Slashdot Mirror

[citation needed]

Why don't you try posting something like "illegal immigrants are a pain in the ass" on /r/politics. I'll wait for your ban, you could post say "not all illegal immigrants are a pain in the ass" on T_D, people would even tell you to defend your pov. Besides, that, you been paying to the absolute bullshit going on in FOSS communities? Where people have started witch hunting code contributors because they have sexual life styles that the new leftist moral majority don't like. Enjoy the shit show

But you're an anonymous coward. There is no "you", and therefore, no one gives a fuck about "your" opinion.

But you sure got up in arms over it.

That is complete, utter, total, and every other kind of bullshit. The conservative wing is powered by the religious reich, which absolutely opposes free expression.

The religious hold on conservative has been dead around 20-28 years at this point. You might have missed it if you were living in a social bubble, where they kept telling you that though. It was roughly that wingnuts were trying to blow up abortion clinics, and people simply had enough.

You either haven't read up much on the Nazis, or you think they were grand.

So let's look at all that fascist stuff the left is going down with: Free speech walls, making claims that "bad speech is hate speech" with the demands that anything contrary to their opinion must be silenced. Doxing, going after employees of companies(there's even a giant tumblr blog you can find that they still refuse to take down). There was the apparent case of witch hunting on a game developer the other day by leftists(they class themselves as SJW's just a FYI) for holding opinions they didn't like.

Oh and remember the limerick from Pillars of Eternity they didn't like? And got so upset that they started attacking the developers so it got changed...or how about the time when they went after one of the artists for Divinity: Original Sin.

sounds just like a troll justifying trolling...

abuse is abuse

Sure let's go with that. Going by your own post, the above is harassment. Please send victimbux to email address next to UID.

But let's roll with some examples: Kotaku defends why they incited harassment against nintendo. Leftwing journo say's they're being harassed after lying and sicing antifa on other journalists. One of the "big name" people who claimed Gamergate=harassment engaging in harassment. Her organization engaging in targeted harassment, media gives no shits because it doesn't fit the narrative. People directly linked to her organization engage in doxing and harassment. Just remember it's okay when one ideology does it, but only one. Also remember existing is harassment. If you want more examples, try Tim Pool.

Put away your bedtime stories. You're repeating horseshit.

A news-tier source refuting the idea that it started in the way you suggest.

Now, let's move on to the other problem. We'll assume an alternate reality where that was the case, that it started in response to that. That claim wasn't a lie. You're full of shit. Rather, it was a lie in the sense that as stated, it was wrong (which makes it a convenient meme for sure), but the substance of it was not wrong.

If you could read words, you would see that Totilo himself acknowledges that something to this effect happened. He is handwaving the allegations for two reasons: First, it wasn't a review. Second, they had a "professional" relationship at the time. 2 weeks later, it was romantic, but not before the coverage. Supposedly.

He also only specifically wrote about the Kotaku coverage, which was a single article. His investigation amounted to talking to Grayson directly and that was the end of it.

Two articles from before the Kotaku article:
https://archive.is/WtK25
https://archive.is/QwJbc

And let's not forget that he saw fit to cover her again, this time disclosing that they had dated briefly, but somehow not mentioning the financial support.

It was not a weak angle. Tell me what the fuck you would expect of an overly corrupt media. I suppose they'll investigate themselves and find that they've done wrong? The simple, undeniable fact is that they abused their platform and that happened regardless of what you and your warm fuzzy feelings about massive herds of misogynists does for you.

I don't pretend to know what happened at 4chan, but what's incredible is that you think you know more than anybody else about it. How do you know those things?

So, rather than follow the links I provided that give links to the actual things, you want me to hold your hand through it? I cannot visit Kotaku from work, so all I can give is the links I have given. If you are going to be willfully ignorant, that is your problem, and not mine.

I can't prove a negative, obviously.

So then why do you claim:

For example, the allegations about Quinn have been shown to be false beyond all reasonable doubt

So, either you can prove it, or you can't. It sounds like you are stuck on the word "review" which is a term that comes from the anti-GG campaign, not from GG, that merely talked about a series of posts he made about Quinn while they were at least friends, if not more.

If you want lots of links to read through, you should also read this entry on the same blog:

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygam...

As it goes through and provides all those citations that even Wikipedia doesn't seem able to provide, and goes through the Wikipedia entry section by section disproving tons of it with citations. Feel free to refute anything that is said there since you know so much more about the situation.

Here are the articles you asked for BTW, which you could ahve found quite quickly on your own:

Nathan Grayson has, provably[SIC], written twice about Zoe Quinn’s Depression Quest in a favorable manner without disclosure at both Kotaku, on March 31st, 2014
[ http://api.viglink.com/api/cli... ]
, and Rock, Paper, Shotgun on January 8th, 2014
[ http://api.viglink.com/api/cli... ]
. It was proven that Grayson and Quinn were close together since January 10th, 2014
[ http://api.viglink.com/api/cli... ]
and had at least known each other since June, 2012
[

For example, the allegations about Quinn have been shown to be false beyond all reasonable doubt (still waiting for a link to that review), yet GG supporters keep bringing it back up. If they cared at all about ethics, they would start by being ethical and retracting that allegation.

Feel free to come up with any citations supporting that position. Did the journalist not sleep with her? Did he get fired for conflict of interest? Did Kotaku fix their conflict of interest policy because of this?

Oh wait, that last one actually happened.

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygam...

But then again, it is usual for you to just dismiss every citation given, but to give none of your own. I have seen this behavior repeatedly from you, as well as being willfully blind to that which is inconvenient to your positions. No surprise there that you are unwilling to even acknowledge that which doesn't support your position about how horrible all the GG people are, and how all the Anti-GG people wear white and are angelic in nature.

Ah yes, claiming a win after an astonishingly thorough defeat. Reminds me of something:

So who were they defeated by? Looks like to me you're pretty damn salty that a leaderless grassroots revolt against shitty journalists that ran their own giant story/article writing collusion group akin to Journolist(which was called Gamejournopros). The leaks from that easily show exactly how much collusion was going on in that. And you're also very salty at just how these incestuous people were caught giving giving hand outs to their friends, people they were shacked up with, or fucking. Sure does speak a lot about people who don't give a shit that they're being lied to, and like it instead.

Like Gawker, right?

Well GG has never actually claimed for gawker, except costing them 7 figures in ad-revenue and showing people exactly how shitty they are. And showing advertisers exactly how shitty companies like Gawker are. You know, Gawker the same site that believes that bullying people is good. For a group of supposedly evil people though, GG's response was to donate to an anti-bullying campaign. But anti-GG? Oh they were right out there supporting what ol'Sam was saying. But other sites? Yep. Some are just significant drops in traffic, others have closed for good.

No, they just believe in "ethics" as defined by (a) making shit up about people, (b) doxxing them and (c) the hate campaign,

So who have they made shit up about? I'll wait. I'm sure you're going to try trotting out something on Quinn. You know, the same piece of shit that filed multiple false DMCA claims, and then slapped order against her ex because he pointed out that she was a domestic abuser, and was trying to warn others away from her. Also, who has GG doxxed? I'm sure they'll be forthcoming. I'll be happy to point out various anti-GG individuals who have openly doxxed people, and continue to do so to this day. Oh, like that prominent anti-GG person Graham Lineham. FYI, one of the most prominent anti-GG people was arrested a few months back for trying to tell a terrorist how to build a bomb. But they also wrote for big name progressive sites, and as a feminist too.

And what hate? Find it. Because I'll tell you something, anti-GG's have done a very good job of attacking anyone who refuses to fall in line with their group think. I think my person favorite is when anti-GGers decided the "if you're supporting GG, and you're a minority/women/etc., you're a racist/sexist/homophobes." But that's really all their arguments boil down to anyway, trying to claim that they're being harassed and screaming that people are racist/sexist/homophobes because they're losing an argument or being shown that they're actually the shitty people out there. I think my favorite out of all of that has been when Quinn and Sarkeesian ran to the UN crying about how demands for proof of their statements and criticism of their work was harassment.

The entire thing has done a wonderful job of proving how many people can't be bothered to actually read the news beyond what they're being told. Then again, I kinda like this bit too. Where people starting saying "muslims are terrorists," the media will start screaming "not all muslims are terrorists, you're just islamophobic!!!" But if one person in GG does something wrong, all of GG has done something wrong. Yep, no agenda there at all.

GamerGate supporters complained that she was receiving favourable coverage from a person who is credited as a beta tester for her game and who gave her money.
https://archive.is/WtK25
https://archive.is/QwJbc
https://archive.is/mrVxK
http://blogjob.com/oneangrygam...

""Special thanks for their amazing support during a really difficult time. This game would have been dead in the water months ago without you all." Nathan Grayson included." https://archive.is/AGml8#selec...

Media outlets, invested in the harassment narrative, published articles claiming that GamerGate made the false claim that Grayson reviewed her game.

Misinformation is terribly easy to spread, especially when there are people who will treat hearsay as fact. Your comment is at -1 flamebait which you could take as a sign that poorly researched claims based on a false narrative aren't valued on /.

Right, so Randi did it (if you can find those tweets). What about the rest? Just because one person is an arsehole doesn't mean everybody vaguely related to them is

Sure can find them here. and another instance here. Or her harassing Anne Rice, and leaving fake book reviews. Pretty good for a anti-harassment person, she does tell people to kill themselves and light themselves on fire often too. Of course there seems to be a pro-"no bad tactics, only targets" mentality among the majority of anti-GG people including making shit up. That's from Bob Chipman by the way, there's also people like Sam Biddle who's harassed and threatened to call a kids employer to get them fired, and said the phrase "bring back bullying." You can't forget the general crazy either.

And of course you can find a list of various people who've either doxed or harassed pro-GG people here. And you can see how someone falls into the cult mentality of wanting to be a "good feminist" here Just a list of anti-GG harassment and of course this beauty where Adem Sessler and Jim Sterling come out pro-doxing Well maybe it's nothing, or maybe there's a lot of people out there with serious mental problems who believe that lashing out is the only way to cope with their own problems.

Maybe way out of band of what you asked but I'm tired, so fuck it.

It only turned into gamergate because someone's jilted posted a bunch of lies and it exploded when all those basement dwellers felt offended that a woman should dump a guy that seemed so thoughtful and well spoken in his drunken rant.

That's not quite what actually happened or why GamerGate became a thing. After a man went public about the emotional abuse and infidelity he had dealt with from his ex-girlfriend, it turned out that one of the men she had cheated with was a writer for Kotaku and had given her favorable coverage without disclosing their relationship. GamerGate happened because, instead of admitting the mistake, Kotaku released an article claiming they had investigated and decided nothing improper was going on, despite photographic evidence otherwise. Personally, I find it very confusing that anti-GG keeps insisting that the entire incident was lies from a jilted ex despite the provided evidence and Quinn later admitting to it.

Many gamers were upset about the coverup, and it might have died down on its own, except several gaming news sites then seemingly independently produced a series of "gamers are dead" articles, which attacked and criticized gamers as a whole and accused gamers of widespread, systemic misogyny because they dared to be upset about a reporting scandal that involved a woman who cheated on her boyfriend. Making things even worse, it was discovered soon after that the series of articles was coordinated through a private mailing list used by all of those publications, where they colluded to decide what should be published.

A lot of people were very upset about this, and what's when GamerGate really took off. Since then, the involved sites have continued to hammer down on their accusations, and a large number of third-wave feminists have joined in after hearing calls of misogyny, trying to claim that strong criticism is the same as harassment, even though men like Jason Schreier, Nathan Grayson, and Jonathan McIntosh have been just as harshly criticized as any women involved. Meanwhile, the examples that anti-GG tries to point to as harassment and threats regularly turn out to be either unassociated with GG or complete fabrications. I keep trying to find somebody who has actually committed physical violence in the name of GG, and I still haven't found any. Women Action Media even did a study and released a report indicating that only a tiny percentage of GamerGate-related activity was involved in harassment at all. If you're going to judge the group based on the actions of a few outliers, then you can condemn pretty much any group.

And it might make you feel better to tell yourself "10 people still believe that gamergate is still about ethics", but KotakuInAction is up to well over 53k subscribers now and is still working hard at exposing corruption, censorship, and collusion. Calling them misogynists just makes them even more determined.

And yet the founding event of gamergate was sex-for-reviews.

No the founding event of gamergate was unethical conduct by someone posting a positive review with someone they were in a relationship with. That person posting the review was Nathon Grayson, the person he was in a relationship with was Zoe Quinn.

And that never happened. You never showed me the review---because it simply doesn't exist.

It's not a review, it's positive coverage. And he did it not once, but in three different cases. Without disclosing they were in a relationship. This was later collaborated when he disclosed he had been in a relationship with her. He has still not disclosed he paid her financially either.

The entire thing was therefore built on a lie.

No the entire thing was built on fact, that I just showed you. The zoepost as well, shows her statements to Eron while she was engaged in a relationship with Nathon, and her abuse of Eron, including the rape she committed against him(it's important to note, I'm using her definition of rape -- that is cheating behind someones back).

So, there's the proof all nicely laid out. Go ahead, read it. You know who else did something similar? Rich McCormic, he was in a relationship with a Ubisoft PR representative, and wrote articles about Ubisoft games without disclosing it. You know what happened? PC Gamer deleted every single article that he wrote on any Ubisoft game, or had any information relating to it.

when the heck were there ethics in game journalism? Way back when, I looked for some and didn't find any.

Late 90's and early 00's when the guys who said fuck you to the magazine industry for the same shit started out. Then they decided ~6 years later the clickbait would be okay, and it continued the downhill spiral. Even the owner of Destructoid understands where Gamergate is coming from.

Why do you continue to believe that GamerGate is a hrassment campaign, when a study by Women Action Media! on Twitter harassment indicated that 88% of people reported as harassers had no connection to GG, and of accounts that do have a connection to GG, only 0.66% were even alleged of harassment?

Nice try. "Thanks to gamergate", three women have been forced from their homes from threats that law enforcement officers found credible enough to suggest that. Trying to pretend that gamergate has done anything but abuse people defines you as - at best - an imbecile.

It causes you physical pain that few here buy into the "mysogyny and harrassment" narrative, doesn't it?

The cover-up didn't work.
The week-long gaming press news blackout and ongoing user comment/forum censorship (in former free-speech strongholds such as 4chan and Reddit, no less) didn't work.
The coordinated, ongoing smear campaign that began with the "Gamers are Over" articles hasn't worked.
The endless train of embarrassingly desperate counter-hashtags hasn't worked.
The Wikipedia and Nightline hit pieces only damage those outlets' credibility for short-term effect.
The SVU episode . . . hahaahhahaha WOW, where do I even begin . . . it is progapanda that couldn't be more precisely crafted to the corrupt press's specifications (i.e. "narrative"), and broadcast to a national non-gamer audience, much of which likely accepted it as reality. It was a wake-up call to quite a few previously unaware or neutral parties, especially game devs*.

Eurogamer is the latest games journalism site to update its ethics policy in the wake of Gamergate, joining PC Gamer, IGN, the Escapist, and of course Kotaku/Gawker (though in Gawker's case, they put up more of a fight and the Gamergate pressure to be ethical had to be routed through the FTC).

Gamergate also got Brad Wardell (CEO of Stardock) some long-overdue apologies for hit pieces run against him:
https://twitter.com/iamDavidWi...
http://www.gamepolitics.com/20...
http://www.zenofdesign.com/in-...

Ask yourself how much of this you've seen reported in the corrupt media (which at this point, sadly, clearly includes Slashdot). Of course none of it ever had a chance of appearing in the Wikipedia article. Nothing enrages anti-Gamergaters more than someone covering both sides of the story, and that should tell you something.

Their side thrives only in an environment of propaganda and censorship, and evaporates when faced with integrity and transparency. They prove the need for Gamergate every time they write an article based on the assumption that terrorism and child porn^W^W^W^W misogyny and harassment have become the root passwords to the Constitution^W^W journalistic ethics.


* like Mark Kern and Ken Levine, who had nothing to do with Gamergate, but were so disgusted by the SVU episode that they publically called on the gaming press to stop slandering gamers. Both were instantly swarmed by anti-GG on twitter, and VG24/7 ran a hit piece on Kern without even getting his side of the story, and refused even after he specifically asked them. I think Eurogamer saw exactly what happened to Kern, and it's no accident that tha

Nice try. "Thanks to gamergate", three women have been forced from their homes from threats that law enforcement officers found credible enough to suggest that. Trying to pretend that gamergate has done anything but abuse people defines you as - at best - an imbecile.

It causes you physical pain that few here buy into the "mysogyny and harrassment" narrative, doesn't it?

The cover-up didn't work.
The week-long gaming press news blackout and ongoing user comment/forum censorship (in former free-speech strongholds such as 4chan and Reddit, no less) didn't work.
The coordinated, ongoing smear campaign that began with the "Gamers are Over" articles hasn't worked.
The endless train of embarrassingly desperate counter-hashtags hasn't worked.
The Wikipedia and Nightline hit pieces only damage those outlets' credibility for short-term effect.
The SVU episode . . . hahaahhahaha WOW, where do I even begin . . . it is progapanda that couldn't be more precisely crafted to the corrupt press's specifications (i.e. "narrative"), and broadcast to a national non-gamer audience, much of which likely accepted it as reality. It was a wake-up call to quite a few previously unaware or neutral parties, especially game devs*.

Eurogamer is the latest games journalism site to update its ethics policy in the wake of Gamergate, joining PC Gamer, IGN, the Escapist, and of course Kotaku/Gawker (though in Gawker's case, they put up more of a fight and the Gamergate pressure to be ethical had to be routed through the FTC).

Gamergate also got Brad Wardell (CEO of Stardock) some long-overdue apologies for hit pieces run against him:
https://twitter.com/iamDavidWi...
http://www.gamepolitics.com/20...
http://www.zenofdesign.com/in-...

Ask yourself how much of this you've seen reported in the corrupt media (which at this point, sadly, clearly includes Slashdot). Of course none of it ever had a chance of appearing in the Wikipedia article. Nothing enrages anti-Gamergaters more than someone covering both sides of the story, and that should tell you something.

Their side thrives only in an environment of propaganda and censorship, and evaporates when faced with integrity and transparency. They prove the need for Gamergate every time they write an article based on the assumption that terrorism and child porn^W^W^W^W misogyny and harassment have become the root passwords to the Constitution^W^W journalistic ethics.


* like Mark Kern and Ken Levine, who had nothing to do with Gamergate, but were so disgusted by the SVU episode that they publically called on the gaming press to stop slandering gamers. Both were instantly swarmed by anti-GG on twitter, and VG24/7 ran a hit piece on Kern without even getting his side of the story, and refused even after he specifically asked them. I think Eurogamer saw exactly what happened to Kern, and it's no accident that tha

Nice try. "Thanks to gamergate", three women have been forced from their homes from threats that law enforcement officers found credible enough to suggest that. Trying to pretend that gamergate has done anything but abuse people defines you as - at best - an imbecile.

It causes you physical pain that few here buy into the "mysogyny and harrassment" narrative, doesn't it?

The cover-up didn't work.
The week-long gaming press news blackout and ongoing user comment/forum censorship (in former free-speech strongholds such as 4chan and Reddit, no less) didn't work.
The coordinated, ongoing smear campaign that began with the "Gamers are Over" articles hasn't worked.
The endless train of embarrassingly desperate counter-hashtags hasn't worked.
The Wikipedia and Nightline hit pieces only damage those outlets' credibility for short-term effect.
The SVU episode . . . hahaahhahaha WOW, where do I even begin . . . it is progapanda that couldn't be more precisely crafted to the corrupt press's specifications (i.e. "narrative"), and broadcast to a national non-gamer audience, much of which likely accepted it as reality. It was a wake-up call to quite a few previously unaware or neutral parties, especially game devs*.

Eurogamer is the latest games journalism site to update its ethics policy in the wake of Gamergate, joining PC Gamer, IGN, the Escapist, and of course Kotaku/Gawker (though in Gawker's case, they put up more of a fight and the Gamergate pressure to be ethical had to be routed through the FTC).

Gamergate also got Brad Wardell (CEO of Stardock) some long-overdue apologies for hit pieces run against him:
https://twitter.com/iamDavidWi...
http://www.gamepolitics.com/20...
http://www.zenofdesign.com/in-...

Ask yourself how much of this you've seen reported in the corrupt media (which at this point, sadly, clearly includes Slashdot). Of course none of it ever had a chance of appearing in the Wikipedia article. Nothing enrages anti-Gamergaters more than someone covering both sides of the story, and that should tell you something.

Their side thrives only in an environment of propaganda and censorship, and evaporates when faced with integrity and transparency. They prove the need for Gamergate every time they write an article based on the assumption that terrorism and child porn^W^W^W^W misogyny and harassment have become the root passwords to the Constitution^W^W journalistic ethics.


* like Mark Kern and Ken Levine, who had nothing to do with Gamergate, but were so disgusted by the SVU episode that they publically called on the gaming press to stop slandering gamers. Both were instantly swarmed by anti-GG on twitter, and VG24/7 ran a hit piece on Kern without even getting his side of the story, and refused even after he specifically asked them. I think Eurogamer saw exactly what happened to Kern, and it's no accident that tha

On the campaign to force US ISPs to outright block sites from the public, here's part of the strategy:

* Building the record (and telling the story) that the sorts of sites at issue are dangerous. It is not just copyright infringement. Kids are one-click away from identity theft, graphic porn, malware, etc. Parent groups, consumer protection groups and other third parties can be cultivated to speak out against such predatory sites.

Oh noes. They got money from the Koches and Donors trust! How dare they, after all it's not like George Soros hasn't dumped massive amounts of money into think tanks and all the rest. For someone who claims to 'know all this' you're pretty ignorant of what the other side does, that is exactly the same.

Okay, and her getting her play there is a problem why? Oh, I see it doesn't fit your ideological agenda which means that it's bad, in turn if it doesn't fit that means they're not your particular brand of xyz person. How very polarizing of you.

Can you show actual proof that gamergate has misogynist histories? $20 says that you'll drop the same articles where the authors, belonging to said organizations have come out saying that they knew it wasn't, but did it because it 'sold the story better.' You know, like the CBC and then there's other organizations that said the same thing. Then again, if you consider today's version of feminism to be egalitarian where many of the most vocal voices call for gendercide and whine about first world problems, you're a perfect fit for it.

The cover-up didn't work.
The week-long gaming press news blackout and ongoing user comment/forum censorship (in former free-speech strongholds such as 4chan and Reddit, no less) didn't work.
The coordinated, ongoing smear campaign that began with the "Gamers are Over" articles hasn't worked.
The doxxing and harassment of pro-GG folks hasn't worked.
The endless train of embarrassingly desperate counter-hashtags hasn't worked.
The Wikipedia and Nightline hit pieces only damage those outlets' credibility for short-term effect.
The SVU episode . . . hahaahhahaha WOW, where do I even begin . . . it is progapanda that couldn't be more precisely crafted to the corrupt press's specifications (i.e. "narrative"), and broadcast to a national non-gamer audience, much of which likely accepted it as reality. It was a wake-up call to quite a few previously unaware or neutral parties, especially game devs*.

Eurogamer is the latest games journalism site to update its ethics policy in the wake of Gamergate, joining PC Gamer, IGN, the Escapist, and of course Kotaku/Gawker (though in Gawker's case, they put up more of a fight and the Gamergate pressure to be ethical had to be routed through the FTC). And there are probably more I'm forgetting.

Gamergate also got Brad Wardell (CEO of Stardock) some long-overdue apologies for hit pieces run against him:
https://twitter.com/iamDavidWi...
http://www.gamepolitics.com/20...
http://www.zenofdesign.com/in-...

Ask yourself how much of this you've seen reported in the corrupt media (which at this point, sadly, clearly includes Slashdot). Of course none of it ever had a chance of appearing in the Wikipedia article. Nothing enrages anti-Gamergaters more than someone covering both sides of the story, and that should tell you something.

Their side thrives only in an environment of propaganda and censorship, and evaporates when faced with integrity and transparency. They prove the need for Gamergate every time they write an article based on the assumption that terrorism and child porn^W^W^W^W misogyny and harassment have become the root passwords to the Constitution^W^W journalistic ethics.


* like Mark Kern and Ken Levine, who had nothing to do with Gamergate, but were so disgusted by the SVU episode that they publically called on the gaming press to stop slandering gamers. Both were instantly swarmed by anti-GG on twitter, and VG24/7 ran a hit piece on Kern without even getting his side of the story, and refused even after he specifically asked them. I think Eurogamer saw exactly what happened to Kern, and it's no accident that that their policy explicitly includes a "right of reply" (perhaps a subtle message that they won't similarly treat game devs like shit).

The cover-up didn't work.
The week-long gaming press news blackout and ongoing user comment/forum censorship (in former free-speech strongholds such as 4chan and Reddit, no less) didn't work.
The coordinated, ongoing smear campaign that began with the "Gamers are Over" articles hasn't worked.
The doxxing and harassment of pro-GG folks hasn't worked.
The endless train of embarrassingly desperate counter-hashtags hasn't worked.
The Wikipedia and Nightline hit pieces only damage those outlets' credibility for short-term effect.
The SVU episode . . . hahaahhahaha WOW, where do I even begin . . . it is progapanda that couldn't be more precisely crafted to the corrupt press's specifications (i.e. "narrative"), and broadcast to a national non-gamer audience, much of which likely accepted it as reality. It was a wake-up call to quite a few previously unaware or neutral parties, especially game devs*.

Eurogamer is the latest games journalism site to update its ethics policy in the wake of Gamergate, joining PC Gamer, IGN, the Escapist, and of course Kotaku/Gawker (though in Gawker's case, they put up more of a fight and the Gamergate pressure to be ethical had to be routed through the FTC). And there are probably more I'm forgetting.

Gamergate also got Brad Wardell (CEO of Stardock) some long-overdue apologies for hit pieces run against him:
https://twitter.com/iamDavidWi...
http://www.gamepolitics.com/20...
http://www.zenofdesign.com/in-...

Ask yourself how much of this you've seen reported in the corrupt media (which at this point, sadly, clearly includes Slashdot). Of course none of it ever had a chance of appearing in the Wikipedia article. Nothing enrages anti-Gamergaters more than someone covering both sides of the story, and that should tell you something.

Their side thrives only in an environment of propaganda and censorship, and evaporates when faced with integrity and transparency. They prove the need for Gamergate every time they write an article based on the assumption that terrorism and child porn^W^W^W^W misogyny and harassment have become the root passwords to the Constitution^W^W journalistic ethics.


* like Mark Kern and Ken Levine, who had nothing to do with Gamergate, but were so disgusted by the SVU episode that they publically called on the gaming press to stop slandering gamers. Both were instantly swarmed by anti-GG on twitter, and VG24/7 ran a hit piece on Kern without even getting his side of the story, and refused even after he specifically asked them. I think Eurogamer saw exactly what happened to Kern, and it's no accident that that their policy explicitly includes a "right of reply" (perhaps a subtle message that they won't similarly treat game devs like shit).

The cover-up didn't work.
The week-long gaming press news blackout and ongoing user comment/forum censorship (in former free-speech strongholds such as 4chan and Reddit, no less) didn't work.
The coordinated, ongoing smear campaign that began with the "Gamers are Over" articles hasn't worked.
The doxxing and harassment of pro-GG folks hasn't worked.
The endless train of embarrassingly desperate counter-hashtags hasn't worked.
The Wikipedia and Nightline hit pieces only damage those outlets' credibility for short-term effect.
The SVU episode . . . hahaahhahaha WOW, where do I even begin . . . it is progapanda that couldn't be more precisely crafted to the corrupt press's specifications (i.e. "narrative"), and broadcast to a national non-gamer audience, much of which likely accepted it as reality. It was a wake-up call to quite a few previously unaware or neutral parties, especially game devs*.

Eurogamer is the latest games journalism site to update its ethics policy in the wake of Gamergate, joining PC Gamer, IGN, the Escapist, and of course Kotaku/Gawker (though in Gawker's case, they put up more of a fight and the Gamergate pressure to be ethical had to be routed through the FTC). And there are probably more I'm forgetting.

Gamergate also got Brad Wardell (CEO of Stardock) some long-overdue apologies for hit pieces run against him:
https://twitter.com/iamDavidWi...
http://www.gamepolitics.com/20...
http://www.zenofdesign.com/in-...

Ask yourself how much of this you've seen reported in the corrupt media (which at this point, sadly, clearly includes Slashdot). Of course none of it ever had a chance of appearing in the Wikipedia article. Nothing enrages anti-Gamergaters more than someone covering both sides of the story, and that should tell you something.

Their side thrives only in an environment of propaganda and censorship, and evaporates when faced with integrity and transparency. They prove the need for Gamergate every time they write an article based on the assumption that terrorism and child porn^W^W^W^W misogyny and harassment have become the root passwords to the Constitution^W^W journalistic ethics.


* like Mark Kern and Ken Levine, who had nothing to do with Gamergate, but were so disgusted by the SVU episode that they publically called on the gaming press to stop slandering gamers. Both were instantly swarmed by anti-GG on twitter, and VG24/7 ran a hit piece on Kern without even getting his side of the story, and refused even after he specifically asked them. I think Eurogamer saw exactly what happened to Kern, and it's no accident that that their policy explicitly includes a "right of reply" (perhaps a subtle message that they won't similarly treat game devs like shit).

The cover-up didn't work.
The week-long gaming press news blackout and user comment/forum censorship didn't work.
The coordinated, ongoing smear campaign that began with the "Gamers are Over" articles hasn't worked.
The doxxing and harassment of pro-GG folks hasn't worked.
The endless train of embarrassingly desperate counter-hashtags hasn't worked.
The Wikipedia and Nightline hit pieces only damage those outlets' credibility for short-term effect.

PC Gamer is the latest games journalism site to update its ethics policy in the wake of Gamergate, joining IGN, the Escapist, and of course Kotaku/Gawker (though in Gawker's case, they put up more of a fight and the Gamergate pressure to be ethical had to be routed through the FTC). And there are probably more I'm forgetting.

Gamergate also got Brad Wardell (CEO of Stardock) some long-overdue apologies for hit pieces run against him:
https://twitter.com/iamDavidWi...
http://www.gamepolitics.com/20...
http://www.zenofdesign.com/in-...

Ask yourself how much of this you've seen reported in the corrupt media (which at this point, sadly, clearly includes Slashdot). Of course none of it ever had a chance of appearing in the Wikipedia article. Nothing enrages anti-Gamergaters more than someone covering both sides of the story, and that should tell you something.

Their side thrives only in an environment of propaganda and censorship, and evaporates when faced with integrity and transparency. They prove the need for Gamergate every time they write an article based on the assumption that terrorism and child porn^W^W^W^W misogyny and harassment have become the root passwords to the Constitution^W^W journalistic ethics.

The cover-up didn't work.
The week-long gaming press news blackout and user comment/forum censorship didn't work.
The coordinated, ongoing smear campaign that began with the "Gamers are Over" articles hasn't worked.
The doxxing and harassment of pro-GG folks hasn't worked.
The endless train of embarrassingly desperate counter-hashtags hasn't worked.
The Wikipedia and Nightline hit pieces only damage those outlets' credibility for short-term effect.

PC Gamer is the latest games journalism site to update its ethics policy in the wake of Gamergate, joining IGN, the Escapist, and of course Kotaku/Gawker (though in Gawker's case, they put up more of a fight and the Gamergate pressure to be ethical had to be routed through the FTC). And there are probably more I'm forgetting.

Gamergate also got Brad Wardell (CEO of Stardock) some long-overdue apologies for hit pieces run against him:
https://twitter.com/iamDavidWi...
http://www.gamepolitics.com/20...
http://www.zenofdesign.com/in-...

Ask yourself how much of this you've seen reported in the corrupt media (which at this point, sadly, clearly includes Slashdot). Of course none of it ever had a chance of appearing in the Wikipedia article. Nothing enrages anti-Gamergaters more than someone covering both sides of the story, and that should tell you something.

Their side thrives only in an environment of propaganda and censorship, and evaporates when faced with integrity and transparency. They prove the need for Gamergate every time they write an article based on the assumption that terrorism and child porn^W^W^W^W misogyny and harassment have become the root passwords to the Constitution^W^W journalistic ethics.

The cover-up didn't work.
The week-long gaming press news blackout and user comment/forum censorship didn't work.
The coordinated, ongoing smear campaign that began with the "Gamers are over" articles hasn't worked.
The doxxing and harassment of pro-GG folks hasn't worked.
The endless train of embarrassingly desperate counter-hashtags hasn't worked.
The Wikipedia and Nightline hit pieces only destroy those outlets' credibility for short-term effect.

Last week PC Gamer became the latest games journalism site to update its ethics policy in the wake of Gamergate, joining IGN, the Escapist, and of course Kotaku/Gawker (though in Gawker's case, they put up more of a fight and the Gamergate pressure to be ethical had to be routed through the FTC). And there are probably more I'm forgetting.

Gamergate also got Brad Wardell (CEO of Stardock) some long-overdue apologies for hit pieces run against him:
https://twitter.com/iamDavidWi... [twitter.com]
http://www.gamepolitics.com/20... [gamepolitics.com]
http://www.zenofdesign.com/in-... [zenofdesign.com]

Ask yourself how much of this you've seen reported in the corrupt media (which at this point, sadly, clearly includes Slashdot). The anti-GG side thrives only in an environment of propaganda and censorship, and evaporates when faced with integrity and transparency. They prove the need for Gamergate every time they write an article based on the assumption that terrorism and child porn^W^W^W^W misogyny and harassment have become the root passwords to the Constitution^W^W journalistic ethics.

The cover-up didn't work.
The week-long gaming press news blackout and user comment/forum censorship didn't work.
The coordinated, ongoing smear campaign that began with the "Gamers are over" articles hasn't worked.
The doxxing and harassment of pro-GG folks hasn't worked.
The endless train of embarrassingly desperate counter-hashtags hasn't worked.
The Wikipedia and Nightline hit pieces only destroy those outlets' credibility for short-term effect.

Last week PC Gamer became the latest games journalism site to update its ethics policy in the wake of Gamergate, joining IGN, the Escapist, and of course Kotaku/Gawker (though in Gawker's case, they put up more of a fight and the Gamergate pressure to be ethical had to be routed through the FTC). And there are probably more I'm forgetting.

Gamergate also got Brad Wardell (CEO of Stardock) some long-overdue apologies for hit pieces run against him:
https://twitter.com/iamDavidWi... [twitter.com]
http://www.gamepolitics.com/20... [gamepolitics.com]
http://www.zenofdesign.com/in-... [zenofdesign.com]

Ask yourself how much of this you've seen reported in the corrupt media (which at this point, sadly, clearly includes Slashdot). The anti-GG side thrives only in an environment of propaganda and censorship, and evaporates when faced with integrity and transparency. They prove the need for Gamergate every time they write an article based on the assumption that terrorism and child porn^W^W^W^W misogyny and harassment have become the root passwords to the Constitution^W^W journalistic ethics.

Nah, Sarkeesian was a hack before the whole gamer gate thing even started.

Gamergate itself has clearly done more good than Sarkeesian ever hoped to.

It exposed nepotism and collusion in games journalism.

It got Brad Wardell (CEO of Stardock) some long-overdue apologies for hit pieces run against him.

https://twitter.com/iamDavidWi...

http://www.gamepolitics.com/20...

http://www.zenofdesign.com/in-...

Oh, you didn't hear about that? Well, I guess the same corrupt media (and the mainstream media, in turn) didn't report it, so, like whoever's in charge of Slashdot, we should pretend it never happened. You know, the same way we pretend that Snowden did no good because the corrupt NSA (and the Executive and Congress in turn) never acknowledged it.

And it's forcing Gawker to revise its policies to comply with updated FTC guidelines, which the FTC acknowledges came about because of Gamergate's OperationUV.

Damn, look at all these journalists, forced to be ethical against their will. If the media ever covers it, they'll probably invent some new term for the headlines, like "Ethics Rape."

Social Justice Warriors, deciding who counts based on progressive stack, Social Justice Warriors, if you don't think like us we are on the attack!

We are narcissists and Captain Planeteers, with our heads firmly up our rears, we think the world is black and white, and if you have a vag then you'e always right!

/sung to the tune of "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers", be sure to post your own version when a SJWer tries to ruin a thread near you!/

What SJWers prove is that they FEAR a free market because they know the mainstream isn't gonna buy shit non-games like Depression Quest so the ONLY thing you can do is try to attack and legislate and ban that which you cannot hope to compete against. Why are you so afraid of competition? Is it you are sure your ideas are that intolerable?

We have the emails showing collusion, we have the evidence of their blacklisting those that don't tow the party line (illegal in several states, where is the investigation into this?) and we have plenty of evidence of self enrichment such as Zoe Quinn and the Gamejam that went straight to her personal checking.

They tried to compete in a free market, they failed, now they try to build rep by playing the victim card, they are the Rev Al of feminism, and you can kiss their ass all you want but in the end if you are a cishet you simply don't rank in the progressive stack, you are the enemy. But luckily for the rest of us its still a capitalist country and the free market WILL win. Kotaku is bleeding money, the viewership plummets, many of those on gamejournopro shall likely lose their jobs, it will NOT save those sites, and those that try to Rev Al feminism like AS and ZQ will have their support and opportunities dry up, see how quick EA put out a press release saying they would NOT be having anything to do with AS who had been insinuating she would consult with them.

If you are not afraid then let the market decide, we will see if your ideas are acceptable or foul. Considering both the left and right wings can agree that SJWers are narcissist whiners nobody wants anything to do with? I have a feeling we both know what the outcome of your toxic beliefs are, hence the calls for banning and attempts to silence those who don't support you.

You mean the gamergate guys who found the brazillian "journalist" who was attacking and doxxing anita? But she didn't want to do anything about it. Or people like geordie tait(who's anti-gg) attacking gamergate by calling for a new holocaust

Like the GG-harassment patrol which goes after anyone on both sides? Yep, nothing at all. Then again, I could ask where is the anti-side denouncing people like Briana Wu, Lee Alexander, or Mattie Brice.

This goes way beyond offending people, though. This is abuse and harassment, which is not the not the same thing at all.

Anyone who has been paying even passing attention to Gamergate knows by now that in the vast, vast majority of cases, this doesn't go beyond offending people. This doesn't extend into the territory of abuse or "harassment" at all for any sane definition of these terms. Claims that it does are being used as a tool to censor and shut-down discussion around this issue. Case in point.

Since you obviously can't tell the difference, you are directly part of the problem. There is no right to make rape threats.

Case in point. A slashdotter makes a comment about the right not to be offended, and is all but called a rape supporter within 4 sentences. This is the standard, now tired tactic gamers have been exposed to for over three months now: Kafkatrapping. Refuse to agree, and you must support rape and need to "sit in a corner and think quietly before joining the rest of the online community again". Discussion terminating cliches like this would not be so serious if the main stream media hadn't engaged in a propaganda carpet-bombing of gamers and indeed wider geek communities on the internet over the last three months.

I defer to sci-fi author John C Wright's description of these tactics. "You are the boy who cries wolf"

And boys like you have cried about "misogyny" in video games for years, from accusing Super Mario of objectifying women all the way up to using absurdly unrepresentative footage to accuse gamers of being out to "derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters". When most gamers object, protest, or declare these arguments absurd, we are accused of harassment, "mansplaining", "internalized misogyny", or inevitably "supporting rape culture". This has simply kicked into overdrive in the MSM since gamers resisted the pulpit declaration that "Gamers are Dead".

And the reason is simple. Money.

What Gamergate has uncovered, more so than any other factor, is how tactics such as the parent's post are being used to censor artists, blacklist developers, and stifle creativity and competition in the games industry. Even when industry professionals know that misogyny is not a problem in gaming, these tired claims are repeated with the express intetion of shutting out competitors, even those who ostensibly support the same causes.

These tactics and other forms of cultural scarring are being used across other geek communities and only now, in the wake of gamers consumer revolt and continued resistance, do other communities finally feel safe enough to stand up to intellectual bullying of the new Internet Red Guard and the cultural revolution it has declared on geeks.

Anyone who wants to know more about the re

When by "source" one refers to any number of articles that have published the word "GamerGate" beside the word "harassment"... citing instances of harassment that never even pretended to come from GamerGate... and when these sources completely omit mountains of evidence of corruption and collaboration in media whilst never provide a whit of actual evidence.... One would be wise to question them.

Here is a timeline of GamerGate. It includes most, but not all, of the grievances the diverse GamerGate community has.
Here is a discussion of an email list wherein journalists colluded to spread a particular narrative. Some say it's "a few out of context emails". Those people are misinformed.
Here is a discussion of the journalist who was fired for being too noisy.
Here is a discussion of hidden conflict of interest. Here is another.
Here is an upload from an indy developer discussing press collusion.
Here is evidence of inappropriate promotion of Quinn's game.

I have more. GOD do I have more. You may have noticed conspicuously lacking from my post the following words: sjw, feminist, woman, female. That's because contrary to every major media piece ever written on GamerGate, it has not one fucking thing to do with feminism. Or harassment. or threats.

So ask yourself why someone interested in writing an article about GamerGate would completely ignore all of this and focus on the 1% of tweets about Wu, or on threats that never pretended to support GamerGate. Or on a very few very marginally related trolls. Hell, ask yourself why they would report only on threats against one side.

For my two cents people supporting GamerGate have a damn good reason to mistrust the media. So does anyone not supporting GamerGate.

The majority of the gamers who wrote Intel agree with you. In fact, the entire furore over the past month seems to have cemented the idea of "gamer" as a inclusive, universal identity into the collective mind of the gaming community across the web.

However, that was not the argument the Gamasutra and other articles made. The gaming press collectively declared that "Gamers were dead", that gaming as a descriptor was obsolete, that the "identity was dead", or referred only to a obsolete subset of exclusionary, female unfriendly, "selfish", "conservative", "tribalistic", and -- implied by the accompanying stock images -- fat angry unkempt adult males.

Meanwhile, games companies, marketing firms and online game fansites were still actively using the term to refer to everyone who, well, plays games. Even Forbes magazine was shaking its head in disbelief at the game media's attack on its own consumers. People are now asking how much damage recent controversies may have done to the public image of the gaming industry.

A $80 billion dollar industry which had achieved almost universal consumer acceptance and success may have just been torpedoed as a woman-hating "Cathedral of Misogyny" by its own press publications. Intel is cutting its losses before the conflagration spreads to the rest of tech.

These search results on the One Angry Gamer website about The Fine Young Capitalists game dev team (who also happen to be women, some might remember them as the team who wrote the game Depression Quest), who got blackballed by unscrupulous writers for a handful of well-known gaming and tech review outfits because of the second-rate "escapades" of one Zoe Quinn and her "relations" with several of them. Ironically, it was 4chan who stepped up to raise $5,000 to fund them when the rest of the community dropped them like a sack of shit because of Ms. Quinn and her "conspirators' " favoritism. PS quotes=sexual escapades and pillow talk railroading.