Forums / Discussion / General

Further reading from Business Insider

Highlight: This leader of gamergate uses his followers, ex-gamergaters, to target people.

As for the author? Well deepfreeze.it

I was informed that Gamergate's leader was the guy who attempted to street race Wu for ethics in journalism.
Are you telling me that The Commander isn't the top secret leader of a bunch of sweaty neckbeards who whine about retards on the internet?

So other related news:

The ghost of Wikigate rears it's ugly head

Wu get's an award from iMore for Revolution 60, a company that is completely owned by her friends

Probably a "Good Job!" sticker for his Game of the Year award. The Steam reviews on the other hand is full of low scores and bad reviews. You think he'll force Steam to delete bad reviews like Zoe did to her terrible game?

The ghost of Wikigate rears it’s ugly head

So which brave soul wants to try to add "Crash Override Network Had Wikipedia Articles Changed At Their Behest" to the Gamergate Controversy article?

Or better yet, make a KYM entry about the Crash Override Network leaked logs.

More news:

Zoe and Staff planned to attack Milo for libel

and… Dangit Capcom

Given the level of projection these assholes give off I'm betting Zoe's book got canceled because she refused to sign her name to anything that didn't give dozens of people actionable claims against Simon & Schuster.

The MSM actually think that Pepe the Frog is a white nationalist symbol

The image:

The MSM actually think that Pepe the Frog is a white nationalist symbol

Someone tell the MSM that "all your base" is a secret nazi code for a passage from Hitler's diaries, "Gangnam Style" is a cruel method of execution in the concentration camps, and "Here Comes Dat Boi" is Hitler returning to finish the job.

Geezus christ this thread is long

MORE LEAKS

It's a good thing the Shadowrunners are on our side. CON trying to play our own game? Too bad we do it better.

Of course it is.

Because Hitler.

If anyone wants a summary of what the new leaks mean so far, here you go

Other news:

Idga has a survey that seems a little skewed

Also there might be a Bot Echo Cannon to push a narrative

Daily reminder that for all AntiGamer's virtue signaling, playing the victim, and constant demands to "police our own" they're the ones who support doxing, harassment, fraud, targeting people's families, domestic abuse, child molestation, and every other accusation they fling at us.

They were perfectly OK with supporting Pedoberg after the truth came out, they cheered Randi Harper as she siced her followers on the family of a man just diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, they swallowed every blatantly ridiculous lie Brianna Wu made about us, they supported Zoe Quinn's domestic abuse, violations of free speech, & targeting of Wizardchan, they endorsed Anita demanding that everyone who calls her a liar be banned from the internet.

It's why I never trust virtue signalers, they're just trying to establish themselves as "Good People" so they can justify all the monstrous things they do.

One Angry Gamer – CON Still A Trusted Twitter Partner After Wiki Notes Harassment, Doxing

You know we have enough details to start a Crash Override Network entry. The origins, partnerships, and controversies. If anyone's interested in starting it, count me in.

Wikipedia is thinking it's reliable.

As does the HRC webpage

Tin Foil hat time

Someone or some group is trying to associate Memes, Gamers, internet culture as something that society would be better off without. Setting this culture as an opposition for someone poised to lead the most powerful country in the world. Basically trying to get rid of Meme culture, Gamergate and anything else labeled "problematic" with a political orbital nuke.

Tin foil off

Hey, I keep telling you people. Hillary's the next one we need to focus on, along with everyone in her circle.
She promised that she'd kill Briebart after she's elected. She flat out promised on TV that she'd publicly break the law to destroy a journalism company.

If she's willing to mention us by name on her official Twitter feed, then it stands to reason that she would take a similar form of action against us. Perhaps something akin to the "anti-hate speech" laws enacted in the EU.

We've already proven ourselves to be fantastic researchers, able to root out any sort of hidden corruption where it lies, and without much if any full blown hacking at that. She'd think us a threat on those merits alone.

I agree. I also mentioned other reasons for her to be held as a credible threat in the GOG.com GamerGate thread.

Turns out CON doesn't have any documentation on the harassment of Anita Sarkeesian

Wikipedia Picks and Chooses when to use reliable sources

As well as making sure conversations never happened regarding CON

And in MISC for laughs because Journalism, Censorship and Memes

Dioxin Jimmy said:

She promised that she’d kill Briebart after she’s elected. She flat out promised on TV that she’d publicly break the law to destroy a journalism company.

I'd like a sauce on that. All I can find is a donor email where the deputy communications director says: "I want to beat them so decisively that their kind never rises again," It just sounds like standard donor email rhetoric to me.

Here and here.

It wasn't on TV, it was in a campaign email. I realized that after I remembered she hadn't done any press releases or anything like that for months. My mistake there.

And yes, I will admit, they are being a little overly dramatic about it. However, you full well know that even though she wouldn't come right out and say it (because politician), that is her intent. She and most of her party have gone to great lengths to suppress opposing opinion and, you know, facts.

Remember what happened with the IRS? We haven't seen hardly anything on those 45,000 emails, nor the recent thousands (I think) that were publicly released earlier this week. CNN blurred out a hero policeman's shirt because it had "Trump 2016" on it. The DHS reportedly has been suppressing a study on illegal immigration because it contradicts the current narrative. Everyone involved with the DNC leak is dead now and we haven't heard a thing about it.

Like I said, she and her cohorts have no qualms about breaking any law or standard of ethics or morality for, well, any reason. And they'll all lie to your face about it, and shred the evidence while you stand there.

Well this is alarming

A gaming company that got negative reviews (for the belief of using stolen assets, making buggy games and shovelware) is suing the reviewers for 18 mil.

Of course it had to be Digital Homicide.

First they go after Jim Fucking Sterling son. And now, they're going after Steam users. What an absolutely pathetic excuse for a company!

Fun fact: Steam has deleted all of their games.

Here's the Google cache of The Slaughtering Ground.

And here's the main link, which redirects to the Steam homepage.

They've been completely wiped from Steam like Stalin wiped Nikolai Yezhov.

Considering Steam gave them the boot, I think we have their response to their lawsuit.

This is like Zoe going after Eron or what happened to Greg Elliott, if Steam doesn't fight this then it will be a paid mod-tier fiasco for them.

After all, if they let such a famously shitty dev as Digital Homicide walk all over their customers then what happens if EA decides to do the same?

Although it was funny when they hit Jim Sterling with a "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" lawsuit, apparently he doesn't like his own medicine.

Alright is it fine if I ask a question that has been at the back of my mind ever since I joined and left this movement?

How exactly are people like Anita Sarkeesian censoring video games? And try and cite as many unbiased sources if you can.

Can you give an example of an acceptable unbaised source? I can't seem to think of one as all sources of events have either omitted information, lean in on sympathy or go for an attack on the subject matter. Even "unbaised" can get criticized as "not painting a full picture."

However, I can give an example of attempted censorship by Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkessian on the internet from multiple sources (for and against) to the United Nations, in which they presented a case for policing the internet using a shoddy written study that self refrenced itself and discredited material as "proof" that the internet needed censorship.

Well there's the simple fact that she refuses to debate anyone who even wants to talk about games. Sure its not video games directly but you are refusing to debate (well past the point of reason) developers and gamers themselves. So yeah that would count as censoring video games considering that these people are getting called sexists, potentially losing employment and getting harassment unless they do something self-destructive in an attempt to be "not sexist".

It's also hard to look at scenes like this and not think "hmm this person won't hurt video games"
http://imgur.com/X2NcrNa

Or the fact that her detection of sexism is so badly done that literally anything sets it off and you're sexist no matter what. Should be noted that the industry for some reason (probably cronyism) considers her an expert that should be listened to (again probably due to corrupt journalists) and this censors video games on the simple ground that no story can be told because all of them are "sexist".

@3kole5
"ever since I joined and left this movement?"
I sincerely doubt that you have ever joined gamergate and I would like you to post an "acceptable unbiased source" that supports your statement.

Also I think the words acceptable unbiased source is honestly such a weasel word that it's practically a "get out of rational debate" card so you probably shouldn't use such terms next time. Perhaps you meant objective source? Because this isn't a scientific subject so you're not going to find a research paper (and even then those would be bias as they observe from the scientific angle).

It hinges a bit on "is censoring" versus "wants to be censored" (more if you want to take the opinion that "censorship" can only apply to government). Obviously she isn't going around pulling games off the shelf and making them illegal, so in that sense she is not censoring games.

What she IS doing is saying that certain content should not be in games. The easiest source is simply watching her own Tropes vs Women videos. Calling for certain ideas not to be shown or said is a call for censorship. Particularly contrast "Someone should make a game with more X and more Y" with "Your game should not have A and B". The former is combating bad speech with good speech. The latter is combating bad speech with censorship.

Yeah, I think Panuru explained it well. She isn't actually doing any censorship (maybe those aligned with her and/or those who see the world like she does are), but some of her rhetoric indicates she prefers the censorship of things she disapproves of. Maybe I'm sounding like a nihilist, but people don't generally think she's taking people's games away or stopping games she deems sexist from being made, but they may believe she wants others to scrub certain things out of existence, or at least the spotlight.

Obviously I don't mean it in the first sense you mentioned. She's definitely not doing that, that's for sure..

Moving on, do you have an example in one of her videos where she calls for certain content to not be shown in games? From what I can see, she's just giving out criticism of the current games industry from a feminist perspective. Dishonest? Yes, I think some if not most can agree that is is, but it's not really censorship from that perspective.r

From that perspective.

From where I'm standing it looks like she's whipping up moral hysteria with the same old "video games cause [X]" claims that Jack Thompson and B.A.D.D. and Lyndon LaRouche made decades ago.

She'll make blatantly fake claims, get her media buddies to do some smear pieces on people pointing out her claims, and then go to the United Nations to say that people who call her a liar on the internet need to be banned.

And when governments start considering restrictions on "misogynistic games" in response to all the previous, well I don't find that much of a coincidence.

And of course that "ban people who criticize me from the internet" part is pretty important, expect any implementation to include censorship of blasphemers (the Gulf states have been pushing for a ban on criticizing Mohammad for how long again?)

And that report is shoddy beyond all reason, look at the citations. Wikipedia, blank spaces, and a C: drive.

Sargon has more:

Of course the question is whether you'll call all these sources "biased" and not bother trying to debunk them.

Good, but I wanted to cover my bases just in case.

I can't easily find transcripts of the videos, so I want to be careful not to overstate anything that I can't quote directly. I don't think at any point she literally leans into the camera and says, "This should not be in games" (maybe she does that in some other source, but that's speculative). Paraphrasing a bit, she DOES say things such as "The player throws dead women into dumpsters" and "These women cannot consent to being dressed this way". IMO it's safe to read an implication of "and that's not okay" versus "and that's just fine with me".

Basically it just doesn't pass the sniff test that I mentioned earlier. Constructive criticism focuses on what should be done. Focusing on what should not be done without offering an alternative is just wanting to shit all over things. Offering up your own ideas means that you eventually have to support something if they're implemented. That's why people whose sole purpose is snarky finger-pointing with no intent to support anything don't offer them.

Lies like hers get games pulled from shelves.

Keep in mind you're talking about Australia, who's government has a hateboner for video games

And in more relative news:

Twitter gets sued for promising the moon and asphyxiating among the stars

And concidentally enough: Google developing AI to counter trolls on the internet, complete with gamedrop.

Yes I know this isn't an example of "take your games away" but more of "take you away from the interaction." But hey, why censor unwanted media when you can just remove the audiences? After all, they're the ones responding unfavorably to the medium.

And in more hilarious news,
according to anti-GG turned pro-GG journalist:

Pepe has, in fact, become an anti-semitic meme.

Not only that but,
The Alt-Right has co-opted Pepe to push an antisemitic agenda.

People think that making jokes about Nazis is the same thing as being a Nazi?

lol watev tho

Oh, dear Lord… My media law professor actually believed this bull. I told him it wasn't and he said the adapted it. Just… Heaven help us.

Conceding stuff to nazi's always makes them stop trying to take things, right? That's what the league of nations taught me at least. :P

The fact these people think any group can own a meme is laughable. If you really think its been co-oopted, support the non-nazi pepe shit instead of just saying "Well I guess they just own this now" like a bunch of dumb pricks.

By pushing this narrative, they're giving these groups power and legitimacy. When are they ever going to learn this?

On the one hand, I totally get what you folks are saying. On the other hand, try reclaiming the swastika, another perfectly innocent symbol co-opted by Nazis, and tell me how that goes for you. Obviously no group can own a meme, but a strong-enough association with a symbol can ruin it for everyone.

But the only people doing said associations are the media trying to push the narrative that pepe is claimed by white supremacists. This is people saying "it's too late to save this" while doing the one thing needed to ensure it won't be saved.

Also you can reclaim the swastika by visciously mocking it to the point where it no longer has any influence nor can be taken seriously at all. It's worked for many decades to turn the nazi's from a legitimate political identity into an absolute joke and punchline, along with anyone whose followed said ideology. Now we're telling everyone to take them seriously again, and its resulting in them getting more political and social power again.

The swastika has that meaning only in Western nations. In most Eastern nations it is still a religious symbol. Not to mention the Nazi swastika was custom made for the cause by twisting the angle of a normal one. Postmodern innovation at it's best. For supposed far right conservatives, Hitler and the nazis behaved pretty much like leftist SJWs.

It's not as if a fascist state are using Pepe the frog on their flags and uniforms like the swastika.

My two cents:

I'm strongly reminded of the censor on a show "Whose line is it anyway?" The version with Drew Carry. There was one episode (Season four, episode 27) where they ask the audience for an unlikely pair of roommates for a sitcom jingle and they get Bill Cosby and Hilter. The censor tells them that Cosby's ok, but Hitler isn't. As a result the Jingle was changed to Bill Cosby and an Insurance Salesman (who during one of his displays does something that looks like a salute.) And leading the host to say "Yes we can make fun of things on this show but not F*kin Hitler."

Another one had to do with another show called Code Monkeys. This thing actually aired and made up a reason as to why you can't make fun of Hitler:

And there's also Venture bros which had Girl Hitler and a dog that was the reincarnation of Hitler too.

Point is: Humor will always make fun of terrible things. But over-censorship is here to take that away.

End two cents

Youtube has already sent out the heroes:

Alright, I've tried my hardest to avoid GamerGate discussion because I have no clue where it came from or what it's trying to accomplish. I've heard things from "it's trying to fix gaming journalism" and "it's a harassment campaign against feminists" and "it's a gamer pride movement" from all different sides.

Now here's why I'm posting this. I have my senior year Research Paper & Humanities class, and as the name of the course implies, I gotta write a research paper about issues that are social, environmental, political, or etc. I can't write anything informative or persuasive whatsoever. I feel GamerGate would be a nice topic because it's gaming (which I enjoy) and a noteworthy movement.

Where's a good place to start? Clearly this site has a big ol' GG archive, so that's something. I need an outline for my paper and an annotated bibliography by this Friday, and I need some good sources because I don't know what to trust.

A great starting point is the Know Your Meme article on it. Probably the most neutral and trustworthy source on the matter. I also recommend Deep Freeze for the journalism part.

@Phantomazing try these:

https://gamergatenews.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/a-gamergate-story-a-state-of-the-gate-address-part-1/
http://thespectacularspider-girl.tumblr.com/post/100433941529/zoe-quinn-and-gamergate-genesis-myths
https://aaronpabon.wordpress.com/2015/05/16/39/
http://killapenguin.com/random/culture/the-history-of-gamergate-sans-emotion/

If you need it by tomorrow you're not going to get anything done, if you mean next week that's more doable but still going to be hard.

If you're still interested here's some sources

GamerGate Wiki.

Happenings List.

The KIA sidebar "What Is GamerGate?" has a bunch of resources

And if you have a Twitter account ask Blaugast because he has pretty much everything relating to GamerGate archived (109,000+ tweets of info over the past 2 years).