GamerGate - Images

Sorted By:

One Angry Gamer Article By William "Billy D" Usher. Dated September 27, 2014

"Source":http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/09/gamergate-youre-winning-and-here-are-a-few-of-your-achievements/

"archive.today":https://archive.today/gKKfB

"Source":http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/09/gamergate-youre-winning-and-here-are-a-few-of-your-achievements/

"archive.today":https://archive.today/gKKfB

ISTE DO NOT QUESTION

ISTE DO NOT QUESTION

they live gamergate xoxo festival

The Purpose Of A Game Review And How To Write One With Minimal Subjectivity By Oliver Campbell

"Source":https://medium.com/@oliverbcampbell/the-purpose-of-a-game-review-and-how-to-write-one-with-minimal-subjectivity-c8fb78d3266

"archive.today":https://archive.today/exhYr

Dated September 25, 2014

"Source":https://medium.com/@oliverbcampbell/the-purpose-of-a-game-review-and-how-to-write-one-with-minimal-subjectivity-c8fb78d3266

"archive.today":https://archive.today/exhYr

Dated September 25, 2014

Tyrion Lannister

When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say Tyrion Lannister Game of Thrones Frank Decapio @FrankDecapio 36m With regards to the anti-#GamerGate censorship pic.twitter.com/J5NLMKBPqx Reply t3 Retweet * Favorite

When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say Tyrion Lannister Game of Thrones Frank Decapio @FrankDecapio 36m With regards to the anti-#GamerGate censorship pic.twitter.com/J5NLMKBPqx Reply t3 Retweet * Favorite

game of thrones tyrion lannister a song of ice and fire gamergate twitter

Do you feel like GG is slowly leaning to simply promoting figureheads (such as yourself no offence) while backing off from actually having their own voices in the debate? Listen I understand the arguments from both sides in reference to some sort of leadership but here is thee reality 1) Leadership can work if you have a great leader but only if you have a great leader. They have to be on point at all times, they have to be eloquent, they have to be a great orator, a great organizer, and a host of other things. If they fail at any of these they kill what they try to promote. The greatest danger to any cause is the person who promotes it most. They become a target and their foibles and faults become those of the group they represent. 2) Groups have fallen apart without good leadership. Look at OWS, look at Chanology. You either have a complete absence of someone in charge or those that gain power, through their own character faults, hurt those they try and lead 3) GamerGate or whatever you want to refer to it as is different though. It's not a real world protest, it requires no physical action. You have no marches to organize, no protests to gather, no parks to camp in. It works as a decentralized consumer movement because it doesn't require the logistical support that a real world movement would 4) People are falling for a very simple ploy that has killed a lot of good ideas in the past. The idea is that to win the day they need to appeal to the middle/moderates/independents/uniformed and to do so they need structure and a refined message. This is false. What happens is that you go so far to the middle from your original position to sway those residing there that you are no longer distinguishable from those you are trying to convince; your message becomes diluted and loses meaning People are being suckered into fighting this on the terms the other side dictates, Behave a certain way, do PR a certain way, promote a message a certain way. But you see the other side is losing so why adopt thei tactics? People should continue to do what they think works, whoever wants to voice an opinion let them and if it has merit it will be adopted and if it does not it will be ignored. There are no leaders, simply envoys carrying the message of the whole about 4 hours ago 1 person likes this

Do you feel like GG is slowly leaning to simply promoting figureheads (such as yourself no offence) while backing off from actually having their own voices in the debate? Listen I understand the arguments from both sides in reference to some sort of leadership but here is thee reality 1) Leadership can work if you have a great leader but only if you have a great leader. They have to be on point at all times, they have to be eloquent, they have to be a great orator, a great organizer, and a host of other things. If they fail at any of these they kill what they try to promote. The greatest danger to any cause is the person who promotes it most. They become a target and their foibles and faults become those of the group they represent. 2) Groups have fallen apart without good leadership. Look at OWS, look at Chanology. You either have a complete absence of someone in charge or those that gain power, through their own character faults, hurt those they try and lead 3) GamerGate or whatever you want to refer to it as is different though. It's not a real world protest, it requires no physical action. You have no marches to organize, no protests to gather, no parks to camp in. It works as a decentralized consumer movement because it doesn't require the logistical support that a real world movement would 4) People are falling for a very simple ploy that has killed a lot of good ideas in the past. The idea is that to win the day they need to appeal to the middle/moderates/independents/uniformed and to do so they need structure and a refined message. This is false. What happens is that you go so far to the middle from your original position to sway those residing there that you are no longer distinguishable from those you are trying to convince; your message becomes diluted and loses meaning People are being suckered into fighting this on the terms the other side dictates, Behave a certain way, do PR a certain way, promote a message a certain way. But you see the other side is losing so why adopt thei tactics? People should continue to do what they think works, whoever wants to voice an opinion let them and if it has merit it will be adopted and if it does not it will be ignored. There are no leaders, simply envoys carrying the message of the whole about 4 hours ago 1 person likes this

internetaristocrat gamergate

GamerGate Part 1: The Path We've Taken [InternetAristocrat] o en r 、 submitted 8 hours ago by give-me-sugar [H] [N] 280 comments share save hide give gold report nsfw flair reports: 1 spam remove reapprove ignore reports (youtu.be 540 Gamerate - user reports: 3: spam 1: contributing part of ongoing harassment and doxxing campaign 1: Ban this garbage 1: vote manipulation

GamerGate Part 1: The Path We've Taken [InternetAristocrat] o en r 、 submitted 8 hours ago by give-me-sugar [H] [N] 280 comments share save hide give gold report nsfw flair reports: 1 spam remove reapprove ignore reports (youtu.be 540 Gamerate - user reports: 3: spam 1: contributing part of ongoing harassment and doxxing campaign 1: Ban this garbage 1: vote manipulation

reddit internetaristocrat gamergate

Give it up for the neutral internet encyclopedia, everybody!

!https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/809/213/c24.jpg!

!https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/809/213/c24.jpg!

censorship wikipedia gamergate

Alexander again

Leigh Alexander @leighalexander Follow @melissagira @calebhannan congrats dude, your lethal absence of ethics will be the defining moment of the rest of your career わReply Retweet ★ Favorite More RETWEETS FAVORITES 17 4:13 PM-17 Jan 2014

Leigh Alexander @leighalexander Follow @melissagira @calebhannan congrats dude, your lethal absence of ethics will be the defining moment of the rest of your career わReply Retweet ★ Favorite More RETWEETS FAVORITES 17 4:13 PM-17 Jan 2014

twitter hypocrisy leigh alexander

Stephen's Conversation On The Middle Ground Fallacy.

"archive.today":https://archive.today/ME5mG

"Source":https://twitter.com/greyinkling/status/516335205817147392

"archive.today":https://archive.today/ME5mG

"Source":https://twitter.com/greyinkling/status/516335205817147392

DoctorWatkin's Response To Leigh Alexander.

"archive.today":https://archive.today/kFOSx

"Source":https://twitter.com/DoctorWatkins/status/516336606492758016/photo/1

"archive.today":https://archive.today/kFOSx

"Source":https://twitter.com/DoctorWatkins/status/516336606492758016/photo/1

Anthony Burch Accuses GamerGate Supporters Of "Further Abuse Of Various Degrees".

"archive.today":https://archive.today/zdTDU
"Imgur link":http://imgur.com/jo1235U

"archive.today":https://archive.today/zdTDU
"Imgur link":http://imgur.com/jo1235U

TechCrunch Article On GamerGate by Allum Bokhari. Dated September 25, 2014

"archive.today. version":https://archive.today/rnlmx
"Source":http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/gamergate-an-issue-with-2-sides/

"archive.today. version":https://archive.today/rnlmx
"Source":http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/gamergate-an-issue-with-2-sides/

gamergate techcrunch

He literally does it for free

"The tweet":https://twitter.com/Int_Aristocrat/status/516309073478688769
"Archived":https://archive.today/cPXGS

"The tweet":https://twitter.com/Int_Aristocrat/status/516309073478688769
"Archived":https://archive.today/cPXGS

free internetaristocrat gamergate #gamergate

Matt Baits GamerGate Supporters.

"archive.today":https://archive.today/RLg37

"archive.today":https://archive.today/RLg37

dobson...please...stop

Can someone tell dobson that he is completely missing the point?

Can someone tell dobson that he is completely missing the point?

luigi vivian james gamergate unfunny tom preston andrew dobson cattyn catty nebulart dobbo

Titanium Dragon talking about the low-point and dishonesty of his doxers

Titanium Dragon September 8, 2014 at 2:13 pm Reply Given that these folks are complaining about people harassing Zoe Quinn, you know, by doxxing her and her supporters, and then proceed to harass people who are trying to edit a Wikipedia article by doxing them, it kind of shows exactly what sort of person Zoe Quinn's supporters are No one named in this article has done anything wrong by trying to include reliably source information, appearing in places including Business Insider, Forbes, The Guardian, and numerous other sources. It is notable at this point - far more so than Zoe Quinn is as a person. I don't care about myself (as I noted, who I am is not a secret), but posting pictures of a minor - an apparently transgendered minor - is -completely- out of line, and the person in question, as a supposed advocate for social justice should KNOW this not only are they a minor, but they might also be trans, and thus, are part of a vulnerable population. This is exactly the sort of thing that Zoe Quinn is whining about happening to her, except this is worse, because the editor in question Tutelary- hasn't spent years harassing people on the internet. defend people from harassment, that's I mean, seriously, if you're t fine, and sometimes people DO make attack articles on Wikipedia. When something appears in literally hundreds of reliable sources (and over ten -million- places on the internet at this point, according to Google) I think the idea that it isn't noteworthy is pretty questionable. Wikipedia reports on what is notable, and it is hard to talk about the whole GamerGate nonsense without explaining what caused it (namely, an angry post by Zoe Quinn's ex posting evidence of her sleeping around with game developers and journalists). The original person who did it didn't realize what he was setting off; he was making an angry post about his ex, but because of the WHO, it blew up. It is really impossible to mention the claims of misogyny, corruption, censorship, ect. without explaining what started the whole thing. And yet, some folks are upset because they don't want it included because it reflects badly on Zoe Quinn rying to It totally does. But Wikipedia is NOT a platform for making people look good or bad - it is a platform for disseminating information about noteworthy events. We have details on the Monica Lewinsky affair and the affairs of various royal family folk, we have articles which touch on numerous scandals, we have articles about all sorts of random things. The key is notability When something shows up in hundreds of reliable source and millions of places on the internet, it is almost always notable to at least some extent. My interest is in documenting it. I sometimes try and go in to present events - shootings and the like - and make sure that the article maintains a neutral tone. People get emotionally charged about stuff

Titanium Dragon September 8, 2014 at 2:13 pm Reply Given that these folks are complaining about people harassing Zoe Quinn, you know, by doxxing her and her supporters, and then proceed to harass people who are trying to edit a Wikipedia article by doxing them, it kind of shows exactly what sort of person Zoe Quinn's supporters are No one named in this article has done anything wrong by trying to include reliably source information, appearing in places including Business Insider, Forbes, The Guardian, and numerous other sources. It is notable at this point - far more so than Zoe Quinn is as a person. I don't care about myself (as I noted, who I am is not a secret), but posting pictures of a minor - an apparently transgendered minor - is -completely- out of line, and the person in question, as a supposed advocate for social justice should KNOW this not only are they a minor, but they might also be trans, and thus, are part of a vulnerable population. This is exactly the sort of thing that Zoe Quinn is whining about happening to her, except this is worse, because the editor in question Tutelary- hasn't spent years harassing people on the internet. defend people from harassment, that's I mean, seriously, if you're t fine, and sometimes people DO make attack articles on Wikipedia. When something appears in literally hundreds of reliable sources (and over ten -million- places on the internet at this point, according to Google) I think the idea that it isn't noteworthy is pretty questionable. Wikipedia reports on what is notable, and it is hard to talk about the whole GamerGate nonsense without explaining what caused it (namely, an angry post by Zoe Quinn's ex posting evidence of her sleeping around with game developers and journalists). The original person who did it didn't realize what he was setting off; he was making an angry post about his ex, but because of the WHO, it blew up. It is really impossible to mention the claims of misogyny, corruption, censorship, ect. without explaining what started the whole thing. And yet, some folks are upset because they don't want it included because it reflects badly on Zoe Quinn rying to It totally does. But Wikipedia is NOT a platform for making people look good or bad - it is a platform for disseminating information about noteworthy events. We have details on the Monica Lewinsky affair and the affairs of various royal family folk, we have articles which touch on numerous scandals, we have articles about all sorts of random things. The key is notability When something shows up in hundreds of reliable source and millions of places on the internet, it is almost always notable to at least some extent. My interest is in documenting it. I sometimes try and go in to present events - shootings and the like - and make sure that the article maintains a neutral tone. People get emotionally charged about stuff

wikipedia dox zoe quinn gamergate