Forums / Discussion / General

You know shit is fucked up when…
1. Moviebob says they shouldn't defend Sarah.
2. Todd in the Shadows says that they shouldn't defend Sarah.
3. People are actually defending this bitch.
4. A man sent her a picture of his young daughter to cheer her up!

*Edit: New page get!

The very big difference is, when one GamerGate does bad things we have no real problem calling then shit for it and basically making it clear that they don't have any visible support.

King of /pol/, Steve Tom Sawyer, etc. etc.

And they never did anything remotely near this.

King of /pol/ was an arrogant moron who lied to make some fake evidence he was given seem more credible (throwing Hotwheels under the bus in the process).

Steve Tom Sawyer tried to scam some money, fucking up Milo's radio show in the process.

Both of them are petty grifters rather then depraved monsters, and both of them were denounced by us rather then supported.

That's the very large difference.

Just saying, don't start turning "Not standing with GG makes you a pedophile" into a campaign or you'll be no different then the AGG "Not standing against GG makes you a rapist" a-holes.

@Black
No shit sherlock.

I've seen a "here are the people standing with a pedo" campaign.

I have no problem using this to beat down on AntiGamer considering that very few have said anything besides "I stand with Butts".

If they say "regardless of GamerGate, Sarah is a very bad person" I salute them.

And if they want to say "regardless of GamerGate, Sarah is a very bad person" but are too scared to say anything against the sick fuck who took crotch shots of her 8 year old cousin because that sick fuck is popular on their side…

Well, that shows a very clear picture of what's going on.

Open Season

And this is why I love South Park

I am making a collage of the rage this South Park episode caused.
My reaction to their reaction is…

or how about

I figured they would've declared open season a long time ago.

Still, many triggers and whatever else will be happening this season.

I need some extra hate you cant find.

This is what i got so far.

I mean can.

My Favorite Tweet About South Park.
AND SHIT JUST HIT THE FAN THIS PAST DAY
Thanks Grummz
They even got Twitter to suspend a parody account.

A progressive feminist talks positively about GG:

Not necessarily GamerGate related, but I thought you guys would get a kick out of this:

Not sure if i can post in in the Gamer Gate gallery so i post it in the South Park Gallery.

Ah, classic SJW salt. I know it's bad for me, but it's just too good to pass up.

I so hope Parker and Stone add the PC Bros as enemies in South Park: The Fractured But Whole.

^ I KNEW IT!

Ehhhh…

Remember when they were trying to link paedophilia to 8chan and by extension to Gamergate?

I think we should not step down to their level; if there are pedos inside the Anti side, we call them out, but that doesn't mean the whole opposition is made of pedophiles like you seem to be implying. After all, guilt by association is a fallacy. Let's try not to commit it ourselves.

This looks nice.

Well at least the Parody Account is back up.
The Creator even has an interesting message on his alt account.
And because of the SJW's reporting and getting his account suspended he got several hundred more followers who support the parody account.

So what's been going on with LeoPirate? His Twitter got suspended?

According to the aGG side and some tweets saying it, yeah.

You know, I’ve been wondering. Since SJWs and the media oh-so-insist in painting GamerGate as some sort of misogynist hate group, did actual misogynists try and join GG honestly thinking it’s a sexist group too?

I would like to think they do some research on the topic, but then again I'm not sure.

(Noob edit, this would be my second time embedding something)

Yes, here is an update about it.

There have been occasional instances of this, but the immediate reaction by pro-gg is to run them out of town. Pro-gamergate immediately runs any actual racists/misogynists/homophobes or such out of town.

I wouldn't call it a witch hunt, rather gamergate does not tolerate anyone that is actually misogynistic or such and if someone actually is they immediately get thrown out on their ass.

Less "thrown out on their ass" (can't do that on a hashtag) more "mocked until they go away or learn how to stop being so dumb".

Plus it's always fun to purposely misunderstand what they're saying and tell them to go back to Tumblr (same with telling any SJWs who pop in to go back to Stormfront).

Yes. GG is widely supported on communities like /pol/ and The Red Pill.

*Used to be; now they're angry with it for being too moderate.

/pol/ isn't exactly GG's best friend. There's a reason why internet aristocrat isn't exactly involved anymore.

/pol/ isn’t exactly GG’s best friend.

Around august on 4chan they were involved in what you might call the high level planning of GG, since they were the ones who came up with the idea of funding TFYC in the multiple threads posted on their board. Of course, modern /pol/ members will claim that it didn't count since 4chan's /pol/ was totally different then 8chan's /pol/ at the time, so…

And of course 8/pol/ took a hit when /pol/harbor happened and a bunch of clueless 4/pol/tards jumped ship and ran to 8/pol/ while we were simultaneously looting their intellectual resources for the war.

It looks like 8/pol/ has been slowly recovering from that. That's nice, I miss the old Uncle Adolf who understood that "niggers, jews, bad news" was a joke and could figure out the strategic advantages of funding a radical (yet sane) feminist organization.

Neither AGG nor GG in my opinion can control who does or doesn't join their ranks. The attacks on individuals within either side has been fine, but rarely have they stayed targeted at the individual. I've seen both sides use those individuals as cudgels to bash their opposition, even when said opposition has distanced themselves from that person.

AGG liked to cite users like Weev to paint all users of GG as nazi or racism sympathizers, even the above post is trying to do so by saying these people joined GG without acknowledging the pushback they got from GG, in the language of "actual misogynists did try to join GG and, either for only some time or until today, were successful." The whole "were successful" part implies that they received no pushback, which is plainly false.

GG has done similar things with individuals like Robert "Bobby" Oliveira, a man who was charged with domestic violence and who has been a voice against GG, even threatening some of its female participants. GG used this individual who didn't have much following, and turned him into a temporary example of all GG, an act as bad as the opposition they were targeting. The digging into individual members of AGG can be seen as similar to GG, and as much spin as you try to put on it, you have to admit that individual actions are often used to paint the whole of the opposition.

So is there a list of people or companies who lost their reputation because of backlash against gamers and GamerGate? The list seems rather big though, consisting game developers, internet personas, news outlets, website moderators/holders etc..

You won't find a counterpart for Butts, because GG does not rally behind or support self admitted pedophiles.

I'm pretty sure Ghazi doesn't need to considering most of the journalist pieces on GG have been pretty one sided, many not even bothering to interview anyone within GG. We've had multiple cases of people stating they were interviewed, but that their testimony was ignored in favor of the "gamergate is nothing but harassers" and "gamers are nothing but monsters" narratives. And we had one case in which ABC admitted it purposely ignored any investigation into GG beyond "its a sexist harassment campaign" because it knew it'd get more traction.

Also, you want examples where those against gamergate targeted individuals for harrassment using their platforms? Because I can provide that easily,

http://www.ship2block20.com/hidden-face-hypocrisy-randi-harper/

Not to mention posters like Jay Allen, also known as A Man In Black on twitter, who have been known harsh critics of GG and defender of people like butts and harper, writing articles on boing boing and making materials such as why Rougestar((a game developer)) deserves to be removed from the internet and have no means of money, and has also helped to lead campaigns to ban any and all accounts he makes on twitter in a campaign to harrass him out of the games industry. http://www.gamersagainstgamergate.com/roguestar-not-belong-kickstarter/

Can we please discuss this pile of garbage right here? How are these edits allowed to remain, despite only focusing on the "pains" and "good people" (I'm using those terms VERY loosely) of one side?

There is no equivalency.

The likes of Sarah Butts is a depravity completely unseen in GamerGate.

The reason is that despite the propaganda, the lies, and the arrogance of those who claim "both sides are exactly the same" in some pitiful attempt to feel superior, GamerGate is and always has been the better people.

You want me to feel sorry for Butts? After a year straight of lies, hate, and all around evil from her you want me to feel sorry when we stood up and told the truth about her?

You want to know why AntiGamer doesn't target specific people in their media smears? Because by targeting a specific person they open themselves up to libel suits if they lie to smear someone, and if they just stuck to the facts then they can't make people on our side look any worse then assholes.

And that's why we can target specific people on AntiGamer, because AntiGamer's leadership is a parade of the worst humanity has to offer.

Child pornographers, serial rapists, genocidal bigots, domestic-abusers, totalitarian ideologues, con-artists, animal-abusers, "terrorists":gamepolitics.com/2015/05/03/gamergate-dc-gathering-targeted-bomb-threat/, tax cheats, and telemarketers.

And that's just scratching the surface.

On our territory we support dissent and even allow the other side to make their claims. AntiGamer on the other side will ban & harass for even the appearance of dissent.

Now what exactly is so awful about those links?

We are in the middle of one of the most progressive eras in the US. Blacks can vote, women can vote, gays can marry. a century of civil rights movements made that possible. Not through "swing the pendulum" but "Treat everyone equally." It's way better than it was even 20 years ago.

Now, the SJ movement wants to swing the pendulum to punish people for shit that happened half a century ago based on genitalia and skin color. Which is a gigantic step back. and will cause lashback. Want to see gays, transgenders, and women getting killed or harmed? The people you attack online for "micro aggressions" and other misc crimes that are made up on the fly will not be the ones doing it. In fact many of them would defend them in a heartbeat. The white supremacists, the religious right, the xenophobes, the real oppressors would come out to play, they would be "justified" to attack the women, gays, and trans folks.

Do you think that's wrong?

It doesn't matter anyways. SOCJUS is getting attention in the mainstream, and the mainstream does not like what it's seeing.

SJWs are fast becoming a joke, "Misogy-racist-homophobe!!!" is losing its ability to cause witch-hunts, and popular culture is turning against SOCJUS.

You know how South Park now has continuity?

So say hello to an entire season of PC Principal & the PC Bros being given the Scientology treatment.

What baffles me is that the censorship going on the GamerGate article goes against Wikipedia's own Terms & Conditions(no censorship, presentation of valid sources, edit wars are bad take it to the discussion page, etc). Their T&C is applied to every page but GamerGate, it seems.

Wake up, Wikipedia. You're better than this.

Reminds me of this video which happened a year and a half before the start of this, replace every group mentioned with SJW and it would be extremely similar in tone.

The underlying point, which neither of these rebuttals refutes, is that yes, actual misogynists did try to join GG and, either for only some time or until today, were successful.

Given that GG is a hashtag and not a club organization there isn't much anyone can do to prevent real misogynists from joining in, so long as they keep their misogyny 'under wraps' enough that it doesn't come to notice.

This train of thought reminds me of a response someone posted to the criticism of GG of being harrassers.

"Well, what are we supposed to do about them? Ban them before they post their offending material?"

All this theoretical talk reminds me of a fun discussion to have about philosophy.

For those of you who don't know, there's two fun discussion you can have in philosophy; one is human agency and the other is solipsism. I will talk about solipsism.

Solipsism is the theory that since human emotion, feelings and sensation are flawed at the fundamental level, there is no way to prove that anything exists beyond what you experience. For example the light you see daily is actually light that is 8 minutes old. Your entire reality could consist of you and you alone.

Of course everyone calls this the dead end argument because it has no basis in practicality. If nothing exists, then what do you do next?

The big issue is that theoretics are worth mentioning but they're not very useful in practical decision making. The argument that GG can have pedophiles and secretive members who are very good at hiding their misogyny is akin to the solipsism argument. Great so there CAN be GG members who are evil. What now? And of course what does it mean when there can be AGG members who are evil and we have actual evidence of them existing?

What is the better evidence to use in a decision making environment where every choice counts? Do you listen to the group that COULD be evil? Or do you listen to the group that contains many notable influential members with ties to corruption (proven corruption too) and a large list of dirty laundry that continues to get shown to light. Do you choose theoretics? Or do you choose practicality?

And of course there's the other major question to ask, if GG members who are secretly evil are hiding their evil by doing good and we have no indicator that they're evil; is there any real practical reason to care until they stop doing good? You can't prosecute someone for evil they have not committed.

Legal update from Eron!

The gag order's gone and he has his freedom back!

Now it's time to go to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and make legal history!

Also more of Zoe being a soulless, DARVO-incarnate sociopath.

Back when I filed my appeal and served the plaintiff with my Statement of Issues on Appeal, she responded by trying to take out a back-up order in a new state. She plainly listed my appeal of the MA order as one of the reasons she was requesting a new order.

The just-fill-out-this-form-and-we'll-give-you-an-ex-parte order granted by that state was even more restrictive than the Massachusetts order, but only for about two days, until my attorney intervened and the judge agreed there were serious first amendment issues with the original wording, and modified the order to something more reasonable until the hearing.

Over the next couple of weeks, she argued that the order should be granted because she has Google Alerts set up to monitor my online activity, which means if I reference her anywhere online, that therefore constitutes contacting her.

Let that sink in for a minute.