Forums / Discussion / General

235,091 total conversations in 7,818 threads

+ New Thread


Locked Locked
GamerGate Thread

Last posted Jul 21, 2021 at 02:24PM EDT. Added Jul 26, 2015 at 06:48PM EDT
4603 posts from 222 users

This post has been hidden due to low karma.
Click here to show this post.

3kole5 wrote:

should you add ralph to the pile of journalists that write and hype exposes on their enemies or no because he's not really a journalist?

also to add your post i'm part of a facebook group that talks about gamergate and while they're not as bad as 8chan, they're still pretty bad imo.

i should probably show you some posts from that group in a pm so you can get your opinion on the group

I considered mentioning the likes of ralph and jmillerworks but didn't for that reason. They're definitely examples of toxic individuals in the GG community but they aren't universally worshipped, and yeah, they're not journalists.

You can send them if you want haha, it's up to you

If it weren't for the fact that the mere mention of Sarah Butts triggers sudden rage and that the targets of aGG's harassent don't have regular, toxic and widely-shared Youtube and news aggregation espouses and that, I wouldn't be posting here right now.

Bookie wrote:

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.

I think this is appropriate, and I'm just a guy watching both sides.

MrKillultra wrote:

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.

I agree the aGG crowd uses the solipsism approach, like when they say "internalized misogyny". It's unprovable, yet unfalsifiable, probably something that should only belong in academia. In fact, I would say they're performing insane amounts of mental gymnastics when they say it. They find a way to twist reality to fit their worldview, even if they don't have evidence or reason.

The aGGros are the kind that convinces themselves they are right, even if they really aren't, and never really listen to any contrasting views. If the Calgary Expo is any indicator, then they'll punish someone even if it's based on lies. I bet they'll continue to try and punish us in spite of logic and facts because they think their opinions are morally superior and automatically give them the moral high-ground (my theory at least).

This post has been hidden due to low karma.
Click here to show this post.

rikameme wrote:

I considered mentioning the likes of ralph and jmillerworks but didn't for that reason. They're definitely examples of toxic individuals in the GG community but they aren't universally worshipped, and yeah, they're not journalists.

You can send them if you want haha, it's up to you

If it weren't for the fact that the mere mention of Sarah Butts triggers sudden rage and that the targets of aGG's harassent don't have regular, toxic and widely-shared Youtube and news aggregation espouses and that, I wouldn't be posting here right now.

true, true

Last edited Sep 22, 2015 at 07:16AM EDT

So it looks like 4chan was just sold to Hiroyuki Nishimura, the founder of 2channel.

(Note: 2channel a.k.a 2ch is not the same as 2chan a.k.a. Futaba Channel. Yes, it is confusing).

He was purged for being a massive crook, letting the servers rot, making premium passes that let people who were banned post and then starting mass banning campaigns, stealing user info and selling it, offering a "delete posts for pay" scheme to companies & political parties, etc. etc.

Needless to say, if you're still on cuckchan then get out now.

The guy who purged him and saved 2ch is Jim Watkins, who is Hotwheel's boss.

Looks like we got a chan war on our hands now.

Source 1.

Source 2.

Source 3.

Source 4.

Source 5.

๐“ข๐–Ž๐–“๐–†๐–Š๐–‘ ๐“ฒ๐“ผ ๐“ฝ๐“ฑ๐“ฎ ๐“’๐“”๐“ž ๐“ธ๐“ฏ ๐“—๐“ธ๐“ป๐“ท๐”‚ wrote:

What the hell does "Toxic something-something" I keep seeing means?

"Toxic" is a word used as a buzzword in articles, often to make the situation at hand seem more damaging than it actually is.
"Toxic masculinity", as you've probably seen before, is a common phrase among feminists and social justice enthusiasts that is used to describe how awful it is that men are allowed to do things in the world. Examples of "toxic masculinity" include the wage gap myth, the college "rape culture epidemic," "man-spreading," Greek fraternities on college campuses, men being allowed to exist in pop culture, the lack of female representation in video games politics, sports that include [only] men, etc.

Last edited Sep 22, 2015 at 05:25PM EDT

(cont.)
The word has become commonplace in social justice arguments, pretty much another one of their scapegoats, such as blaming "the Patriarchy" or "internalized misogyny" when things don't go exactly as their socjus lifestyles dictate.
In the earlier stages of Gamergate, such as the Quinnspiracy (or the current Wikipedia article), anti-Gamergate attempted to shift the focus from ethics in games journalism, to the victim narrative of "I'm a poor womyn being harassed because I try to make games and the toxic masculinity in video games make my games not sell well." Or something along the lines of: "All these men are now trying to rape and murder me. Donate to my Patreon!" without showing any concrete/"true" evidence of death/sexual assault threats to that person.

Tl;dr Feminist argument + the phrase "toxic masculinity" = "Men r bad becuzz reesunz."

(Sorry, I may have gone off on a bit of an angry tangent there.)
Last edited Sep 22, 2015 at 05:30PM EDT

rikameme wrote:

I considered mentioning the likes of ralph and jmillerworks but didn't for that reason. They're definitely examples of toxic individuals in the GG community but they aren't universally worshipped, and yeah, they're not journalists.

You can send them if you want haha, it's up to you

If it weren't for the fact that the mere mention of Sarah Butts triggers sudden rage and that the targets of aGG's harassent don't have regular, toxic and widely-shared Youtube and news aggregation espouses and that, I wouldn't be posting here right now.

Aren't you going to try dealing with Libertarian's wall?

Black Graphic T wrote:

They came to talk shit, not to actually talk.

Oh I know. I was just offering them a chance to either attempt counterpoint or lose with good grace. Rikameme has an odd cordial streak at times.

This post has been hidden due to low karma.
Click here to show this post.

Colonial2.1 wrote:

Aren't you going to try dealing with Libertarian's wall?

I didn't want to dignify it.

A tactic agreement in media is that only public figures are permitted as fair game for criticism. Politicians, non-fiction authors, pundits and actors are considered fair game. Of course, a component of that is proportionality; criticism may only be as strong as the target's relevance. If Nyberg ran for public office, the digging would be justified. But Nyberg did nothing other than having a somewhat vocal opinion on social media. The chan boards' coordinated effort to raise dirt on her and threaten her life, the exposes on Youtube and Breitbart and the fact that half of her critics seem to enter a deep, downward spiral when her name is mentioned all suggests that the principle of fair game is being violated. That isn't to justify any of what Nyberg did, before anybody gets the wrong idea, but the reaction to her is 100% unjustified.

Here are some similar examples. The Plebcomics author and Randi Harper. The Plebcomics author did nothing but make a webcomic and get doxed behind his screen-name. He suffered real-life consequences for it. Nothing that he did warranted that. It was wrong. Randi Harper did try to be a social media activist and abused the influence that she gained. While that does not justify harassment, she establish herself as fair game for criticism. This is an example of somebody who is fair game for criticism (but not threats, for which nobody is ever fair game). That is a stark contrast to Monica Foy, who made a single tasteless joke to her 20 followers and then found herself in jail because the internet's outrage machine decided that she deserved it.

I'm sorry, but Libertarian missed the point so hard that he validated my previous post. Nothing says "x is receiving sustained harassment" quite like an attempt to justify it.

Last edited Sep 23, 2015 at 09:27AM EDT

Nyberg has been a cited source for multiple articles and editorials throughout the year, and cited by multiple, nearly uncountable individuals when talking against gg. I would consider thst grounds to be considered a public figure in thid conflict.

This post has been hidden due to low karma.
Click here to show this post.

You can believe that, but that does't mean that it fits the broader norms. Rush Limbaugh, for example, insulted people on his show for years. Liberals obviously hated him, but his show retained its popularity. Then, however, he attacked the character of a woman who testified to congress, and his advertisers pulled out. The reason why is that having an audience is not sufficient grounds to be a target. "Being cited" is a passive state. Merely sharing an opinion on social media has never been considered fair game.

rikameme wrote:

You can believe that, but that does't mean that it fits the broader norms. Rush Limbaugh, for example, insulted people on his show for years. Liberals obviously hated him, but his show retained its popularity. Then, however, he attacked the character of a woman who testified to congress, and his advertisers pulled out. The reason why is that having an audience is not sufficient grounds to be a target. "Being cited" is a passive state. Merely sharing an opinion on social media has never been considered fair game.

Except Sandra Fluke did nothing to be called a 'slut' and whose only crime was sharing a course of action Rush Limbaugh didn't like. The reason isn't that having influence wasn't something to be mad about but rather that Sandra Fluke had committed no wrongs.

Of course having an audience should matter. Otherwise President Bush wouldn't be made fun of so much for being so disinterested in american politics despite being the president. Having power means you should have responsibilityโ€ฆ and I'm surprised you don't know thatโ€ฆ its a rule of life 101.

Not only that but being cited means alot more than a passive state. It transfers your opinion from an opinion to fact and expert advice. The simple fact that Nyberg continues to be cited by the media is a testiment to how pathetic the skills of the media are and Nyberg should be held accountable considering that she continues to state claims while knowing that journalists will back her up despite how bad it makes both of them look. The least she should do is call the journalists out for quoting her and taking her stuff as a statement of fact (or you know, stop making garbage claims to begin with).

"Merely sharing an opinion on social media has never been considered fair game"

Weren't you just trying to say all GG members are evil and work with pol a few comments ago on the last page based on a extremely out of place and barely supported messages on reddit? Do you know the meaning of the word "consistency"?

This post has been hidden due to low karma.
Click here to show this post.

>Except Sandra Fluke did nothing to be called a โ€˜slutโ€™ and whose only crime was sharing a course of action Rush Limbaugh didnโ€™t like. The reason isnโ€™t that having influence wasnโ€™t something to be mad about but rather that Sandra Fluke had committed no wrongs.

A lot of Americans believed she did do something wrong: having an abortion. Does the fact that you believe that she did nothing wrong really mean anything when there are almost as many people who would disagree? You're making a value-judgement here, and "wrong" has an entirely subjective meaning depending on one's personal feelings of the subject matter. What did Nyberg do wrong before the digging on her background began? Say something you disagreed with? This is a flimsy, self-serving justification of harassment. Nothing that Nyberg did warranted a systematic effort to destroy her life.

>Not only that but being cited means a lot more than a passive state. It transfers your opinion from an opinion to fact and expert advice.

And that is still passive, it is literally the passive tense and what the media does has nothing to do with if Nyberg deserves either criticism or a sustained harassment campaign. Not to mention, Nyberg is still entitled to an opinion. If the media listens then support different outlets, there is no shortage of them.

>Werenโ€™t you just trying to say all GG members are evil and work with pol a few comments ago on the last page based on a extremely out of place and barely supported messages on reddit? Do you know the meaning of the word โ€œconsistencyโ€?

No, that is not what I said. In fact, if you search this thread for instances of the word "evil", you will find that nearly all instances of the word were typed by you! I also specifically said that not all GG members were working with /pol/. In fact, I said that those who did largely didn't explicitly support pol, but that they accepted the help. There are also people who actually are active in both communities, which sucks but hey, it's hard to find any community that doesn't have that problem. Don't call me inconsistent just because you prefer polemic to an honest reading.

@Rikame
"A lot of Americans believed she did do something wrong: having an abortion"
That's not what Rush Limbaugh insulted her for. Please stop moving the goal posts. You can't move from one topic to another for no reason. You can't use Rush Limbaugh as an example and then point to something entirely different that has nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh.

"What did Nyberg do wrong before the digging on her background began? Say something you disagreed with?"
Wow, let me point out what you just wrote. First you write that Nyberg did nothing wrong and therefore didn't deserve scrutiny. Then you state I'm the one doing the investigation into her because I disagree with her. It's this degree of rudeness that makes people dismiss your claims.

For your information Nyberg has been telling people that Gamergate is about harassment since the start of the controversy. You also had to have read that she is being cited and claims to have been harassed by the movement and has done every step to insert herself into the controversy. From claiming that they doxxed her despite to outright testifying against the movement. I don't see why she shouldn't be put under scrutiny when she makes such bold statements and becomes a lynchpin of the "gamergate is misogyny" argument. What you wrote is a such a blatant slap in the face of reality and known information that I can't believe you continue to write things like this. Do you even know what's going on?

"And that is still passive, it is literally the passive tense and what the media does has nothing to do with if Nyberg deserves either criticism or a sustained harassment campaign"

Definition of passive is "accepting or allowing what happens or what others do, without active response or resistance". Publishing Nyberg's stories and citing her counts as active response. If you're arguments consist of ignorance and using words that don't actually mean what you think they mean I'm just going to go back to ignoring you. In fact the last time I had a discussion with you in the comments it ended with you making arguments from ignorance and me vowing to ignore you. I thought a few months would be enough time to see some change in your debating skills (and of course deactivating and coming back would symbolize some change of character) but it seems that in terms of debate you are still a static character. I say this because once again you pretend that criticism = harassment and that someone is a saint that shouldn't be criticized because 'opinion'.

"I also specifically said that not all GG members were working with /pol/."- Rikame saying that all GG does not work with /pol/

"Yes. GG is widely supported on communities like /pol/ and The Red Pill. Unfortunately, desperate for company, GG is a poor job of shunning them"- Rikame saying GG works with /pol/ and does a poor job of telling /pol/ off. It's roughly a page ago and less than a day ago. Does this count as short-term memory loss or long-term memory loss? I don't know either way Rikame did say GG was working with pol and not just some members, ALL of them.

"No, that is not what I said. In fact, if you search this thread for instances of the word โ€œevilโ€, you will find that nearly all instances of the word were typed by you!"
" If you donโ€™t believe me, hereโ€™s a sample GGโ€™s self-proclaimed media spokespersonโ€™s defending the life-ruining harassment of a Twitter user with 20 followers"- You saying GG enjoys ruining people's lives.

If that doesn't count as calling someone evil then I don't know because just because you didn't explicitly use the word doesn't mean you didn't invoke it. You say GG is a poorly run movement that was successfully infiltrated by misogynists. Evil can be defined as "profoundly immoral and malevolent" which is exactly what you claim GG is why saying you're not Anti-GG. If you're not going to remember what you wrote than I'm not going to bother addressing you anymore (in fact reading everything you've written before shows me that you enjoy shit posting so I shouldn't indulge you anymore). I hope you realize just how terrible your debating skills are. Did you honestly think you could get away with "I never did that" argument while actually doing it?

Last edited Sep 23, 2015 at 04:35PM EDT

@rikame

criticism may only be as strong as the targetโ€™s relevance.

And being cited as an expert in a massive media war doesn't qualify?

The chan boardsโ€™ coordinated effort to raise dirt on her and threaten her life

It is not the fault of /gamergatehq/, /cow/, or any other chan board that pedos have a very time in prison.

That isnโ€™t to justify any of what Nyberg did, before anybody gets the wrong idea, but the reaction to her is 100% unjustified.

"I'm not saying it was OK for her to upload crotch shots of her cousin to online pedo groups, I'm just saying GamerGate is totally awful for exposing her doing it".

The Plebcomics author did nothing but make a webcomic and get doxed behind his screen-name. He suffered real-life consequences for it. Nothing that he did warranted that.

>he

That seems kinda transphobic.

Iโ€™m sorry, but Libertarian missed the point so hard that he validated my previous post. Nothing says โ€œx is receiving sustained harassmentโ€ quite like an attempt to justify it.

Pleasure continue saying that you're not defending a child pornographer, you're just saying criticizing them is wrong.

No seriously, it makes our work so much easier.

Then, however, he attacked the character of a woman who testified to congress, and his advertisers pulled out.

Sandra Fluke was a child porn distributor?

No?

Then it really is a false equivalency.

A lot of Americans believed she did do something wrong: having an abortion.

1. Sandra Fluke did not have an abortion.

2. Abortion might be controversial, but child molestation has a pretty bipartisan consensus on how bad it is.

Youโ€™re making a value-judgement here, and โ€œwrongโ€ has an entirely subjective meaning depending on oneโ€™s personal feelings of the subject matter.

Strictly speaking this is true.

But leaving aside all moral considerations, do you know how bad saying "good and evil are mere points of view" while defending a child pornographer makes you look?

This is why "no bad tactics, just bad targets" keeps failing.

Nothing that Nyberg did warranted a systematic effort to destroy her life.

Can't do the time? Don't do the crime.

This post has been hidden due to low karma.
Click here to show this post.

@MrKillultra

Then you state Iโ€™m the one doing the investigation into her because I disagree with her.

I don't know what post you are reading but it isn't mine.

For your information Nyberg has been telling people that Gamergate is about harassment since the start of the controversy. You also had to have read that she is being cited and claims to have been harassed by the movement and has done every step to insert herself into the controversy. From claiming that they doxxed her despite to outright testifying against the movement.
Even if her claims are wrong, it's fair to say that it's understandable where they come from. GG undeniably began with the Quinnpost. It is absolutely understandable that anybody could come under that impression. Also, do you have proof that she's lying about doxxing?
Itโ€™s this degree of rudeness that makes people dismiss your claims
Rudeness? Because you refuse to give my posts a fair reading and introduce concepts such as "all GG support /pol/ and are evil and Nazis" that I do not say. I'm sorry, cordiality is a two-way street.
In fact the last time I had a discussion with you in the comments it ended with you making arguments from ignorance and me vowing to ignore you.
Sorry I guess?
someone is a saint that shouldnโ€™t be criticized because โ€˜opinionโ€™.
For the third time, I never said this. I never said Nyberg was a saint. Hell, even she won't make that claim now. I am saying that grounds for fair game are more nuanced then "ooh that person is bad".
Does this count as short-term memory loss or long-term memory loss? I donโ€™t know either way Rikame did say GG was working with pol and not just some members, ALL of them.
You claimed to like philosophy, so here's a philosophy lesson:

First, a dictionary:
A=All
Sgp=GGers who support pol (sort of, this is hard to describe in natural language without context)
E=There exists at least one (could be some, could even be almost all. This is a claim that something exists and nothing more)
~=Not

I first claimed ~A Sgp, "It is not the case that all GGers support pol".
I later claimed E Sgp, or that there exists at least one member of GG x such that x supports pol.
Now, if I said both ~A Sgp AND A Gsp, that would be an absurdity and a contradiction in my statements. However, ~A Sgp also translates into E ~Sgp, or that "there exists at least one GGer x such that x does not support pol".

Additionally, if I said both E Sgp AND ~E Sgp, it would also be a contradiction. However, E Sgp translates into ~A ~Gsp, or that "It is the case that all not all GGers do not support support pol.

There are other possible contradictions (a contradiction is when both X and ~X exist at the same time, but no translation of my claims results in one. Why? Because "Some GGers support /pol/" (I said "most", including a state of partial support in that, but that's a matter of framing and not relevant in this symbolic language) and "not all GGers support /pol/" are perfectly compatible statements. You're overreacting and planting a contradiction that does not exist.
You saying GG enjoys ruining peopleโ€™s lives.
First off, it was Brandon Darby. He, as far as I know, takes zero interest in GG. However, Milo went on to Reddit with that rather hideous post. Now, I also did not accuse GG of ruining this person's life, and I certainly would never claim that all of GG supports harassment, because that is obviously not the case, but Milo is GG's self-proclaimed spokesman. Big ego. Notice how I identified him as defending it, and not GG and not all of GG and every single person in it, because that is not what I wanted to claim because that is not what I believe.
just because you didnโ€™t explicitly use the word doesnโ€™t mean you didnโ€™t invoke it
No, it literally means that I did not invoke it. Imply? That's possible but, in this case, untrue. "Evil" is a strong word and I don't think that it is appropriate here. You are the one interpreting these words, and I am in better position than anybody in the world to tell you that your interpretation of my words is [b]wrong[/b] I cannot make my posts fool-proof. To say that is my responsibility is to become an "SJW", is it not?

I hope you realize just how terrible your debating skills are.
If you stop throwing a tantrum and ever decide to give a sincere effort into responding to an argument, let me know!

@A Real Libertarian

And being cited as an expert in a massive media war doesnโ€™t qualify?
No, for the same reason that scientist whose work is misused, misinterpreted or used in an unpopular manner would not be fair game, either.

It is not the fault of /gamergatehq/, /cow/, or any other chan board that pedos have a very time in prison.
0/10 for effort. What, if a murderer insisted that his/her victim were dead because it was the spring pushed the hammer, the hammer hit the firing pin, the firing pin struck the bullet and the primer and the primer accelerates the bullet into the victim's skull, would you declare that it wasn't the murderer's fault that primers explode when struck by firing pins?

โ€œIโ€™m not saying it was OK for her to upload crotch shots of her cousin to online pedo groups, Iโ€™m just saying GamerGate is totally awful for exposing her doing itโ€.
A broken clock is right twice a day. Is that really your defense?

That seems kinda transphobic.
Typo

Pleasure continue saying that youโ€™re not defending a child pornographer, youโ€™re just saying criticizing them is wrong.
Hate to tell you this, but there are many out there. Let me know when GG decides to go after the ones who don't disagree with or know anything about GG and we'll talk, because it's clearly an excuse.

1. Sandra Fluke did not have an abortion.
I remembered the case wrong, you and mrkillultra are right.

2. Abortion might be controversial, but child molestation has a pretty bipartisan consensus on how bad it is.
That's nice other than the fact that all of the pro-life politicians slammed Limbaugh for making Fluke a target because it had absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter.

On that note, my participation in this thread is clearly unproductive, so I'll take my leave for good. Have fun in your echochamber, I guess.

Last edited Sep 23, 2015 at 10:34PM EDT

@Rikame
"I donโ€™t know what post you are reading but it isnโ€™t mine."
I quoted your post word for word. It's right there. You can't tell me I wasn't reading it. That's gaslighting.

"Even if her claims are wrong, itโ€™s fair to say that itโ€™s understandable where they come from. GG undeniably began with the Quinnpost."
No it's not understandable where her claims came from. They came from lies and none of them hold up under scrutiny. Nyberg has yet to retract anything she's said so lit doesn't count because even if she were misled she has yet to do anything about it. If Nyberg admitted she made a mistake then what you wrote might work but obviously it didn't. Oh and good work not properly naming the name of the post that apparently started gamergate (even though many people would claim that gamergate has been a long time coming considering widespread corruption and that the Zoepost is just a catalyst, literally anything else could have started gamergate).

"and introduce concepts such as โ€œall GG support /pol/ and are evil and Nazisโ€ that I do not say. Iโ€™m sorry, cordiality is a two-way street."
Who's mentioning nazi's now? What? I can't follow you. Maybe if you actually used logic. I'm pretty sure you wrote "GG is a poor job of shunning them" and in that post you specifically didn't specify 'some GG' you said GG which means all of them. There's a fine line between some GG and GG. And if you want to mention Nazis for no reason that's on you. You're the only one constantly changing your stories and what's actually happening to suit what you want to write. I didn't twist anything you wrote or take any of it out of context.

"For the third time, I never said this. I never said Nyberg was a saint."
"has nothing to do with if Nyberg deserves either criticism"- Rikame implying that Nyberg cannot be criticized. What's a saint again? Someone who's so good they're beyond criticism?

"I first claimed ~A Sgp, โ€œIt is not the case that all GGers support polโ€."
That's NOT what you wrote the first time. GG does not mean GG supporters of pol, it means GG as in everyone who is gamergate. You can't pretend its my fault for reading what you write and being offended because you wrote it poorly. It's pretty much inexcusable. I don't see how I could read GG supporters of pol from the words "GG is a poor job of shunning them[pol]".

BTW that's not philosophy. That's argumentative logic you're using. Philosophy does not consist of using abstract letters to represent concepts.

"I later claimed E Sgp, or that there exists at least one member of GG x such that x supports pol."
That's not how you write argumentative logic. You failed to define x and unfortunately I don't know what x even stands for here. Is that a variable or an argument concept? Again the problem with this was already addressed. The only thing you've proven is there 'theoretically' can be a GG member who supports pol, you have done nothing to practically prove it or provide any reason why I should care that a GG member supports pol.

"Now, if I said both ~A Sgp AND A Gsp, that would be an absurdity"
Yes that would be an absurdity because you didn't define Gsp!

"Additionally, if I said both E Sgp AND ~E Sgp, it would also be a contradiction"
Edit: The tilde means not. In actual philosophy the not symbol is ' aka prime.
This makes no sense mathetically or philosophy because you wrote At least one gamergaters who supports pol and not at least one gamergaters who supports pol. This actually is perfectly fine as this is a contradiction. What you wrote next was not:

"However, E Sgp translates into ~A ~Gsp"
UH no it doesn't. Read it out loud. At least one gamergater who supports pol translates into not all not gamergater who supports pol which thanks to double negative; translates to all gamergater who supports pol. You could weasel out of this by saying it could also mean some gamergater who support pol but that doesn't change that fact that you don't know how to do logic notation (you keep ignoring the mathematical rules since 'not All' cannot be equated to mean 'some' in logic notation). I will now copy and paste what I wrote before: This is what I mean by rudeness and poor debating skills. You just had to try and โ€˜ownโ€™ me with โ€œphilosophyโ€ didnโ€™t you? You have no idea what philosophy is and probably just googled it, failed to comprehend it and then vomited this garbage and dared to pretend it refutes anything I said. Donโ€™t be a mathematician either because in both math and philosophical logic, your argument is equated the same way and with a value of Sisyphean garbage. Iโ€™m gonna save everyone the other half of this wall of text because guess what the other part of your post addressed to me sucked too. Did you read anything I wrote and understood it? Because Iโ€™m pretty sure you didnโ€™t.

Oh and just for laughs:
"I cannot make my posts fool-proof. To say that is my responsibility is to become an โ€œSJWโ€, is it not?"

No it is not overly vindictive or illogical or anything like a SJW to demand that you write something that is coherent, understandable, creative and thought provoking that contains original research and can be considered the opposite of shit-posting. It would be SJW mentality to assume that its okay to shitpost and not do good work because you have the "right mentality" and the right "politics". There's nothing wrong with me asking you to "try" and actually write something that reads like you actually read and understood my post in both literal meaning and contextual meaning. Good lord, its SJW to demand people to write posts that are comprehensible. Here's some wingdings Rikame, given you're logic its okay for me to force you to jump through hoops to understand what I wrote "๏”๏ฒ๏น๏€ ๏ˆ๏ก๏ฒ๏ค๏ฅ๏ฒ" oh and according to you, its not my fault if it comes out all blocks that you can't read.

Oh and Rikame never write anything on my wall again. If you have something to say; say it here. And you're extremely condescending attitude pretending that we're the hugbox for your inability to properly conduct yourself is getting tired.

Last edited Sep 24, 2015 at 12:11AM EDT

TheGamerGrim wrote:

I'd hate to change the subject, but I just wanted to post this.

Good Game Research: How Video Games Might Help Alleviate Lazy Eye Just something neat to share.

I find it sad that they only thing we've been hearing recently on video game research is "misogyny" and violence. I mean back in 2008 there was research into how video games could help the elderly and people with memory problems.

http://news.illinois.edu/NEWS/08/1211gamers.html

Let me know if you find anything else great and uplifting like this. One aspect of gamergate (though its been abandoned since General left) was that academia into video game research was corrupted and turned into a source to make video games look evil for some reason. I haven't heard anything about DIGRA in a while either but at the end of all this, I hope researchers get back to looking at the positive implications of video games and stop wasting time with trying to play pin the social ill on the pop culture.

I don't know why nichegamer needs to be archive though. Have they done anything wrong lately?

Last edited Sep 23, 2015 at 11:31PM EDT

Alright ladies, gentlemen, and whatever else you sexually identify as. I had a question that has been on my mind for a while, and I was wondering if I could get any input for it. It's not directly related to GG, but it does have to do with our crazy feminist friends from across Twitter.

We have all seen posts that GamerGate could possibly kill the feminist and SJW movement (mostly due to Butts being a pedo), but could killing the feminist movement prevent another one from replacing it in the future?

(Note: I haven't decided to look up any articles whether or not it is capable or not, I'm looking more for opinions from the regulars in this forum post.)

TOSO wrote:

Alright ladies, gentlemen, and whatever else you sexually identify as. I had a question that has been on my mind for a while, and I was wondering if I could get any input for it. It's not directly related to GG, but it does have to do with our crazy feminist friends from across Twitter.

We have all seen posts that GamerGate could possibly kill the feminist and SJW movement (mostly due to Butts being a pedo), but could killing the feminist movement prevent another one from replacing it in the future?

(Note: I haven't decided to look up any articles whether or not it is capable or not, I'm looking more for opinions from the regulars in this forum post.)

Gamer Gate is not going to kill feminism.
I think it will reform it and maybe getting it back to what it should be.
SJW are never going to die, what so ever i think the more time it pass the less relevant they will became.

TOSO wrote:

Alright ladies, gentlemen, and whatever else you sexually identify as. I had a question that has been on my mind for a while, and I was wondering if I could get any input for it. It's not directly related to GG, but it does have to do with our crazy feminist friends from across Twitter.

We have all seen posts that GamerGate could possibly kill the feminist and SJW movement (mostly due to Butts being a pedo), but could killing the feminist movement prevent another one from replacing it in the future?

(Note: I haven't decided to look up any articles whether or not it is capable or not, I'm looking more for opinions from the regulars in this forum post.)

I don't think gamergate will kill the feminist movement on the grounds that its not their target. I'm pretty sure gamergate will kill the radical feminist movement though and it will not be missed.

Any attempt to link the actions of radical feminists like Anita to actual feminists (you know, the ones who care about whether or not they're quoting facts and making decisions that actually address real problems) will rightfully get played off as bigotry. Christina Sommers is GG and feminist and I don't see how she could be screwed if gamergate wins. I don't see how the actual feminists will get hurt by this because they have no connection in either tone or rhetoric to the radical feminists.

We have all seen posts that GamerGate could possibly kill the feminist and SJW movement (mostly due to Butts being a pedo)

I really think you're overestimating your self importance here.

Not everyone knows who Butts is; certainly not all radical feminists do.

MrKillultra wrote:

I find it sad that they only thing we've been hearing recently on video game research is "misogyny" and violence. I mean back in 2008 there was research into how video games could help the elderly and people with memory problems.

http://news.illinois.edu/NEWS/08/1211gamers.html

Let me know if you find anything else great and uplifting like this. One aspect of gamergate (though its been abandoned since General left) was that academia into video game research was corrupted and turned into a source to make video games look evil for some reason. I haven't heard anything about DIGRA in a while either but at the end of all this, I hope researchers get back to looking at the positive implications of video games and stop wasting time with trying to play pin the social ill on the pop culture.

I don't know why nichegamer needs to be archive though. Have they done anything wrong lately?

There's no negative reason why it's archived. At this point I basically archive everything, force of habit and all that.

@rikame

No, for the same reason that scientist whose work is misused, misinterpreted or used in an unpopular manner would not be fair game, either.

Ah, but Nonceberg's work is being used in exactly the way she intended.

0/10 for effort. What, if a murderer insisted that his/her victim were dead because it was the spring pushed the hammer, the hammer hit the firing pin, the firing pin struck the bullet and the primer and the primer accelerates the bullet into the victimโ€™s skull, would you declare that it wasnโ€™t the murdererโ€™s fault that primers explode when struck by firing pins?

Murderer, person who exposed a child pornographer to the police, same thing right?

Prison is a dangerous place, guess we better not report any crimes in case the criminal gets hurt in there, right?

A broken clock is right twice a day. Is that really your defense?

No, my defense is that molesting kids is very bad and that we should put aside our differences to stop that when we can.

And when you shit on us for doing that it makes you look very bad thereby making it easier to destroy a group who thinks loyalty to the group is more important then not molesting children.

Typo

OK.

Hate to tell you this, but there are many out there. Let me know when GG decides to go after the ones who donโ€™t disagree with or know anything about GG and weโ€™ll talk, because itโ€™s clearly an excuse.

And now you're trying to claim our exposing a pedophile is bad because you believe we have impure motives. Do you prefer children being molested to GamerGate being right about something?

That's not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious how far you'll go in the name of hating a hashtag. Because others of your side have said similar things.

You know, if Butts could just stay out of this and not spearhead a year-long propaganda campaign against us, she never would have been exposed.

But luckily for good, evil is dumb.

Seriously, take a leading role in a massive cultural war while having all this evidence publicly available?

That's like running for Mayor of Chicago while having your front flowerbed full of hooker corpses.

I remembered the case wrong, you and mrkillultra are right.

Thank you.

Thatโ€™s nice other than the fact that all of the pro-life politicians slammed Limbaugh for making Fluke a target because it had absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter.

I remember some significant support, anyways it's still not going to change the facts about Butts.

On that note, my participation in this thread is clearly unproductive, so Iโ€™ll take my leave for good. Have fun in your echochamber, I guess.

"Echochamber", "place where white-knighting child pornographers is met with disagreement".

You honestly have no clue how bad you look to any neutral here, do you?


@MrKillultra

Just a heads up, Generaal didn't leave GamerGate, he deactivated here because he has a job to do with burning DiGRA to the ground and doesn't need distractions.

He's occasionally on KIA, but most of the time he's working on that.

Last edited Sep 24, 2015 at 05:00PM EDT

TOSO wrote:

Alright ladies, gentlemen, and whatever else you sexually identify as. I had a question that has been on my mind for a while, and I was wondering if I could get any input for it. It's not directly related to GG, but it does have to do with our crazy feminist friends from across Twitter.

We have all seen posts that GamerGate could possibly kill the feminist and SJW movement (mostly due to Butts being a pedo), but could killing the feminist movement prevent another one from replacing it in the future?

(Note: I haven't decided to look up any articles whether or not it is capable or not, I'm looking more for opinions from the regulars in this forum post.)

GamerGate alone? No, definitely not.

Everyone that SJWs have pissed off? Undoubtedly.

SJWs will die, not in the sense that no one will hold SJW beliefs, but in the sense that SJWs will have no power or influence outside their little fringe communities.

Just like Nazis or the KKK did.

Feminism will either die with it or be successfully taken back.

Now AntiGamer, the Butts revelations is going to kill them whether destroying them itself or by causing so much damage that the only thing left is mop-up operations.

They had a chance to save most of themselves by shoving her under the bus, but they doubled-down like they always do.

I genuinely expected the smarter ones to at least keep their mouths shut to avoid getting hit when Butts goes down, I over-estimated how cunning they were.


@TheGamerGrim

Best to archive it, then give the direct link & the archive link.

Protects the content and gives them clicks, win-win.

Last edited Sep 24, 2015 at 05:13PM EDT

[Misc.] U.N. Broadband Commission's report: "Recent research on how violent video games are turning childrenโ€ฆinto โ€˜killing zombiesโ€™" โ€“ Look at the sources!
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3ma09l/misc_un_broadband_commissions_report_recent/
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/New_violence.html
Actual quote:
Weโ€™re getting killings which are caused by the use of Nintendo-style games, such as the game Pokรฉmon, with children, and also with police and others.
Ban โ€˜Point-Shootโ€™ Games
In an April 2000 interview with Executive Intelligence Review magazine, attorney Thompson asserted that the violence associated with the โ€œpoint-shootโ€ video games is not a free speech issue, and that it can be stopped.
In a press release Feb. 1, 2000, Midway Games reported the โ€œtop ten in killer games,โ€ that is, the leading U.S. video-game sofware companies, as ranked in order of their unit sales:
Nintendo of America, Inc.: Manufactures Pokรฉmon, Game-Boys, and equipment for satanic video games.
satanic video games.

MexPirateRed wrote:

[Misc.] U.N. Broadband Commission's report: "Recent research on how violent video games are turning childrenโ€ฆinto โ€˜killing zombiesโ€™" โ€“ Look at the sources!
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3ma09l/misc_un_broadband_commissions_report_recent/
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/New_violence.html
Actual quote:
Weโ€™re getting killings which are caused by the use of Nintendo-style games, such as the game Pokรฉmon, with children, and also with police and others.
Ban โ€˜Point-Shootโ€™ Games
In an April 2000 interview with Executive Intelligence Review magazine, attorney Thompson asserted that the violence associated with the โ€œpoint-shootโ€ video games is not a free speech issue, and that it can be stopped.
In a press release Feb. 1, 2000, Midway Games reported the โ€œtop ten in killer games,โ€ that is, the leading U.S. video-game sofware companies, as ranked in order of their unit sales:
Nintendo of America, Inc.: Manufactures Pokรฉmon, Game-Boys, and equipment for satanic video games.
satanic video games.

they are citing jack thompson in a highly sensationalized article from 15 years ago?
yeah anita you're totally not jack thompson.
also haven't there have been precedents since then declaring video games to be free speech.

Wambamsamman wrote:

they are citing jack thompson in a highly sensationalized article from 15 years ago?
yeah anita you're totally not jack thompson.
also haven't there have been precedents since then declaring video games to be free speech.

Not only that this is again a quote from the source they used.

The term โ€œNew Violence,โ€ as employed by LBW, signifies, chiefly, the introduction of new methods, those of Nintendo games and related means, to transform young children and adolescents, as well as law-enforcement personnel, into โ€œSamuraiโ€-style programmed killers. The term โ€œNew Violenceโ€ will be used in LBW proceedings solely to identify forms of violence which feature this distinctly new element. Old forms of violence will be included in this classification only when the role of Nintendo-style games and related means is a characteristic feature of the problem being considered in the study and report.

โ€œSamuraiโ€-style programmed killers, now that is a B movie or wacky anime i want to see.

The whole thing has to be one of the most hilarious things i have read in my life, for the wrong reasons.

Suddenly DiGRA is second-guessing itself and starting to make comments against the OMG Women are always victims and games are evil narrative.

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3mcf0p/suddenly_digra_is_secondguessing_itself_and/

Even DiGRA cant believe the U.N. Nonsense.

In other news about the U.N. FAILURE AND GOOGLE IDEAS.

WikiLeaks decide to join the action.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/647406773012406272

Google Ideas instrumentalizes the gender wars https://twitter.com/googleideas/status/646783722570682369 โ€ฆ but what is Google Ideas? https://archive.is/QIdpP#selection-105.0-105.5 โ€ฆ

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/647421818081517568

There is presently a dangerous push to redefine insulting online speech as โ€œviolence onlineโ€, which will mandate aggressive state censorship

Google Is Not What It Seems
by Julian Assange
https://archive.is/QIdpP

"Samurai-Style Programmed Killers" Why, because Nintendo is a japanese company? :P

One source out of hundreds doesn't really invalidate the paper as a whole. But the fact something like this manage to make it as a root source is pretty bad. Did they really use the term "Satanic" to describe video games?

Black Graphic T wrote:

"Samurai-Style Programmed Killers" Why, because Nintendo is a japanese company? :P

One source out of hundreds doesn't really invalidate the paper as a whole. But the fact something like this manage to make it as a root source is pretty bad. Did they really use the term "Satanic" to describe video games?

Obviously
We all know SJWs are racist

Black Graphic T wrote:

"Samurai-Style Programmed Killers" Why, because Nintendo is a japanese company? :P

One source out of hundreds doesn't really invalidate the paper as a whole. But the fact something like this manage to make it as a root source is pretty bad. Did they really use the term "Satanic" to describe video games?

Just wait until they hear some of us still play Dungeons & Dragons and Pathfinder, then they'll really lose their shit.

Black Graphic T wrote:

"Samurai-Style Programmed Killers" Why, because Nintendo is a japanese company? :P

One source out of hundreds doesn't really invalidate the paper as a whole. But the fact something like this manage to make it as a root source is pretty bad. Did they really use the term "Satanic" to describe video games?

Racism and yes they used the word satanic.

MexPirateRed wrote:


Click the image.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, what?

Due to real life constraints I couldn't follow this thread lately, so I'm completely confused here. What is WikiLeaks? Did Google become Anti-GG? The United Nations are really getting involved in this mess?

Skeletor-sm

This thread is closed to new posts.

This thread was locked by an administrator.

Why don't you start a new thread instead?

O HAI! You must login or signup first!