph beause it has become too powerful to stop. What this should demonstrate to the Gamergaters and everyone else, however, is that Gamergate is having tangible negative effects upon gaming. Rather than helping gaming, they are actively harming it.
> the media is just cloaking the same tired argument in a new mantle
The mainstream media has actually been supportive of games in general, I think. What they're disavowing is this reactionary, anti-feminist culture within gaming. If it was about hating games then they wouldn't be supporting Sarkeesian or Quinn, who are gamers themselves and supportive of games.
> stay away from conspiracy sites like tumblr.
Tumblr is just a blog site, you know. Not everyone on there is an SJW zealot. Like not everyone on 4chan is some fat, bitter sexist. They both actually cater to a wide range of hobbies and interests.
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 24 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,065
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> Also, she says that the teachers themselves cited Gamergate as the problem.
actually she said they said, and she gave no context in that tweet. Maybe they told her that to make her feel losing her grant was unavoidable, "hey, i lost my grant, that's not fair,"
"i'm sorry, but it was unavoidable, if gamergate had happened last year you would have lost it then. can't be helped."
who knows the context? well, the professors making that claim (uninterviwed) know what was meant, but her claim of what a third party said doesn't carry any water at all. i mean, did it even happen? that's what i mean when i say read things critically. her hearsay does not make proof.
> She wasn't disorting things, that was the opinion of the professors.
allegedly
> But it doesn't stop at that one particular school, the part above that from the social scientist shows that the damage is much wider than that:
>
> I will grant you that it shows a lack of understanding on the part of the academics that they see Gamergaters as representative. Even so, they've appartently been loud enough to foster this impression, which is definitely not good.
yeah, yellow journalism is really fucking awful with it's unintended consequences. but, gotta drive clicks.
> It's not quite the same. Those were more like external problems, the old fogies seeing a scary new scapegoat to pin things on. This is a bad group within gaming itself getting very loud and making gaming look bad to professionals. It's an internal issue rather than an external one.
it's a problem with groups like 8chan and 4chan (which were specifically cited as being hives of pro-GG thinking) which are anonymous boards. and as i said it's the anons who have nothing to lose that are sending death threats. the investment is so trivial, a few clicks and a button press, and the rewards are national headlines and lots of luls. i would imagine that if you were to pull the veil from the death threat Gamer's gate hooligans then you'd find a bunch of crying and apologetic asshats just fucking around because it's fun to be accepted within a group.
> Granted, I suppose one could make the argument that Gamergate (or something like it) was inevitable, and as I've already agreed, gaming will ultimately triumph beause it has become too powerful to stop. What this should demonstrate to the Gamergaters and everyone else, however, is that Gamergate is having tangible negative effects upon gaming. Rather than helping gaming, they are actively harming it.
>
> > the media is just cloaking the same tired argument in a new mantle
> The mainstream media has actually been supportive of games in general, I think. What they're disavowing is this reactionary, anti-feminist culture within gaming. If it was about hating games then they wouldn't be supporting Sarkeesian or Quinn, who are gamers themselves and supportive of games.
>
> > stay away from conspiracy sites like tumblr.
> Tumblr is just a blog site, you know. Not everyone on there is an SJW zealot. Like not everyone on 4chan is some fat, bitter sexist. They both actually cater to a wide range of hobbies and interests.
no, but tumblr, much like 4chan and 8chan, are insular little communities with very little external influence. This was actually something i read recently about conspiracy nuts. typically the people who really believe only really visit conspiracy sites. and that people who don't believe very rarely frequent conspiracy sites. but, that conspiracy nuts generally do not expose themselves to other forms of news. they feel that outside of the community they have chosen other sources can't be trusted. and i feel like that's the case a lot of the times that people pick their community and live there for a long time and adopt the local... customs.
and once you "dig in" and make a home you rarely venture out for "opinion." so people that get stuck in 4chan rely on the opinions of 4chan and 4chan friendly sites. people that frequent tumbler rely on tumbler to influence their beliefs and stick with tumbler friendly sites. probably not too many people would claim allegiance to both groups. more like they would express hatred for any perceived opposition. in this case you've got a whole host of related sites for anonymous which encourages... free expression of thought, and the other side, "blogs" and the like (and i'll throw twitch and youtube in here too because of the personal and open sharing that goes on there) which tend to be tied to actual people and not throw away accounts.
one side is vastly overpowered and armed with people's identities. and the investment required to attack them is miniscule compared to the effectiveness of "i raep ur faec - [insert home address]" at making people do things like flee your home in fear.
the problem is 100% because of anonymity that the scale is as high as it is. if anonymity wasn't possible and "i raep ur faec [insert home address] - by John Smith of CityTown USA Charter home Cable id 453324890324890" would be the message then it wouldn't get sent because the repercussions would be would outweigh the easy investment that is sending online threats.
> Also, she says that the teachers themselves cited Gamergate as the problem.
actually she said they said, and she gave no context in that tweet. Maybe they told her that to make her feel losing her grant was unavoidable, "hey, i lost my grant, that's not fair,"
"i'm sorry, but it was unavoidable, if gamergate had happened last year you would have lost it then. can't be helped."
who knows the context? well, the professors making that claim (uninterviwed) know what was meant, but her claim of what a third party said doesn't carry any water at all. i mean, did it even happen? that's what i mean when i say read things critically. her hearsay does not make proof.
> She wasn't disorting things, that was the opinion of the professors.
allegedly
> But it doesn't stop at that one particular school, the part above that from the social scientist shows that the damage is much wider than that:
>
when I go to talk about games to industry groups or fellow academics, GamerGate always comes up as an example of how terrible and immature people who play games are. It will take years and years to repair the damage, and it is absolutely devastating to the serious study and application of the power of games to real problems. We are going to have trouble getting grants, getting foundations to fund games, and getting people to take us seriously.
> I will grant you that it shows a lack of understanding on the part of the academics that they see Gamergaters as representative. Even so, they've appartently been loud enough to foster this impression, which is definitely not good.
yeah, yellow journalism is really fucking awful with it's unintended consequences. but, gotta drive clicks.
> It's not quite the same. Those were more like external problems, the old fogies seeing a scary new scapegoat to pin things on. This is a bad group within gaming itself getting very loud and making gaming look bad to professionals. It's an internal issue rather than an external one.
it's a problem with groups like 8chan and 4chan (which were specifically cited as being hives of pro-GG thinking) which are anonymous boards. and as i said it's the anons who have nothing to lose that are sending death threats. the investment is so trivial, a few clicks and a button press, and the rewards are national headlines and lots of luls. i would imagine that if you were to pull the veil from the death threat Gamer's gate hooligans then you'd find a bunch of crying and apologetic asshats just fucking around because it's fun to be accepted within a group.
> Granted, I suppose one could make the argument that Gamergate (or something like it) was inevitable, and as I've already agreed, gaming will ultimately triumph beause it has become too powerful to stop. What this should demonstrate to the Gamergaters and everyone else, however, is that Gamergate is having tangible negative effects upon gaming. Rather than helping gaming, they are actively harming it.
>
> > the media is just cloaking the same tired argument in a new mantle
> The mainstream media has actually been supportive of games in general, I think. What they're disavowing is this reactionary, anti-feminist culture within gaming. If it was about hating games then they wouldn't be supporting Sarkeesian or Quinn, who are gamers themselves and supportive of games.
>
> > stay away from conspiracy sites like tumblr.
> Tumblr is just a blog site, you know. Not everyone on there is an SJW zealot. Like not everyone on 4chan is some fat, bitter sexist. They both actually cater to a wide range of hobbies and interests.
no, but tumblr, much like 4chan and 8chan, are insular little communities with very little external influence. This was actually something i read recently about conspiracy nuts. typically the people who really believe only really visit conspiracy sites. and that people who don't believe very rarely frequent conspiracy sites. but, that conspiracy nuts generally do not expose themselves to other forms of news. they feel that outside of the community they have chosen other sources can't be trusted. and i feel like that's the case a lot of the times that people pick their community and live there for a long time and adopt the local... customs.
and once you "dig in" and make a home you rarely venture out for "opinion." so people that get stuck in 4chan rely on the opinions of 4chan and 4chan friendly sites. people that frequent tumbler rely on tumbler to influence their beliefs and stick with tumbler friendly sites. probably not too many people would claim allegiance to both groups. more like they would express hatred for any perceived opposition. in this case you've got a whole host of related sites for anonymous which encourages... free expression of thought, and the other side, "blogs" and the like (and i'll throw twitch and youtube in here too because of the personal and open sharing that goes on there) which tend to be tied to actual people and not throw away accounts.
one side is vastly overpowered and armed with people's identities. and the investment required to attack them is miniscule compared to the effectiveness of "i raep ur faec - [insert home address]" at making people do things like flee your home in fear.
the problem is 100% because of anonymity that the scale is as high as it is. if anonymity wasn't possible and "i raep ur faec [insert home address] - by John Smith of CityTown USA Charter home Cable id 453324890324890" would be the message then it wouldn't get sent because the repercussions would be would outweigh the easy investment that is sending online threats.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
kook !!mCVqftDha joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,078
Killer LettuceGreen replied with this 11 years ago, 3 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,117
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 4 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,146
@540,078 (kook !!mCVqftDha)
I don't really agree with how she's saying that, and my opinion of her is lowered as a result. However, my opinion on Gamergate's treatment of her and Gamergate in general remains unchanged.
@540,065 (squeegee)
> Maybe they told her that to make her feel losing her grant was unavoidable, "hey, i lost my grant, that's not fair,"
She graduated, man. She completed her course. She's talking about new students who want to archive video games not being allowed to do so. So she's not speaking out of being personally slighted.
...You really don't
> yeah, yellow journalism is really fucking awful with it's unintended consequences. but, gotta drive clicks.
I think that Gamergate would have fostered this impression in some onlookers regardless of how yellow the journalism was. They're a pretty loud group, and are quite active in their campaigning. And just the reporting of "there is a significant number of gamers out there harassing people" is going to give some non-gamers a bad impression.
> you'd find a bunch of crying and apologetic asshats just fucking around because it's fun to be accepted within a group.
They're not "fucking around", m8. They actually have that ideaology. They see feminism/SJWs as an unwelcome, creeping force in their hobby and they feel strongly about it.
> as i said it's the anons who have nothing to lose that are sending death threats.
> i would imagine that if you were to pull the veil from the death threat Gamer's gate hooligans then you'd find a bunch of crying and apologetic asshats just fucking around because it's fun to be accepted within a group.
> the problem is 100% because of anonymity that the scale is as high as it is.
Why do you keep making this point? It changes nothing. We cannot and should not take the anonymity away, so they are still free to make their threats as much as they like.
The way to resolve it, or at least make headway, is to eventually win the "culture war", and change people's ideals. Make these sorts of people increasingly less common as the idea of feminist points and women in gaming becomes more accepted. That is how it has been won (or progress made) in the similar issues before this.
I don't really agree with how she's saying that, and my opinion of her is lowered as a result. However, my opinion on Gamergate's treatment of her and Gamergate in general remains unchanged.
@540,065 (squeegee)
> Maybe they told her that to make her feel losing her grant was unavoidable, "hey, i lost my grant, that's not fair,"
She graduated, man. She completed her course. She's talking about new students who want to archive video games not being allowed to do so. So she's not speaking out of being personally slighted.
...You really don't
> yeah, yellow journalism is really fucking awful with it's unintended consequences. but, gotta drive clicks.
I think that Gamergate would have fostered this impression in some onlookers regardless of how yellow the journalism was. They're a pretty loud group, and are quite active in their campaigning. And just the reporting of "there is a significant number of gamers out there harassing people" is going to give some non-gamers a bad impression.
> you'd find a bunch of crying and apologetic asshats just fucking around because it's fun to be accepted within a group.
They're not "fucking around", m8. They actually have that ideaology. They see feminism/SJWs as an unwelcome, creeping force in their hobby and they feel strongly about it.
> as i said it's the anons who have nothing to lose that are sending death threats.
> i would imagine that if you were to pull the veil from the death threat Gamer's gate hooligans then you'd find a bunch of crying and apologetic asshats just fucking around because it's fun to be accepted within a group.
> the problem is 100% because of anonymity that the scale is as high as it is.
Why do you keep making this point? It changes nothing. We cannot and should not take the anonymity away, so they are still free to make their threats as much as they like.
The way to resolve it, or at least make headway, is to eventually win the "culture war", and change people's ideals. Make these sorts of people increasingly less common as the idea of feminist points and women in gaming becomes more accepted. That is how it has been won (or progress made) in the similar issues before this.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 3 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,170
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
uh, look who youre talking too. you can't convince me thar 8chan abd 4chan aren't just asshats fucking around. i've been around the block a few times and i know a troll haven when i see it. the chans are full of shit, trolls, and asshats.
also sjw is a creepy movement and it's unwanted idealogy is being rejected by more than just gamers. but specifically it is rejected by trolls on anon sites.
gaming is just a battleground. the reason i keep brining it up is becuase this is not a problem with gaming, this is a much broader problem that exists despite it.
you kee0 trying to say the problem is inherent to gaming, i say it exists despite it.
you want to attack the symptoms, bro, you're not looking at the disease.
uh, look who youre talking too. you can't convince me thar 8chan abd 4chan aren't just asshats fucking around. i've been around the block a few times and i know a troll haven when i see it. the chans are full of shit, trolls, and asshats.
also sjw is a creepy movement and it's unwanted idealogy is being rejected by more than just gamers. but specifically it is rejected by trolls on anon sites.
gaming is just a battleground. the reason i keep brining it up is becuase this is not a problem with gaming, this is a much broader problem that exists despite it.
you kee0 trying to say the problem is inherent to gaming, i say it exists despite it.
you want to attack the symptoms, bro, you're not looking at the disease.
Green replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,172
@previous (squeegee)
4chan /b/ has turned to utter shit. Went there recently; rate me threads, XX decides what I say, feminist logic. I mean yes, it was shit years ago, but this is another level of shit. Like a shit abyss.
4chan /b/ has turned to utter shit. Went there recently; rate me threads, XX decides what I say, feminist logic. I mean yes, it was shit years ago, but this is another level of shit. Like a shit abyss.
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,173
also youre never going to stop individuals from trolling with controversy. that's all this is. ask rape guy, or racist guy, or any other asshat troll on minichan. like pedophile guy.
do you think everyone who trolls with scandalous and controversial "beliefs" actually raeps faec and fucks kids? no! but this is a chan, you find something controversial and troll people by claiming to believe it!
that's all this is that is all 8chan and 4 chan are.
at this point, dude, i'm going to say you're also part of the problem. you're so quick to defend you're not seeing things critically. you're not asking questions or attempting to understand, you're just hearing one side of the problem and aiming your guns at the other. for the wrong reasons, too, becuase you're biased.
...and you know better, you know exectly what chans are, so why act like they are serious and organized and idealogical when they are the exact opposite of all of those things?
chans are disorganized, specifically unserious, and the only ideaology is trolling.
do you think everyone who trolls with scandalous and controversial "beliefs" actually raeps faec and fucks kids? no! but this is a chan, you find something controversial and troll people by claiming to believe it!
that's all this is that is all 8chan and 4 chan are.
at this point, dude, i'm going to say you're also part of the problem. you're so quick to defend you're not seeing things critically. you're not asking questions or attempting to understand, you're just hearing one side of the problem and aiming your guns at the other. for the wrong reasons, too, becuase you're biased.
...and you know better, you know exectly what chans are, so why act like they are serious and organized and idealogical when they are the exact opposite of all of those things?
chans are disorganized, specifically unserious, and the only ideaology is trolling.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 18 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,176
@540,172 (Green)You're probably just getting a bit too old for 4chan. As an anonymous BBS user, I recommend the Daily Mail comments section.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 19 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,181
@540,170 (squeegee)
I am very confused by this post. You think that all of Gamergate is a troll ruse? That they are all just pretending? This is extremely naive of you. The movement is clearly sincere in its goals of attacking its idea logical and political enemies, yet you have this strange belief that because they originated on chans they must be trolls only in it for the lulz.
They're not defined by their being channers, and Gamergate does not soley exist on chans either. It's a bit more complex than that.
> also sjw is a creepy movement and it's unwanted idealogy is being rejected by more than just gamers
This isn't really about the SJW boogeymen. A lot of it is about feminism specifically. Unless you think that talking points like "female enemies shouldn't have stereotypical designs" is "SJW propaganda" that should be campaigned against.
Though that wouldn't surprise me, actually. Some have called Dragon Age Inquisition SJW pandering just because it contains a transexual character. This character only briefly mentions his transexuality and any further discussion is optional, yet his mere presence irritates some gamers. It takes little for some to see the SJW boogeyman, it seems.
@540,173 (squeegee)
> you're not seeing things critically.
> becuase you're biased.
And you are a purely objective, unbiased observer, I suppose? Gosh, I wish I could be as intelligent as you.
I am very confused by this post. You think that all of Gamergate is a troll ruse? That they are all just pretending? This is extremely naive of you. The movement is clearly sincere in its goals of attacking its idea logical and political enemies, yet you have this strange belief that because they originated on chans they must be trolls only in it for the lulz.
They're not defined by their being channers, and Gamergate does not soley exist on chans either. It's a bit more complex than that.
> also sjw is a creepy movement and it's unwanted idealogy is being rejected by more than just gamers
This isn't really about the SJW boogeymen. A lot of it is about feminism specifically. Unless you think that talking points like "female enemies shouldn't have stereotypical designs" is "SJW propaganda" that should be campaigned against.
Though that wouldn't surprise me, actually. Some have called Dragon Age Inquisition SJW pandering just because it contains a transexual character. This character only briefly mentions his transexuality and any further discussion is optional, yet his mere presence irritates some gamers. It takes little for some to see the SJW boogeyman, it seems.
@540,173 (squeegee)
> you're not seeing things critically.
> becuase you're biased.
And you are a purely objective, unbiased observer, I suppose? Gosh, I wish I could be as intelligent as you.
(Edited 30 seconds later.)
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,198
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
you see things in such black and white terms, i wish you'd look at things more holistically. not everything is as simple as "idealogical movement A vs. idealogical movement B."
especially when one group are trolls from 8chan and /b/. you act like that has nothing to do with it when anonymous trolling and bullying is exactly what this is all about!
you see things in such black and white terms, i wish you'd look at things more holistically. not everything is as simple as "idealogical movement A vs. idealogical movement B."
especially when one group are trolls from 8chan and /b/. you act like that has nothing to do with it when anonymous trolling and bullying is exactly what this is all about!
squeegee double-posted this 11 years ago, 10 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,200
take minichan as a microcosm of larger social media platforms. even here you get doxing, harassment (irl and virtual), sexism, racism, misogyny, i mean -everything. this place is no different than anywhere else anon and namefags congregate. and look at the worst shit that has come from here: claims people have killed themselves, accusations of statutory rape, stalking and life harassment...
and this is just a small anon board.
the big boards are just as vulnerable to malicious trolling as tumblr, and we see it practically every day.
the problem, again, isn't what it looks like on the surface. it is a deeper problem with online privacy and social sharing and anonymity
and that is a much larger problem than the content of the individual messages.
and this is just a small anon board.
the big boards are just as vulnerable to malicious trolling as tumblr, and we see it practically every day.
the problem, again, isn't what it looks like on the surface. it is a deeper problem with online privacy and social sharing and anonymity
and that is a much larger problem than the content of the individual messages.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #540,202
@540,198 (squeegee)
I don't, really. I've already said that I can see that both sides have their bad elements. I certainly didn't like Briana Wu's SJW whittering about "manasking". But there is nothing wrong with judging one side to be in the wrong. You wouldn't say that people who support America over ISIS are seeing things in black and white, because one side there is clearly doing much worse stuff overall.
I look at it like this: The anti-GG side is mostly defending feminist critics who make reasonable criticisms of video games. Gamergate tries to silence these criticisms. It is not hard for me to decide that one of these sides is better than the other.
> anonymous trolling and bullying is exactly what this is all about!
Dude, no, I can gurantee that it isn't that simple. You gotta look at things more holistically, as someone once told me.
I myself was once supportive of Gamergate, before I read into things more fully. I did not support it because I saw a chance to troll people, but because I thought they were trying to combat a negative influence upon my dear hobby of video games. Many still feel this way, what with all the assertions that it's about journalisitc ethics.
I don't, really. I've already said that I can see that both sides have their bad elements. I certainly didn't like Briana Wu's SJW whittering about "manasking". But there is nothing wrong with judging one side to be in the wrong. You wouldn't say that people who support America over ISIS are seeing things in black and white, because one side there is clearly doing much worse stuff overall.
I look at it like this: The anti-GG side is mostly defending feminist critics who make reasonable criticisms of video games. Gamergate tries to silence these criticisms. It is not hard for me to decide that one of these sides is better than the other.
> anonymous trolling and bullying is exactly what this is all about!
Dude, no, I can gurantee that it isn't that simple. You gotta look at things more holistically, as someone once told me.
I myself was once supportive of Gamergate, before I read into things more fully. I did not support it because I saw a chance to troll people, but because I thought they were trying to combat a negative influence upon my dear hobby of video games. Many still feel this way, what with all the assertions that it's about journalisitc ethics.
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #540,206
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Brianna Wu also thinks that gay men cant be true allies, because they have male privilege.
Brianna Wu also thinks that gay men cant be true allies, because they have male privilege.
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 31 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #540,207
@540,202 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
i am not a supporter of gamersgate. i see it as the low hanging fruit of the troll world (like nigger nigger nigger used to be) and i don't support groups that use malicious tactics (like the cwc trolls.)
i see sjw and gg as a meme more than anything, that people such ad yourself adopt and use briefly thus adding to the volume. it only looks like a small organized movement becuase that volume is largely anonymous and only looks like an organized group.
bronies are a perfect example. a lot of people got into it and then got out of it equally quickly. some did it to troll, others seriously adopted the message. but "bronies" are not a large group of organized individuals, it's a disparate group of people with vastly differing interests in the group.
however, as trolls come and go the movement appears to be full of "crazy" when actually it's thousands of different trolls all adding a little bit at a time and the end result looked like some kind of growing national movement with a core ideaology.
it was not...
i am not a supporter of gamersgate. i see it as the low hanging fruit of the troll world (like nigger nigger nigger used to be) and i don't support groups that use malicious tactics (like the cwc trolls.)
i see sjw and gg as a meme more than anything, that people such ad yourself adopt and use briefly thus adding to the volume. it only looks like a small organized movement becuase that volume is largely anonymous and only looks like an organized group.
bronies are a perfect example. a lot of people got into it and then got out of it equally quickly. some did it to troll, others seriously adopted the message. but "bronies" are not a large group of organized individuals, it's a disparate group of people with vastly differing interests in the group.
however, as trolls come and go the movement appears to be full of "crazy" when actually it's thousands of different trolls all adding a little bit at a time and the end result looked like some kind of growing national movement with a core ideaology.
it was not...
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
squeegee double-posted this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #540,208
common themes do not an ideaology make
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #540,227
@540,207 (squeegee)
What could I show you that'd convince you that Gamergate is a genuinely idealogical movement, and not just some sort of troll meme?
They act like an idealogical movement, rather than a disjointed troll raid. They do things like organise email campaigns to try and discredit groups that they disagree with, and they've even tried to edit the Gamergate Wikipedia article to try and make their side look more favourable. They're clearly not just trolls looking to piss people off, they're concerned with promoting a certain viewpoint.
What could I show you that'd convince you that Gamergate is a genuinely idealogical movement, and not just some sort of troll meme?
They act like an idealogical movement, rather than a disjointed troll raid. They do things like organise email campaigns to try and discredit groups that they disagree with, and they've even tried to edit the Gamergate Wikipedia article to try and make their side look more favourable. They're clearly not just trolls looking to piss people off, they're concerned with promoting a certain viewpoint.
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #540,237
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 25 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #540,250
@previous (squeegee)
That doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not they're idealogically motivated or not, though.
The closest things I can give you are prominent figureheads and places of organisation within the group:
8cahn's administrator, "Hotwheels" organised an outing a strip club for 8chan users, and he invited the press along to talk about Gamergate.
Gamergate also has an IRC or two, where supporters get together to discuss what the movement should do next. Similarly, they have an 8chan board where they're doing things like searching for information and analysing Wikipedia edits. Hardly simple trolling, but organised and motivated actions meant to further their cause.
That doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not they're idealogically motivated or not, though.
The closest things I can give you are prominent figureheads and places of organisation within the group:
8cahn's administrator, "Hotwheels" organised an outing a strip club for 8chan users, and he invited the press along to talk about Gamergate.
Gamergate also has an IRC or two, where supporters get together to discuss what the movement should do next. Similarly, they have an 8chan board where they're doing things like searching for information and analysing Wikipedia edits. Hardly simple trolling, but organised and motivated actions meant to further their cause.
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #540,264
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
so what does going to a strip club have to do with anything? is that harassing women of gaming?
also if the leadership is leadership and not just 8chans irc then why aren't they culpable for the threats and harassment.
are they irc rooms where people meet up and talk about stuff or are they gamer's gate irc headquarters for leadership?
there is a distinction here that makes a movement an actual organized movement and not just random people randomly contributing to what looks like a huge organized movement.
if the movement was actually centralized and if the leadership had any direct control then they would be in hot water right now.
minichan had a thread about minecraft raids and we talked a lot about harassing people and griefing them in minecraft but
that does not make minichan a hub of minecraft griefing or classify this site as a minecraft raid organization board.
i asked to see the leadership but i'm still being pointed towards disparete actions of a decentralized network of people with similar ideaology and i don't know if that ideaology is
sexism or trolling. becuase of the source (8chan and 4chan) i'm still calling trolling in 99% of these cases of harassment.
so what does going to a strip club have to do with anything? is that harassing women of gaming?
also if the leadership is leadership and not just 8chans irc then why aren't they culpable for the threats and harassment.
are they irc rooms where people meet up and talk about stuff or are they gamer's gate irc headquarters for leadership?
there is a distinction here that makes a movement an actual organized movement and not just random people randomly contributing to what looks like a huge organized movement.
if the movement was actually centralized and if the leadership had any direct control then they would be in hot water right now.
minichan had a thread about minecraft raids and we talked a lot about harassing people and griefing them in minecraft but
that does not make minichan a hub of minecraft griefing or classify this site as a minecraft raid organization board.
i asked to see the leadership but i'm still being pointed towards disparete actions of a decentralized network of people with similar ideaology and i don't know if that ideaology is
sexism or trolling. becuase of the source (8chan and 4chan) i'm still calling trolling in 99% of these cases of harassment.
(Edited 7 minutes later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #540,271
@previous (squeegee)
FWIW I don't follow this shit but on reddit there are subreddots dedicated to whining about this boring nonsense (r/kotakuinaction vs. r/gamerghazi).
FWIW I don't follow this shit but on reddit there are subreddots dedicated to whining about this boring nonsense (r/kotakuinaction vs. r/gamerghazi).
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 29 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #540,272
@540,264 (squeegee)
> so what does going to a strip club have to do with anything?
I should've underlined it more. The point is that he, a figurehead, went out and did something to promote Gamergate to the press.
> why aren't they culpable for the threats and harassment.
The people who actually carry out the harassment do tend to hide their identities. Otherwise, they do legal stuff like email campaigns.
> minichan had a thread about minecraft raids and we talked a lot about harassing people and griefing them
That's not the same thing. Our goal was explicitly to have giggles trolling people in Minecraft. Gamergate has different goals to trolling people.
> there is a distinction here that makes a movement an actual organized movement and not just random people randomly contributing to what looks like a huge organized movement.
> i asked to see the leadership but i'm still being pointed towards disparete actions of a decentralized network of people with similar ideaology and i don't know if that ideaology is
I already said, a leadership has nothing to do with wether or not they're ideaological. Why does it? I've given you evidence or organisation and goals beyond trolling, but apparently they're still a disorganised, trolling mass?
Here, what about the Occupy X movement? How would you explain them? They didn't really have any central leadership that was commanding them all, just a general ideology and shared methods. But by your logic, they must not be organised or ideological. Yet they were clearly quite organised in what they were doing and had a clear overarching ideal in mind.
> i don't know if that ideaology is
I've said it a few times, now. They are in favour of ethics in games journalism and against what they see asn unwanted SJW influence on games. You'd see this yourself if you browsed a few Gamergate sites.
> so what does going to a strip club have to do with anything?
I should've underlined it more. The point is that he, a figurehead, went out and did something to promote Gamergate to the press.
> why aren't they culpable for the threats and harassment.
The people who actually carry out the harassment do tend to hide their identities. Otherwise, they do legal stuff like email campaigns.
> minichan had a thread about minecraft raids and we talked a lot about harassing people and griefing them
That's not the same thing. Our goal was explicitly to have giggles trolling people in Minecraft. Gamergate has different goals to trolling people.
> there is a distinction here that makes a movement an actual organized movement and not just random people randomly contributing to what looks like a huge organized movement.
> i asked to see the leadership but i'm still being pointed towards disparete actions of a decentralized network of people with similar ideaology and i don't know if that ideaology is
I already said, a leadership has nothing to do with wether or not they're ideaological. Why does it? I've given you evidence or organisation and goals beyond trolling, but apparently they're still a disorganised, trolling mass?
Here, what about the Occupy X movement? How would you explain them? They didn't really have any central leadership that was commanding them all, just a general ideology and shared methods. But by your logic, they must not be organised or ideological. Yet they were clearly quite organised in what they were doing and had a clear overarching ideal in mind.
> i don't know if that ideaology is
I've said it a few times, now. They are in favour of ethics in games journalism and against what they see asn unwanted SJW influence on games. You'd see this yourself if you browsed a few Gamergate sites.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #540,278
@540,271 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I first went to those sites because of Jace Connors. I stayed because most people there are lulzy jackasses.
I first went to those sites because of Jace Connors. I stayed because most people there are lulzy jackasses.
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #540,299
@540,272 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> > so what does going to a strip club have to do with anything?
> I should've underlined it more. The point is that he, a figurehead, went out and did something to promote Gamergate to the press.
a figurehead is very different than a leader
> > why aren't they culpable for the threats and harassment.
> The people who actually carry out the harassment do tend to hide their identities. Otherwise, they do legal stuff like email campaigns.
so they mask their illegal activities behind anonymity and when they can't be anonymous they are law abiding citizens. That is exactly the reason why this is a battle in a much larger war between internet anonymity and real life identities. if there was no anon then the discourse would be much different and the harassment would be far less. when people can be held accountable for their action they think about the consequences, when consequences are impossible to enforce then there is no way to prohibit any action from taking place. just wait, in a few years "gamers gate" will blow over but anonymous internet harassment will continue with all the bullying and threatening we see in gamers gate.
what we're seeing here is the rise of a new kind of lolcow, and it's these women who've been targeted by the gamersgate tidal wave. eventually the consequences will get serious or the media will find some new horse to beat and everyone will once again turn their attention to something new and scandalous and trolls will simply follow along and get on whichever side makes people the mist butthurt. because that's what trolls do. and sure, the core group of retards that really bought into it (lolcows in and of themselves) will be like the bronies of today who don't realize the fad is over and no one ever really cared. they'll keep at it long past the point of relevance, but they are the tiniest of minorities.
> > minichan had a thread about minecraft raids and we talked a lot about harassing people and griefing them
> That's not the same thing. Our goal was explicitly to have giggles trolling people in Minecraft. Gamergate has different goals to trolling people.
>
> > there is a distinction here that makes a movement an actual organized movement and not just random people randomly contributing to what looks like a huge organized movement.
> > i asked to see the leadership but i'm still being pointed towards disparete actions of a decentralized network of people with similar ideaology and i don't know if that ideaology is
> I already said, a leadership has nothing to do with wether or not they're ideaological. Why does it? I've given you evidence or organisation and goals beyond trolling, but apparently they're still a disorganised, trolling mass?
well, you talked about Occupy movement which was exactly the same, a disparate group of people with similar stated ideaology, but, there was no leaderhip, no clear message, no clear goals. it was a bunch of random people large enough to call a group and the media held them up as some kind of movement. But, when pressed the movement was never able to voice any kind of cohesive mission statement or anything like that. The media eventually got tired of them because they lack any kind of influence and seemingly on wanted to make a bunch of noise.
that is exactly what gamer's gate is.
> Here, what about the Occupy X movement? How would you explain them? They didn't really have any central leadership that was commanding them all, just a general ideology and shared methods. But by your logic, they must not be organised or ideological. Yet they were clearly quite organised in what they were doing and had a clear overarching ideal in mind.
they were not organized and the movement fell apart because they lacked goals and had no direction. they did nothing productive and they aren't even talked about anymore. and there is a difference between being organized and using logistical tools to facilitate group activity. in otherwords a mob does not an organization make.
> > i don't know if that ideaology is
> I've said it a few times, now. They are in favour of ethics in games journalism and against what they see asn unwanted SJW influence on games. You'd see this yourself if you browsed a few Gamergate sites.
why do you say things like that? it's presumptuous to assume you're the only informed person in this discussion. we may have a difference of opinion, but that doesn't make me uninformed because i draw different conclusions than you.
> > so what does going to a strip club have to do with anything?
> I should've underlined it more. The point is that he, a figurehead, went out and did something to promote Gamergate to the press.
a figurehead is very different than a leader
> > why aren't they culpable for the threats and harassment.
> The people who actually carry out the harassment do tend to hide their identities. Otherwise, they do legal stuff like email campaigns.
so they mask their illegal activities behind anonymity and when they can't be anonymous they are law abiding citizens. That is exactly the reason why this is a battle in a much larger war between internet anonymity and real life identities. if there was no anon then the discourse would be much different and the harassment would be far less. when people can be held accountable for their action they think about the consequences, when consequences are impossible to enforce then there is no way to prohibit any action from taking place. just wait, in a few years "gamers gate" will blow over but anonymous internet harassment will continue with all the bullying and threatening we see in gamers gate.
what we're seeing here is the rise of a new kind of lolcow, and it's these women who've been targeted by the gamersgate tidal wave. eventually the consequences will get serious or the media will find some new horse to beat and everyone will once again turn their attention to something new and scandalous and trolls will simply follow along and get on whichever side makes people the mist butthurt. because that's what trolls do. and sure, the core group of retards that really bought into it (lolcows in and of themselves) will be like the bronies of today who don't realize the fad is over and no one ever really cared. they'll keep at it long past the point of relevance, but they are the tiniest of minorities.
> > minichan had a thread about minecraft raids and we talked a lot about harassing people and griefing them
> That's not the same thing. Our goal was explicitly to have giggles trolling people in Minecraft. Gamergate has different goals to trolling people.
>
> > there is a distinction here that makes a movement an actual organized movement and not just random people randomly contributing to what looks like a huge organized movement.
> > i asked to see the leadership but i'm still being pointed towards disparete actions of a decentralized network of people with similar ideaology and i don't know if that ideaology is
> I already said, a leadership has nothing to do with wether or not they're ideaological. Why does it? I've given you evidence or organisation and goals beyond trolling, but apparently they're still a disorganised, trolling mass?
well, you talked about Occupy movement which was exactly the same, a disparate group of people with similar stated ideaology, but, there was no leaderhip, no clear message, no clear goals. it was a bunch of random people large enough to call a group and the media held them up as some kind of movement. But, when pressed the movement was never able to voice any kind of cohesive mission statement or anything like that. The media eventually got tired of them because they lack any kind of influence and seemingly on wanted to make a bunch of noise.
that is exactly what gamer's gate is.
> Here, what about the Occupy X movement? How would you explain them? They didn't really have any central leadership that was commanding them all, just a general ideology and shared methods. But by your logic, they must not be organised or ideological. Yet they were clearly quite organised in what they were doing and had a clear overarching ideal in mind.
they were not organized and the movement fell apart because they lacked goals and had no direction. they did nothing productive and they aren't even talked about anymore. and there is a difference between being organized and using logistical tools to facilitate group activity. in otherwords a mob does not an organization make.
> > i don't know if that ideaology is
> I've said it a few times, now. They are in favour of ethics in games journalism and against what they see asn unwanted SJW influence on games. You'd see this yourself if you browsed a few Gamergate sites.
why do you say things like that? it's presumptuous to assume you're the only informed person in this discussion. we may have a difference of opinion, but that doesn't make me uninformed because i draw different conclusions than you.
Green replied with this 11 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #540,302
> My name is Brianna Wu. I develop video games for your phone.
She doesn't develop shit for my phone. I use emulators and roms.
She doesn't develop shit for my phone. I use emulators and roms.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 24 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #540,306
@540,299 (squeegee)
> well, you talked about Occupy movement which was exactly the same, a disparate group of people with similar stated ideaology, but, there was no leaderhip, no clear message, no clear goals. it was a bunch of random people large enough to call a group and the media held them up as some kind of movement. But, when pressed the movement was never able to voice any kind of cohesive mission statement or anything like that. The media eventually got tired of them because they lack any kind of influence and seemingly on wanted to make a bunch of noise.
Now you've changed what you're saying. The whole reason I mentioned Occupy was to disprove your claims that Gamergate was just some disorganised, meaningless mass of anons who were only in it for trolling. That's what you were claiming before, that this was only happening because they were anonymous assholes out for giggles, not because they're cultural reactionaries within gaming.
Now you're saying that they're going to come apart and lose steam, and eventually fall out of the media spotlight. While this is a seperate issue to what you were saying before, on this I can agree with you. I even hope it comes true. It'd be best if Gamergate eventually just fizzled out and everyone could move on from this mess. And while I do think that the hardcore supporters of it will be around for a while, I think that they've already lost a lot of their initial hype.
> it's presumptuous to assume you're the only informed person in this discussion. we may have a difference of opinion, but that doesn't make me uninformed because i draw different conclusions than you.
Sorry, but you are a little uninformed if you don't know that's what Gamergate is about, and think that there's no unifying ideology behind it. They themselves trumpet their goals quite frequently. You'd only have to go onto a few of their main sites to see their mission statements.
Here, /r/KotakuInAction says: "We believe that the current standard of ethics in the gaming industry is unhealthy to itself, and to gamers. We have taken notice to various conflicts of interest, and wish to address these in hopes that the gaming industry can change, in order to retain the trust of its concerned consumers."
The GamerGate wiki, on its FAQ page says: "GamerGate is a consumer revolt against video game media that is corrupt, rife with cronyism, and uses politicized reporting that does not appropriately represent its consumers." So there's a pretty clear pro-consumer, anti-corruption idea behind it.
The anti-SJW and feminist sentiment obviously isn't stated officially on their sites, but it's certainly there, given their well-known dislike of Sarkeesian. I also actually wanted to link to an anaylsis that was done of 8chan posts that found that they talked more about SJWs than ethics, but I couldn't find it.
By the way, you still haven't confrimed whether Star Citizen will allow gay sex with aliens. I am very much on the fence about this game, and some homosexual alien loving could inspire me to purchase it.
> well, you talked about Occupy movement which was exactly the same, a disparate group of people with similar stated ideaology, but, there was no leaderhip, no clear message, no clear goals. it was a bunch of random people large enough to call a group and the media held them up as some kind of movement. But, when pressed the movement was never able to voice any kind of cohesive mission statement or anything like that. The media eventually got tired of them because they lack any kind of influence and seemingly on wanted to make a bunch of noise.
Now you've changed what you're saying. The whole reason I mentioned Occupy was to disprove your claims that Gamergate was just some disorganised, meaningless mass of anons who were only in it for trolling. That's what you were claiming before, that this was only happening because they were anonymous assholes out for giggles, not because they're cultural reactionaries within gaming.
Now you're saying that they're going to come apart and lose steam, and eventually fall out of the media spotlight. While this is a seperate issue to what you were saying before, on this I can agree with you. I even hope it comes true. It'd be best if Gamergate eventually just fizzled out and everyone could move on from this mess. And while I do think that the hardcore supporters of it will be around for a while, I think that they've already lost a lot of their initial hype.
> it's presumptuous to assume you're the only informed person in this discussion. we may have a difference of opinion, but that doesn't make me uninformed because i draw different conclusions than you.
Sorry, but you are a little uninformed if you don't know that's what Gamergate is about, and think that there's no unifying ideology behind it. They themselves trumpet their goals quite frequently. You'd only have to go onto a few of their main sites to see their mission statements.
Here, /r/KotakuInAction says: "We believe that the current standard of ethics in the gaming industry is unhealthy to itself, and to gamers. We have taken notice to various conflicts of interest, and wish to address these in hopes that the gaming industry can change, in order to retain the trust of its concerned consumers."
The GamerGate wiki, on its FAQ page says: "GamerGate is a consumer revolt against video game media that is corrupt, rife with cronyism, and uses politicized reporting that does not appropriately represent its consumers." So there's a pretty clear pro-consumer, anti-corruption idea behind it.
The anti-SJW and feminist sentiment obviously isn't stated officially on their sites, but it's certainly there, given their well-known dislike of Sarkeesian. I also actually wanted to link to an anaylsis that was done of 8chan posts that found that they talked more about SJWs than ethics, but I couldn't find it.
By the way, you still haven't confrimed whether Star Citizen will allow gay sex with aliens. I am very much on the fence about this game, and some homosexual alien loving could inspire me to purchase it.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #540,350
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
no, dude, i know that gamer's gate is about ethics in journalism
what i'm saying is the harassment part (which isn't officially part of the ideaology as you say) is nothing but 8chan and 4chan trolls causing drama for lulz. the fact that they are conflated is what makes the whole thing stupid as fuck and increasingly irrelevant. The trolls are obliterating whatever message the "leadership" is trying to espouse. none of the mainstream media stories talk about ethics in game journalism, mostly the coverage focuses on the women who are being harassed and the threats they have received, supposedly, for just being female programmers. the message from the pro-gamers gate side is disjointed, unorganized, and fringe.
> The anti-SJW and feminist sentiment obviously isn't stated officially on their sites, but it's certainly there, given their well-known dislike of Sarkeesian. I also actually wanted to link to an anaylsis that was done of 8chan posts that found that they talked more about SJWs than ethics, but I couldn't find it.
but that's part of my point, there is no unified message, it's presented as one thing but it's really another thing entirely. it's not a real movement, it's a farce, and when the fun is over and the trolls get bored the controversy will just move elsewhere that anons and real life identities can clash and lulz can be had from lolcows.
that's just my opinion, that there are a few serious people involved and a whole lot of trolls who end up making it look bigger than it is. i mean i've been on here for a while and i've seen the "stalking/harassment" that has happened even here and i've dipped my toes in i guess what could be labeled as "group harassment" or whatever it's called, and what happens is you get a known person, a namefag, and then a lot of just random anons all toss out little jabs, maybe not even many, maybe just one really good barb because it's funny. But from the namefag's perspective it all adds up to create this large volume of harassment that can be overwhelming. and it doesn't take much for one person to feel overwhelmed. it's the sheer number of people that might just "make one rape comment" or "not mean to hurt someone's feelings" and if you get hundreds of people just fucking about then the torrent that can follow can probably feel like genuine meaningful harassment. especially if there's a common tone, if the messages are similar because the message has come from groupthink then it can feel like it's not a lot of random anons, but more like seriously obsessed individuals who send hundreds of messages. not to mention the seriously obsessed individuals who'll send hundreds of messages. it's hard to know what's going on. even here half the time we call someone out as anon we're wrong, and it's easy to impersonate matt and syntax specifically, anyone at anytime can basically create butthurt and generate backlash against matt with the word "poots" and the right namefag.
also i've been watching the media for years blow up cultural misunderstandings into stupid controversies, like telling someone to drink bleach and kill themselves in internet culture is equivalent to saying, "go jump off a bridge," but the media reports it as "internet bullies try to make people suicide by drinking bleach." They attribute all these meaningless motivations to things because they don't understand the context of what they are hearing. And since they aren't journalists, but reporters, they don't try and understand they just report whatever has the best sound bite.
so, yet again, here we are with gaming in the crosshairs, once again the consumers of games are called antisocial and are, once again, being told violence is endemic to our hobby. it's never broader issues that affect gaming, no, it's the gamer culture themselves (and it probably comes from all those violent games they play.)
i'm just really sick of hearing these failed arguments paraded around every few years because some kid shoot up a nursery or some chan starts harassing lolcows. i mean fuck!
> you still haven't confrimed whether Star Citizen will allow gay sex with aliens. I am very much on the fence about this game, and some homosexual alien loving could inspire me to purchase it.
the forums are probably only a few questions away from asking this themselves. there's a contingent that wants in game marriage to NPCs like in Skyrim or something so they can roleplay more hardcore. if they add NPC marriage or somehting then the inevitable question will be, "can we marry aliens," which of course would lead to, "can i marry gay aliens."
as to how much fidelity they add to the marriage system (if there is one) the question is wide open. if the rest of the game says anything about the kind of fidelity that we can expect, then yes, gay alien sex will totally be in the game.
no, dude, i know that gamer's gate is about ethics in journalism
what i'm saying is the harassment part (which isn't officially part of the ideaology as you say) is nothing but 8chan and 4chan trolls causing drama for lulz. the fact that they are conflated is what makes the whole thing stupid as fuck and increasingly irrelevant. The trolls are obliterating whatever message the "leadership" is trying to espouse. none of the mainstream media stories talk about ethics in game journalism, mostly the coverage focuses on the women who are being harassed and the threats they have received, supposedly, for just being female programmers. the message from the pro-gamers gate side is disjointed, unorganized, and fringe.
> The anti-SJW and feminist sentiment obviously isn't stated officially on their sites, but it's certainly there, given their well-known dislike of Sarkeesian. I also actually wanted to link to an anaylsis that was done of 8chan posts that found that they talked more about SJWs than ethics, but I couldn't find it.
but that's part of my point, there is no unified message, it's presented as one thing but it's really another thing entirely. it's not a real movement, it's a farce, and when the fun is over and the trolls get bored the controversy will just move elsewhere that anons and real life identities can clash and lulz can be had from lolcows.
that's just my opinion, that there are a few serious people involved and a whole lot of trolls who end up making it look bigger than it is. i mean i've been on here for a while and i've seen the "stalking/harassment" that has happened even here and i've dipped my toes in i guess what could be labeled as "group harassment" or whatever it's called, and what happens is you get a known person, a namefag, and then a lot of just random anons all toss out little jabs, maybe not even many, maybe just one really good barb because it's funny. But from the namefag's perspective it all adds up to create this large volume of harassment that can be overwhelming. and it doesn't take much for one person to feel overwhelmed. it's the sheer number of people that might just "make one rape comment" or "not mean to hurt someone's feelings" and if you get hundreds of people just fucking about then the torrent that can follow can probably feel like genuine meaningful harassment. especially if there's a common tone, if the messages are similar because the message has come from groupthink then it can feel like it's not a lot of random anons, but more like seriously obsessed individuals who send hundreds of messages. not to mention the seriously obsessed individuals who'll send hundreds of messages. it's hard to know what's going on. even here half the time we call someone out as anon we're wrong, and it's easy to impersonate matt and syntax specifically, anyone at anytime can basically create butthurt and generate backlash against matt with the word "poots" and the right namefag.
also i've been watching the media for years blow up cultural misunderstandings into stupid controversies, like telling someone to drink bleach and kill themselves in internet culture is equivalent to saying, "go jump off a bridge," but the media reports it as "internet bullies try to make people suicide by drinking bleach." They attribute all these meaningless motivations to things because they don't understand the context of what they are hearing. And since they aren't journalists, but reporters, they don't try and understand they just report whatever has the best sound bite.
so, yet again, here we are with gaming in the crosshairs, once again the consumers of games are called antisocial and are, once again, being told violence is endemic to our hobby. it's never broader issues that affect gaming, no, it's the gamer culture themselves (and it probably comes from all those violent games they play.)
i'm just really sick of hearing these failed arguments paraded around every few years because some kid shoot up a nursery or some chan starts harassing lolcows. i mean fuck!
> you still haven't confrimed whether Star Citizen will allow gay sex with aliens. I am very much on the fence about this game, and some homosexual alien loving could inspire me to purchase it.
the forums are probably only a few questions away from asking this themselves. there's a contingent that wants in game marriage to NPCs like in Skyrim or something so they can roleplay more hardcore. if they add NPC marriage or somehting then the inevitable question will be, "can we marry aliens," which of course would lead to, "can i marry gay aliens."
as to how much fidelity they add to the marriage system (if there is one) the question is wide open. if the rest of the game says anything about the kind of fidelity that we can expect, then yes, gay alien sex will totally be in the game.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 11 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #540,356
@previous (squeegee)
Just so you know, I won't be able to respond fully to this for a little while. Tomorrow it's a long day at university and their Internet filters Minichan. But I'll get back to it eventually.
I am glad to hear about the strong possibility gay alien sex, by the way. I look forward to getting me some Tevarin ass.
Just so you know, I won't be able to respond fully to this for a little while. Tomorrow it's a long day at university and their Internet filters Minichan. But I'll get back to it eventually.
I am glad to hear about the strong possibility gay alien sex, by the way. I look forward to getting me some Tevarin ass.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx double-posted this 11 years ago, 18 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #540,457
@540,350 (squeegee)
Okay, I think I better understand what you're saying. Your concern is that gaming as a whole is being made to look bad by the mainstream media, who are focusing on harassers who are really just trolls in it for giggles?
From my point of view, while the Gamergate guys aren't entirely aggressive idiots who will harass people at the drop of a hat, they do have plenty of people like that within them. IMO, the majority of the bad ones, the ones doing things bad enough to make headlines, are doing so for ideological reasons. We've got cases like Felicia Day (you may've heard of her), she just spoke up about how she didn't approve Gamergate, and was doxxed within the hour. That media student I linked to earlier, she was also driven off of social media for what she posted. Just two examples, but they were targeted because they said things against Gamergate. To me, it seems like that's the motivation rather than a cheap thrill. Because, hey, you could get that much easier by targeting the enraged SJWs directly than random people voicing concerns about the movement.
I think that there is some legitimacy in the bad impression that these sorts foster. Because hey, if you were a woman, would you feel comfortable in this hobby knowing that there were angry people in it who would harass you if you dared speak up about gender issues, or question their own beliefs? I sure wouldn't. Yet we do have such people in gaming, and that's an issue. So I think it's important to challenge this bad subculture within games, or at least show that they aren't representative. Because they do damage gaming's reputation, and they do things like harass people off of the internet. Not a sort worth defending or having around, I think.
Okay, I think I better understand what you're saying. Your concern is that gaming as a whole is being made to look bad by the mainstream media, who are focusing on harassers who are really just trolls in it for giggles?
From my point of view, while the Gamergate guys aren't entirely aggressive idiots who will harass people at the drop of a hat, they do have plenty of people like that within them. IMO, the majority of the bad ones, the ones doing things bad enough to make headlines, are doing so for ideological reasons. We've got cases like Felicia Day (you may've heard of her), she just spoke up about how she didn't approve Gamergate, and was doxxed within the hour. That media student I linked to earlier, she was also driven off of social media for what she posted. Just two examples, but they were targeted because they said things against Gamergate. To me, it seems like that's the motivation rather than a cheap thrill. Because, hey, you could get that much easier by targeting the enraged SJWs directly than random people voicing concerns about the movement.
I think that there is some legitimacy in the bad impression that these sorts foster. Because hey, if you were a woman, would you feel comfortable in this hobby knowing that there were angry people in it who would harass you if you dared speak up about gender issues, or question their own beliefs? I sure wouldn't. Yet we do have such people in gaming, and that's an issue. So I think it's important to challenge this bad subculture within games, or at least show that they aren't representative. Because they do damage gaming's reputation, and they do things like harass people off of the internet. Not a sort worth defending or having around, I think.