🎭 Dramacow Gamergate / Depression Quest Shitstorm

[Marvin]

I'm not entirely sure why that's inherently bad. Just because it wouldn't be as bad if it was a guy makes it sexist when nepotism is what started it all? It's a sexist movement because of a what if?

I don't know, with my experience with the 4chan crowd, and reddit and gamers and similar groups, it really doesn't make me feel good about it.

This is turning into feelz logic: There's really no way of knowing what the reaction had been if Zoe had been a man.

People have actually considered turning it into a formal organisation, since #GamerGate has no leaders to begin with that process would be almost impossible. Plus, it's a lot more dynamic without leaders: people can decide for themselves which operations to support.

Right now it's an ineffective mob.

 

[Arctic]

I don't know, with my experience with the 4chan crowd, and reddit and gamers and similar groups, it really doesn't make me feel good about it.

Right now it's an ineffective mob.

Ineffective? Gawker is losing advertisers daily.

 

[Marvin]

Ineffective? Gawker is losing advertisers daily.

Not long term results to promote journalistic ethics.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Anybody know where I can find a relatively straightfoward recap of events over GamerGate? Might use it for a subject on my final Mass Media paper (about a controversy in present day and GamerGate pretty much fits the bill from what I can see) but naturally I need to be careful about bias spinning from one side or another.

 

[QI 541]

Oh, started believing? Well, I think science would crumble before that would happen.

A long time ago, people believed the Earth was the center of the universe. Now, no one believes that. Did the universe somehow change?

 

[Arctic]

Anybody know where I can find a relatively straightfoward recap of events over GamerGate? Might use it for a subject on my final Mass Media paper (about a controversy in present day and GamerGate pretty much fits the bill from what I can see) but naturally I need to be careful about bias spinning from one side or another.

 

[KingofManga420]

I don't know, with my experience with the 4chan crowd, and reddit and gamers and similar groups, it really doesn't make me feel good about it.

You see I actually understand that one and I'm the same. All the places you mentioned are undeniable cesspools, yet from the start of this I have witnessed them do nothing but good while the anti have doxxed people, sent death threats to people's houses, tried to have people fired (successfully) and arrested (unsuccessfully), and more.

Granted the people you are apprehensive about DO exist, the sexists who think Zoe needs to be harassed for her sex, but you can't jump into it and label an entire group based on its worst members.

 

[Organic Fapcup]

One more post. Hopefully the last I'll make about this.

The reasons why Zoe Quinn kicked it off are solidly sexist.

Quinn is irrelevant to GamerGate at this point. She is to GamerGate what Franz Ferdinand was to WWI. Furthermore, GamerGate didn't formally exist as a hashtag at that point. Finally, were it Joey Quinn shagging the Five Girls and getting her game promoted by one of them, the likely outcome would've been tumblrites complaining about sexism and misogyny. At the start of GamerGate proper, Quinn was already irrelevant.

Secondly, the idea that GamerGate, as a group is inherently sexist can be easily disproven considering total donation of /v/ to The Fine Young Capitalists group. One third of the goal was donated through /v/'s referral link (that's about 20000 dollars) and because of the NotYourShield hashtag that went on to accompany #GamerGate.

Thirdly, the idea of disregarding legitimate proof of collusion and corruption (as seen in the 10 or so "Gamers are Dead" articles and the GameJournoPros mailing list) due to percieved sexism over something now nearly-unrelated to the hashtag is ridiculous.

Not long term results to promote journalistic ethics.

Fair enough, but Gawker is very aware of what GamerGate wants. It would've ended quickly enough if they swallowed their pride and changed their policies to include mandatory disclosure of factors that might potentially cause a conflict of interest (financial support through Patreon, romantic relationships, etc.).

Though I don't really give a shit about gaming journalism and I just kind of want to see where this leads and get some laughs in the process, I don't believe that GamerGate's message is inherently bad, nor do I think that shitting on something due to blatantly wrong information or muh feels is correct.

 

[A Random]

You see I actually understand that one and I'm the same. All the places you mentioned are undeniable cesspools, yet from the start of this I have witnessed them do nothing but good while the anti have doxxed people, sent death threats to people's houses, tried to have people fired (successfully) and arrested (unsuccessfully), and more.

Granted the people you are apprehensive about DO exist, the sexists who think Zoe needs to be harassed for her sex, but you can't jump into it and label an entire group based on its worst members.

Okay, let's be honest.

There were posts in those places where people advocated bullshit. But as a whole, there's been more counterresponses than support of the bullshit, or people going 'wait, what?' when it's brought up. I still remember how when Polytron was attacked, everyone at 4chan was 'wait, what?'.

 

[Marvin]

A long time ago, people believed the Earth was the center of the universe. Now, no one believes that. Did the universe somehow change?

No, science changed. People's beliefs and science are tied together. We can't maintain science if it's not somewhat close to a mainstream belief. So if people aren't believing in science anymore, they're not going to piss away money on it.

You see I actually understand that one and I'm the same. All the places you mentioned are undeniable cesspools, yet from the start of this I have witnessed them do nothing but good while the anti have doxxed people, sent death threats to people's houses, tried to have people fired (successfully) and arrested (unsuccessfully), and more.

Granted the people you are apprehensive about DO exist, the sexists who think Zoe needs to be harassed for her sex, but you can't jump into it and label an entire group based on its worst members.

It's more like, from my perspective, I can't tell what the "entire group" is. No one can because there's not a universal definition of "gamergate" because it's a twitter hashtag. Everyone does enough research to understand the situation as best they can. I'm arguing a solid name controlled by reasonable people is preferable.

 

[KingofManga420]

No, science changed. People's beliefs and science are tied together. We can't maintain science if it's not somewhat close to a mainstream belief. So if people aren't believing in science anymore, they're not going to piss away money on it.

It's more like, from my perspective, I can't tell what the "entire group" is. No one can because there's not a universal definition of "gamergate" because it's a twitter hashtag. Everyone does enough research to understand the situation as best they can. I'm arguing a solid name controlled by reasonable people is preferable.

You have a legitimate point that I don't disagree with. I think it makes the group seem a bit too much like Anonymous without some of the darker things they've done.

On the other hand, I understand why people are hesitant to make a group. Anti-GG have made it very clear will try to ruin your life if you openly disagree with them.

Does anyone have any of those tweets about Anti calling people's works and trying to get them fired? Those should be shown and I don't know where my files of them are on my iPad.

 

[Arctic]

You have a legitimate point that I don't disagree with. I think it makes the groupd seem a bit too much like Anonymous without some of the darker things they've done.

On the other hand, I understand why people are hesitant to make a group. Anti-GG have made it very clear will try to ruin your life if you openly disagree with them.

Does anyone have any of those tweets about Anti calling people's works and trying to get them fired? Those should be shown and I don't know where my files of them are on my iPad.

Anti-GG has been generous recently.

 

[Lord RainbowDash]

Anybody know where I can find a relatively straightfoward recap of events over GamerGate? Might use it for a subject on my final Mass Media paper (about a controversy in present day and GamerGate pretty much fits the bill from what I can see) but naturally I need to be careful about bias spinning from one side or another.

 

[Varis]

Anybody know where I can find a relatively straightfoward recap of events over GamerGate? Might use it for a subject on my final Mass Media paper (about a controversy in present day and GamerGate pretty much fits the bill from what I can see) but naturally I need to be careful about bias spinning from one side or another.

Try these:

KotakuInAction Timeline of Events
GitGud: Current Happenings (inc. link to the out-of-date visual timeline)
Video News (Sockarina <3)
Also, Gamergate in 60 seconds or your money back.

Now, let's do some genderbending.

Zack is a game dev.
Zack and Emily are dating.
Emily finds out that Zack has been lying to her and has cheated on her with five girls.
One of the girls is Zack's married boss.
Another girl was a judge on a competition that Zack's submission won. (entrance fee $95, cash prize)
The third girl is a journalist. While she did not review Zack's game, she has promoted it in her articles, and has a history of promoting the works of her other friends and not disclosing it.

So does Zack being a man change anything?

 

[Lord RainbowDash]

My understanding of the actors involved.

What actors? You mean the professional victims lying about harassment to get dosh and attention? I also fail to see how this post answers my question.

 

[QI 541]

No, science changed. People's beliefs and science are tied together. We can't maintain science if it's not somewhat close to a mainstream belief. So if people aren't believing in science anymore, they're not going to piss away money on it.

That's the relationship between people's beliefs and science. What's the relationship between people's beliefs and reality?
I'm pretty sure the person who first suggested the earth wasn't the center of the universe got a shit-ton of flak as well.

It's more like, from my perspective, I can't tell what the "entire group" is. No one can because there's not a universal definition of "gamergate" because it's a twitter hashtag. Everyone does enough research to understand the situation as best they can. I'm arguing a solid name controlled by reasonable people is preferable.

The media can smear and ruin the reputation of a single person, who has both a solid name and complete control over his own actions.
I don't think your suggestion's going to help.

What actors? You mean the professional victims lying about harassment to get dosh and attention? I also fail to see how this post answers my question.

Don't go down that route please. They're opportunists, but we don't know for sure whether or not they were harassed. Right now there's plenty of evidence to suggest that a third party of trolls is responsible for most of that.

 

[Marvin]

Finally, were it Joey Quinn shagging the Five Girls and getting her game promoted by one of them, the likely outcome would've been tumblrites complaining about sexism and misogyny.

Yeah, but they don't play video games, so no one cares.

At the start of GamerGate proper, Quinn was already irrelevant.

Whether she actually is irrelevant or not will depend on if people can stop talking about her.

That's the relationship between people's beliefs and science. What's the relationship between people's beliefs and reality?
I'm pretty sure the person who first suggested the earth wasn't the center of the universe got a shit-ton of flak as well.

Yeah, but it's pretty easy to prove physical realities. Things involving big groups of people are very hard to prove.

The media can smear and ruin the reputation of a single person, who has both a solid name and complete control over his own actions.
I don't think your suggestion's going to help.

Eh, it's more respectable. I'd take my chances with an organized group.

 

[Torchwood]

My understanding of the actors involved.

Well, I do believe this wouldnt have kicked off if LW1 had been a man, because if it had been a man caught out with proof of collusion and nepotism, I believe he would have been hung out to dry by the journos. The reason it took off wasn't directly because of LW1 sleeping around, it was because the entire group immediately leapt to her defense with even more blatant collusory tactics and Orwellian censorship. A highly coordinated attack by a group being accused of EXACTLY THAT was about the worst move they could have made.

In response to having a 'leader' for GG, thoug... That wouldn't give much extra strength to the group, since we are mostly a consumer revolt. What it would do, and this is why the antis are pushing for it, is give them a nice target. Then all of a sudden everything can be attributed to one person. If GG puts up a white man, say MundaneMatt, 'oh, they're so racist and sexist and trans phobic, they have a cishet white man for a leader'. If GG puts up a black, disabled, female game dev, "oh look at them trying for sympathy by having a token spokesperson!"

The same applies to splitting or changing the hashtag. That would simultaneously divide Gaters into at least two factions, probably more. And then it would be easier to make them repeat it by levying the same harassment they have against #gamergate .

It isn't that we enjoy or are comfortable being labelled everything up to and including 'Worse than ISIS.' But the sad reality is that the people we are against are the people who have the resources and lack of integrity required to run a massive smear campaign to divert attention from our platform. The slander is the cost to us, and we just have to do what we feel is right, accept the damage in the short term, and hope that people begin to see through the rhetoric to who we really are and what we really do. I have confidence in the collected wisdom of mankind, especially here. Because the other side is OPL writ large, and anyone who dares oppose them islabelled a Trolling Stupid Misogynist. Then the Annas and the Watermans take up the chant.

 

[Marvin]

In response to having a 'leader' for GG, thoug... That wouldn't give much extra strength to the group, since we are mostly a consumer revolt. What it would do, and this is why the antis are pushing for it, is give them a nice target. Then all of a sudden everything can be attributed to one person. If GG puts up a white man, say MundaneMatt, 'oh, they're so racist and sexist and trans phobic, they have a cishet white man for a leader'. If GG puts up a black, disabled, female game dev, "oh look at them trying for sympathy by having a token spokesperson!"

The same applies to splitting or changing the hashtag. That would simultaneously divide Gaters into at least two factions, probably more. And then it would be easier to make them repeat it by levying the same harassment they have against #gamergate .

It isn't that we enjoy or are comfortable being labelled everything up to and including 'Worse than ISIS.' But the sad reality is that the people we are against are the people who have the resources and lack of integrity required to run a massive smear campaign to divert attention from our platform. The slander is the cost to us, and we just have to do what we feel is right, accept the damage in the short term, and hope that people begin to see through the rhetoric to who we really are and what we really do. I have confidence in the collected wisdom of mankind, especially here. Because the other side is OPL writ large, and anyone who dares oppose them islabelled a Trolling Stupid Misogynist. Then the Annas and the Watermans take up the chant.

Well, I just want to point out that I'm not proposing a leader. Pretty much just a group, with a single, controlled name. They can publish a list of standards for gaming journalism and point out when publications violate them. And then gamergate people or whoever can boycott based on this groups recommendations. Hell, it could be just a subreddit, so long as it's not something like a hashtag that could be co-opted by dipshits. If something like that becomes popular, it has all the benefits of existing boycotts without accusations of sexism.

 

[QI 541]

Yeah, but it's pretty easy to prove physical realities. Things involving big groups of people are very hard to prove.

Yeah well, when you accuse a big group of people of being sexists, burden of proof lies with the accuser.

Eh, it's more respectable. I'd take my chances with an organized group.

It comes at the cost of destroying the momentum we gained from the hashtag. Not worth it.