Doxing victim Zoe Quinn launches online “anti-harassment task force”

Service once tipped police a week ahead. Cops' memo: "Knock with your hand, not your boot."

Read the whole story

 

[Pitchguest]

Turns out, even Ars Technica doesn't care much for evidence.

The claim that Zoe Quinn was doxxed, threatened and harassed by Gamergate has been disproven time and again but it keeps being repeated uncritically by websites with supposed "journalists" in their employ. Less than a minute of research would give you the necessary information to ascertain this, but apparently that's too much effort for "journalists" these days. Investigative reporting is overrated.

1) She wasn't doxxed. She said her and her family had been doxxed by hacking into Tumblr, which is curious because it has an anti-hacking tool built in (you get automatically logged out if someone else is trying to log in simultaneously), and even if you consider the posting by email feature the so-called doxx had the wrong address for both her and her family (Hawaii, her dad's "address" led to a bike shop in Honolulu), which I doubt so many people would the same mistake and the post the same exact address multiple times (remember it was "multiple" people that had hacked in, not the one), and they wouldn't make the capital mistake of capitalising the v in /v/* (which anyone in chan culture knows you don't do) as was done in the so-called "doxx."

*Strangely enough around the same time, Phil Fish was "doxxed" as well by capital /V/ and the Indiegogo campaign was several times taken down by capital /V/ when they left their calling card.

2) There is no evidence whatsoever that the "doxx" occurred in the name of, or by anyone supporting, Gamergate. None. There is no evidence that anyone threatening her with death or rape is a person in support of Gamergate. None. And even if there were, there is no evidence that anyone supporting Gamergate would be condoning, endorsing or encouraging said conduct. One of the first memes that emerged after the coining of Gamergate was an image denouncing harassment and threats and being in support of women, which was shared by thousands.

3) The ludicruous idea that Zoe Quinn is being criticised because she's a woman. Not long after Gamergate blew up (in large part due to the censorship on various websites discussing Grayson/Quinn and Leigh Alexander, the article she made and the accompanying articles that followed), the social justice contingent figured that it's just a bunch of straight, white men, angry at women (for reasons still beyond my understanding), many women and minorities spoke up and said that's not actually true, there are plenty of women and minorities (and not just white men) supporting it and that they didn't like for their opinions to be co-opted or their existence erased, creating a seperate hashtag called #NotYourShield that specifically had ties to Gamergate.

It's amazing that even sites like Ars Technica is incapable of doing even the tiniest of research on Gamergate to avoid looking pig ignorant.

The amusing thing is that a couple of months when Gamergate was in full swing, people had their hands full doing damage control because of the endless smearing that went on. Even though there were proof, lots of it, of Gamergate supporters having no problem with women at all, in what media had deemed a "boy's club", it was being demonised as a woman-hating movement. (Still is.) In fact, it went so far that in order for people to attempt to prove their innocence, or rather to disprove their wickedness, they created an "harassment patrol" where the purpose was to report any accounts, mainly on Twitter, harassing or otherwise insulting people for no good reason. They even exposed an account that had harassed Anita Sarkeesian and reported it to Twitter, which turned out to be a clickbait artist from Brazil.

Did that work to dissuade anyone from the anti-Gamergate side? No. It backfired. Rather the people who were vigilant on reporting accounts that had been harassing notable anti-Gamergate people were themselves accused of harassing the anti-Gamergate people they were trying to defend. Then the media went out of control when they picked up stories from Quinn, Sarkeesian and Wu, and uncritically repeated those claims too. Again, the same song and dance. Misogynists. Harassers. Crazy. Even terrorists. Worse than the KKK. Worse than ISIS, even.

In the name of Gamergate, thousands upon thousands of dollars have been given to various charities, from cancer to anti-bullying, donated to campaigns to help women get a leg up in the games industry and in the wake of Gamergate websites have changed their disclosure policies to reflect a more ethical standard regarding journalists and the subject they're covering, including the Escapist, Polygon and PCGamer. But it is STILL being regarded as a taint. More stressing, it is STILL being regarded as a movement against women despite numerous evidence saying the opposite. Why?

Anyway. To go back to the "harassment patrol" I mentioned earlier, when supporters of Gamergate did that it backfired. Eventually people just gave up because they just got more flack for it, not less, they put their names out there more than they otherwise would (which, ironically, opened them up for more insults than they otherwise would get) and it just didn't work. Now then, Brianna Wu, irrelevance personified to Gamergate in general but keeps injecting herself into the conversation, said she started a legal fund for people "harassed by Gamergate" which lead to absolutely nothing. And then now Zoe Quinn starts Crash Override, an "anti-harassment task force" which isn't unlike the "harassment patrol" of Gamergate, however when a Gamergate supporter tried to get the attention of Crash Override on Twitter and make them aware of the harassment aimed towards Gamergate supporters (with evidence), they were blocked. As in, it wasn't even addressed. They were just blocked. I guess this "anti-harassment task force" isn't intended for people they don't like.

 

[Pitchguest]

What a load of absolute bullshit.

Yeah? I have evidence to show for it. What do you have, slick?

 

[Pitchguest]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":xr02r6jw]There's already a movement that promotes equal consideration for men in courts and law, such as child custody cases etc.
It's called "Feminism."

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Really? Name one case where feminists, in the name of feminism, vied for the rights of men. One.

 

[Pitchguest]

Well, at least you can tell where the bias is held. Request for evidence gets you downvoted. I reckon this will get downvoted too.

 

[Pitchguest]

RFT[/url]":3zjq34wr]

Pitchguest[/url]":3zjq34wr]Turns out, even Ars Technica doesn't care much for evidence.
[snipping some really, really, old, tired, dead, rotten horses]

Don't you get tired of just posting the same old talking points? You know, the ones that have been debunked multiple times in this thread alone? Never mind the 20 previous ones?

Sometimes I wonder if you people get paid for this - then I remember how stupid people were during the great platform wars of old.

Add another one to the block list.

Debunked? You know, I don't think you know the meaning of that word. Which has been debunked? That Zoe wasn't actually doxxed? That no proof has ever surfaced of Gamergate being the culprit for threats or harassment? The fact that Gamergate blew up when people started censoring discussion about Grayson/Quinn on several websites, including a thread on Reddit where 25K comments was nuked? The fact that more than a dozen articles arrived on the same day writing the same thing, "gamers are dead", "gamers are over"? The fact that numerous women and minorities have claimed support for Gamergate with among other things the hashtag #NotYourShield yet it's still being accused of being a misogynist, racist movement? The fact that there was an "harassment patrol" that didn't work out because anti-Gamergate people claimed that reporting accounts that harassed them was itself harassment, which resulted in people from that patrol to get harassed in turn? The fact that they exposed a clickbait artist from Brazil called Celebrinando that had harassed Anita Sarkeesian when anti-Gamergate people had done nothing but blame Gamergate for it?

Should I go on? There is so much more. I could add on top of what I've already said that there was a false flag attack on the Gamergate hashtag which was claimed by "goons" on Something Awful, of which there is ample proof. But if you want to have a go at debunking this for the 20th time again, I have only two words for you: prove it.

 

[Pitchguest]

Operative Me[/url]":w1vcoy3m]

Pitchguest[/url]":w1vcoy3m]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":w1vcoy3m]There's already a movement that promotes equal consideration for men in courts and law, such as child custody cases etc.
It's called "Feminism."

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Really? Name one case where feminists, in the name of feminism, vied for the rights of men. One.

Do you think that feminists fight for the right to be employed consistently, to be the primary breadwinners of a family, and not merely viewed as having the obligation to be mothers? Equal pay for equal work? All that jazz?

One case. One.

Congratulations, that's feminists working towards destroying centuries of in-built prejudice that mothers are inherently the better "parent" to go to in a divorce.

Name one.

It is the fact that historically, women's only role in many societies ...

Historically, men and women have been many things. Let's not go into that.

When both parents work, and when they are paid equally, there is a) less perception that the mother is the better parent to go to, because they have to work as well, and b) less need for alimony, because the women might actually make more than the man.

Again. Name one.

Both of those are bog-standard MRA talking points, right?

I wouldn't know. I'm not an MRA.

 

[Pitchguest]

thegrommit[/url]":2zdds30f]

Modern Major General Thanatos[/url]":2zdds30f]

Bicentennial Douche[/url]":2zdds30f]

What a load of absolute bullshit.

Always good to see you raising the level of discourse.

BD is not wrong though. It's the same old goobergate talking points that get repeated by sock puppet accounts on every GG related story. New account pops up, spews the same old nonsense, then disappears until the next one comes along.

It's hilarious how they claim they don't care about Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian et al - yet the same thing happens EVERY time.

Oh, "goobergate." Haha. That's how you know you have the high ground. With deliberate, petulant misnomers. I've seen quite a few of those. "Goober" seems to be one of the more popular ones. Yeah, I mean, when you have actual fucking evidence to back your shit up, it no longer becomes "talking points", but rather, er, "facts." If you take a course in journalism, that's usually the goal they go for. Sadly, Sam Mechkovech seems to have missed that course.

As for Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian et al, usually the people who mention Quinn, Sarkeesian, Wu, etc, are their supporters, and Quinn, Sarkeesian and Wu themselves who keep injecting themselves as though as they still relevant. The recent ABC report, for example, which had so much sensationalism in it about games and the nature of games, I thought we were back in the 90's, they were at it again. They blamed it on Gamergate again, entirely, without any proof. They say they want to put it behind them, but they keep bringing it up, again and again and again. It's no wonder people talk about them from time to time the way they keep smearing people. But to prove a point, look at Kotaku in Action, the unofficial/official Gamergate subreddit. Not a single mention of any of them, page one. Page two, nothing. Page three, nothing. Funny how that works, isn't it?

 

[Pitchguest]

Bicentennial Douche[/url]":2wyz6lhx]

Pitchguest[/url]":2wyz6lhx]

RFT[/url]":2wyz6lhx]

Pitchguest[/url]":2wyz6lhx]Turns out, even Ars Technica doesn't care much for evidence.
[snipping some really, really, old, tired, dead, rotten horses]

Don't you get tired of just posting the same old talking points? You know, the ones that have been debunked multiple times in this thread alone? Never mind the 20 previous ones?

Sometimes I wonder if you people get paid for this - then I remember how stupid people were during the great platform wars of old.

Add another one to the block list.

Debunked? You know, I don't think you know the meaning of that word. Which has been debunked? That Zoe wasn't actually doxxed

Is this the "she doxxed herself!"-bullshit?

I don't know. How about you read the post fully and find out for yourself? Oh, too much effort?

That no proof has ever surfaced of Gamergate being the culprit for threats or harassment?

Ah, the appearance of GG and the massive asshattery and harassment that appeared at the same time are totally, 100% unrelated?

Really? So Occam's Razor? Good fucking grief.

The fact that Gamergate blew up when people started censoring discussion about Grayson/Quinn on several websites, including a thread on Reddit where 25K comments was nuked?

Oh, so it "blew up" after 25K comments were nuked on Reddit alone? It sure seems like it had blown up by then.... And 25K comments on Reddit alone about Quinn? Do tell us how GG is about "ethics in journalism", and not obsessing about sex-life of some woman?

Yes. Originally it was just about Quinn and Grayson and Eron, which had the hashtag #fiveguys and it was just about them initially. Then it snowballed into #quinnspiracy when people uncovered more about Quinn, about Depression Quest, about Grayson and her relationship with him and his articles about Depression Quest and the Game Jam sponsored by Polaris which heavily featured Zoe, how she had lied about harassment from Wizardchan to get publicity for her game and get it Greenlit (which didn't happen the first time), etc, etc, etc.

It likely would have petered out eventually if people didn't start censoring threads talking about it. The Reddit thread I mentioned where 25K comments were nuked had criticised Quinn using false-DMCA on YouTube to take videos down. Leigh Alexander and a dozen other people made articles proclamining "gamers are dead", "gamers are over." InternetAristocrat made 2 videos about the whole thing, Adam Baldwin saw them, coined the hashtag #GamerGate and here we are.

The fact that more than a dozen articles arrived on the same day writing the same thing, "gamers are dead", "gamers are over"?

Oh look, another moron who doesn't know how to read! Oh, could you link to these "over a dozen" articles about "death pf gamers"?

You are shitting me, right? Even the bloody Wikipedia article detailing the "Gamergate controversy" have citations regarding these things and that article has been edited by people clearly biased against Gamergate, and in one case up until a few weeks ago one of them was even financially compensated by Gamerghazi. (He's site banned now.) You're telling me, after several pages of "debunking" claims about Gamergate, this has never once been brought to your attention?

The fact that numerous women and minorities have claimed support for Gamergate with among other things the hashtag #NotYourShield yet it's still being accused of being a misogynist, racist movement?

It's misogynist because it targets women. Sure, it has some handful of useful idiots on it's side, but it doesn't change the fact that GGers sure seem to be obsessed over women. GG is just yet another manifestation of the abuse women face online.

So the women who support Gamergate are usuful idiots. Huh. Well, that's feminism for you. In a nutshell.

Misogynist because it targets women? Oh, I see. So just because the initial targets of criticism were women (Zoe Quinn, Leigh Alexander, Patricia Hernandez), it's misogynist. And I suppose if the targets had been men, it would have been misandrist? I mean, let's recap. Zoe Quinn was the catalyst. Then Leigh Alexander, then Patricia Hernandez, then Maya Kramer, then Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu joined in the fray even though they were irrelevant to Gamergate to claim harassment by Gamergate, and, er, that's about it. Do tell if I'm forgetting someone. Ah, yes. Jenn Frank. Can't forget about her. That's one, two, three... seven. In total. On the male side, we have Nathan Grayson, Ben Kuchera, Sam Biddle, Max Read, Jim Sterling, Jonathan McIntosh, Stephen Totilo, Devin Faraci, Chris Kluwe, King of Pol (when he went full redpill), George Reese from Dell, and who else? I forget. And these people are not just journalists but people who've been the point of interest at the time. Anyway. Right out of the bat, I can count more instances of men than I can women. Again, since you seem to be much more in the know, maybe you fill in the blanks if you feel I've left someone out.

Should I go on?

Please do. The more time and energy you waste on your bullshit, the better .

Good one. I can see why they like you so much.

There is so much more. I could add on top of what I've already said that there was a false flag attack on the Gamergate hashtag which was claimed by "goons" on Something Awful,

Sure, all the bullshit done by GG is just a false flag operation!

Not even close to what I said.

of which there is ample proof. But if you want to have a go at debunking this for the 20th time again, I have only two words for you: prove it.

Why don't you prove the core argument of gamergate: that Zoe Quinn had sex with men in return of getting good reviews for her game?

This is going to be pointless, since I can tell when I've hit a brick wall, but the core argument was that she got favours. Not reviews. Look at the videos detailing it. Not one mention of a review.

 

[Pitchguest]

thegrommit[/url]":3u202zhu]It's like we've travelled back in time to September 2014. Let's pretend that their campaigns avoid using the tag - after all, they don't need plausible deniabilty. Right?

Wait. Are you saying that omitting any mention of Gamergate while emailing advertisers (to prevent any potential filtering) is equivalent to harassing people on Twitter? And to further that point, don't you think it's amazing that for months and months, no one, not even trolls with burner accounts, used the hashtag while harassing people? Not a single person. Yet you want to blame Gamergate anyway, because ... what?

Let's also pretend the KIA mods were never MRA's, and that 8chan has nothing to do with goobergate, or harassment of (surprise!) Zoe Quinn and others who criticize it.

You're apparently under the delusion that I actually give a shit about MRA's. I don't.

And apparently you seem to be under the delusion that /baphomet/ is GG aligned. O

I must admit to being amused at their campaign to fake downvotes on a Nightline video featuring Anita Sarkeesian though. Because they're clearly not obsessed about her :facepalm:

Haha. What's that? Faking downvotes? On YouTube? Hahahahaha. So two comments on a Reddit thread becomes a "campaign" and the "campaign" is to "fake downvotes" by coming back each day and doing it again? Golly. And I thought I was gullible.

[edit] BTW, my favourite twitter account for tracking GG idiocy has gone dark, but this is a pretty good substitute if you're bored and want a laugh: http://sjwilluminati.tumblr.com/

And here's a Tumblr documenting harassment against GG proponents.

http://gamergateharassment.tumblr.com/

Whoops.

 

[Pitchguest]

Operative Me[/url]":221ort7r]

Pitchguest[/url]":221ort7r]

Operative Me[/url]":221ort7r]

Pitchguest[/url]":221ort7r]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":221ort7r]There's already a movement that promotes equal consideration for men in courts and law, such as child custody cases etc.
It's called "Feminism."

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Really? Name one case where feminists, in the name of feminism, vied for the rights of men. One.

Do you think that feminists fight for the right to be employed consistently, to be the primary breadwinners of a family, and not merely viewed as having the obligation to be mothers? Equal pay for equal work? All that jazz?

One case. One.

Congratulations, that's feminists working towards destroying centuries of in-built prejudice that mothers are inherently the better "parent" to go to in a divorce.

Name one.

It is the fact that historically, women's only role in many societies ...

Historically, men and women have been many things. Let's not go into that.

When both parents work, and when they are paid equally, there is a) less perception that the mother is the better parent to go to, because they have to work as well, and b) less need for alimony, because the women might actually make more than the man.

Again. Name one.

Both of those are bog-standard MRA talking points, right?

I wouldn't know. I'm not an MRA.

Name one... what?

One instance of feminists arguing for equal pay? That's not exactly a tall order. The point I think you're missing is that advocating for those things ALSO advocates for the removal of the stereotype, which affects society in a number of ways. Another example: advocating for equal access to quality education (essentially, making property values irrelevant to school funding) also has the effect of ending affirmative action. If poor neighborhoods (which overwhelmingly correlate to skin color) have equal access to educational funding, there is decreased need to ask about skin color.

I can't help but feel you're turning feminism into a catch-all term that helps everyone ever everywhere, since apparently feminism is now also about ending the race problem?

This is the thing that you seem to miss: advocating for women's rights INHERENTLY advocates for the rights of men because the stereotyping of women can also negatively affect men.

Wow. And yet, the so-called "patriarchy" and "rape culture" and "Schrödinger's Rapist" and god knows how many other negative stereotypes and terms that has become commonplace among feminists, which paints men as subjugators and rapists. Bad statistics like the 1 in 5 women being raped at college campuses in the US are parroted by feminists loudly and nonchalantly, when in fact it's a bit more complex than that. Repeating the notion that sexism cannot affect men or that there is no such thing as sexism against men. That because fake accusations of rape against men are not as numerous as actual rape against women, that means men accused of rape are treated as guilty - even if there is no evidence, and even before evidences surfaces which shows it all to be a ruse. And if you should have any inkling of dissent, then it's because you're a sexist, misogynist pig.

Again, I cited two very prominent "men's rights" issues-- alimony and custody. Both of those are the EFFECTS of societal discrimination against women. Women continue to earn less, which makes them more likely to require alimony. Women are also more likely to be viewed as the proper parent to award custody to because of the systemic assumption that it is the "job" of the woman to raise a child.

By advocating against those stereotypes, women are ALSO advocating against the mistreatment that men claim is affecting them.

Err. I'm sorry. "Claim" is affecting them? So you don't actually believe that they are affected by them?

But enough of your flailing. Feminists keep saying that, in the face of criticism when called out on their seeming anti-male sentiment, feminism vies for the rights of men, too. But so far they haven't demonstrated one instance of that ever being true. So once more, name one case, one, where feminists -- in the name of feminism -- vied for the rights of men. Just one.

 

[Pitchguest]

ScottTFrazer[/url]":krwexha3]

Pitchguest[/url]":krwexha3]
Oh, "goobergate." Haha. That's how you know you have the high ground. With deliberate, petulant misnomers. I've seen quite a few of those.

You're a troll, and an odious one at that, but:

The reason several of us purposely misspell GrabberGambles has to do with two effects:

Google ranking
Sea-lioning.

I take it back, you're probably not a troll. You're displaying more of the characteristics of a sea lion.

´

Ah. Sea-lioning. A term that's only funny until you replace it with something real, like black people. Then it's only sad.

Actually, I do have a rebuttal against the term. (Completely tangential to Gamergate.) Recently PZ Myers of Pharyngula fame accused Irish sceptic Michael Nugent of "providing a haven of rapists and serial harassers" on his blog. Myers' claims were unsubstantied and made without evidence to back them up, so in response Nugent wrote to Myers asking him to politely remove the smear. Myers' reply?

"Sea lion."

 

[Pitchguest]

Here's Jimmy Wales' take on the term.

https://storify.com/gameragodzilla/jimm ... sealioning

 

[Pitchguest]

Operative Me[/url]":2h73345k]

Pitchguest[/url]":2h73345k]Here's Jimmy Wales' take on the term.

https://storify.com/gameragodzilla/jimm ... sealioning

...and he's wrong. Hooray!

If someone says something you don't want to hear, and you endlessly hound them over a perceived slight, asking them to prove, with facts, what boils down to an opinion ESPECIALLY while doing so in a way that demonstrates why the perceived slight actually fits, there is something wrong with you.

Perceived slight? If you say "I fucking hate black people" in front of a black person and they decide to call you out, that's a "perceived slight"?

 

[Pitchguest]

ScottTFrazer[/url]":3idi2ypu]

Pitchguest[/url]":3idi2ypu]Here's Jimmy Wales' take on the term.

https://storify.com/gameragodzilla/jimm ... sealioning

Riiight. So let's take a term that's talking about how GG supporters flock to any mention of that hashtag and play it off as racist....

That makes perfect sense.

Tell me why you registered an account at Ars again?

What in god's name are you on about?

 

[Pitchguest]

thegrommit[/url]":hmx9i1tv]

Pitchguest[/url]":hmx9i1tv]Wait. Are you saying that omitting any mention of Gamergate while emailing advertisers (to prevent any potential filtering) is equivalent to harassing people on Twitter? And to further that point, don't you think it's amazing that for months and months, no one, not even trolls with burner accounts, used the hashtag while harassing people? Not a single person. Yet you want to blame Gamergate anyway, because ... what?

Really? So people abusing others when they comment on goobergate have nothing to do with goobergate - simply because they didn't use the hashtag? :facepalm:

*sigh* What?

That must explain what happened to Felicia Day, or even what is still happening to Anita herself.

Right, because a username that says "gaimerg8" is clearly not a false flag. Oh, and then there was the other person who repeated the doxx in the comments, "InternetAristocat" (not crat, mind) - clearly both of these users were genuine. And I'm not even sure what that tweet about Sarkeesian has to do with Gamergate, but screw it. I can tell that nothing that I say will dissuade you. Nothing.

You're apparently under the delusion that I actually give a shit about MRA's. I don't.

And apparently you seem to be under the delusion that /baphomet/ is GG aligned. O

Riiiight, because it's just sheer coincidence that a critic of GG got doxxed by an anonymous image board that host GG. Sheer coincidence.

So no actual proof, just assumption. Brilliant. You should become a journalist.

Haha. What's that? Faking downvotes? On YouTube? Hahahahaha. So two comments on a Reddit thread becomes a "campaign" and the "campaign" is to "fake downvotes" by coming back each day and doing it again? Golly. And I thought I was gullible.

Yes, it's totally pathetic - much like sock puppets registering to coment on stories about Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian et al.

Oh, wait.

... No. I mean. You can't actually do what they're saying. You can't downvote a video twice.

And here's a Tumblr documenting harassment against GG proponents.

And that somehow excuses the idiocy that GG continue to practice today?

I think it's telling that the moment someone links you proof of harassment towards GG proponents, your first reaction is to say, "And that somehow excuses their idiocy." No, it doesn't. That's the point proponents of GG have been making a lot as well when talking about Sarkeesian, Quinn and Wu, but almost immediately the curtain is drawn because people draw attention to the fact that actually these people get harassed and shouldn't we be focusing on that instead? Because if you don't, then you're a sexist misogynist, whereas when you point to similar instances of threats and harassment and doxxing against Gamergate supporters, that's not enough, apparently, to curtail the criticism. Which is good, but it would be nicer if there wasn't such an obvious double standard.

I have more evidence where GG proponents have been harassed and threatened if you want to peruse that as well, but I have a feeling you don't really care. In the words of Graham Lineham, paraphrased, why should you stop attacking a misogynistic hate group because it contains some very stupid and ill-informed women? Because feminism is all about choice.

 

[Pitchguest]

Operative Me[/url]":bkpxh84r]

Pitchguest[/url]":bkpxh84r]
Perceived slight? If you say "I fucking hate black people" in front of a black person and they decide to call you out, that's a "perceived slight"?

Uh, sea-lioning isn't about race....

No? How about sexism, then? Tell you what, look at the comic again and replace "sea mammals" with "people" and "sea lion" with anything that's more realistic. How's it look then?

http://wondermark.com/1k62/

 

[Pitchguest]

Pardon, "marine mammals", not "sea" mammals.

 

[Pitchguest]

Operative Me[/url]"ku8po4b]

Pitchguest[/url]"ku8po4b]

Operative Me[/url]"ku8po4b]

Pitchguest[/url]"ku8po4b]
Perceived slight? If you say "I fucking hate black people" in front of a black person and they decide to call you out, that's a "perceived slight"?

Uh, sea-lioning isn't about race....

No? How about sexism, then? Tell you what, look at the comic again and replace "sea mammals" with "people" and "sea lion" with anything that's more realistic. How's it look then?

http://wondermark.com/1k62/

Replacing it with people doesn't fundamentally change the equation at all. And again, sea lioning isn't about sexism either. You can dog-whistle all you want, but it's not going to work because you're fundamentally wrong about how the term is used.

The criticisms of GrumblingGrandmothers are based on behavior, tone, and message. Repeating the same "I'm just saying, can you prove that they're part of GamerGate" no true Scotsman bullshit is precisely the sort of behavior, tone, and message that is being insulted. THAT'S what being a Sea Lion is: proving the validity of a negative association by epitomizing the behavior that gave rise to the negative association.

Is that so? Then, if I wanted to paint feminists in a broad brush, I could basically do that based on nothing but a hunch and you couldn't say anything about it lest you be accused of commiting a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Good to know. However I'm curious about your interpretation of the comic, because it seems to me the sea-lion (or insert minority group here) is only politely inquiring why they can't stand sea lions only to be abjectly ignored throughout. Similarly, the very real life example of Michael Nugent being smeared as "providing a haven for harassers and serial rapists" (which isn't true in the slightest) only to be called a "sea lion" when he politely requests that the person smearing him to retract and abjectly ignored by the person doing the smearing is only another instance where the term is abused.

 

[Pitchguest]

ScottTFrazer[/url]"7jel801]

Pitchguest[/url]"7jel801]

ScottTFrazer[/url]"7jel801]

Pitchguest[/url]"7jel801]Here's Jimmy Wales' take on the term.

https://storify.com/gameragodzilla/jimm ... sealioning

Riiight. So let's take a term that's talking about how GG supporters flock to any mention of that hashtag and play it off as racist....

That makes perfect sense.

Tell me why you registered an account at Ars again?

What in god's name are you on about?

That you only showed up in the forums a short period of time ago and the only posts you've made are in this thread and they've been asked and answered a dozen times.

You have a problem with the term "sea lion" because you are engaging in exactly the sort of behavior that the term describes.

I'm sorry, but does it really matter when I started posting here? We all have to start somewhere, don't we?

My questions have been answered a dozen times? Hahaha. Well, at least you have a sense of humour.

 

[Pitchguest]

thegrommit[/url]":3szs7ufm]

ScottTFrazer[/url]":3szs7ufm]

Pitchguest[/url]":3szs7ufm]

ScottTFrazer[/url]":3szs7ufm]

Pitchguest[/url]":3szs7ufm]Here's Jimmy Wales' take on the term.

https://storify.com/gameragodzilla/jimm ... sealioning

Riiight. So let's take a term that's talking about how GG supporters flock to any mention of that hashtag and play it off as racist....

That makes perfect sense.

Tell me why you registered an account at Ars again?

What in god's name are you on about?

That you only showed up in the forums a short period of time ago and the only posts you've made are in this thread and they've been asked and answered a dozen times.

You have a problem with the term "sea lion" because you are engaging in exactly the sort of behavior that the term describes.

Precisely, and it's why the GG bingo from September is still relevant. And every time one of these accounts pops up, it's someone who fails to demonstrate basic reading comprehension.

And you people wonder why we don't take you seriously. It's a mystery.

 

[Pitchguest]

shadedmagus[/url]":2n7jpvcz]

Pitchguest[/url]":2n7jpvcz]

... No. I mean. You can't actually do what they're saying. You can't downvote a video twice.

I'm sorry, that's factually incorrect. In fact, that's kinda where the definition of "sock puppet account" comes from.

What do you mean it's factually incorrect? With an account you cannot upvote or downvote a video twice. It - is - not - possible. YouTube prevents it. With sockpuppets, yes, you can, but that wasn't what they actually said in the image, now was it?

 

[Pitchguest]

Peevester[/url]":1dzra7mi]

Operative Me[/url]":1dzra7mi]

Pitchguest[/url]":1dzra7mi]

Operative Me[/url]":1dzra7mi]

Pitchguest[/url]":1dzra7mi]
Perceived slight? If you say "I fucking hate black people" in front of a black person and they decide to call you out, that's a "perceived slight"?

Uh, sea-lioning isn't about race....

No? How about sexism, then? Tell you what, look at the comic again and replace "sea mammals" with "people" and "sea lion" with anything that's more realistic. How's it look then?

http://wondermark.com/1k62/

Replacing it with people doesn't fundamentally change the equation at all. And again, sea lioning isn't about sexism either. You can dog-whistle all you want, but it's not going to work because you're fundamentally wrong about how the term is used.

Blargh - a gater told you to replace the sea lions with people? Talk about completely missing the entire point of the cartoon.

HOW, exactly? It's the same thing. "I can't stand black people", whoops, suddenly the comic is horribly racist. (Or bigoted.) "I can't stand women", whoops, suddenly the comic is horribly sexist. (Or misogynist, or whatever the hell.) Just because you remove the surrealist aspect doesn't mean you "miss the point." Obviously I understand that you want the comic, and the term itself, "sea-lioning", to represent disingenuous probing, but how? The original comic with the sea-lion simply asks the question why. Why the hate and they get no answer in return. How does that get interpreted to mean you're being disingenuous?

Besides, I've already mentioned several times how this term can be abused. Michael Nugent being accused of providing a "haven for serial rapists and harassers" and he gets ignored and called a "sea-lion" when he politely requests for the person claiming this to retract their allegation. "Sea-lioning" for wanting someone to remove defamatory smears. He's been patience personafied, he hasn't (yet) filed for libel, he's been making posts on his blog trying to appeal to their better nature, but still: nothing. "Sea-lion." What a stupid, useless term.

 

[Pitchguest]

ScottTFrazer[/url]":1y4q6om6]

Pitchguest[/url]":1y4q6om6]
HOW, exactly? It's the same thing. "I can't stand black people", whoops, suddenly the comic is horribly racist. (Or bigoted.) "I can't stand women", whoops, suddenly the comic is horribly sexist.

"I can't stand tomatoes" Suddenly the comic makes no sense.

You're right. It makes about as much sense as the original comic, if tomatoes suddenly starting talking back.

It's kind of amazing what happens when you change the words around isn't it?

For example if you take the phrase "I only love vanilla ice cream" and replace "vanilla ice cream" with "white people" it sounds horribly racist! Why is that?!! If only we knew.

Have we adopted "vanilla ice cream" as a term yet that doesn't mean anything else other than vanilla ice cream? We haven't? Oh. Okay.

 

[Pitchguest]

thegrommit[/url]":2ctgcqml]LOL - "we"? An anonymous group of trolls with poor impulse control whom even 4chan kicked out? :facepalm:

The same "we" that's been ridiculed on network news, national newspapers and various satirical TV shows? That's effectively turned back perception of gaming by a decade?

I can live with that.

Err. An "anonymous group of trolls" who've caused various games journalist websites to revise their ethics policies? An "anonymous group of trolls" who've donated well over a hundred thousand dollars to charities, cancer, anti-bullying, ebola, etc? An "anonymous group of trolls" who helped an Indiegogo campaign to get women get a leg up in the games industry? I wonder, seeing as you think they're so irrelevant and trivial: how the hell did they manage that?

What has the anti-Gamergate contingent acheived, bucko? You say that perception that of gaming has been set back by a decade. Whose fault is that? The gamers who just want to play games, or the people who want to morally police gamers? Did you watch the recent ABC report about the supposed harassment from Gamergate? It had very little to do with Gamergate. Instead they focused on what they deemed to be the nature of games. The very first thing they say. "Violent depictions of women being beaten, raped and run over by cars. It's not the movies, it's video games!" What does this have to do with Gamergate? Not a thing. What does the moralising of games have to do with Gamergate? Not a thing. A blast from the past, it looked like something from the mid-nineties. Except then it was an old, white man that did it and no one gave a shit.

The fact that they keep making it about women, too, is frustrating since there are plenty of women supporting Gamergate. Sure, they're called "very stupid and misguided" and "useful idiots" because feminists don't seem to care much about choice, but nevertheless.

 

[Pitchguest]

Bicentennial Douche[/url]":2qypivee]

Pitchguest[/url]":2qypivee]

Ah, the appearance of GG and the massive asshattery and harassment that appeared at the same time are totally, 100% unrelated?

Really? So Occam's Razor? Good fucking grief.

So it's a sheer coincidence that the harassment, asshattery and GG appeared at the same time? That the harassment Quinn faced while GG was obsessing over her alleged sex-life is just a total coincidence? There is no connection between the two? None whatsoever? That the GG-crowd in Reddit, 8chan and other shitholes of the internet are just flabbergasted by the harassment and they have nothing at all to do with it?

Yeah, why don't we just dispense with evidence altogether and just go with our gut?

Yes. Originally it was just about Quinn and Grayson and Eron

I thought it was about "ethics in journalism"? But here you are telling us that is was all about narcissistic jilted ex-boyfriend getting back at his ex.

For crying out loud. At least read further than the fucking starting point. This is embarassing.

Oh, and it's funny that you should criticise me for using "talking points" when you keep using the word "jilted" to describe Eron Gjoni, the word that was used in almost every single article documenting it. It's amazing how a person who was emotionally abused and manipulated can suddenly be turned into a "jilted, narcissistic ex-boyfriend" - with Zoe Quinn of all people, who admitted to gaslighting him where she convinced him it was his fault for cheating on him.

Still, you seem awfully eager to turn her into a saint despite every evidence pointing to the contrary. Ah, and then there's the time when she lured a photographer to her place, lied about the accomodations which made the photographer pay out of her own pocket, lied about why the photographer could not use the photos she'd taken because her roommate was crazy (which was also a lie) and then most worryingly told a tall-tale about how she'd murdered someone who tried to rape her. She lied about Wizardchan holding a campaign to hasss her, which caused people to harass Wizardchan in turn (Wizardchan is a chan board with mostly suicidally depressed male virgins where women aren't allowed), in order to get publicity for her game, Depression Quest. That's irony for you. But I am probably wasting my time relaying this, because you don't seem to care much about integrity. Women, maybe, benevolent sexism. Well, unless they disagree with you. Then they're "useful idiots" and you don't care if they're harassed or threatened or doxxed.

which had the hashtag #fiveguys and it was just about them initially. Then it snowballed into #quinnspiracy when people uncovered more about Quinn, about Depression Quest, about Grayson and her relationship with him and his articles about Depression Quest and the Game Jam sponsored by Polaris which heavily featured Zoe, how she had lied about harassment from Wizardchan to get publicity for her game and get it Greenlit (which didn't happen the first time), etc, etc, etc.

Oh yes, OF COURSE Quinn fucked her way to fame, because that's what women do, right? Nevermind the fact that none of the allegations made by GG ever panned out.

Enough with the strawmen. I never said she "fucked her way to fame." And which allegations did not pan out, exactly? That she lied about Wizardchan? That she had sex for favours? That she was in a relationship with Nathan Grayson prior to his articles about her? You speak as though you know, but in reality you really are pig ignorant.

It likely would have petered out eventually if people didn't start censoring threads talking about it. The Reddit thread I mentioned where 25K comments were nuked had criticised Quinn using false-DMCA on YouTube to take videos down.

Oh, we have DMCA-takedowns as well? This is a textbook case of Kathy Sierra. Instead of Weev, we have Eron Gjoni, the narcissistic ex-boyfriend. The similarities are uncanny.

Leigh Alexander and a dozen other people made articles proclamining "gamers are dead", "gamers are over."

Dozen other people? I'm still waiting for links to those.... And maybe, just MAYBE you should actually READ that "Gamers are over"-article, and maybe you would get the point of it? Jesus fucking Christ, of all the reasons to throw yourself in to a fit of rage, that, is one crappy reason. But I guess it was especially rage-inducing because it was written by a woman?

You mean the article that said that gamers are "basement-dwelling virgins" and that gamers ought not to be so enthusiastic about their culture? I can see how gamers were THRILLED about that one. But if that wasn't the case, how about that Leigh Alexander, after she wrote that article, actually went on to insult gamers by calling them "wound up nerds" on Twitter?

However when all else fails, you can always fall back on "misogyny", eh, Douche?

InternetAristocrat made 2 videos about the whole thing, Adam Baldwin saw them, coined the hashtag #GamerGate and here we are.

Adam Baldwin is also the guy who thinks that Obama wants to spread ebola to USA. Just saying.

So? Ian Miles Cheong, anti-Gamergate proponent extraordinaire, once said that Hitler was his fucking idol. Guilt by association. The reason they're called fallacies is because they don't work. Also, I really don't give a shit.

You are shitting me, right? Even the bloody Wikipedia article detailing the "Gamergate controversy" have citations regarding these things and that article has been edited by people clearly biased against Gamergate, and in one case up until a few weeks ago one of them was even financially compensated by Gamerghazi. (He's site banned now.) You're telling me, after several pages of "debunking" claims about Gamergate, this has never once been brought to your attention?

I'm well aware of the "gamers are dead"-article. And unlike you, I actually understand what the point of the article is. Why don't you tell me what YOU think it's about, and why the article is bad? And while you are at it, could you provide the links to those "over a dozen" articles that said the same thing?

Are you really well aware? Then you ought to also be aware that the article didn't actually say "gamers are dead" - it said "gamers are over." It was the *accompanying* articles that said, among other things, that the 'gamer' identity is dead and so on. Oops? At least I now finally know how full of shit you are.

Oh, and about those bloody articles that you keep croaning about which for some reason you have no knowledge about despite posting about Gamergate as if you are the fucking gatekeeper, I give you this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz--i3M4PVk#t=4517

So the women who support Gamergate are usuful idiots. Huh. Well, that's feminism for you. In a nutshell.

Yep, they are. Do you know what "useful idiots" are?

Yeah. I also know what a sexist is.

Misogynist because it targets women? Oh, I see. So just because the initial targets of criticism were women (Zoe Quinn, Leigh Alexander, Patricia Hernandez), it's misogynist.

Yep. GG overwhelmingly targets women, for some strange reason.

It "overwhelmingly" targets women even though most of the people whose ire have been the target of Gamergate have been men?

Even in times when there is a choice to be made between targeting a man (say, Nathan Grayson) and a woman (for example, Qoe Quinn), they go after the woman. If GG is about "ethics in journalism", why did GG go after Zoe Quinn (who is not a journalist), instead of the "corrupted journalist" (Nathan Grayson)?

What?? We DID go after Grayson. What the fuck are you talking about?

You wanna know what GG is really about? It's bunch of annoyed guys who feel that the increasing number of women who play games are somehow going to ruin "their" hobby.

Ah, so now it's back to "a bunch of annoyed guys." No mention of the women. No, why should they be mentioned? They are, after all, "gender traitors" or "sister punishers." I mean, those are terms that feminists have used to describe women they don't feel are sufficiently feminist. Oh, and the "increasing number of women who play games", which has nothing to do with Gamergate and has never been addressed by Gamergate. Funny how this is always brought up by the opposition as though it has any merit whatsoever. And of course the "ruining" of "our" hobby, which is strange because why would we donate thousands of dollars to a campaign to help women get a leg up in the industry with an all-female game developer crew, if we don't want them to join "our" hobby? And why would we have no problem signal boosting female gamers when we don't want them to join "our" hobby?

I wonder, Douche, how much do you actually know about Gamergate? Because you seem to be painfully ignorant about most of it.

That's all it's about. We had something similar in the nineties when nerds were angry when other guys started playing games.

That's a lovely non-sequitur you have there. Do you mind I add my own?

I also remember we had a moral panic when games were being heavily censored because people felt they contained too much violence. That was headed by Jack Thompson, if you recall, who used the violence in games as an excuse to dub them "murder simulators" and attempted to get them banned from stores. In return, gamers just chuckled and said, "Oh, that Jack, such a joker." Oh, wait. No. He was actually doxxed, harassed and given rape and death threats. Which, of course, the games journalists at the time thought was a very big deal indeed and declared that no one deserves to be harassed. No, sorry, that's wrong again. They lauded the harassment and actually joined in. My bad.

Nerds were afraid that the "jocks" were going to co-opt "their" hobby. "We were playing games before they were popular!". And here we are again. This time instead of fight being between the old-school nerds and the newcomer-jocks, it's between old-school guys and newcomer-women.

And I suppose if the targets had been men, it would have been misandrist?

If they would be targeted because of their gender, yes.

I see. So the majority of coverage that focus on their corruption and cronyism, that, what? Doesn't count?

Right out of the bat, I can count more instances of men than I can women.

Have those men been threatened by rape and murder? And hey, since gaming and peripheral activities involving gaming are still heavily skewed towards men, it's quite interesting how much women are overrepresented even in your list. And how many of those men are targeted because they side with the women GG is harassing? Quite a few.

Hang on. So your criteria for declaring a GG misogynist hate group is not for the amount of women they criticise, but for what amount of rape and death threats people they criticise receive? So if the ratio of people GG criticise is skewed heavily towards men, it would still be a misogynist hate group if the women receive more threats than the men do? Even if you cannot prove without a shred of doubt that the threats came from people supporting GG, it would still be the fault of GG because Occam's Razor?

And in a spectacular show of goal post moving, you're not saying it's a misogynist hate group because of the amount of women that get attacked, but because of the amount of men that support the women being attacked? Seriously?

This is going to be pointless, since I can tell when I've hit a brick wall, but the core argument was that she got favours. Not reviews. Look at the videos detailing it. Not one mention of a review.

So, according to you, she got some vague "favouritism" in exchange of sex? Of course there is no real evidence for any of this, but regardless: that is reason enough for her to be destroyed.

Evidence? You want really want to speak to me of "evidence" (REAL evidence, even) when you continue to speak glibly as if you know everything about it, but asked me to provide proof of the dozen articles that really started the whole thing? Funny guy.

And I bet that GGers are just so fucking angry because they are losing this fight. Everyone outside gaming sees them for what they are: bunch of desperate, scared guys afraid that bunch of vaginas are going to ruin their clubhouse.

Yep. Again, just a bunch of "desperate, scared guys afraid of vaginas." Spot on.

 

[Pitchguest]

Sorry, but who was it that mentioned Zoe Quinn in relation to Gamergate in this story?

That would be this guy.

mattand[/url]":3ambns44]


Seriously. The hordes of Gamergate mouth breathers and Men's Rights Advocate loons alone promise a shit show of ignorance beyond all mortal reckoning.

And I will reckon that any article in support of Quinn also mention Gamergate in the same vein. Huh. I wonder, who's the one really obsessed with Quinn?

 

[Pitchguest]

Operative Me[/url]":2c13ln4u]

jawlz[/url]":2c13ln4u]
And at the same time it's an effective way to avoid having to deal with issues like journalistic integrity. As soon as someone mentions it, you (and others) lump them in with a bunch of misogynist idiots, and then don't bother to respond to any issues that might be cogent to issues related to journalistic integrity, and instead go on to attack misogyny, because, according to you and those like you, that's what everything is 'really' about.

Sorry, but that's the definition of a straw man argument.

No, actually, it's not. A straw man is claiming someone argued something they didn't, and knocking down the fake argument. Please, point me to where I said that was Karma's argument.

Again, if it's about journalistic integrity, the name Zoë Quinn shouldn't come up. At all. Her name is entirely unimportant. So why is it that the focus is on her actions? Shit, why are you here talking about journalistic integrity on a thread about Zoë Quinn, if you don't care about Quinn?

Maybe it could be because Gamergate was mentioned in the comments and conversations tend to branch out. Ever thought of that? Who was it that mentioned Gamergate first in this thread in relation to Quinn? Oh yeah. NOT. US.

You want to talk Grayson? Okay, cool. Dude mentioned a game developed by someone he knew, while covering a reality TV show which that game was a part of, and in the course of mentioning several other games part of the same program. Months later, he slept with the developer of that game, and didn't ever write another blurb about the game.

He was in a relationship with her way before that and the thing that most people are criticising is that he never disclosed any such relationship.

That's the journalistic integrity problem you want me to believe is a serious issue?

What? Journalists not disclosing relationships with the subjects they're covering? You know, what's usually called a "conflict of interest" where journalists are supposed to recuse themselves? That's not a journalistic integrity problem to you?

Not, you know... developers literally bribing people with early access but stating that they cannot say anything negative about the game?

You mean, that which was covered by several websites and critics on YouTube? That one? Besides, the criticism is aimed towards journalists who are supposed to be held to a higher ethical standard, not Let's Players on twitch or YouTube and it's about disclosure, so there's no problem if you accept a paid promotion just as long as you disclose your ties in the article or in the video.

Not the press bans on major AAA studio releases?

I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

Why should I believe that you care about journalistic integrity if you come to a thread on Zoë Quinn... when she has nothing to do with journalistic integrity, rather than focusing on SEROUS problem of integrity?

Maybe you should ask the person who mentioned Gamergate in the first place about that. You know. This guy.

mattand[/url]":2c13ln4u]


Seriously. The hordes of Gamergate mouth breathers and Men's Rights Advocate loons alone promise a shit show of ignorance beyond all mortal reckoning.

 

[Pitchguest]

Operative Me[/url]":jr95rysx]

jawlz[/url]":jr95rysx]
Seems like you're ignoring what Karmashock said in order to attack something he didn't say. I could be wrong, but this seems to be the definition of a straw man argument. Though I suppose it's clear that, for whatever reason, you don't take him at his word.

No, what I'm doing is pointing out what ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Karmashock can say that he doesn't care about Zoë all he wants. Fine. But GooberGhazi clearly freaking does.

Yeah, continue with your petulant insults all you want, but I'm not sure you want to connect Gamergate with Gamerghazi. They don't like Gamergate very much.

The hashtag was literally born in a tweet sharing a misogynistic, patently false, video AIMED AT QUINN, NOT GRAYSON.

You mean this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz--i3M4PVk

The meaning of "misogyny" becomes all the more muddled. Feminists have turned it into a catchphrase. "Misogyny" this and "misogyny" that. Nevermind that misogyny is the hatred of women because they're women, not because they're immoral or unethical people who happen to be women. Then again, maybe you can offer that excuse to Ann Coulter. People are not angry with her because she's a dishonest, vile person. No, it's because she's a woman. Clearly.

Anyway. Feel free to debunk the "patently false" video. I'm sure it must be a zinch for you.

Any individual person can say they don't care about Zoë.

I couldn't care less about Zoe Quinn.

Fine, how am I going to disprove it (except, you now to point out how much effort the people who claim not to care about her spend talking about her).

I don't know. How about using evidence? ACTUAL evidence? Maybe you could trawl through the various threads on Zoe Quinn and find out for yourself who the people are who overwhelmingly mention Quinn, Sarkeesian and Wu, who overwhelmingly bring them into the conversation when they're not relevant, who overwhelmingly tie them to Gamergate when they're not relevant, and so on and so forth. I think you'll be surprised what you find. But you won't. Because you don't actually care.

But to claim that GooberGhazi is about journalistic integrity is patently false. It quite obviously ignored the journalistic integrity angle to focus on the personal flaws of a DEVELOPER.

I suppose the many times when Gamergate got several games journalist websites to change their ethics policies, that was just an accident. I mean, if that's what we're not about, it must be. Right? Are we winning? I get the impression you would know a thing or two about winning. You know you're winning when you start using babytalk like "GooberGobbler" and "GabbleGoobler" and gaga goo goo waah waah waah!

 

[Pitchguest]

ScottTFrazer[/url]":1xurefx0]

Pitchguest[/url]":1xurefx0]Sorry, but who was it that mentioned Zoe Quinn in relation to Gamergate in this story?

That would be this guy.

mattand[/url]":1xurefx0]


Seriously. The hordes of Gamergate mouth breathers and Men's Rights Advocate loons alone promise a shit show of ignorance beyond all mortal reckoning.

And I will reckon that any article in support of Quinn also mention Gamergate in the same vein. Huh. I wonder, who's the one really obsessed with Quinn?

That's merely a prediction that #GG folks would show up.

Was it wrong?

Edit: also, the article we are responding to is directly about (and in support of) Quinn and doesn't mention #GG once. So you've reckoned incorrectly.

Hahahaha. Still wasn't us that mentioned it first, now was it?

 

[Pitchguest]

Operative Me[/url]":1g52ez8x]

Pitchguest[/url]":1g52ez8x]
Maybe it could be because Gamergate was mentioned in the comments and conversations tend to branch out. Ever thought of that? Who was it that mentioned Gamergate first in this thread in relation to Quinn? Oh yeah. NOT. US.

Oh, so you just decided to respond about Zoe in relation to GrumpyGusses because you don't care about her. Got it.

Oh my god. What the hell is wrong with you people? No. The story is about Zoe Quinn and the criticism was that why was Gamergate mentioned in a thread about Zoe Quinn. The criticism therefore became why are we talking about Gamergate in a thread that's supposed to be about Zoe Quinn, which of course turned into that Gamergate is obsessed about Zoe Quinn. But who was it that mentioned Gamergate in the thread first? Oh, right. Not Gamergate. Seriously, what the actual fuck?

He was in a relationship with her way before that and the thing that most people are criticising is that he never disclosed any such relationship.

Oh? He was? Provided proof of that please. Don't Gish Gallop away-- provide concrete evidence that they were in a relationship "way before that".

Why is it that the burden of proof falls on me to provide every single bit of proof that you should know about, seeing as it's "patently false", remember?

But what the hell. I'm doing all the detective work anyway. Might as well.

Way before the article he made 31st of March, he knew Zoe intimately.

Way before that, however, he was a tester on Depression Quest and was thanked in the credits. This predates both articles he made about Zoe, Depression Quest and the Game Jam. And then after that it was uncovered that Nathan Grayson had a real issue with disclosure when he wrote articles GaymerX and Robin Arnott (several on the latter) without disclosing anything, despite the fact he was close friends with the president of GaymerX and Robin Arnott. (Proof.)

Now is there any time in this discussion where you will actually start providing evidence for your claims, or am I just shit out of luck?

What? Journalists not disclosing relationships with the subjects they're covering? You know, what's usually called a "conflict of interest" where journalists are supposed to recuse themselves? That's not a journalistic integrity problem to you?

No, because their friendship didn't affect the substance of his content. THAT is what a conflict of interest in.

I beg your pardon? So people who get paid to promote a product but doesn't tell anyone does not constitute a conflict of interest because "it [doesn't] affect the substance of [their] content"? I am gobsmacked right now. You people are unbelievable. You're fucking criticising Gamergate for supposedly not going after the journalist in question, Nathan Grayson, but when we do for his obvious conflict of interest and for his failure to disclose his relationship with Quinn, it's suddenly not kosher to do so because "their friendship didn't affect the substance of his content"? You fucking what, mate?

If a person you know is involved in a story, it's not a conflict of interest to mention their part objectively.

If as a journalist you are involved with someone more than as an acquaintance (as in working on the actual game and getting thanked in the credits and going on Vegas trips together), you should either recuse yourself entirely from covering anything regarding that person professionally or you should DISCLOSE your relationship with the subject and let that colour the tone of the article. Nathan Grayson did neither. How the fuck does that not constitute a conflict of interest?

It is only when the nature of your relationship prevents you from providing objective reporting that it becomes a conflict of interest. What about his reporting was not objective, exactly?

And how the hell is the viewing audience supposed to know what is and what isn't "objective reporting" if they don't know the journalist and the subject is in a relationship together? Hm? And it's not even about whether it's "objective reporting" or not, it's Nathan Grayson using his platform to signal boost a close friend. TWICE. He did the same fucking thing with Robin Arnott. Several articles about him and in none of them did he say, "I am a friend of Robin Arnott."

You are supporting a manufactured controversy without any facts to support your claim that they were in a relationship before he reported on her.

WHAT? What do you know about what's being manufactured? Plenty times now I've been DEMANDED to provide evidence of things that you people have denied, so I have, and now I am the person without any facts to support my claims?

You mean, that which was covered by several websites and critics on YouTube? That one? Besides, the criticism is aimed towards journalists who are supposed to be held to a higher ethical standard, not Let's Players on twitch or YouTube and it's about disclosure, so there's no problem if you accept a paid promotion just as long as you disclose your ties in the article or in the video.

Except, a lot of them didn't, and you're actively not participating in a conversation about those things, are you? Clearly, THIS conversation is more important to you than the conversation of whether or not it's ethical to accept money and/or favors for positive coverage.

MOST websites didn't cover it, even the sites that are largely anti-GG. I suppose that wasn't as important to them either, eh?

In any case, are you actually saying that because we do not ACTIVELY talk about something that means we don't think it's important? So if I were to say that this thread lacks a significant denunciation of ISIS and that this conversation must obviously be more important to you than denouncing ISIS, that would be a valid argument to you? Or would that be a false equivalence?

If you don't consider Zoe a more important issue, then why don't you drop it and move to a thread about those things? Huh. It's almost like you actually care more about Zoe than you do about other issues, given your choice to keep talking about her.

I'm not the one who mentioned Gamergate in relation to Zoe in this thread and I have repeatedly said I don't actually care about Zoe Quinn in relation to Gamergate, so what the fuck are you on about? Also, a supporter of Gamergate can discuss Zoe Quinn without it being related to Quinn in any way. I mean, I'm also an atheist. That means Gamergate must have everything to do with my atheism. Right?

Not the press bans on major AAA studio releases?

I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

So, you're not aware of AAA studios forcing gaming journalists to hold reviews until after release. Clearly, journalistic integrity is your top priority.

Let me get this straight. Being unaware of something means you don't care about it?

Why should I believe that you care about journalistic integrity if you come to a thread on Zoë Quinn... when she has nothing to do with journalistic integrity, rather than focusing on SEROUS problem of integrity?

Maybe you should ask the person who mentioned Gamergate in the first place about that. You know. This guy.

Why would I ask a guy who mentioned GamerGate why you, personally, made the choice to come here and talk about it?[/quote]

Oh, am I the one who mentioned Gamergate first in this thread? I thought I read through like 13 pages way before that where people had injected Gamergate into the conversation many times over and usually not from people in support of it.

Did he hold you at gun point? Did he force you to talk about this? No, clearly you have a personal interest in discussing this, as does everyone here who is discussing it. You can't blame anybody else for the choices that you clearly made. Just because someone mentioned GopherGuts doesn't mean that you have to get involved, especially if you claim not to care about Zoe Quinn.

I decided to comment because I wanted to. Simple. And if you notice my first post in this thread, it doesn't even delve into Zoe Quinn much. I only wished to debunk the claims made against Gamergate REGARDING Zoe Quinn, in how she was supposedly doxxed and whatnot. In relation to Gamergate, I really don't fucking care about Zoe Quinn. You're the ones who keep bringing her up, forcing me and other supporters of Gamergate to talk about her, ironically saying that we don't care and you people insisting that, yes, we actually do. It's ridiculous.

Your actions speak louder than your words. "Oh no someone mentioned a group I support, I have to take action, it's their fault I'm involved in the conversation. I just want to find out why they don't like sea lions.

Obfuscating isn't going to help. As I said, WHY should I believe that YOU, and nobody else, actually care about journalistic integrity if you come to a thread on Zoe Quinn, when she has nothing at all to do with journalistic integrity.

This is pointless. The same things repeated, over and over. It doesn't matter what I say or do. And you're calling ME a sea lion? Hilarious.

 

[Pitchguest]

Ah, bollocks.

Except, a lot of them didn't, and you're actively not participating in a conversation about those things, are you? Clearly, THIS conversation is more important to you than the conversation of whether or not it's ethical to accept money and/or favors for positive coverage.

MOST websites didn't cover it, even the sites that are largely anti-GG. I suppose that wasn't as important to them either, eh?

In any case, are you actually saying that because we do not ACTIVELY talk about something that means we don't think it's important? So if I were to say that this thread lacks a significant denunciation of ISIS and that this conversation must obviously be more important to you than denouncing ISIS, that would be a valid argument to you? Or would that be a false equivalence?

 

[Pitchguest]

Peevester[/url]":1jyp3r4i]I need more popcorn, this is really entertaining in a "oh my god, he thinks he's doing well" kind of way.

Operative Me, I name you "Speaker To Garanimals".

Feel free to pitch in any time. I would love to hear your words of wisdom. (If you have any.)

 

[Pitchguest]

Operative Me[/url]":33g9uu2l]

Pitchguest[/url]":33g9uu2l]
Hahahaha. Still wasn't us that mentioned it first, now was it?

Which is a meaningless distinction. You're STILL choosing to participate in a conversation about a woman you claim not to care about. If your only excuse is that "someone else mentioned GrowlingGumbys first", then you're a lackwit. If you don't care about Zoe Quinn...why were you here reading the article in the first place? Why are you still talking about her now?

Read this very carefully so you don't miss out on anything. I do not care about Zoe Quinn - in relation - to - Gamergate. I have said this multiple times. You cannot be this incomprehensibly stupid.

 

[Pitchguest]

Operative Me[/url]":dd2j7m04]

Pitchguest[/url]":dd2j7m04]
Yeah, continue with your petulant insults all you want, but I'm not sure you want to connect Gamergate with Gamerghazi. They don't like Gamergate very much.

You're all GrumpyGrandpas to the rest of the world.

So what level of discourse are we now? Seven? Eight?

The meaning of "misogyny" becomes all the more muddled. Feminists have turned it into a catchphrase. "Misogyny" this and "misogyny" that. Nevermind that misogyny is the hatred of women because they're women, not because they're immoral or unethical people who happen to be women. Then again, maybe you can offer that excuse to Ann Coulter. People are not angry with her because she's a dishonest, vile person. No, it's because she's a woman. Clearly.

So...why was she the subject of the video, not Grayson? What purpose did that serve except as a personal attack on her, personally? Are they producing videos about guys that cheat? If you're not bright enough to realize that misogyny influences the things you choose to get angry about, and isn't always manifested in a direct statement of "man fuck those women", then you're not worth talking to.

I suppose it was too much to ask to expect you to actually watch the video. How stupid of me.

Anyway. Feel free to debunk the "patently false" video. I'm sure it must be a zinch for you.

If I knew what a zinch was, it might be.

Typo. Cinch.

I couldn't care less about Zoe Quinn.

dB(Actions) > dB(Words)

Yeah, I can definitely see your logic. Refuting the accusation that we care more about Zoe Quinn than journalistic ethics by saying that we don't care about Zoe Quinn means we DO care more about Quinn than journalistic ethics because we mentioned her name while saying we don't care about her. Plato, eat your heart out.

I don't know. How about using evidence? ACTUAL evidence? Maybe you could trawl through the various threads on Zoe Quinn and find out for yourself who the people are who overwhelmingly mention Quinn, Sarkeesian and Wu, who overwhelmingly bring them into the conversation when they're not relevant, who overwhelmingly tie them to Gamergate when they're not relevant, and so on and so forth. I think you'll be surprised what you find. But you won't. Because you don't actually care.

Oh look. You're still talking about that girl you don't care about.

I know. It's like we're in some kind of feedback loop or catch-22, where we cannot stop the allegations against us about her without mentioning her name, but when DO mention her name then that's proof that the allegations are true - because we mentioned her name.

I suppose the many times when Gamergate got several games journalist websites to change their ethics policies, that was just an accident. I mean, if that's what we're not about, it must be. Right? Are we winning? I get the impression you would know a thing or two about winning. You know you're winning when you start using babytalk like "GooberGobbler" and "GabbleGoobler" and gaga goo goo waah waah waah!

Oh wow, you spam-blasted the internet with a bunch of fake controversies and got people to put up boilerplate statement to ameliorate the stupidity. Yay, team. Have you gotten EA to promise not to give people early access in exchange for positive coverage? Have you gotten game companies to promise not to cut off review access to publications if they don't like what those publications have to say? Have you gotten publications to ignore gag orders to inform people of shitty, buggy games before they spend their money on it?

No, of course not. But those windmills are fucking TERRIFIED of you.

It's less than a year old. What the fuck do you want?

 

[Pitchguest]

shadedmagus[/url]":2g66dl35]

Pitchguest[/url]":2g66dl35]

Operative Me[/url]":2g66dl35]

Pitchguest[/url]":2g66dl35]
Hahahaha. Still wasn't us that mentioned it first, now was it?

Which is a meaningless distinction. You're STILL choosing to participate in a conversation about a woman you claim not to care about. If your only excuse is that "someone else mentioned GrowlingGumbys first", then you're a lackwit. If you don't care about Zoe Quinn...why were you here reading the article in the first place? Why are you still talking about her now?

Read this very carefully so you don't miss out on anything. I do not care about Zoe Quinn - in relation - to - Gamergate. I have said this multiple times. You cannot be this incomprehensibly stupid.

You haven't demonstrably proven anything that people railing against GooberGroters haven't already stated time and time again.

If this isn't about anti-feminism, and is truly about ethics in gaming journalism (or hell, I'll be generous - ANY journalism), here's your chance to prove it. Right here and now.

Oh go on then. What I have demonstrably not proven that people railing against Gamergate (not "GooberGrooters") have stated time and time again?

(Of course the burden of proof falls onto me again. I remember this when I was arguing with fundies. You're not fundies, are you?)

 

[Pitchguest]

Operative Me[/url]":1pqud0io]

Pitchguest[/url]":1pqud0io]
Read this very carefully so you don't miss out on anything. I do not care about Zoe Quinn - in relation - to - Gamergate. I have said this multiple times. You cannot be this incomprehensibly stupid.

No, what you actually said is "I couldn't care less about Zoe Quinn". Period. Deploy mobile goalpost!

I was responding to a post that said I was obsessed with Zoe in regards to Gamergate!

No, I could not care less about Zoe Quinn.

Though honestly "I didn't mention it first" may still be the absolute most hilarious defense to "why are you here talking about it if you don't care".

"Why are you here talking about it" wasn't the claim. The claim was, "Why did you mention Gamergate in a thread about Zoe Quinn?" And I said, I didn't. But nice bit of goalpost moving there on your own, buddy.

It's like you don't realize that you can read something and not respond, if you don't care. Somebody mentioned GassyGhosts and that's your answer to why you're talking about Zoe Quinn?

:facepalm:

Here, try this: if you don't care about it...don't respond. If you care about Zoe Quinn vis a vis GnashingGnus you will reply to this post. If you don't, you won't.

I can see you trying to find new creative names for Gamergate, but frankly you're not very good at it. Unless you wanted to be seen as a toddler. Also, I love the fact that you end your statement with an ultimatum. You really are a child, aren't you? How about this compromise: I may respond to comments in this thread, but from now on I definitely will not respond to you. How's that sound?

 

[Pitchguest]

jawlz[/url]":xrzi4qwe]In this context, it really does matter who brought them up. PG has posted that he is only responding to posts where someone else associated GamerGate with AS/ZQ/Other 'SJWs,' and said that he doesn't care about them. Had he initially brought them up, perhaps you would have a point, but he didn't.

That leaves two alternatives: either PG is lying about not caring about them and is consequently making arguments in bad faith, OR he is telling the truth about not caring about them, in which case you demanding that he justify their mention in conjunction with ethics in games journalism is a nonsensical demand - the only context in which he has mentioned them has been to say that he doesn't care about them.

Like I said, catch-22. To quote a cheesy 80's flick, the only winning move is not to play.

 

[Pitchguest]

jawlz[/url]":tyt9nflk]

Pitchguest[/url]":tyt9nflk]

jawlz[/url]":tyt9nflk]In this context, it really does matter who brought them up. PG has posted that he is only responding to posts where someone else associated GamerGate with AS/ZQ/Other 'SJWs,' and said that he doesn't care about them. Had he initially brought them up, perhaps you would have a point, but he didn't.

That leaves two alternatives: either PG is lying about not caring about them and is consequently making arguments in bad faith, OR he is telling the truth about not caring about them, in which case you demanding that he justify their mention in conjunction with ethics in games journalism is a nonsensical demand - the only context in which he has mentioned them has been to say that he doesn't care about them.

Like I said, catch-22. To quote a cheesy 80's flick, the only winning move is not to play.

Are.... are you.... are you me?

jawlz[/url]":tyt9nflk]

Blah blah blah....The outrage - manufactured or not - and the outrage against that outrage (again, manufactured or not) only brings more attention to people who thrive on (and in some cases end up financially rewarded for) that outrage. To steal a line from a cheesy-yet-enjoyable 80's movie, the only way to win is not to play. Blah blah blah.....

Ha! Okay. That's funny. No, I must have forgotten you said it in this thread. And to me, even! Doh!

 

[Pitchguest]

The favorite tactic of the anti-GG brigade: if it's about ethics in journalism, why make it about Zoe?

We do. I do. But conversations tend to branch. When one mentions something else, one tends to talk about that something else. The thing is, for the anti-GG brigade, in regards to GG, it tends to go more along the lines of, if you don't want to talk about that something else (say, Zoe in relation to Gamergate) then you're 'avoiding' the subject, but if you DO decide to talk about it, well, then it becomes a question of why you are talking about that instead of 'ethics in journalism'. At that point, you're basically better off pulling the plug because you're just going to be talking in circles.

That's why I'm not responding to Operative Me anymore, because you can't win against a braindead automaton. Then there are the tiresome creatures like 'Basil Forthrightly' and 'Peevester' who doesn't bring anything to the table themselves but nevertheless like to snipe and sneer like some backseat driver, where they keep repeating, as if it's their mantra, 'why aren't you talking about ethics in journalism'? [insert noise of a baby cry here] Which is funny, because the moment we do, and have done, we get belittled for it, like that fucking stupid picture of a lynching with the caption, 'actually, it's about ethics in journalism'. Where the anti-GG brigade thinks anyone supporting Gamergate does everything they do in the name of Gamergate, or rather 'ethics in journalism.' It's like a bad joke. Like arguing with fundamentalists.

 

[Pitchguest]

thegrommit[/url]":z7obcykj]At fucking last, it only took four months.

What took four months?

jawlz[/url]":z7obcykj]
re: pay-for review sites

Possibly an issue, though I don't know anyone that takes those sites seriously.

You may not, but there are apparently enough people who do for them to persist. Those people are being ripped off, yet where are the campaigns against those sites? Or is that OK because they're not "hard core" enough?

You have got to be fucking kidding me. Look at this:

http://www.ipad-apps-review-online.com/ ... or-review/

You have the option to pay the site for them to review your product. The disclosure is right fucking there, on the front page. This is an ethics issue to you?

Steam stuff isn't a games journalism issue.

You should read what this developer has to say about that. Point being, getting promoted on steam means more sales. Yet it's OK for that to happen with no disclosure about whether money changes hands?

It's got nothing to do with games journalism.

On the youtube stuff, I don't see anybody arguing against youtubers disclosing when their videos are sponsored. To the extent there is any argument like that, it's that youtubers don't constitute the 'gaming press.'

TotalBiscuit put up a video on his curation page for a game (guns of icarus) he had accepted promotional money for. The video has no disclosure about the deal. It needed someone who's been outspoken about GG to point this out, and TB's reaction was basically "Sure, I took their money, but I like the game" - and the same video is still linked on his page.**

You do realise that most of the games he's reviewed on YouTube ALSO feature on his Steam curator recommended list? Are you seriously making an argument that he is he corrupt because made a paid promotional video on a game THAT HE DISCLOSED WAS A PAID PROMOTIONAL VIDEO *IN THE ACTUAL VIDEO*? There's also the fact that he made the paid promotional video for Guns of Icarus almost a year AFTER he made his 'WTF is ...' video, which ISN'T a review but a first impressions video.

Still, YouTubers and twitch streamers do not have the same obligation to disclose than actual journalists do, which is the whole point and which Leigh Alexander is fully aware of. She's just deliberately obfuscating the issue because she doesn't want to deal with the garbage under her own porch.

Publishers also disagree with you about the influence youtubers have. Yet, while TotalBiscuit turned the Mordor deal down, where was the campaign against youtubers who DID accept the deal and got early access?

Why should we? I don't hold PewdiePie to the same standard of journalistic ethics as I do Leigh Alexander. Of course it's fucking reprehensible for a developer to do that, but you're asking me to punish YouTubers who either don't know any better or don't care enough to not accept such a deal, and you're asking me to put them in the same category as people who took courses in journalism and went to school for that shit. Really? No.

re: Game Informer being owned by GameStop

Issue! And all the requests for disclosure being asked for by the GamerGate crowd would seem to cover this.

So where's the email campaign against Game Informer? Why aren't there protests or calls for boycotts against gamestop? Why aren't either of them on GG's shit list?

Maybe they just haven't gotten around to it yet. What's amazing to me is that you expect every single issue to be handled simultaneously and if they're not, well, then they don't really care.

In the name of objectivity, the consumer-facing games press largely releases material on a mutually-agreed upon set of terms and schedules dictated by game companies. It routinely accepts travel arrangements to tour studios and look at in-development games on financial obligation to those game companies and on those companies’ terms. Attempting to subvert this process by inserting personal opinion is viewed as ‘bias’.

Issue. And I *have* seen some grumbling about this.

There are two points there - one about agreeing to publishers terms, and the other about what happens to journos who attempt to subvert this process. RPS first grumbled about this seven years ago, well before GG occurred. Similarly, other sites have done so too. I'm highlighting this because the sites aren't the ones who are in control, hence the oh-so-polite tone. Yet they're the ones on GG's shit list.

Do you know what a catalyst is, grommit?

Well over a year before Rosa Parks refused to sit at the back of the bus, there were many others who did so. Several, actually. Women, too. As a matter of fact, Rosa Parks was not even a part of the group who eventually succeeded in getting a law passed that prohibited discrimination on buses in the US. She just became the outward face of discrimination on buses and in effect that of the civil rights movement. Do you think that no black person actually cared about getting forced to the back of the bus before Rosa Parks?

Do you know why I make this parallel? It's not because I want to make the case that Gamergate is akin to the civil rights movement. It's not because I want to make the case that Nathan Grayson is our Rosa Parks. No. It's because people like you keep making these stupid arguments that "way before GG", there existed corruption in games journalism - something WHICH NO ONE HAS ACTUALLY DISPUTED. You don't think I reeled when Jeff Gerstmann was fired for his Kane and Lynch review? You don't think I was embarassed by the blatant commercialism vis-a-vis Doritogate? No, I've known about the cronyism and the dark nature of games journalism for years. However when a new issue arose and people started talking about that only to be hit with a sleugh of censorship and articles damning the gamer identity, you might say that was the straw that broke the camel's back. That was our catalyst. Also, the anti-GG brigade really have themselves to blame for how GG blew up in the end. They seem to be perpetually ignorant of the Streisand effect (because they still keep trying to censor/remove content with the opposite result usually occurring).

re: effects of disclosure

Disclosure is better than not disclosing. To the extent it doesn't 'purify' the 'climate,' I don't know what to say. It *does* help. How writers then go about dealing with that is, to some extent, up to them. The best ones will disclose and likely also write about how the above cases influenced their writing. Most wont, but then most aren't the best.

I'd argue that it's important to find sources (whether youtubers or writers) whose work has proven to align with my tastes. Getting the information I want about a subject, in an entertaining fashion, is what matters. If that source has to work within a system biased against them, then I'll live with that so long as their work continues to align with my needs.**

The key point with GG is disclosure. If you have a deal with someone and you're getting paid. Cool. Put an annotation at the bottom and it's fine. Play it off as if it's impromptu and spontaneous, then that's just not very kosher, is it? Obviously we like prominent YouTubers to do the same even though we know we can't realistically request of them the same treatment. If you also decide to signal boost developers or other people in the games industry of whom you're close friends but decide not to disclose this deal, well then you're not a journalist anymore, are you? You're just a shill.

If you feel differently, that's fine - just don't assume that disclosure is equated to quality. After all, where would you stop? Should someone list every every person they've shmoozed with at an industry awards show? Should they list every publication they've worked for? Because that's called professional networking in every other industry.

If a journalist feels they have become too close to a subject they're covering, they have a professional obligation to either reveal that relationship to the public or recuse themselves. That's what the writer at PCGamer did when it was uncovered one of their writers had written extensively about Ubisoft products while being married to someone from Ubisoft.

re: exploitative employment practices by publishers

Not sure that this is the case. I recall seeing some articles in local papers (in Southern California) and even (IIRC) The Atlantic Monthly about the hours and conditions that Rock Star San Diego was requiring its employees to put in for Red Dead Redemption.

Yet it's "crunch" is still considered part of the job. But the GG campaign for better conditions for the people who create the games we love?

*crickets*

Not. a. games. journalist. issue.

re: women in games being abused and harassed - while large companies sit on their hands; women's sex lives, patreons, people with controversial opinions etc

Generally correct, if a bit overly glib, except inasmuch as those things influence a 'games journalist's' writing (remember, I use the terms 'games journalist' and 'games journalism' somewhat tongue in cheek to begin with, though that's probably in large part due to the advertorial nature of most 'games journalism;' I would probably use the terms without such caveats if some of the 'ethics in games journalism' issues were meaningfully addressed).

So why is GG still targetting so many "outspoken" women? Why do people who speak up about this harassment also get targetted?

Alright. Give me a rundown on these "many" "outspoken" women GG has apparently targeted?

Leigh Alexander? Journalist. Patricia Hernandez? Journalist. Jenn Frank? Journalist.

Ah, but of course we're forced to talk about those other women because they keep injecting themselves into the conversation, or people like you do because you want us to talk about them even though we really, really don't. I'm forgetting someone, but if I recall correctly the total is only about seven. Seven women. How very numerous. In contrast, the men targeted is about double that. Although I'm wondering, how is it that only women anti-GG gets included in your screed but women pro-GG never gets so much as a mention? Because I know for a fact that they, too, have been harassed and threatened and doxxed. But you don't care about that, do you?

The real problem is that the games press we do have largely regurgitates marketing material and produces product reviews. They have little choice because they're not the ones in control. This bit-tech piece is still relevant today.

The REAL problem, you say? Are you sure you want to go down that route?

This is particularly the case with the whole "journalistic ethics" conspiracy theory, the idea that there's some kind of secret cabal between games journalists, a journalism Illuminati, where critics dressed in scarlet robes and pointed hoods collude with PRs and publishers, and vast sums of money are exchanged alongside gnomic handshakes in order to fix the entire system of reviewing and scoring games. The truth is of course the complete opposite. Most games journalists can barely control the immediate environment around them. Rent, electricity bills, food, these are aspirational items for a worrying number of games critics.

So it's not an issue when journalists -- competitors -- collude with eachother to urge the censoring of discussion or there will be consequences? I mean, you literally had people like Leigh Alexander telling people that she was a 'megaphone' and how you shouldn't fuck with her because you will most certainly get fired. That's basically saying, that's a nice career you have there. Would be a shame if something happened to it.

All the time this debacle has been ongoing, as the "tru4lyf" gamers pelt writers and developers with insults and threats, demanding they reveal the truth of their conspiratorial facade, sat silently in the background are the people who really are in control. The publishers, the marketers, the manufacturers. These are the real gatekeepers, guarding all the doors and holding all the keys.

This is fucking irony for you, having only moments before this sounded off about ridiculous conspiracy theories.