Gamergate - OP updated 27 October

[dope_danny]

New Gamergate controversy brewing...

Yesterday a Kotaku writer released an article interviewing TotalBiscuit about online harassment or some damn shit.

Well apparently yesterday was the anniversary of Gamergate and the idiots who care about that shit view TotalBiscuit as the antichrist... So the SJWs went to work chastising and threatening the writer of the article...

And then Kotaku's Rich Stanton released another article today bitching about TotalBiscuit and how he understand why all the SJWs hate him, even apologizing to them for the interview with TotalBiscuit... He didn't call out the SJW retards for attacking and even threatening his writer though, no sir.

This shit is so fucking retarded. But as always, SJWs are even more retarded.

Articles:
http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2017/08/16/t...-with-the-hate

http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2017/08/17/o...iscuit-article

Man this ended up as the worst shitshow i have seen in a longtime.

>journalist writes anti harassment piece about total biscuit
>happens to be 'gamergates anniversary'
>since she needs ad clicks anita riles up her sealion horde for a witch hunt claiming her old 'no bad tactics only bad targets line'
>drive writer off internet for a day
>Kotaku being the closest incarnation of the 'beta cuck' meme in media pull the article out of fear of internet puritans
>total biscuit says he has cut all ties with writer to spare them from anitas witch hunting
>writer is having a breakdown, turns out to be the one that lied about getting 'kidnapped by gamergate at a convention but forgot to report it to police' and is now claiming TB is threatening to sue them for libel
>Also claims "angering anita has ruined my career and im suicidal" which should say enough about how games journos fear the witchfinder general
>FF finds out the writer was mtf transgender and going in full damage control as her own goons are turning on her
>TBs goons turning on everyone
>Jim sterling tries to defend writer but once he realises hes speaking out against anita deletes everything like the massive hypocrite/coward he is and is burying his head in the sand, again.
>social justice "we are here to take your boys toys away, gamers are dead lol" crowd devouring itself like goddamn Ouroboros because of conflicting "narratives"

So it finally happened. Anitas "no bad tactics, listen and believe fuckers" bullshit finally made her trip up and her fake puritans are turning on her.

So naturally shes trying to say the whole thing was a "false flag by gamergate" because as we have seen by now GG is the scapegoat she has claimed is responsible from everything like Trump, Isis and the war in Iraq all the way to childhood obesity and racism as a concept. This time however people aren't taking the girl who cried mysoginerd wolf seriously.

Took long enough.

[Toogoodman]

Dear gods the f is wrong with these people...they still do not even realize how they have become the ultimate oppressors and harassers do they?

No they don't, the SJWs really don't understand that they are authoritarian assholes, its actually mind blowing

[Deleted]

No they don't, the SJWs really don't understand that they are authoritarian assholes, its actually mind blowing

Those evil "SJW" and their agenda!

[Toogoodman]

Those evil "SJW" and their agenda!

I mean, i have no issues with liberals, democrats, republicans, rhinos

I do have a problem with people who consider themselves "SJWs" and spew hate and vile garbage

[tehealadin]

Listening to this Dave Rubin video, some interesting stuff at the start, regarding GG and online harassment.

[Firefall]

Hi.

What "side" am I on if I believe the initial journalist years back was corrupt because they were sleeping together, that video games are a good thing and most gamers are not assholes, but that all the stuff after this has gotten silly because everyone deals with harassment online? Like I'm an egalitarian and actively pro-LGBT and such too.

Am I pro-gamer gate, or am I anti? What do "pro" people believe and what do "anti" people believe?

[mickybrighteyes]

Hi.

What "side" am I on if I believe the initial journalist years back was corrupt because they were sleeping together, that video games are a good thing and most gamers are not assholes, but that all the stuff after this has gotten silly because everyone deals with harassment online? Like I'm an egalitarian and actively pro-LGBT and such too.

Am I pro-gamer gate, or am I anti? What do "pro" people believe and what do "anti" people believe?

Well... to the usual suspects screeching the loudest... you're a shit bag misogynist who's worse than these gamergator types.


pro/anti go do your research and figure out what is true and what is false. The whole fiasco had very little to do with feminism/egalitarianism/lgbt/etc, thus the various views on that were only really talked about by people who had little clue as to the events as they transpired. People talking about pro/anti acting certain ways were often just ignoring the main issues that started everything and reel in bonus points for clickbait and controversy.

[dope_danny]

Hi.

What "side" am I on if I believe the initial journalist years back was corrupt because they were sleeping together, that video games are a good thing and most gamers are not assholes, but that all the stuff after this has gotten silly because everyone deals with harassment online? Like I'm an egalitarian and actively pro-LGBT and such too.

Am I pro-gamer gate, or am I anti? What do "pro" people believe and what do "anti" people believe?

You are now an alt right neo nazi ready for punching you racist, facist shitlord gabbergoober. Time to doxx you and get you fired from your job, checkmate christcuck! #chronotriggered


OR don't fall for the binary tribalism coke vs pepsi shit people push online. Dig for facts and base your judgements upon as much evidence as possible. People are liars, especially online.

[barackopala]

top notch polygon on their cuphead review immediately jumping for the "Thank god this is not a racist game cuz gamers r racis"

[Firefall]

Well... to the usual suspects screeching the loudest... you're a shit bag misogynist who's worse than these gamergator types.


pro/anti go do your research and figure out what is true and what is false. The whole fiasco had very little to do with feminism/egalitarianism/lgbt/etc, thus the various views on that were only really talked about by people who had little clue as to the events as they transpired. People talking about pro/anti acting certain ways were often just ignoring the main issues that started everything and reel in bonus points for clickbait and controversy.

I'm more confused now than when I asked. Maybe I should know better than to expect someone being willing to explain the pro con. Because as an outsider who hasn't followed/obsessed about it it seems like a dead topic that everyone is making a big deal out of and talking in circles without actually ever saying anything concrete.

- - - Updated - - -

You are now an alt right neo nazi ready for punching you racist, facist shitlord gabbergoober. Time to doxx you and get you fired from your job, checkmate christcuck! #chronotriggered


OR don't fall for the binary tribalism coke vs pepsi shit people push online. Dig for facts and base your judgements upon as much evidence as possible. People are liars, especially online.

I'm so confused. If it is too complicated to say what is being discussed, how do you know what is being discussed? I'm asking here because it's one of the largest threads on the internets about it, this is my attempt to understand the sides as they have become today.


Like, if this "movement" wants people to understand things or motivate change and their best pitch when people ask what they are about is "go dig up facts, the truth is ambiguous and everyone is a liar" it just sounds like a bunch of conspiracy theorists ranting about literally nothing. I am so, so thoroughly confused now.

[Calfredd]

I'm more confused now than when I asked. Maybe I should know better than to expect someone being willing to explain the pro con. Because as an outsider who hasn't followed/obsessed about it it seems like a dead topic that everyone is making a big deal out of and talking in circles without actually ever saying anything concrete.

Normally you'd be pro- because back when Zoegate was the thing and what Gamergate came from when people realized Zoe Quinn was a nobody but the real target was the journalist giving her preferential coverage. Of course, this evolved to the games journo list and uncoverings of collusions and whether directly or indirectly due to gamergate, people and companies started pulling ads and support for these people. Unfortunately, as with all leaderless movements, people started spreading out their focus and started going after SJWs and people/companies perceived as SJWs and the like so the group sort of ate at itself.

TL;DR: Gamergate is mostly focused on SJW stuff so it would really be up to you if you wanted to label yourself as either pro- or anti-.

[Firefall]

Normally you'd be pro- because back when Zoegate was the thing and what Gamergate came from when people realized Zoe Quinn was a nobody but the real target was the journalist giving her preferential coverage. Of course, this evolved to the games journo list and uncoverings of collusions and whether directly or indirectly due to gamergate, people and companies started pulling ads and support for these people. Unfortunately, as with all leaderless movements, people started spreading out their focus and started going after SJWs and people/companies perceived as SJWs and the like so the group sort of ate at itself.

TL;DR: Gamergate is mostly focused on SJW stuff so it would really be up to you if you wanted to label yourself as either pro- or anti-.

That helps a bit, thank you. Because I would say that collusion and stuff is bad. So when I first heard about all this, I felt like I was "pro" because I liked supporting more ethical journalism, and that the attacks on "gamers" (as if we are one community or culture) were an attempt at playing some kind of sexism card and ridiculous because the gender of Zoe was irrelevant to the complaints. But then now I just see people talking about SJW's and being one or not being one and I get lost as to where that maps on today in 2017 (I don't consider myself a SJW, but I'm basically a fiscal conservative who also has most modern socially liberal beliefs.)

[Deleted]

I'm more confused now than when I asked. Maybe I should know better than to expect someone being willing to explain the pro con. Because as an outsider who hasn't followed/obsessed about it it seems like a dead topic that everyone is making a big deal out of and talking in circles without actually ever saying anything concrete.

- - - Updated - - -



I'm so confused. If it is too complicated to say what is being discussed, how do you know what is being discussed? I'm asking here because it's one of the largest threads on the internets about it, this is my attempt to understand the sides as they have become today.


Like, if this "movement" wants people to understand things or motivate change and their best pitch when people ask what they are about is "go dig up facts, the truth is ambiguous and everyone is a liar" it just sounds like a bunch of conspiracy theorists ranting about literally nothing. I am so, so thoroughly confused now.

It is a dead topic.

The only people who keep it up are the people who need a bogeyman.

GamerGate hasn't been a thing for over a year now, was surprised to see this thread pop back up.

[mickybrighteyes]

I'm more confused now than when I asked. Maybe I should know better than to expect someone being willing to explain the pro con. Because as an outsider who hasn't followed/obsessed about it it seems like a dead topic that everyone is making a big deal out of and talking in circles without actually ever saying anything concrete.

You should be able to research it and get your own view.... oh wait... the powers that be made that rather hard with mass edits of public databases and their own smear campaigns. This thread is probably on the short list of things that managed to avoid biased alterations.

Fat of the matter is... it IS a dead topic. Everything has been discussed, shown, and pointed out for the most part and various organizations have already had to change or shut down in part because of what happened. We're 3 years down the line and the only people really talking about it are the odd posters who jump in here every few months to denounce it (with little or no reason beyond what journalists were saying back in 2014).... or fools in the games industry who still hold the idea as an example of modern day terrorism.

Fact of the matter is... LGBT, egalitarianism... those ideas have NOTHING TO DO with the movement. They were subjects brought in by people who couldn't talk about any subject matter without bringing in their own bias towards a subject through the lens of identity politics.

The people making a big deal out of it now.... were the problem that caused things to flare up in 2014.

Also my original response was a reference to how a game dev was forced to apologize for declaring themselves an egalitarian and not a feminist sometime after people realized the guy was a pro-gamergate thinker.

TLDR:

movement is 'dead' really.... may flare up if people didn't learn why they failed.

pro-gamergate was against biased reporting and corrupt people not being open about things that may be impacted by their bias. Most people didn't believe this and still believe the movement was to get women out of games industry and how gamers are mostly cis-het-male and trying to keep it that way.

also a subset of people following the movement are still trying to figure out why certain individuals kept showing up in places that made no sense... Speaking at the UN trying to limit freedom of speech... like who the fuck green lit that shit?

It is a dead topic.

The only people who keep it up are the people who need a bogeyman.

GamerGate hasn't been a thing for over a year now, was surprised to see this thread pop back up.

quote for this. maybe edit the OP and put it in somewhere.

A certain wannabe politician is going to keep it alive and well so they can generate some people talking about them, but only if they didn't figure out they got their name remembered in the wrong way when associated with the subject matter.

[Firefall]

Okay, cool, thanks for this rundown mickybrighteyes, this answers almost every question I had about Gamergate today!

[tehealadin]

It is a dead topic.

The only people who keep it up are the people who need a bogeyman.

GamerGate hasn't been a thing for over a year now, was surprised to see this thread pop back up.

I didn't need a bogeyman, I was just watching that video (the first 20 mins or so), and it was kind of relevant to GG, as the woman in the video strongly suggested that ZQ may have made up/perpetuated some of the harassment she got ("You'll ruin everything!"), and also organised/took part in racially abusing the woman in the video, and that parts of the media were intent on doing a hit job on her for not towing the line on online harassment/GG.

[Mahourai]

Hi.

What "side" am I on if I believe the initial journalist years back was corrupt because they were sleeping together

I'll quote my own post about this:

Only one person was alleged to have given Quinn positive coverage in exchange for sex - Kotaku writer Nathan Grayson - and the allegation was never substantiated. Grayson never covered Quinn's game at Kotaku at all. The "positive coverage" was Quinn being mentioned as part of a failed indie development "game jam" weekend, a failure that had nothing to do with Quinn's vagina. Grayson mentioned her game as part of Rock Paper Shotgun months before their relationship is alleged to have began, but there was no review and the game was mentioned in a listicle of 50 Steam Greenlight games that had already been approved for Steam publication, so the coverage could not have been in service of getting Quinn's game approved.

Quinn's boyfriend never accused her of sleeping around for positive coverage in the first place, nor would it make sense for her to use sex in order to promote her game whose profits are donated to charity and that you can download for free if you don't feel like donating. Of course, this necessitated more conspiring - that Quinn was not donating the money and was stealing it, for example - that also turned out to be false.

I don't think there is any evidence of professional impropriety that holds up to scrutiny here, unless you just condemn any personal association of this type by default.

[unholytestament]

I'll quote my own post about this:

Only one person was alleged to have given Quinn positive coverage in exchange for sex - Kotaku writer Nathan Grayson - and the allegation was never substantiated. Grayson never covered Quinn's game at Kotaku at all. The "positive coverage" was Quinn being mentioned as part of a failed indie development "game jam" weekend, a failure that had nothing to do with Quinn's vagina. Grayson mentioned her game as part of Rock Paper Shotgun months before their relationship is alleged to have began, but there was no review and the game was mentioned in a listicle of 50 Steam Greenlight games that had already been approved for Steam publication, so the coverage could not have been in service of getting Quinn's game approved.

Quinn's boyfriend never accused her of sleeping around for positive coverage in the first place, nor would it make sense for her to use sex in order to promote her game whose profits are donated to charity and that you can download for free if you don't feel like donating. Of course, this necessitated more conspiring - that Quinn was not donating the money and was stealing it, for example - that also turned out to be false.

I don't think there is any evidence of professional impropriety that holds up to scrutiny here, unless you just condemn any personal association of this type by default.

Professional impropriety does not require they have sex, just that he not disclose the fact that they are friends. Seeing as how he is given a special thanks in the credits of Depression Quest and never mentioned this in his repeated plugs for the game the professional impropriety is proven by the game and the articles themselves.

And it's ridiculous how weaselley your quote is. Depression Quest was not merely "mentioned" in the listicle, the headline was a direct nod to the game, the banner image was from that game and it was mentioned among two others as a "stand out" example before they get to the actual list.

And your declaration that the coverage wasn't needed since it was already greenlit is an interesting touch. I'd be interested to see where ANYONE made that claim.

[Dhrizzle]

Normally you'd be pro- because back when Zoegate was the thing and what Gamergate came from when people realized Zoe Quinn was a nobody but the real target was the journalist giving her preferential coverage. Of course, this evolved to the games journo list and uncoverings of collusions and whether directly or indirectly due to gamergate, people and companies started pulling ads and support for these people. Unfortunately, as with all leaderless movements, people started spreading out their focus and started going after SJWs and people/companies perceived as SJWs and the like so the group sort of ate at itself.

TL;DR: Gamergate is mostly focused on SJW stuff so it would really be up to you if you wanted to label yourself as either pro- or anti-.

If you ignore the "anti-SJW," gamer-identity-politics and general asshattery surrounding Gamergate there isn't really much left to care about.

As Mahourai explained, Nathan Grayson mentioned Zoe Quinn and Depression Quest a couple of times before their relationship began. There was a (not actually) "secret" mailing list for game journalists which was touted as proof of "collusion" despite the evidence showing several editors disagreeing. Bonus laughs were had when the SPJ, in response to Gamergate, set up games journalism awards named after a former member of the list (double bonus as many of the awards went to outlets GGers considered guilty of "wrong-think.")

Then there were the e-mail campaigns which I consider the most hypocritical part of Gamergate. They were a typical right-wing outrage tactic (as seen from the likes of Mary Whitehouse and Jack Thompson) which involved targeting specific people to be inundated with mail about a subject, participants were encouraged not to simply copy+paste a standard letter to give the illusion that it wasn't part of an orchestrated campaign. What made it doubly egregious was the claim to be about ethics in journalism whilst trying to apply financial pressure through advertisers as punishment or discouragement for content GGers disagreed with.

[Mahourai]

Professional impropriety does not require they have sex, just that he not disclose the fact that they are friends.

If you believe Grayson then they weren't friends at the time. He contributed feedback as part of the game's beta process years before they developed a relationship. The story is that their relationship progressed in the opposite direction - Grayson became interested in the person behind Depression Quest and approached her personally years down the line after having played an early build of her game. Of course, you don't believe Grayson, I'm assuming.

And it's ridiculous how weaselley your quote is. Depression Quest was not merely "mentioned" in the listicle, the headline was a direct nod to the game, the banner image was from that game and it was mentioned among two others as a "stand out" example before they get to the actual list.

Many articles about the greenlight list single out Depression Quest, including Forbes, VG247, Endgadget, PC Gamer, Eurogamer etc. This was the height of the indie nongame movement, a few months after the release of Gone Home, when games journalism was looking for arty, serious fare to highlight. Nothing Grayson wrote was disproportionate to the media coverage at the time from any other outlet, most of which wrote in far more detail about the game in question.

It's only inappropriate if you assume bad faith in anything Grayson wrote because you already start with the conclusion - that his writing was inappropriately shaped by his involvement with Quinn. When you do, unexceptional bylines become sinister. The industry's acclaim for Quinn's game becomes conspiratorial. This is what led to the heady accusations early in this thread about how Quinn must have fucked half the industry to get her game publicity, because the explanation that it was being highlighted on perceived merit was unthinkable.