Slashdot Mirror


Doxing Victim Zoe Quinn Launches Online "Anti-harassment Task Force"

AmiMoJo writes: On Friday, developer and doxing victim Zoe Quinn launched an online "anti-harassment task force" toolset, staffed by volunteers familiar with such attacks, to assist victims of a recent swell of "doxing" and "swatting" attacks. The Crash Override site, built by Quinn and game developer Alex Lifschitz, offers free services from "experts in information security, white hat hacking, PR, law enforcement, legal, threat monitoring, and counseling" for "victims of online mob harassment."

They have already managed to preemptively warn at least one victim of a swatting attempt in Enumclaw, Washington. As a result, the police department's head e-mailed the entire department to ask any police sent to the address in question to "knock with your hand, not your boot."

693 comments

  1. address in question by fche · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "the police department's head e-mailed the entire department to ask any police sent to the address in question to "knock with your hand, not your boot."

    That sounds like appropriate advice for apprx. all addresses.

    1. Re:address in question by puzzled_decoy · · Score: 2

      RIGHT??! Why is that not the standard policy?

    2. Re:address in question by stephanruby · · Score: 4, Funny

      "the police department's head e-mailed the entire department to ask any police sent to the address in question to "knock with your hand, not your boot."
      That sounds like appropriate advice for apprx. all addresses.

      Assuming police officers are as good at reading inter-office emails as I am, there is really only one piece of advice I'd give people.

      Prepare yourself and prepare your home for imminent Swat arrival. Give away the dog (if you have one). Evict your roommate (if you have one). Keep all the doors to the outside wide open (so that they don't break them). Keep some fresh coffee in the pot and some fresh cookies on the table (so that the Swat team doesn't get low blood sugar and cranky by the time it reaches your bedroom). And sleep with handcuffs already on (so that they don't think you're trying to resist arrest). Also, it probably wouldn't hurt to pepper your walls leading to your bedroom with portraits of Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Dick Cheney.

    3. Re:address in question by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Funny

      Interesting that the advice to prepare for both Santa and SWAT are identical... Hmm.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    4. Re:address in question by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      Also, it probably wouldn't hurt to pepper your walls leading to your bedroom with portraits of Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Dick Cheney.

      Hell, if you want to get laid, that's just good advice in general.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    5. Re:address in question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might also want to tase yourself. Even then they might shoot you with automatics because you have a weapon.

    6. Re:address in question by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      Prepare yourself and prepare your home for imminent Swat arrival. Give away the dog (if you have one). Evict your roommate (if you have one). Keep all the doors to the outside wide open (so that they don't break them). Keep some fresh coffee in the pot and some fresh cookies on the table (so that the Swat team doesn't get low blood sugar and cranky by the time it reaches your bedroom). And sleep with handcuffs already on (so that they don't think you're trying to resist arrest).

      Also, store your infants in the garage.

    7. Re:address in question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You handcuff yourself for Santa? That's either kinky or disturbing, and I don't want to know which.

    8. Re:address in question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RIGHT??! Why is that not the standard policy?

      Because some people respond with their gun instead of their boot when the police "Knock on the door with their hand!"

    9. Re:address in question by fche · · Score: 1

      In those few cases, they may need to take the bullet. Or use other technologies to protect themselves while politely inquiring at the doorstep.

    10. Re:address in question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And sleep with handcuffs already on

      I occasionally cuff my girlfriend in bed already...

    11. Re:address in question by onthemightofprinces · · Score: 1

      ....and if there's any black people in your house... tell them to run.... now!

    12. Re:address in question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol

  2. Slashdot stance on #gamergate by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Slashdot has been fairly in the bag for the SJWs over the whole #gamergate thing, but this is a bit much. Really, we need be a advertizing platform for pet projects of the SJW crowd now? A "gender equality in tech" story 3 days a week wasn't enough? WTF happened to Slashdot? Broad political clickbait was a bit understandable but this is starting to look like a Gawker site.

    We miss you Taco, but it's becoming clear why you left.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    1. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      As a long time /.'er, I am sadden by this transformation as well.

    2. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but this is starting to look like a Gawker site
      Where else are they going to go get their material? Reddit?

    3. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you are using social justice warrior as a perjorative, you might want to consider adjusting your view of the world.

    4. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by rabtech · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why is it that you have to fall back on name-calling? Why not address the actual point?

      It is wrong to dox people.

      It is wrong to swat people.

      Period.

      It's ridiculous how much vitriol and harassment is being dished out against random people (mostly women) just because you don't like what they say.

      To a letter, every single person I've talked to who is supporting gamergate is spouting lies and half-truths. Maybe there was a legitimate point buried in there, but it's long been lost in the random mob attacks.

      Now people are being attacked simply for saying "hey guys, random aggression/doxxing/swatting isn't cool".

      It's pure insanity. You should be ashamed of yourself and your comment.

      (For the record, I hate the SJW crowd and the Tumblr really-a-dragon-spirit bullshit, but that doesn't make it OK to lash out)

      --
      Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
    5. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Other than the gg connection, it's actually an interesting idea. Internet harassment can get really bad, this has some examples. This might be an interesting attempt to improve the situation.

      So, they have "experts in information security, white hat hacking, PR, law enforcement, legal, threat monitoring, and counseling" to help people after they've been swatted.

      On the other hand it doesn't look like they've set up a non-profit or any structure whatsoever. They registered through domainsbyproxy.com, so they aren't trying to be transparent.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Iamthecheese · · Score: 3, Insightful

      GamerGate is lashing out against bad journalism, and it's doing so with a boycott and letter writing campaign. You pretend to have spoken to enough GamerGate supporters to have formed a solid opinion, but the fact that you think GamerGate harasses people determines that to be a lie.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    7. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Slashdot is full SJW neckbeards, always out to step up for m'lady. Male feminists, lol. Having known some of these folks, they're always the dudes who like their ladies to walk all over them. No real drive or ambition in life.

    8. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't. You just want it to be.

    9. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by jbolden · · Score: 1

      There wasn't even a really a point in the whole scandal. People in every trade press know each other. They get along, they are often friendly. The best presses in the United States didn't meet the standards the GamerGate people were demanding much less sites which cover games in exchange for ad revenue.

    10. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by tsotha · · Score: 2

      Yeah, this place is like a SJW commune sometimes. The GG stuff is laughable given the actual facts.

    11. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by tsotha · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's probably the most polite way to describe people who are, at their core, fucking fascists.

    12. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best presses in the United States didn't meet the standards the GamerGate people

      Perhaps the movement should be targetting all journalism, then.

    13. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Kielistic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a subcategory of keyboard warrior- which has always been a pejorative. People that lash out at pointless things in pointless arenas and think they're heroes. Nobody likes sanctimonious blowhards.

    14. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing wrong with being for social justice but the people getting labeled SJW have taken it too far and are normally both racist and sexist themselves. They're like social justice fundamentalists.

    15. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh please. My view of the world is fine. SJWs are a rotten lot in general, caring more about the status being for or against something, than the actual issue itself.

      For instance, Zoe Quinn here, ruined an actual event for female programmers trying to make games, because she didn't get her payoff. She and Anita Sarkessian aren't about games, they're about themselves. And the crowd laps it up everytime.

    16. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Karganeth · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not really. Much like how calling someone a "keyboard warrior" doesn't imply keyboards are bad, calling someone a "social justice warrior" isn't meant to imply that social justice is bad.

    17. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which reviews would those be?

    18. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by firex726 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't like what they say?

      They have flat out said that DOXXING is acceptable, that it's only a matter of wrong targets, not methods.

      Hell, ZQ has retweeted doxxes of Wiki editors, including trans minors.

      Tweet:
      http://i.imgur.com/k96uLWF.jpg

      The referenced doxx (censored):
      http://i.imgur.com/He7UCVW.png

      OR how as part of the gag order, she claimed that Gjoni spread internet links to nude pictures of her, while failing to mention these were images she had made public of her own volition, while working as a model/camgirl.

      And claimed that he and Milo, are part of some professional doxxing organization, despite in reality they had never spoken prior to GG.
      http://theralphretort.com/wp-c...

      *Police report obtained via FOIA

    19. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's pure insanity.

      Yes indeed your comments are factual moderate and reasoned. In some alternate universe perhaps.

    20. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your response was ten times more aggressive than the relatively mild comment you responded to.

      Go cry to your diversity counselor.

    21. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Boronx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's your fucking scandal? The entire gamer media is in the tank for in AAA game, and your scandal is an indy dev who fucked some guys? I'm starting to think this gamer gate is just another grouping of right wing nuts.

    22. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      Links posted to reddit mostly come from elsewhere, too. There are vast swaths of original content, but that site remains a news/link aggregator at its core, just like Slashdot.

      One of Slashdot's biggest problems IMO is a lack of timeliness. By the time something hits the front page here, it's often old news; not just by an hour but by several days. News has become increasingly social and people want to discuss everything, but attention spans are growing shorter, which does not bode well for a site consisting mostly of stale stories. I know that by the time I see a story here, I've often commented about it (and exhausted my mental tolerance for debate on the subject) somewhere else. Today was actually pretty decent with the stories about FBI fishing expeditions and police spy radars being showcased while the news was still topical.

      I confess, I don't ever go to the firehose and vote on whether or not stories are any good. If the editors are relying on readers to push stories to some greenlight threshold then I guess I'll share in the blame.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    23. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Social justice IS bad, though. Social justice is to justice the way People's Democracy is to democracy. Most of what Social Justice Warriors do is supported by the insane philosophy of Social Justice.

    24. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The simple solution to avoid 95% of harassment is not to associate your real name with the internet. Of course, today's generation of short sighted, narcissistic idiots is willing to trade anonymity and privacy for 15ms of fame, and then cry victimhood when they're burned alive by those who can operate beyond first level thinking.

    25. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by russotto · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm starting to think this gamer gate is just another grouping of right wing nuts.

      No, that's been researched. GG is mostly left of center. This is authoritarian left (SJWs like Quinn, Alexander, Grayson, McIntosh, Chu, etc) vs libertarian left (GG).

    26. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing wrong with being in favor of positive social and sociological changes, but yes, "Social Justice Warrior" is a pejorative. Substitute "Professionally Offended Victim" wherever you see SJW and you'll get the idea. Most of the SJWs, self-proclaimed or otherwise, fit into this category. They actively seek out new ways and places by which to be offended, forever endeavoring how next to portray themselves as victims. Some of them are making a career of it, like Zoe Quinn, and whoever that woman was who molested her sister, except it totally wasn't molestation, because she was a girl, and girls can't be guilty of that.

      You know what I think of this "Crash Override" Anti-Harassment Task Force? I think, good, it's about time! Let them create an echo chamber where all of the white knights can gather round poor, oppressed m'lady whose pure virgin eyes and ears must witness no discourtesy. Let them coddle the victyms; you know, the ones who advance the cause of "social justice" by making false rape accusations and filing false police reports, dragging innocent mens' names through the mud. Let them create their own TLD and self-police it to the point where every woman rests atop a pedestal and men speak of nothing but rainbows and unicorns. Maybe they'll all stay over there in Fallopia and leave the rest of the internet the fuck alone already.

    27. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

      Use of SJW indicates the speaker is an idiot. People say things, not classes of people you don't dislike, with no severe selection bias for what is heard from it.

    28. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      The submission process heavily favours previously accepted submitters. I've seen a number of times where a "new" person posted something that just happened, but it wasn't until one of the regular posters posted it days later until it was accepted. There are complaints that only the same submitters are on the front page, but only the same submitters are accepted, so the others give up and stop trying.

    29. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by AK+Marc · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Social justice is demanding that you serve Blacks at the same tables as Whites, not out in the alley. It's a shame that you think that's a bad thing.

    30. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the site is 75% SJW, and 75% Libertarians. The remaining 50% are bad at math.

    31. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Social justice is demanding that you serve Blacks at the same tables as Whites, not out in the alley.

      That's just racial equality. Social justice says you can toss the whites out in the alley and spit in their food and they can't complain because there's no such thing as racism against white people.

    32. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by kentrel · · Score: 1

      Probably a better term for "SJW" in its current dominant usage would be keyboard warrior, however the horse has already bolted.

      To paraphrase James Randi, "words are defined by their usage". "Social Justice Warrior" has definitely a predominantly pejorative usage, generally used to describe the self important authoritarians rather than the selfless compassionate ones. For example, few people who use SJW as a pejorative would ever describe Ayaan Hirsi Ali as an SJW, yet SJW will be used predominantly to describe self important keyboard warriors

      At this point, SJW has as much chance of having a predominantly positive usage as "Men Rights Activist".

    33. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by puzzled_decoy · · Score: 1

      I think GP's point was that often terrible actions are taken under the mantra of Social Justice, having nothing to do with actual social justice.

    34. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's just /.'s "time of the month" and their all hormonal and "female"-ish now, or got girl cootees all over them. /sarcasm. Their just doing what all other "news" outlets do, stirring a pot to get views.

    35. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're thinking social justice should mean what it used to. That's not the social justice SJWs care about. SJW social justice is doxxing people and getting them fired for saying arguably racist things.

      I wonder if LW would be wiling to go after that gem of a site? I'm guessing not, since doxxing is fine when SJWs do it, it's only "evil" when someone returns the favor.

    36. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It takes a special kind of blowhard to twist a discussion about games into something racial. This is known as an emotional appeal, since you cannot debate it logically you resort to character assassination. Don't you want the best for your family?

    37. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It was SJW's in the '60s that helped end that. Today it's a pejorative to mean "bored white women" which were the SJWs that gave us Prohibition. SJW isn't a bad thing. It's a good and necessary thing that is sometimes misused, not the least of which by those who can't keep from accusing everyone else on the planet of being an SJW.

    38. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It might be an interesting idea, but Ms. Quinn seems to be prone to exaggeration - as anyone who actually goes and plays "Depression Quest" will see - it's something I'd expect from a kid in high school who decided to "mess around with computers" - not a game developer. I'm not saying it's bad ... bad would be an improvement.

      So when she claims to have "experts in information security, white hat hacking, PR, law enforcement, legal, threat monitoring, and counseling to help people after they've been swatted", without names I'd take that with a whole box of salt.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    39. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

      I thought the point is "SJW is the proper term for 'fucking liberal' when I want to insult someone with different beliefs than mine., while still claiming the high moral ground."

    40. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for your confirmation. Your idiot card is in the mail.

    41. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Nope, they did it first by claiming "social justice" was a bad thing. I didn't assassinate anyone's character. I just defined "social justice". That you find ant-SJW to be so offensive, perhaps you should be complaining about those who dismiss and belittle the people trying to help others. The Underground Railroad was run by SJW. Anti-feminist activists shouldn't co-opt a "nice" term as a pejorative. It pisses off all the SJW anonymous cowards when people point out what "social justice" is.

    42. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Let's recap here. Zoe Quinn slept with all the major game reviewers and/or their editors. She gets rave reviews for a game people who actually bought have panned mercilessly. Literally caught with their pants down, they point to their customers and scream "sexist!". That's the point of the scandal. You can dress it up however you like, but at the root it's about corruption in the gaming press.

      This sounds about right to me. The only takeaway question I have from it though; is how does anyone give a shit about Zoe Quinn?

      The reviewers and the editors were corrupt; and its their corruption that is unacceptable. The guy offering the police a bribe is a douche... but its not newsworthy unless the police accept the bribe, and the story is about corrupt police.

      Ditto for journalists; or so-called gaming "journalism". Zoe's merely the catalyst; but her integrity is irrelevant - who really cares whether she offered the journalists a free game, a free lunch, or a free blowjob? What matters is that the journalists, who wish to be viewed as having some sort of journalistic integrity, demonstrated a decided lack thereof. So why is this story about Zoe Quinn instead of the editors and reviewers?

      Is it some form of sexism that we can't be properly indifferent about Zoe and level the real scathing criticism at the utter lack of journalistic integrity of her partners? That would be ironic.

    43. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't think we're talking about the same thing at all.

      Most SJWs are somewhat counter-intuitively white men. Which is hilarious, because they're generally working against their better interest.

      Take the submitter of this article, AmiMoJo. He's a white British man (no doxxing here, that's according to his own posts). Yet here he is, on Slashdot, fighting the "good fight" against the "evil white men" who rule the world. Pretty much all of the other persistent SJWs here have also outed themselves as being white men.

      I mean, sure, there are women SJWs and minority SJWs too (and minority women SJWs), but most of the SJWs you encounter will be white men trying to make up for their white male guilt that they themselves are trying to force on everyone.

      It's even funnier when you realize a common complaint of feminists are men who try and "speak for them" and the majority of the Internet feminists you find will be men speaking for women.

    44. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what you can do instead of whining? You can go to alternate sites like Hacker News (which gets the stories quicker btw) or Reddit.

      Slashdot is dead. Quit crying about it.

    45. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      that's because the whole alleged 'scandal' was an after-the-fact justification for some arsehole slagging off his ex-girlfriend.

      and, really, what kind of socially retarded psycopath thinks "ethics in game journalism" is any kind of reasonable excuse for death and rape threats and doxxing people - even if the accusations about journalistic integrity were true (which they're not)?

      what kind of "journalism" do they think gamer news is, anyway? it's nothing but advertising for products - either paid or paid in kind (free review copies, early access etc) or by fanboys and fangirls. if it wasn't, then gamer news sites wouldn't steer clear of criticising game studios for the appalling ways they treat their workers.

    46. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by russotto · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Underground Railroad was run by abolitionists. Even John Brown, bombthrower though he may have been, was not an SJW. "Social Justice" is all this shit about privilege and oppression olympics and progressive stack. It holds that discrimination against a privileged group (white males) is not only benign but beneficial and that members of that group should shut up and accept it as their due.

    47. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > sometimes misused

      Like what ZQ and AS are doing presently.

    48. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Motte, meet baiiley

    49. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by hermitdev · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think "Crash Override" is an extremely poor choice of names. I mean, who in the community doesn't know 1995's "Hackers"? Johnny Lee Miller's character had a handle "Crash Override". He spent the entire movie trying to get into Angelina Jolie's character's pants (and succeeded), and he (the actor) married Jolie in real life, if only for a few years. If you want to talk "messages", what does choosing such a moniker for this movement represent? At its best, willful ignorance (which I doubt) or an alternate purpose, which then begs the question of for what? I'm not going to go so far to say Quinn is either stupid or ignorant, so that again beg's the question: why "Crash Override"?

    50. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the excuse of the self-professed martyrs who want us to believe they're the victims now, trying to pull a judo-style reversal and convince everybody that they are the victims.

      Too bad that's more likely going to be just an excuse to continue oppression and dismiss any concerns that the other side still has, because well, now, now, the oppressed are the abusers, so...yeah.

      Sorry, I've had too many bullies try to play that card.

    51. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The word "SJW" literally exists specifically to refer to the people who use social justice as a smokescreen for bigotry and even violence, it was created as a direct response to the incessant cries of "but that's not TRUE feminism".

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    52. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      No, it wasn't. The word SJW literally was a perjorative from the start. You're trying to pass off revisionist history to defend people who do shit like commit felonies to shut down suicide prevention efforts and send rape victims info to their rapist as revenge for some minor imagined slight.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    53. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have any evidence that people actually supporting GG were making those threats? Because I see the anti-GG people claim that the GG folks were making such threats, but oddly enough I never actually saw it without supporters decrying the threats.

      The threats were coming from a small number of trolls. Or at least the ones that weren't false flagging for the anti-GG side.

    54. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't forget she was also caught retweeting offers from GNAA trolls to pay for fake harassment tweets directed against her.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    55. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      probably because Zoe Quinn supposedly unfairly profited from the corruption. a good review or mention of your product from journalists can seriously help your sales. corrupt journalism is a blight on the industry, those willing to engage those journalists in corruption are just as bad and Zoe is supposed a prime example of that (won't pretend to know if it is true or not), her role became exacerbated by her lack of grace and social skills in dealing with this in a constantly escalating war of words from arsehats on both sides of the fence.

    56. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Schmorgluck · · Score: 1

      Yep, sexism from the very beginning, with a side of slut-shaming. You nailed the issue pretty well.

      --
      There's nothing like $HOME
    57. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Kielistic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is incredibly disingenuous to claim ownership of people's actions in the past. They had nothing to do with you and you do not get to leech from their accomplishments.

      It is that exact fallacious and dishonest nonsense that got SJW labelled as a pejorative. You are transparently trying to say "these people did good things and I say I do good things therefore we are the same and you are bad". You aren't nearly as clever as you think you are.

      People loudly proclaiming they are doing things for the "greater good" or "social justice" rarely are. Every horrible asshole in the history of civilization claimed to be doing things because they were righteous.

    58. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Rennt · · Score: 1, Troll

      There is *heaps* of corruption in the gaming press, but this is not what it looks like. Have a look at the actual anti-consumer antics Ubisoft or EA gets away with supported by mainstream publications. The kind of stuff that DOES target the GG market and DOES con you out of good money for shit they know doesn't work.

      But Zoe Quinn? the sex-for-reviews thing has been thoroughly debunked and I'm pretty sure you know it, but lets say it was true. It would be like the world's smallest ethics tree falling in an uninhabited GG forrest. We know not a single proto-GGer was harmed because not a single one can say they read the reviews and decided that they wanted to buy it. Seriously. A chose-your-own-adventure game called Depression Quest is niche even in indie circles. The "not a game" crowd that makes up most of GG hates that kind of thing with a passion.

      When people say GG is sexist, it's because they hold the work of independent women to a very different standard to the likes of the male-dominated AAA industry. When people say GG is sexist it's because it was started as a slut-shaming exercise and still hasn't moved on.

      Let's be real here. When people say GG is sexist its because it is.

    59. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Kielistic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It was a miniscule event that would have meant nothing in a week if it were handled with even a "woups, sorry". The scandal was a small group of media friends decided to instead start promoting that a large chunk of their audience were misogynist, horrible, racist, homophobic, right wing, terrorist (you get the idea) to deflect blame from a complete nonevent that shouldn't have even mattered.

      You can guarantee that very few people cared about some extra press some lame game got. What they did care was being called some pretty vile and untrue names.

    60. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume they're going for the "mess with the best, die like the rest" angle. Many women caught up in gamergate share a belief that the "male dominated gaming culture" must die. Why they can't accomplish that constructively by encouraging their female friends to game more, or hosting girls only LAN parties, or rallying around female pro gamers in the e-sports world, any and all of which would actually help balance out the demographics, instead of whining loudly about male-domination and declaring war on every man who likes playing video games...

      Well, it's obvious, isn't it? Gaming isn't the issue at all, they don't give a shit who develops or plays games, they've just latched onto it as something to feel victimized by. Oh woe are they, fallow and sensitive maidens, alone and outnumbered by awful men in [insert activity here], they are victims, hear them roar, P.S. don't forget to buy the book and pay money to hear them speak at conferences. Firefighters, steel workers, plumbers, look out. When the Professional Offended Victims get bored with video games they'll be coming after you and your male dominated cultures next.

    61. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best presses in the United States didn't meet the standards the GamerGate people were demanding much less sites which cover games in exchange for ad revenue.

      Ah, there it is.

      Relax, guys. Nothing that happens in a several billion dollar industry really matters because it's all just fun and "games".

      Who needs or wants those bothersome ethics, anyway?

    62. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by russotto · · Score: 2

      Do you have any evidence that people actually supporting GG were making those threats?

      Ha ha, no. In fact, they like to post screencaps about doxxing and swatting from different boards on 8chan and claim those are from Gamergate. If you call them on their lies they claim all of 8chan is Gamergate, or they claim the other boards are Gamergate because they targeted people who were attacking Gamergate. They fail to mention that the people who were attacking Gamergate also attacked 8chan as a whole.

    63. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If so, then show proof. All you have done is say,

      Nope

      as if you should be taken at your word while condemning the word of others.

    64. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      help balance out the demographics

      Probably because there are more female gamers than there are male gamers. That doesn't fit the narrative, though. Yahoo Games, back in the day? Well, uh, that doesn't count. The bajillion of Facebook games that are still played to this day? Uh, yeah, uh, that doesn't count. Literal legions of women involved, active, and not playing male characters, despite the rhetoric, in MMOs? Uh, look, you can run over prostitutes in GTA! MISOGYNY.

    65. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody likes sanctimonious blowhards.

      Especially the self righteous twats who come here only to bitch about how bad Slashdot has gotten, and how things used to be so much better in some vaguely unspecific "ago", because nobody ever challenged their comfortable world view.

      Oh sorry, that's kinda what you were doing, wasn't it?

    66. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying it's bad ... bad would be an improvement.

      I tried it, but got bored after two minutes. It seemed ok, though. What's wrong with it?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    67. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The scandal was a small group of media friends decided to instead start promoting that a large chunk of their audience were misogynist, horrible, racist, homophobic, right wing, terrorist (you get the idea) to deflect blame from a complete nonevent that shouldn't have even mattered.

      You're leaving out the other dimension of the scandal - the large chunk of their audience they were promoting that about racist, homophobic, misogynstic, cockstains... because that'll sure show people how wrong those "media friends" are to call names!

    68. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Zoe Quinn is the Kim Kardashian of gaming.

      No one gives a fuck about that her.

    69. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got bored after 2 minutes, but thought it was ok?

      I think you just explained what is wrong with it.

    70. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      SJW is not a word. It's an acronym of a phrase.

      A phrase that is positive in nature, but used as a label of disparagement, which makes usage of it suspect in my eyes.

      Given the conduct of those who use it, I'm going to say it's a combination dog whistle and red flag.

      It'd be better to come up with some other term to describe whatever people you're talking about.

      You might have a chance at respectability then.

    71. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a total 'fucking liberal' and I still use the term SJW. There is nothing wrong with social justice and I agree with your earlier posts but SJW is a convenient language shorthand for racist/sexist middle class white person with a trust fund and either dyed hair or a bald patch. It would be annoying to have to type that out every time.

    72. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe some people still equate social justice with what the words should mean, true equality, instead of the new paradigm of privilege you mentioned. I had trouble following this thread until I released that people were using the same words for different concepts. I think. I still may not understand this thread.

    73. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Guy+From+V · · Score: 1

      I was thinking that Zoe and Anna were the same person, thanks. I'll try to keep that straight...actually screw it.

    74. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by x0ra · · Score: 2

      freebsdgirl self-declare herself being a SJW, though, you're still right pointing out she's an idiot.

    75. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are not your Google searchers. It takes a total of one second to go to Google to type these keywords into Google search: fine young capitalists zoe quinn

    76. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      after a brief google, information points to it being a scam, and information also points to it being legitimate and scam info being bogus. So...

      [citation needed]

    77. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GamerGate is lashing out against bad journalism, and it's doing so with a boycott and letter writing campaign. You pretend to have spoken to enough GamerGate supporters to have formed a solid opinion, but the fact that you think GamerGate harasses people determines that to be a lie.

      #GamerGate doesn't harass women, eh? What do you call this?

      Oh, that must be a false flag.

      You worthless piece of shit.

    78. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't forget the other faces of anti-GG. Like Wu, who just turned around and supported the doxer of Milo Yiannopoulos. These people and their CON are just plain fucked up in the head.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    79. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, sure, there are women SJWs and minority SJWs too (and minority women SJWs), but most of the SJWs you encounter will be white men trying to make up for their white male guilt that they themselves are trying to force on everyone.

      Or perhaps, just perhaps, they think that people should attack the issue rather than (the gender of) the person. Just a thought.

    80. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Perhaps the real reason AAA hasn't been hit by this is because when people accuse them of this shit they don't throw a fit, call their consumers msygonistic shitlords, start printing out articles about how they are dead as well as try to censor everyone on multiple websites.

      Really, this could have died out in it's infancy if moot didn't ban discussion on 4chan. it could have died out if Nathan Grayson had of admitted it and said my bad like PCGamer recently did. Instead the so called games media acted in the most aggressive and juvenile way possible and they have gotten aggressive and juvenile back.

      Also I know you don't care about this because it's pretty obvious you're going to keep thinking the way you do but Nathan Grayson spoke glowing of a game that he was thanked for in the credits, apparently he helped with the beta. That should have been disclosed.

    81. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      Read http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

      That's the comment I was responding to.

      Social justice IS bad,

      gets a +5. Apparently people hate "social justice", not just SJW.

    82. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be annoying to have to type that out every time.

      OK, then why not debate and attack the issue rather than the person? Wouldn't that be even easier? Just sayin'.

    83. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... "Social Justice Warrior, an internet pejorative for someone who discusses social justice issues"

      I'd never heard SJW to be used to describe the situations you describe. I generally see it as a pejorative against feminists.

    84. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefighters, steel workers, plumbers, look out. When the Professional Offended Victims get bored with video games they'll be coming after you and your male dominated cultures next.

      Oh noes!!! They're coming after all us R3@l M3nz! They have swords in their hands and they're coming to emasculate us all! Run for your lives! Run while you still have a chance!

    85. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It is incredibly disingenuous to claim ownership of people's actions in the past.

      And it's incredibly disingenuous to claim that I claimed ownership of people's actions in the past.

      I just noted that "social justice" was used to describe the abolitionist movement http://english.stackexchange.c... and that those who "fought" for it could be described as "warriors". So abolitionists were SJW.

      If you don't like that, stop resetting the term to be a pejorative.

      You are transparently trying to say "these people did good things and I say I do good things therefore we are the same and you are bad". You aren't nearly as clever as you think you are.

      I never claimed to do anything good. I never said anyone else is bad. That is purely a fabrication by those who hate equality, progress and politeness. When you have to lie to try to make me look bad, you show your argument has no validity.

    86. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Kielistic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not really at all, no. I was merely pointing out the term "social justice warrior" refers to sanctimonious blowhards more concerned about their own egos than than anything that could possibly be defined as "social justice". Which is why the term causes such a fuss in some folk that feel the need to reply to it with petty insults and empty regurgitated statements they think make them sound profound like "[challenging] their comfortable world view". Which is exactly how a sanctimonious blowhard would react when someone questioned their position.

      Trust me pal- nothing you can say challenges my world view, comfortable or otherwise. You are completely vacuous. You fit nicely into my world view under the category of extremely insecure people that latch onto something arbitrary that they think projects their superiority to the world.

      You are more than welcome to post your drivel here. Just don't expect everyone to pretend you aren't a fool. I am really unsure how you thought that post wouldn't make you look like an insecure infantile loudmouth. But I guess you sure showed me?

    87. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by sg_oneill · · Score: 1, Informative

      Slashdot has been fairly in the bag for the SJWs over the whole #gamergate thing, but this is a bit much. Really, we need be a advertizing platform for pet projects of the SJW crowd now? A "gender equality in tech" story 3 days a week wasn't enough? WTF happened to Slashdot? Broad political clickbait was a bit understandable but this is starting to look like a Gawker site.

      We miss you Taco, but it's becoming clear why you left.

      This isn't about SJWs its about online harassment. Seriously go look up /baphomet/ on 8chan and see whats going on (And yes I realise bap is not gamergate, but there sure is a lot of crossover in targets). People have been killed because of swatting.

      Fighting back against peoples lives being fucked up and even ended by chan dwelling bullies isn't being an SJW, its called being an adult.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    88. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aside from the fact that anyone could have posted those threats, I can't even say that anyone could make those threats and then blame it on gamergate because they didn't even mention gamergate. That was Brianna. But hey, keep up the classy posts.

    89. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      probably because Zoe Quinn supposedly unfairly profited from the corruption

      No she didn't. Nobody has been able to point an instance of this actually happening. She had an affair with a journalist who didn't review anything she did. Thats it. A pissed off ex boyfriend posts that his girlfriend had an affair (It happens) and uh, for some reason that nobody can quite explain this is "corruption and something that people who don't know her are supposted to be angry about FOR SOME REASON.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    90. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by vux984 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      probably because Zoe Quinn supposedly unfairly profited from the corruption.

      So does the guy bribing policemen. But they still aren't the story.

      those willing to engage those journalists in corruption are just as bad

      No. Because I have no real expectations of integrity on the part of the people whose product is being reviewed.

      With journalists the quality and integrity of the reviews. Its on them to say no and remain impartial; whether its an offer of a free laptop or a lapdance. And if they do accept the laptops or lap dances then its on them to make full disclosure of that fact.

      Whether or not the developer offers laptops or lapdances to the reviewers really is irrelevant to me. I judge the developer on the game. And I rely on the reviewer to maintain the integrity of the review.

      Judging the developer for the integrity of the review is as idiotic as judging the football players for the integrity of the referees.

      her role became exacerbated by her lack of grace and social skills in dealing with this in a constantly escalating war of words from arsehats on both sides of the fence.

      I think we're interested in Zoe because she's female. If a male developer had fucked his way to some good reviews... I'd bet anything we'd blame the reviewer. (which is what we SHOULD be doing here.)

      Hence my suggestion that there is an ironic sexism at play here after all.

    91. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, callling us the same names the media has been calling us for months and that started this whole thing. That will really hit home.

    92. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Meh, I've seen the announcement the he made where he didn't actually review the title but did manage to call it out as a stand out title from a list of 50 steam green-lit games, not once but at LEAST twice in an article not more than 3 paragraphs. The other 49 titles ... well one or two others got a mention, and the rest made an alphabetical list.

      It was unprofessional, to say the least, and I agree that the author violated his ethics and integrity by not mentioning that he also happened be having a relationship with the developer of one of the games he just happened to feel was such a 'standout games'.

    93. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Locando · · Score: 1

      How about "authoritarian leftist" then? Nice and neutral, and if they dispute the first part, it can open up a dialogue about what freedom actually means in a pluralistic society in which they don't automatically get to be right about everything. Everybody wins.

    94. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by tsotha · · Score: 1

      This sounds about right to me. The only takeaway question I have from it though; is how does anyone give a shit about Zoe Quinn?

      Nobody does, really. The anger, I think, really comes from the fact that these people got caught with their pants down, and instead of offering a mea culpa and moving on they decided to attack their customers... and it worked, to a certain extent. I mean, look at the slashdot headline! They've been successful at creating the GG = misogyny meme by visiting 4chan and chumming for some crazy.

      I'm not sure how to read the larger picture except as another indication facts don't matter to SJWs, as if we needed more evidence.

    95. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Locando · · Score: 0

      Just because it's been used that way by certain wingnuts doesn't mean that's what it means in a general academic context.

      (Whenever anyone says something along the lines of "racism against white people is denied by leftists", though, I do wonder what they think racism is and why those who study it, of all races, consider white-on-black racism to be sui generis when it comes to American race relations.)

    96. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I get bored really easily.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    97. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are an idiot if you believe people should hide when developing games, obviously you are a straw man troll.

    98. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you can't have a debate without being called "racist, homophobic, misogynstic, cockstains". That is if you aren't blocked by someone you've never met because someone with no clue has written a poorly written blocklist.

    99. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Locando · · Score: 2

      Let me see here... rabtech said:

      To a letter, every single person I've talked to who is supporting gamergate is spouting lies and half-truths.

      And then you translated that as:

      You pretend to have spoken to enough GamerGate supporters to have formed a solid opinion,

      And then:

      Maybe there was a legitimate point buried in there, but it's long been lost in the random mob attacks.

      Somehow became:

      you think GamerGate harasses people

      (Emphases mine, of course.) Is there some secret way to reinterpret these lines that I'm missing?

    100. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Kielistic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It didn't work before so you'll try again, huh? You've got one tactic and you'll flail away with it until everyone just gets bored and you feel vindicated. You don't get to just conflate two completely different things. You know exactly what people mean when they say "social justice warrior".

      No one is "resetting" any term but you. You are well aware people are using it as a sardonic pejorative. Your response of "these people did things that some random person might have called social justice and therefore they are social justice warriors so you can't use social justice warrior as a pejorative" is humorously asinine. The abolitionists had nothing at all to do with the current culture of what people pejoratively label "social justice warrior". Stop trying to defend your vacuous moral preening using the accomplishments of others. And that is exactly what you are trying to do.

      I never said anyone else is bad. That is purely a fabrication by those who hate equality, progress and politeness.

      I'm not saying anyone is bad; I'm passive aggressively saying they are bad. That's what makes me morally superior!

      No one hates equality you imbecile. I don't have to make you look bad. Your pathetically transparent attempts at grand-standing do that all on their own.

      Let me spell it out for you. You are exactly what people mean when they use SJW as a pejorative. A pious fool that thinks they're profound. A person that immediately labels anyone that disagrees with them as some list of non-sequitur horrible things because you are too intellectually stunted by cognitive dissonance to actually handle a dissenting opinion. "Could I be wrong? No, that person just hates puppies and probably kittens too."

    101. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Kielistic · · Score: 1

      I have no idea what you just said.

    102. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're referencing Wikipedia on a matter of public debate. Did you know how much the elephant population has increased lately?

    103. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

      You know exactly what people mean when they say "social justice warrior".

      And everyone else knows they are wrong. "Social justice warrior" as a pejorative is insulting to those that fought for actual social justice.

      No one hates equality you imbecile.

      You are a lying sack of shit that edits quotes to change reality to match your Nazi utopia. Keep on hating equality and lying about it.

    104. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, the "developer" in this submission is Zoe's trust fund boyfriend.

      And yes, she has dodged, threatened, and harassed people herself, the fucking hypocrit. Including fellow devs (is she really a game dev? She made a fucking choose your own text adventure with web pages and hyperlinks) and even female game DEVS. She is a shady piece of shit. She is as shady as Brianna wu is crazy.

      PS, for all the Slashdot sheep, GAMERGATE PEOPLE STOPPED GIVING A FUCK ABOUT HER MO THS AGO. The only people trying to convince you GAMERGATE is about her or gives a shit a out her beyond her being yet another example of the bullshit in games press are HER and her friends like Brianna wu. Both who have payreons to... Basically pay the, to keep existing and justified by nothing other than I AM A VICTIM YOU GUYS. Zoe is getting $40k a year from her patreon. Brianna is getting $160k.

      Slashdot is a bunch of ignorant retards buying into a story without any thinking for themselves. Proven by thinking goers give a fuck about who stuck their dick in zoe,when the real complaint is nepotism, payola, and political agenda pushing in gaming press. Peop,ego twirled of the daily articles by games press telling the audience they are sexist racist homophobic pieces of shit for playing games by peop,wwho self identify a snot playing games. People got tired of being preached to by a bunch of junior college social media majors. They got tired over the last five years of their games coverage sites turning into a place for sanctimonious blowhards to push their social agendas. Even when people agree with some of their points, they get tired of being bombarded by it daily, accusing the, of being pieces of shit just for playing games.

    105. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      No, that's been researched. GG is mostly left of center. This is authoritarian left (SJWs like Quinn, Alexander, Grayson, McIntosh, Chu, etc) vs libertarian left (GG).

      Could you give some names of the libertarian left, with addresses, information about their families etc. so they can be attacked same as the authoritarian left? Information wants to be free.

    106. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Today's social justice warriors and feminists are not the same as the respected heroes of the past. They are selfish self involved busy bodies who want attention and money and manipulate the labels that belong to people far better than they will ever be. They attack other SJWs and feminists who call them out on their shot. If you are a woman or gay or anything else and you disagree with them, they dismiss you as stupid, ignorant, and or self loathing and internally misogynistic. They are not hero activists. They are al Wharton and Jesse Jackson a,balance chasers personally capitalizing on real issues and other people's labels and making everyone else a victim that needs t be rescued. Zoe quinn just now got her rainbow coalition.

      fuck, even Camille paglia can't stand their shit anymore and has written about what pieces of shit they are. They are privileged trust fund babies who are spoiled and somehow think they are radical 69s marchers for justice, behind their Twitter accounts as they hypocritically engage in everything they complain about others doing.

      They are the reason so many women today identify as supporting everyone's equal rights but SPECIFICALLY say they are NOT feminists.

    107. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by cyber-vandal · · Score: 5, Funny

      Every time I pass a white male homeless person (by far the majority of homeless people in my city) I tell him to check his privilege and they are most grateful for my concern about social justice and the oppression of rich white women.

    108. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by dave420 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Fascists like Rosa Parks, you mean? Pointing out injustice is not a bad thing, unless you are the one being unjust.

    109. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      Calling out bullshit is fascist? "SJWs" are just doing what GamerGate claims to be doing - pointing out the lies and corruption. GamerGate was all based on the original lie that Quinn slept with a journalist in exchange for a good review of her game, and outrage at the lie being exposed.

      Start by posting a link to the review, or just admit it's all nonsense and move on.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    110. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, it looks to me almost like a games industry Ratner moment

    111. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by gnasher719 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Don't forget she was also caught retweeting offers from GNAA trolls to pay for fake harassment tweets directed against her.

      Strange sentence. What do you mean by "caught"? If someone offers to pay for harrassment tweets, that's highly damning and any victim of this would make it known as widely as possible. I would have said "She cleverly fought back against the GNAA trolls by retweeting their offers to pay for fake harrassment tweets directed against her".

    112. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ABC news deserves some opprobrium and they're certainly getting it in the comments.

      Recent story

    113. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the fact that she has influence.

      An angry ex slagging off his girlfriend wouldn't normally get any attention, it happens all the time. Gjoni's account makes her sound like a bad person so people naturally want to diminish her influence. We usually prefer it if those we see as the bad guys don't get rewarded.

    114. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taken out of context. This is like taking "People's democracy is bad" and going, see, you just hate democracy! No, we hate your bastardized version of it that does more harm than it ever will good.

    115. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Post a link to the positive review she got with sex.

      For fuck sake, we've been over this, it wasn't a "review" it was a preview of the game where her shitty HTML pages were called a "game" and given top billing alongside actual indie games. There's no way you haven't read that article by now so I'm not going to do your homework for you and dredge up a link you can spend two seconds getting on your own.

      As for the FYC's event, she made some criticisms of it and then they floundered on their own.

      Is "made some criticisms" a new euphemism for DDOSing? She did way more than just criticize, she got their funding pulled and her followers DDOSed their website.

      Oh, right, harassment is fine when SJWs are doing it, I keep on forgetting. Fuck off, AmiMoJo, just fuck off.

    116. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Do you feel the same way about "men's rights activist"?

    117. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't good enough to win an award

      capcha: snuffed

    118. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by justaguy516 · · Score: 1

      It was a free game. She didn't profit from it at all.

    119. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's about as much of a 'game' as this comment thread is.

    120. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still parse "SJW" as meaning "Slack-Jawed Whore".

    121. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It wasn't a review, it was an article about her involvement in the collapse of a reality TV show:
      http://tmi.kotaku.com/the-indie-game-reality-tv-show-that-went-to-hell-1555599284

      This was something that according to a post on her blog she was worried she was going to be sued over. Good thing this article exists to paint her in a positive light and say that it was totally not her fault at all.

      So, now we've established that there was an article, and that the content of the article can't be trusted because it was written by someone in a sexual relationship with Zoe, and that that is an enourmous issue from journalism credibility/ethics point of view, and not just "her personal sex life", you're going to counter with "but when Nathan's editor spoke to him about it he said that the sexual relationship started a few days after the article was written, so it's totally okay".

      Assuming that what Nathan says is true and the sexual relationship didn't start earlier, the sexual relationship started while they were on a trip to vegas that had been planned for a least a week prior to the article being written, so best case scenario we end up at Nathan wrote an article about someone he was so close to they had planned to go on vacation together.
      http://i.imgur.com/qKlWpNT.jpg

    122. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zoe Quinn was initially at the forefront because
      a) Nathan Greyson wisely shut the fuck up and went to ground
      b) Zoe, while under a cloud of potentially using relationships for her own gain, called in personal favors to get major discussions of the topic shut down (most notable the reddit gaming thread about it)
      c) subsequent to that she engaged with and antagonised Gamergate people on twitter
      d) She has a prior history of being unpleasant and manipulative

      If not for these things I doubt anyone would have given a shit about her after a week, since as other people have said, her game is almost universally considered awful.

    123. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She did get mentioned, er highlighted, in an artical already. That point has been made, as to the rest of the sexual favors she bought, just look at how those media types defend her. Bought and paid for with sex.

    124. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by serviscope_minor · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Where is your evidence?

      Well, basically in the minds of RedPiller's SJW == Commisnaziliberalcanadian or something. It seems there is no enormity of which SJWs are not beneath. Basically everything that these people don't like gets labelled "SJW" and that is expected to shut down the conversation, because once you've been labelled as an SJW, you're clearly worse than Hitler and Obama combined and are so far beneath contempt that there's no point in continuing.

      So basically SJW is everything they hate so you're clearly an SJW for not believing random, bile filled crap on the internet.

      And don't let the fact that so far all of the most major unsubstianted claims have been disproven (as if they even need disproving) put you off!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    125. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in my day we had a term for them, something to do with jumping on the bandwagon, not that any of them would know what that is today.

    126. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You made the claim, thus the burden if proof is yours you lazy twat.

    127. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by LaurenCates · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Rosa Parks was an activist, not a Social Justice Warrior.

      The difference (alas not mine):

      An activist fights for a ramp into a building for handicapped people.

      Social Justice Warriors fight to remove the stairs, for the misbegotten fear that someone might be offended because a handicapped person can't use them.

      --
      Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
    128. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      SJW is not a word. It's an acronym of a phrase.

      Initialism, not acronym: It's pronounced "ess jay double-yoo", not "sss'juh'wuh".

      But yes, I agree with the rest. It is used to mean commienaziliberalobamacanadianmuslim or something. Basically a sort of mishmash of whatever the user of the phrase hates most.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    129. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I remember a great quote from Wally of Dilbert: "I used to read but it's faster to make stuff up".

      I think that summarises your views on Social Justice very well. You've basically invented a cause and then assigned people to it so you can dismiss them without thinking. The problem is, it's all made up.

      I guess that makes me an SJW becuse apparently now pointing out utter shit online is Social Justice because you don't like it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    130. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      So basically "SJW" is a straw man. I've been called an SJW on Slashdot but I certainly don't believe that discrimination against white males is acceptable, and have said so repeatedly. It's just straw man label used to attack me rather than address my actual arguments.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    131. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot's defacto beta male weaboo AmiMoJo reporting for durty!

    132. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ideologues who believe that they can create a Utopia, if only everyone acts the way they want, have done a lot of damage in the past. These are people who:

      * Believe there's no bad methods, only bad targets. Look at the way Gawker whips up harassment campaigns against random people who Tweeted a bad joke, sometimes getting them fired.

      * Hate "freedom of speech". They'll reduce it to the 1st amendment using Libertarian logic - banning polite discussion is OK on a private forum (the one time they ever agree with Libertarians). But they wish the 1st amendment didn't exist, and that all speech they disagreed with was banned.

      * Use either popularism or sophistry (critical theory) to prove their points rather than hard evidence.

      They aren't as dangerous as more competent authoritarian movements. Disaffected uni students unable to adapt to civilian life are less dangerous than disaffected WWI veterans. They want the warm egalitarian structure of a university tutorial to be the model for society (with someone they approve of acting as the tutor), not the structure of a military operation. But simply being incompetent and passive doesn't make them a force for good.

    133. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like Mugabe, with less economic sense.

    134. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Presumably it's because the goal is to prevent people "crashing" the victim's life with doxxing and swatting and general harassment.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    135. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Actually, you (assuming you're the same AC who bravely 'forgot' to log in) made the original claim about her ruining an event. Where's your evidence for it?

    136. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by LaurenCates · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've waffled for years about whether or not I should consider myself a feminist, especially considering the personal stakes involved (female, engineer).

      The GamerGate business shoved me the hell out of it, particularly since I have Atheism+ bullies as friends-of-friends. They're the type who are not gamers, have done no research into gaming journalism, but sure-as-hell sided with Quinn without so much as a lick of involvement in gaming culture (or science fiction, BDSM, Heavy Metal music, etc...).

      They're the kind of SJWs who squat on any subculture with whom they can come up with a beef that on the surface looks like sexism, and rely on the subculture under scrutiny to be too far into the realm of "the other" for normal people to disagree because of stereotypes. So, people without the time or the inclination to research, or find it terribly inconvenient just fall in line, or in the case of ABC's Nightline profile last week, just keep mentioning things in the same breath to reinforce the association without there actually being a tangible association to make.

      (I defy anyone who watched Nightline's "harassment in gaming story" to truly PROVE that gaming culture as a whole is really behind the harassment without cherry-picking examples from games.)

      In all fairness, harassment is wrong, and Quinn should not have received it, but the correct response would have been "find the individuals responsible and hold them responsible to the fullest extent of the law", not "WAAAAAH! Neck-bearded man-children want to keep me...umm, US, I mean, US, that's right, WOMEN out of gaming because they hate WOMEN. MISOGYNY! MISOGYNY!", while using their sympathetic media friends to bolster their story.

      Victims, of course. Victims who happen to have the media on their side already.

      They aren't gamers. They just want the moral high-ground over low-hanging fruit.

      And that's lazy. That's not hard work.

      Feminism, if it were truly about the equality that women just don't have yet, should be about hard work. About changing the perceptions of what women are and what women want, not about scolding men until they're cowed into the "right" way of thinking by blunt-force messaging or peer pressure.

      So, I'm a gender egalitarian, and anti-feminist. There.

      --
      Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
    137. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by jo_ham · · Score: 1, Funny

      Every time I pass a white male homeless person (by far the majority of homeless people in my city) I tell him to check his privilege and they are most grateful for my concern about social justice and the oppression of rich white women.

      Is that man made of straw? Sure looks like it.

    138. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Vanderhoth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except when people attack the issue, Ethics in Gaming Journalism, the SJW turn around and claim it's an attack on women. Anita Sarkeesian, as an example, has a horrible argument, not evidence to back up her claims and steals footage and doesn't even play the games she claims to "critique" yet when someone points out how terrible her argument is, "SHUT UP!! HARAZZZMENTZ!!! MUH SOGGY KNEES!!!"

      Oh and for the shining example of what an SJW is. Look up Jonathan McIntosh, the white guy that writes Anita's material. A whole hash tag was spawned around his stupidity #FullMcIntosh

    139. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Grieviant · · Score: 1

      The response you're looking for concerning the positive PR Quinn received from Grayson has already been posted:
      http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

      But you already knew that, didn't you AntiMojo. By all means please continue to troll your own thread ...

    140. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Grieviant · · Score: 1

      And you can of course consult RPS for the first of Grayson's PR pieces as it is still up:
      http://www.rockpapershotgun.co...

      I see you're willfully misinformed about the TFYC incident also.

    141. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Vanderhoth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There was also this article that PROMOTED her game. The only people that call it a "review" are people trying to derail the conversion. Calling it a "review" allows them to argue about semantics if/when someone posts the actual article. Oh, and Nathan Grayson ADDMITTED to sleeping with ZQ, but claimed it happened several days after the last article (GameJam) he wrote featuring her... Never mind the fact that Nathan Grayson is thanked in the credits of ZQ's game this whole mess started over. So even if he didn't sleep with her, he didn't disclose he was friends or that he was essentially promoting a game HE worked on.

      This conversation usually goes:
      aGG: Why do you hate Zoe? Her sex life blah blah blah, journalist never slept with her or wrote about her. (denies articles exist)
      GG: Here are the articles
      aGG: Well he never reviewed her game so :P (argues about "review")
      GG: I didn't say he did, but he did write about it and did suspiciously choose it out of 50 other steam greenlite games
      aGG: Well it's not a review and he only mentioned the game (claims it's insignificant)
      GG: Nathan is also thanked in the games credits as someone that worked on the game he mentions.
      aGG: *BLOCKED* (blocks after being proven wrong)
      aGG: You're just a stupid misogynerd neck beard (Continues insulting and taunting...)

    142. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't a review, just a lot of positive coverage.

    143. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, what arguments? The same tired replies every single comment section?
      The same "oh post links or shut up!" replies you probably have pasted in a file to save you thinking for yourself?

      Every time, every single time someone posts links to anything, you ignore them and continue on your campaign of hatred across this site.
      You'll never read any of those links or posts unless it comes from SJW-approved websites. And even then you will likely slam them and blame soggy knees for forcing a websites hand or some other bullshit.

    144. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Vanderhoth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      SJW is more than that though "authoritarian leftist hypocrite" I'm libertarian left, maybe a hypocrite (I don't think most hypocrites are aware they are). SJW is someone that claims to be for some form of equality, but will turn around and tell women they've internalized misogyny or call a black guy a "house nigger" for disagreeing with them. I've literally seen this happen to members of #NotYourShield who support #GamerGate. I've also seen a conversation between several "SJW" who were upset minorities would were disagreeing with them, and I've seen a Reddit ban notice to a transgender where the admin banned her because the trans "owed" cis-white people for fighting for their rights.

      I don't think Social Justice is bad in theory, but the vocal people pushing for it and the methods they use (Shame, Berating, Slander) are the absolute worst. Strictly in GamerGate the SJW opposition is made up of pedophiles, animal abusers, ex-neo-nazis, people who saw rape as it was happening and decided not to intervene or report it. Their basically "born again Christians" who are making up and fighting extra hard against invisible boogie men to atone for being terrible people themselves in the past.

      It is a shame because Social Justice like Religion is good in theory, but the wrong people get a hold of it and it becomes a weapon to be justifiably more evil and bigoted to everyone else.

    145. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't about her.
      She just wants it to be about her.
      Any time things die down around her and her harassment, she goes and does something stupid to make everything explode again.
      Yes. She is one of those people.

      All of those is about bringing out corruption around the news sites, many of said "journalists" being MALE. (so much for sexism)
      Then you have Zoe and Brianna arguing like children on Twitter over who is the most harassed.
      It is a competition to be the biggest victim (and going by Patreon alone, Brianna is winning by several thousand dollars a month)
      The instant people stop paying attention to them, they get pissy and annoyed.

      And still nobody cares about Anita despite all her stupid TV appearances trying to get out there with all that kickstarter money she got for her shit game-attacking series that had about as much research as a kids essay and has had multiple people destroy any argument made in them. (that was all done by a guy in the first place. Anita is a face and nothing more.)

      No matter what any of these people do, it is nothing to do with them, even if it was sourced from them.
      Everyone is over the fact that she slept with reviewers, nobody cares about that, what IS cared about is the reviewer BLATANTLY never said a thing about this while posting about Depression Quest several times while they were certainly involved during its creation and after.
      And before the same retard comes in asking for links, they have been posted about 30 times in this comment section. As of now, there are 300 odd replies in here. Go RTFAs.

    146. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Do all the reviewers in "the best presses in the United States" bang the same girl and give her pathetic game good reviews?

      Do the journalists in the best presses have personal interests and allow them to bleed over into disproportionate attention? Absolutely they do.

      Zoe Quinn slept with all the major game reviewers and/or their editors. She gets rave reviews for a game people who actually bought have panned mercilessly.

      The game was free. No one bought it. It obviously markets itself as activism / educational and well it is boring. It is the sort of good cause shlock that often gets critical acclaim though it isn't particularly entertaining. Look at movie reviews in art magazines and then have someone who likes action movies try those movies out.

      Literally caught with their pants down, they point to their customers and scream "sexist!". That's the point of the scandal.

      If that were the case then Anita Sarkeesian wouldn't have been attacked. She had nothing to do with corruption. Also there would have been far more focus on the journalists who had sold their influence than the girl they were boning.

    147. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More More !! I want more !! .. so refreshing to read this slapdown .. but we appear to be facing an endless supply of morons - so please don't stop !!

    148. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by cyber-vandal · · Score: 0

      Are you trying to pretend there are no white male homeless?

    149. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by musterion · · Score: 1

      I suggest that they are "anti-fucking" fascists

    150. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Do you have any evidence that people actually supporting GG were making those threats?

      Ha ha, no. In fact, they like to post screencaps about doxxing and swatting from different boards on 8chan and claim those are from Gamergate. If you call them on their lies they claim all of 8chan is Gamergate, or they claim the other boards are Gamergate because they targeted people who were attacking Gamergate. They fail to mention that the people who were attacking Gamergate also attacked 8chan as a whole.

      If you want proof of this, just visit /baphomet/ on 8chan. They're planning attacks in response to being attacked. They've doxxed the guy who led the campaign to get 8chan's domain suspended (which of course didn't work for very long). They flooded his "Rate Your Teacher" page with complaints, in a manner very similar to the flood of complaints (seven in a few hours, after two months of silence?) that got Internet.bs to pull the domain.

      I'm not saying doxxing is justified. I'm saying they had very specific reasons to go after someone, and they had nothing to do with being pro- or anti-Gamergate. They did it because their home was attacked.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    151. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't actually need experts in information security, white hat hacking, PR, etc when you are the source of all of the threats and the "victims" are your willing friends.

    152. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Vanderhoth · · Score: 2

      I'm not the original AC, but here are a couple links. Make up your own mind if she's just blissfully unaware of her actions or if she's malicious.

      Dave Pakman interview with TFYC - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
      Forbs article discussing the event - http://www.forbes.com/sites/er...

    153. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Social Justice is a term that is defined by the actions you're willing to take.

      That could include forming a lynch mob, or treating others like scum because your group/race was treated as such in the past.

      Here is a fine example of your "Social Justice", www.cbsnews.com/news/okla-woman-mistaken-for-casey-anthony-attacked-by-woman-in-minivan-say-cops/

    154. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > got bored after two minutes

      A game that crashes to desktop because of player boredom in 2 minutes is one bad game.

    155. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by jbolden · · Score: 1

      They exploded at the same time and gave support to one another. The people who were leading GamerGate were quite often inflammatory and personally insulting. Look at this thread. You hear Quinn being called a "slut". That sort of language usually doesn't come up in discussions of corruption. For example Jonnie Williams is alleged by the McDonnells to have been flirting and carrying on with Maureen McDonnell yet he's not called a slut for doing it.

    156. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Vanderhoth · · Score: 2

      Too late, there have already been supporters of GamerGate who have lost their jobs, had threats e-mailed to their employers and been swatted at home. Too bad the media won't report it. https://jennofhardwire.wordpre...

    157. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Graydyn+Young · · Score: 1

      I know, right? Only an idiot would use there real name on the internet.

    158. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what the fundies and fascists always say.

      "Calling us out on our bad behavior proves we're oppressed!"

    159. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who does suffer from what the game attempts to display, there are a number of things. Medication does not do a damn thing for instance. The real "exaggeration" as far as I am concerned is two pronged: the game makes failure inevitable when it is not (this is depression, failure is terminal), and secondly chronic major depression is very rare. Generally depression is less intense but permanent, or extreme but only in episodes lasting a number of weeks.

    160. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did lose his job over that. Or more accurately Rock Paper Shotgun has merely stated it had to do with a disagreement about journalistic integrity. That blog is firmly in the "you are bad for being male and playing video games" camp and has done its very best to hide the issue. It did work for a number of months until this GameGate thing kicked off.

    161. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by techsimian · · Score: 0

      I don't think letting people post their thoughts on the internet is bad in theory....and then there's you. I really hope you are trolling, because the alternative is just sad.

    162. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moot banned it because people wouldn't shut the fuck up about it. It invaded boards like /fit/ where no one gave a shit. Honestly it's a boring topic. Who takes gaming "journalism" seriously anyway?

    163. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Personally I think the stated aims of the site are actually worthwhile and worth supporting.

      What I'd test is the implementation: Let's see them support the people being doxxed by militant feminists that target people trying to highlight failures in journalistic ethics.

    164. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brilliant post! Thank you for putting that trollish dolt in his place.

    165. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      And everyone else knows

      If you have to resort to claiming "everyone else" believes what you believe, despite evidence to the contrary, it probably means your wrong and/or bullshitting it.

      It's pretty clear there are multiple people that don't agree with you, so who is "everyone else"? Just the people agreeing with you?

    166. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Social justice warriors should definitely be referred as a perjorative for the use of force and hypocrisy if you do not share the exactly rigid ideology they do.

      SWJs are the equivalent of the Black Panthers, only I doubt those two groups would get along real well if locked in a room together.

    167. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some poeopke treat them distinctly, but for me, initialisms are juyst a particular type of acronym. FBI and IBM are acronyms, as is NATO or LASER. And so is MS-DOS and JPEG.

      And then there is GIMP

    168. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Which will show all the crap you are arguing didn't happen, so shouldn't we also say the same thing? Schmorgluck offered no evidence to the contrary despite there being evidence that this did happen.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    169. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      Pretty much what you said. Every single threat attributed to GamerGate hasn't even mentioned GamerGate. Some random guy on twitter threatened me and said he was going to rape my 3yr old daughter then burn down my house. You know what I did? Blocked the guy, turned off twitter and went to bed.

      What I didn't do was screen cap it and send it flying around the internet to make myself look like a huge target for trolls that LOVE to go after people that give them attention and then blame people playing pokemon for threatening me despite pokemon not even being mentioned in any of the threats.

      The media has created a huge issue here. Instead of blame being placed where it should be and seeking out the perpetrators of the harassment now everyone's taking the lazy way out, "It was GamerGate", which gives real trolls a perfect operating environment. Something Awful, GNAA, Bill Wagnor's Crew, /b/, Lizzard Squad are all riding the train now because they know they won't be called out for actual harassment. They don't support GamerGate and actively antagonize the pro camp as well, but it's not as much fun because the media doesn't report all the pro-Gamer people that are getting harassed. If it's not getting lulz, why do it? Dox or SWAT some unknown opponent of GamerGate and BAM!! instant news coverage with the victim on the front page or on an international show crying their eyes out blaming someone you hate equally as much.

    170. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by davydagger · · Score: 1

      Esentially she's enlisted the help of "the system", combined efforts of capitalism to help her against a few unwashed people who refuse to buy products as told.

      Lets debunk Zoe Quinn once and for all. She's not a game developer, she's a media person making a story, and this is backlash for Snowden, Manning, Wikileaks, Free Software, Piracy, and every last other radical thing the nerd community has done. Its slander at its finest.

      As far as "social justice" warriors go, most of them capitalist shills using socialist language to further the agenda of marketing corporations and the state, and should be ashamed of themselves. Things you never see, SJWs go after anyone in power, despite the mess of child molesting rapist athletes, musicians, politicians, lawyers, etc...

      Meanwhile while gamer gate is going on, the mainstream media repeatedly apologizies for Bill Cosby raping children, and Roman Polanski wants to get back into the country after he fled after admitting to actually raping a 13-year old girl. His excuse was typical MRA grade, "She looked older" trash. But when you make money for big media no one gives a fuck.

      The only time they seem to give a shit about "misogyny" is when it ends up costing someone with enough money to pay for their services money.

    171. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think we're talking about the same thing at all.

      Most SJWs are somewhat counter-intuitively white men. Which is hilarious, because they're generally working against their better interest.

      Yep, like the sort of tripe that ruined the webcomic Sinfest back in 2011 when suddenly this mary sue feminazi character appears and has derailed the comic ever since. Ok so the artist isn't white but still it was a lot of straw feminism coming from a dude all of a sudden.

    172. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      It isn't so much that social justice as a theory is bad, it is the people crusading for it that seem to be dishonest.

      When you see someone spout the statistic that women make x% what men make, you can tell they have an agenda. Women working in the same fields with the same experience and same education as men, make pretty much (97% I believe was the statistic) the same as men. BUT, when you take all women's salaries, and all men's salaries and add them together, then try and compare the averages, you got a wildly different number. This comes from the fact that more women work in low paying jobs, not that women are paid unfairly, as these jobs typically don't belong being paid more.

      When you look at all of this, and you see the posts from SJW on this subject, they tend to scream for higher pay for women, without realizing that this would mean that women would get paid MORE for the same job then men, therefore being unequal in the opposite direction. This is the type of argument that people against SJW are against. The dishonest attack of men as being misogynistic for pointing out that things are pretty equal. The people harassing men and doxing men, while crying about being harassed (the subject of this article).

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    173. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You probably need to adjust the gigantic dildo up your arse Presto.

    174. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's worth mentioning that Quinn and Lifschitz are both Something Awful forum veterans, and Quinn was a frequenter and fan of the "Helldump" subforum.

      One persistent rumor in #Gamergate is that a big part of the reason for Quinn's support is that many game journalists and tech bloggers are former or current SomethignAwful "goons", and part of a clique on that site of which Quinn is a member. There's little evidence, but it's a hard one to shake off when you see TheMittani tweeting support and the sheer lengths people are going to defend this person.

    175. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so that again beg's the question

      Beg's the question and Bingo was his name?

    176. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh don't be silly. The next step will be for her to get funding for it from bleeding hearts in government - and a nice fat pay cheque to keep her in quiche and cheesecake for the next 5 years.

    177. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by flonker · · Score: 1

      FYI, Wikipedia generally isn't the best reference for controversial subjects.

      I see the term SJW being used as a pejorative against a group which includes some but not all feminists. In particular, third-wave feminism seems closely intertwined with the social justice movement.

    178. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Key factor in seeing someone is a douchebag: they think the term "social justice warrior" is an insult.

    179. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except when people attack the issue, Ethics in Gaming Journalism, the SJW turn around and claim it's an attack on women.

      I got a suggestion for you. Turn off your computer. Unplug it from the internet. After you have done that, go out into the world and interact with people IRL. If you really think that "Ethics in Gaming Journalism" is a so serious an issue that it requires this much Sturm und Drang then you are in desparate need of some perspective. Yes, it time for you to venture out of your Mama's basement for awhile.

    180. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      Do you not know what site you're posting on?

    181. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And the end result of the people advocating for greater parental involvement by the men are called SJW, and attacked for demanding social change that hurts men. Say anything gender related that anyone doesn't like, and without even touching the argument, you see "shut up SJW" responses. As if "SJW" was a complete response in itself, proving everyone else wrong.

    182. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Totenglocke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anita has even openly stated that she hates video games, she uses them as a method of getting popularity.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    183. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Boronx · · Score: 1

      If you aren't harassing people, nobody's calling you names. If you aren't calling for people to be raped etc, then the criticism isn't directed at you. If you *are*, then the criticism is warranted.

    184. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      So, are you saying that Wikipedia is wrong, or just saying that because it doesn't agree with you, that you want to dismiss it? It's a central source for information. I'm not claiming it's biased. But from what I've seen from GG and other places, the anti-SJW group is much more activist then the SJWs they are counter-culture against.

      In particular, third-wave feminism seems closely intertwined with the social justice movement.

      The SJWs didn't name themselves that. From what I can tell, the name was assigned recently as a pejorative by their hates. Those haters are evil racists and misogynists. The first SJWs in the USA were the abolitionists That's the first time "social justice" appeared in print. If SJW is a pejorative, then the abolitionists were bad.

      But, as you note, it's generally an anti-feminist term today. But anyone familiar with the roots of the word would find it racist. So anyone using "SJW" as a pejorative is either a racist or a moron. And from reading the arguments put forward by such people, my linguistic analysis seems consistent with the current usage.

    185. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GamerGate is lashing out against bad journalism, and it's doing so with a boycott and letter writing campaign.

      Well, isn't that just so special! (pat, pat)

      It's just so cute when you gamergaters pretend this is about journalistic integrity. You just go right ahead with your little boycott and letter writing campaign. Go on! Keep tilting at that windmill, Don Quixote! I'm sure (in your own mind) you will win in the end! we're all cheering you on!

    186. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If you have to resort to claiming "everyone else" believes what you believe, despite evidence to the contrary, it probably means your wrong and/or bullshitting it.

      What evidence? I've posted links to evidence supporting my assertions. I've seen none "against" me. Evidence vs insults. Apparently insults without evidence wins you over. Must be why you like SJW as a pejorative.

    187. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Timeline:

      Indy dev makes chick game.
      Indy dev gets favorable mention by a media type.
      Rumor spreads that dev slept with media type.
      Group of gamers get furious at the alleged corruption.
      Some people go on comment sites and call for dev to get raped etc.
      Dev plus her friends loudly condemn such behaviour.
      Some how this gets gamer group more furious.

      You may say that the dev is on the authoritarian side, and gamers gate is on the libertarian side, but that's not how it looks.

      Being able to fuck your way to success, that's libertarian. Doing and saying horrible things to people because of perceived minor offense, that's authoritarian. Getting even more pissed because you get called on it, that's also authoritarian.

    188. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by BobSutan · · Score: 0

      Leftists are lazy, often histrionic personality disordered, and use fascism to achieve their political goals when their opponents don't acquiesce. Case in point:

      http://www.science20.com/scien...

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      http://news.investors.com/poli...

      To be clear, them unfriending you is just an example of censorship and shutting down discourse when it suits them, which is a classic tool of fascists.

      --
      "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
    189. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by BobSutan · · Score: 1

      And when I say they're lazy, look at the jobs leftists often hold. It's not in actual productivity jobs, but instead things like govt, non-profits, etc. Any time you hear about jobs pertaining to diversity or equality, that's leftist make-work. It's not productive and merely fulfills their egos. These videos do a much better job explaining this than I ever could:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
    190. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crash Override Network == CON

      Because it's a con.

    191. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by rochrist · · Score: 1

      Oh bullshit. Just...bullshit. You make this shit up in your own frightened head and then project it on to the world around you.

    192. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh.

      The "scandal" was about cover-up and censorship of the story. Investigations into Kotaku et. al. had nothing to do with justifying or exonerating Gjoni; they were prompted by the fact that Gjoni name-dropped some people that already had terrible reputations in the community (like "Nathan Stupid-Red-Pants-Wearing Kotaku-Writing Grayson"). The "accusations about journalistic integrity" are generally proven, and are *probably not what you imagine them to be*. Tons of stuff has since been turned up that has nothing to do with Quinn, Grayson etc. but are still unquestionably violations of standard journalistic ethics code. Nobody with a clue imagined for a second that "gamer news" was legitimate journalism, but a lot of these people position themselves as journalists when they want to puff themselves up, and bloggers when they want to disclaim personal responsibility. Besides which, that's not a reason not to campaign for change. Finally Gjoni was absolutely not an "arsehole slagging off his ex-girlfriend"; see http://theflounce.com/harassme... .

      Nobody is using this as a "reasonable excuse for death and rape threats and doxxing people". The smear tactics in play here are getting old. That's not GG.

    193. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1
      The claim you made was "everyone knows", which is an appeal to popularity. The terms SJW and Social Justice have alternate meanings to lots of people, what you're presenting is, "everyone agrees with me" while MANY people are disagreeing with you, RIGHT IN THIS THREAD. Therefore "everyone" does not believe what you say they believe. The example you provided (http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/202080/origin-of-the-phrase-social-justice-warrior) links to a page using RationalWiki and twitter as sources so it's just as relevant as Googling "Social Justice Warrior" and aggregating the top ten results, which clearly defines it as something other than you're trying to define it as.

      I'm not insulting you personally, just pointing out that you're clearly wrong with your argument in saying, "everyone" as a way to BTFO people that clearly are not agreeing with you.

      I support the dictionary definition of feminism:

      the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men

      But that doesn't mean I support crack pots that claim to be "feminist" so they can justify attacking a man over his shirt.

      How feminism is defined and how it's perceived are two entirely different things. In one case it's dictionary definition is used as, "You support equal rights for women, great you're a feminist then!!", on the back end it's used to justify out right attacking people that are "anti-feminist" as being "anti-women" and the use of positive discrimination, which has NOTHING to do with women's rights and everything to do with forcing people to comply with a minority ideology. I've seen people, women, claim to be egalitarians because they don't like the public perception of feminism and get practically lynched for it. I REALLY want feminism to survive, but if it's going to, people need to separate "I support equal rights for all" feminist from the "Boys are dumb, throw rocks at them" feminist.

      TL;DR - How something is defined in a book is not always how it's used in practice.

    194. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      No, I'm saying that the existence of white male homeless people doesn't mean that other white males (the vast majority, compared to white homeless males) are in a position of privilege in society.

      I know you're going for the cheap joke, but I think your implication that these "rich white women" are making a fuss over nothing doesn't hold water.

    195. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To think that a comment like "every single person I've talked to who is supporting gamergate is spouting lies and half-truths" is worth making, inherently requires a belief that one has spoken to enough of such people to merit forming an opinion on that basis. It's pretty clear that the phrase "random mobs" in that comment is intended to refer to Gamergate supporters, and it's not hard to get from "attacks" to "harassment".

    196. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      She's had her 15 seconds of internet fame.

    197. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      well, it sounds stupid as hell. you instantly have in your mind something akin to a power ranger when you hear it, or at least i did. I'm fairly sure I cringed the first time i read it. Saw the acronym, wondered what the hell it was, looked it up, and cringed.

      It is as stupid and clunky a title as you can come up with. but sure, take pride in being called something ridiculous.

      I'm fairly liberal as they go, my big ones are civil liberties and free speech, gay rights aren't really my thing, gender equality less so, though i'm pretty sure i fall on the right side of the fence on both. But when i read some of the shit going on with gamers gate... all i'm thinking is... if you feel this passionate about women's rights... actually do something about it. give money, give time, send a girl to school in pakistan or some shit. there are actual women's issues, that shit isn't one of them. talk is cheap.

      gamers make fun of women? so? they make fun of everybody. what's your point?

    198. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Locando · · Score: 1

      Just wanted to dissect one of the claims you're making:

      SJW is someone that claims to be for some form of equality,

      Lots of people claim lots of things. The KKK called themselves Christian, Lenin said he was working on the behalf of the proletariat, etc. Not necessarily relevant.

      but will turn around and tell women they've internalized misogyny or call a black guy a "house nigger" for disagreeing with them.

      I've seen a Reddit ban notice to a transgender where the admin banned her because the trans "owed" cis-white people for fighting for their rights.

      And this is precisely why I say the term "authoritarian" is warranted in these cases (assuming they're true), regardless of whatever small-L libertarian ideals they claim. These are people who clearly agree firmly with the right to dictate orthodoxy to others, no dialogue necessary.

    199. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      How something is defined in a book is not always how it's used in practice.

      And when the use contradicts the previous use and the books, people generally complain about it. For some reason, my complaint pissed off a bunch of anti-SJW zealots. "social justice" was originally coined in relation to the abolition movement. That's what social justice is. Calling someone a social justice advocate as a pejorative is insulting to that movement, and all the actual social justice movements (sufferage and such).

      I don't care if you assert the meaning is different. You insisting that it doesn't mean that any more won't change that I find the use as a pejorative offensive.

      But apparently I'm not allowed to be offended by people who are deliberately using a pejorative with the intention of offending others.

    200. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      you don't lose much by consolidating that set.

    201. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Locando · · Score: 1

      It doesn't inherently require anything! That's not what that word means. Writing the word "inherently" inherently requires using the letter "E". You might think that it's a piss-poor argument if you don't have the right reasons for having an opinion, but others might think differently. That's an argument to be had about the validity of generalizations, not GamerGate.

      And at the same time, if you have to interpret others' words in a certain way in order to validate your argument, you're probably doing it wrong.

    202. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      :) honestly, sometimes the female gamers annoy me in my go-to game, well the ones i can identify as female, aka the ones that use the mic. they don't spam the mic more than other players, but in general they have higher voices, and it gets aggravating. same way some adolescents can get really aggravating when they spam the mic. Also, they need to up their game. they just don't put in the hours.

      Anyway, that's my 2 cents, thanks for sharing your perspective.

    203. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      i am a liberal, SJW is still a pejorative, to me it has the connotation of having a incomplete/immature view of the issues. Again, to me, don't just talk about doing something, actually do something.

      it's not right to gloat, it's not right to preen, ego shouldn't have any part in moral undertakings, and that's the crux.

    204. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      My office has paternity leave, so if I were to father another child, I would gladly take advantage of it. When both my children were born, I did not have that option, but would have gladly taken advantage. My second son was born at 4am on a Sunday. I spent the night on the couch in the delivery room, then went to work on Monday. I did not have the ability to even have a day off, so sure, someone fighting for that is a great thing, this isn't a SJW type fight though.

      A SJW would call me a mysoginistic prick for even advocating equal rights for men, because I come from male privilage, and will never know how hard it is to give birth.

      Do you see the difference between actual social justice and the point of view of the people being called a SJW?

      A SJW does not believe that sexism could be against men.
      A SJW does not believe that racism can be against white people.

      This is not to deride the causes for women or minorities, it is to attack those who rally against racism and sexism with racist and sexist points of view, than claim to be a victim when people they attack and get fired as sexists or racists say mean things about them.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    205. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      gay used to mean something entirely different, as did faggot.

      but i'm reluctant to use either of those terms, usage changes. we are not talking about the historical source, but the common usage of SJW.

    206. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But apparently I'm not allowed to be offended by people who are deliberately using a pejorative with the intention of offending others.

      Who's not allowing you to be offended?

      You're free to be offended. You're just not entitled to NOT be offended. As long as we have a free society, people can and will deliberately use pejoratives with the invention of offending others.

      The only people who wants to restrict people's freedoms is the side that claims to be for social justice. In the non-derogatory meaning. You're mistaken on which side is the authoritarians here.

    207. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by flonker · · Score: 1

      So, are you saying that Wikipedia is wrong, or just saying that because it doesn't agree with you, that you want to dismiss it?

      I'm saying that it's a controversial subject, and as such, anything on Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt.

      I was not stating my opinion, because I hadn't seen enough of both sides to develop one yet. One side seems normal mixed with a few crazies, and the other seems all crazy. I was looking for the normals on the other side in order to see what their argument was, but have yet to find them. From what I've read here, I think I'm finally starting to understand that they are, in fact, all crazy, and that they have no real disagreement other than that they find the very existence of the first group repugnant for no readily apparent reason, and that they're projecting their thoughts onto the first group.

      I apologize for attempting to define "SJW". I thought you legitimately didn't know how the term was being used, and like I said, I now understand your side of this disagreement.

    208. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      I wasn't disagreeing with you. Just pointing out SJW has a specific meaning, at least as to how I've come to understand it, it's a specific type of hypocrite.

      As to the harassment a lot of it can be found here

    209. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      ... Calling someone a social justice advocate as a pejorative is insulting to that movemen...

      No, no no, no no no. "social justice advocate" is not the same as "social justice warrior" and you don't get to change the phrasing you're arguing about now just to suit your need.

      ...I find the use as a pejorative offensive.

      But apparently I'm not allowed to be offended by people who are deliberately using a pejorative with the intention of offending others.

      We'll there's your problem, you find it offensive and don't like other people defining it for you. Maybe think about why "Gamers" are so mad they've been labeled cis-white-male shitlord misogynerds?

    210. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      would be funnier if it were actually impossible, overlap makes it work

    211. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an interesting idea that's already been done before, to little or no fanfair: http://www.haltabuse.org/

    212. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, she didn't even get reviews. That's why it's so transparently damning. She had several articles across several sites saying her game was 'critically acclaimed' but that critical acclamation is circular. Look at the game on metacritic. One review, and not a good one. It was Friends and fuck buddies shilling for friends and fuck buddies from beginning to end.

    213. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.patreon.com/zoe
      yup! Four thousand a month of no profit.

    214. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit.

      There are plenty of publications that aren't part of this little circlejerk (hint: foreign publications in french and german) and even youtube gaming reviewers have been exceeding those standards for several years. I'm talking about simply disclosing, not severing all ties and interests that aren't visible to the audience and then some even going the extra mile of actually calling it out publicly when they catch it happening under everyone's nose. I have zero problem with how they make their ad revenue when they are being honest about it but it's when people in that industry start keeping a book of who owes them favors and their gameplan starts revolving around their network of alliances that I have a problem.

      The world outside the circle of wagons here in american gaming press remains completely sane and is not the least bit impress by the lazy skim-things-act-like-we-know-everything attitude here. Gamergate has never asked for anything remotely close to unfeasable aside from some figures to show some honestly when they have none left.

    215. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately not.

      SJWs who are on the prowl and attack a white neckbeard nerd gamergate supporter for his racism and mysogyny don't stop for little things like said "neckbeard nerd" being in fact a young black girl who likes playing on Nintendo.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    216. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      Ironically, it also makes their initials "CON".

      People who aren't fond of Quinn or Lifschitz have also taking to nicknaming it the "Cash Overdrive Network", on the assumption they're going to do something dubious as far as funding it is concerned.

    217. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Tell me what productive job can you perform with a major in Gender Studies or Female History?

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    218. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Seems the evidence was posted. What about counter-evidence?

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    219. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Also, by keeping it straight you run at risk of the two accusing you of homophobia.

      Words like 'man', 'straight', 'white' tend to be trigger words in these parts.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    220. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      If gaming media had responded to the actual complaints of GamerGate right off the bat, it would have diffused in a week or two. All it would have taken is stating some new policy about disclosure and recusal in the case of conflicts of interest and then actually following that policy. Instead, they responded by calling their respective audiences wailing hyper-consumer manchildren and the like. Now, we're closing in on being half a year in.

    221. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by SharpFang · · Score: 1
      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    222. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      You're missing an important consideration -- when it broke, the people who benefited her career went to ground and tried to stay out of sight, she instead started crying about how harassed she was and where you could donate to her patreon (which something like tripled in just a few weeks).

    223. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Kielistic · · Score: 1

      "Social justice warrior" as a pejorative is insulting to those that fought for actual social justice.

      No, self-absorbed idiots stroking their own egos by claiming to fight for social justice while doing nothing of the sort is insulting to those that fought for actual social justice. Again I must repeat: you do not get to leech off others' accomplishments. You are not them; you are not in their league.

      You are a lying sack of shit that edits quotes to change reality to match your Nazi utopia. Keep on hating equality and lying about it.

      Damn, you got me. When I said people don't like SJWs because they immediately use non-sequitur insults as soon as someone doesn't agree with them you completely proved me wrong by claiming I'm some horrible thing that had nothing to do with what we were talking about and you had no reason for saying. Your one rhetorical tactic is just too strong for me.

      To clarify, I didn't change any quotes; I mocked you. You said you didn't claim anyone was bad. Then in the very next sentence said people were bad. Do you really think people won't catch on to what you are trying to do when you say people hate *insert good thing*? You may be an idiot but most of us remember the question "why do you hate freedom?" we got by questioning the American war in Afghanistan.

    224. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Maybe that was back then. Currently the demand of SJWs would walk into the restaurant and start spitting in people's food.

      Seriously, that 'new wave feminist' movement is rabidly opposed to granting men any rights that would level the field where women have unfair advantage, for example blocking any laws that would allow men to persecute women for abuse, or raiding peaceful protests of men who request equal rights to retaining children after divorce.

      The word "justice" is used tongue-in-cheek. "Minority Supremacists" is far more accurate.

      And specifically, note 'warriors'. Most of their actions are counter-constructive. You won't see many positive initiatives from them, like helping these in need - instead, they focus on injuring these who, in their perception have upper hand in some allegedly 'unjust' situation.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    225. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I think that you think there is overlap between SJW and Libertarians would offend both groups.

    226. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Kielistic · · Score: 1

      And when the use contradicts the previous use and the books, people generally complain about it.

      Let me help you with that: Sarcasm see also: Sardonicism. It isn't a complicated concept really.

    227. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has nothing to do with gamergate.

    228. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Kudos to you.

      Feminism used to be about women proving to be strong and deserving an equal place.

      Currently it seems to be about women whining that they are victims and demanding privileges and preferential treatment to make up for being unable to keep up with men.

      I have a lot of respect for women who are strong, smart and brave enough to keep up or surpass men in 'male-dominated' fields, and I'd be first to protest if they were treated badly for being women.

      I also have respect for women who are aware of their weaknesses and pick much-needed jobs they still can perform well, even if not as 'prestigious'. The situation does have its mirror side, menial male-dominated jobs, no inequality here either.

      But I'm seriously pissed off when a woman who is definitely underperforming in the 'male-dominated' domain blames patriarchy for her failures. The opposite is extremely rare...

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    229. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Maybe but she WAS being harassed so she was only reacting (poorly) to a situation; I suppose that helped to allow it to balloon out of proportion.

      But individual people cannot "make" something go viral... that's on the larger community to collectively make happen.

      So why did we collectively CARE enough to make it happen? Is her gender a factor to why we (as a society) cared enough about the story?

      Would we have cared as much if an ex-girlfriend of a developer posted about her former boyfriend having slept with a journalist that resulted in some slightly extra coverage? Could he have cried foul and QQ as Zoe did? Or would we just roll our eyes and moved onto the next story?

    230. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. The view of SJWs is that whoever is in a position of privilege in society, doesn't deserve any protection from abuse from the 'oppressed' side. Say, "Blacks can't be racist", or "Men can't be raped".

      It's not about claiming there's no inequity. It's about their approach to resolving the problem. Someone some posts earlier put it well: if there's some stairs leading to a building, SJWs don't build a ramp for the handicapped, they remove the stairs so that handicapped don't feel bad about healthy people being able to enter.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    231. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Look up the gamergate article on Wikipedia. The original gaming media issue is practically nonexistent, the whole article is about the terrible mysogynists who attacked the innocent feminist activists.

      Wikipedia tends to support its articles with media publications and if media integrity is the subject, media tend to be biased. To get the truth you need to reach for the actual sources, and that constitutes "Original Research" which is not an accepted Wikipedia source.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    232. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      http://gamergateharassment.tum...
      The actual dox are censored on that site, but not the names of twitters/tumblrs/etc that posted them, so you should be able to find the original posts that dox gamergate supporters with little effort.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    233. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, people advocating for greater parental involvement for men are called "MRAs". The people who claim to be "helping men" but actively fighting against any attempts to improve family court, divorces, or paternity leave are SJWs like the N.O.W.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    234. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      That's like someone calling North Korea a shithole and you accusing them of hating Democracy because the country's name is the "Democratic People's Republic".

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    235. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      That chick game is the single tiny point of a very big campaign, where things spun from 'gamers against bad journalism' into 'feminists against mysogynic gamers'.

      GamerGate is not just about Zoe, no matter how much she'd like you to believe otherwise.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    236. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      I mean exactly what it sounds like:

      Anti-GG racist GNAA troll paying for fake tweets: https://twitter.com/TripleSK7/...
      Zoe Quinn retweeting earlier offers from same troll: https://twitter.com/MaxShillin...
      Archive of Zoe Quinn doing this: http://web.archive.org/web/201...

      You would have said "cleverly fought back" because you're trying to defend a domestic abuser that's been astroturfing since the original wizardchan lynch mob.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    237. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I'm having too much trouble reading between the editorials to figure out what specific acts you are unhappy about.

    238. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Playing a occasional game of candy crush does not make someone a gamer.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    239. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Search these comments for 'patreon'.
      Also search these comments for the word 'free' and replies to them.

      As much as GP post is misguided in 'people who actually bought', but the game didn't need to be sold to earn her money.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    240. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      I'm not the original commenter. I was just commenting on the amusing situation of a brave AC calling another brave AC a lazy twat after making an assertion with no evidence and being told that the burden of proof is on anyone who questions that.

      Given that they've all bravely forgotten to log in, it might be one guy arguing with himself. Who knows.

    241. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      In your opinion that is what SJW-types think. Based on what I have seen they generally don't claim that the privileged "don't deserve protection from the oppressed", and in the majority of cases they argue for equality above all else - in fact, I think that's a pejorative argument used against them in this very thread - that an equal rights campaigner wants a ramp for the disabled, but a SJW wants to just ban everyone from entering the building lest someone be offended that they can't use the stairs - either you lampoon them for being aggressively egalitarian or you lampoon them for "allowing" the oppression of those they see as privileged, it can't be both simultaneously.

      It's almost as if the characterisation of an entire group who all have vaguely similar ideology is difficult somehow because it contains individuals.

      Nah, can't be that. They're all exactly the same!

    242. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If she traded sex for that, she got ripped off. Also note that the "article", if we are calling it that, was written before their relationship began. Once it did, Grayson never wrote anything about her.

      If this is the huge scandal that revealed corruption at the core of games journalism... Well, you can see why people think it's just a pathetic attempt to justify the original lie.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    243. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's true, I feel really bad about being a privileged white guy. Life would be so much easier if I was a black woman, ideally with some kind of disability... Or better still a black guy who transitioned. The lack of oppression in my life is really holding me back.

      Actually, as it happens I am half Asian and have had a bit of racism over the years, so I guess you were wrong about all that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    244. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If you look at the responses on YouTube very few of them actually critique her arguments. One of the closest is Thunderf00t's, which typically start out with a few memes and image macros about what a lying bitch and feminazi she is before ranting for 10-15 minutes about some minor point that is largely unimportant. It's a classic mix of ad-hominem and straw man attacks, in his trademark breathless, incredulous tone. The others are considerably worse.

      When people say she was harassed, they mean the death and rape threats, the fake social media accounts, the lies like the claim she spent Kickstarter money on shoes, the fake porn of her, that sort of thing.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    245. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      (I defy anyone who watched Nightline's "harassment in gaming story" to truly PROVE that gaming culture as a whole is really behind the harassment without cherry-picking examples from games.)

      It isn't gaming culture as a whole, which is 50% female these days. It's just a minority of people who call themselves gamers. If you actually listen to Anita Sarkeesian she does point this out, and clearly states that many of the issues she raises are due to laziness and lack of awareness rather than malice.

      That's the really stupid thing about this whole debate. The gamers feel they are being attacked. They are not. The title of the videos is "Tropes vs. Women", not "Gamers vs. Women". They are about tropes, lazy shortcuts and obvious stereotypes that people use without really thinking about the consequences. She shows how over the years they have built up to the point where a developer wanting to make a game "gritty" will throw in some prostitutes and sexy corpses without really thinking about it, because that's what gritty is now. Of course it doesn't have to be - look at games like The Last of Us.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    246. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So they are social justice warriors, but because they are anit-feminist, they get a different label? Wouldn't that lead credence to my earlier theory that SJW is used as a pejorative for feminist, now that feminazi isn't used as much anymore?

    247. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      No, that's like saying the Democratic People's Republic of [country] as an insult. The thing you are calling them is purely positive, and used in a purely negative manner, unrelated (and contrary to) the definitions of each individual word, of any combination thereof.

      You don't get it, you must be from the DPR US. Your example was calling someone a pejorative as a pejorative. Completely unrelated to anything I've ever said.

    248. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by russotto · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that lead credence to my earlier theory that SJW is used as a pejorative for feminist, now that feminazi isn't used as much anymore?

      More properly, SJW is a pejorative for the same people that some on the right called "feminazi", so-called third-wave intersectional feminists. It is not used for second-wave feminists or egalitarian feminists (whose feminism the SJWs like to use in a bait-and-switch strategy). Unlike "feminazi", the term "SJW" is used by both those on the non-SJW left and the right.

    249. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I agree. But a patron's interests and a customer's interests can often be quite different. We'd need to know more about what the patron was trying to achieve.

    250. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're just karma whoring because you're totally misrepresenting gaming culture and the criticisms of it.

      The fact of the matter is, criticism of the sexism is gaming is well over due, and I've been a gamer for a good 20 years, and in that time I, like many other women that did a lot of gaming, explicitly avoided disclosing gender, using voice chat, or anything of the sort for a very, very long time. Because I saw the flagrant disrespect shown to those that did.

      This sort of experience is so well documented and so common for women in gaming that people wilfully ignoring it to score a few points with the dominant group are the ones throwing people under a bus, as you are right now.

      If you're lucky enough to have not experienced the hostility many women experience in STEM and gaming then you're lucky.
      Using your experience to deny that anyone else has suffered hostility is nonsense and at odds with the vast majority of experiences from other women.

      Just like not all nerdy men are neck-bearded jerks, not all nerdy women experience the same hostility.

      It's bad form to generalise either experience.
      Many nerdy guys are decent people and are totally behind wanting STEM and gaming to be inclusive spaces for everyone, and many women in those spaces have dealt with the *other* guys that are massive misogynistic fucks.

      Identify how ever you want, but if it relies on erasing the differences in people by implying that anyone interested in diverse spaces is a whining SJW then you are just as bad as the people you claim to dislike.

    251. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      :) see? overlap right there.

      personal liberty isn't common ground?

    252. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Game journalism has never been and will never be honest. This is because gamers want game porn far more than they want hard hitting game journalism. In order to provide the game porn, the media has to get in bed with the developers and the publishers. This will lead to gamers getting burned from time to time. The old adage "buyer beware" applies especially well to any new release game.

    253. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I've been told that SJW's are against personal liberty. SJW means oppression by the minority, but requires oppression. So, unless the people here defining SJW for me are wrong (or lying), then it would require Libertarians to be anti-liberty for there to be overlap.

    254. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We miss you Taco, but it's becoming clear why you left.

      Funny you should mention Taco, because if stopped by I would ask him (online of course) to have a quick look at this thread and tell us if he still thought his moderation system invention worked.

      It's moderation by a gg mob, which is also an anti-immigration mob and an anti-copyright and an anti-Sony/Microsoft mob. An Internet newspaper forum works better, because at least you get both sides of each issue in the comment section.

    255. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? It is MUCH more polite than saying "spoiled little snowflake con-artist with sociopathic tendencies".

      And I for one, do endeavor to be polite.

    256. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey Wow!

      It's almost like I can predict the future and already countered your argument of "but they didn't have sex until two days after the article was written" with "they had sex on a trip to vegas that was planned before the article was written"

    257. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      At this point you're deliberately refusing to understand plain english. SJW is a perjorative term invented as a response to feminists whining "but that's not TRUE feminism!" every time a feminist did something blatantly bigoted and anti-equality. It's a term used for people who use the language and appearance of Social Justice as a smokescreen for actually being toxic abusive bigots.

      This is made exceedingly clear almost everywhere it's ever used, but you continue to try and rewrite history to somehow erase that and defend people who commit felonies and violent crimes using "social justice" or "feminism" as a shield against criticism.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    258. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      You're making a metaphor so I know for a fact you're capable of understanding words have more than just their literal meaning. This is no different than calling a notorious coward "hero" in a sarcastic or mocking manner.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    259. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      SJW is a perjorative term invented as a response to feminists whining "but that's not TRUE feminism!" every time a feminist did something blatantly bigoted and anti-equality. It's a term used for people who use the language and appearance of Social Justice as a smokescreen for actually being toxic abusive bigots.

      Then why do I see it used here for everyone that seems the least bit feminist, even when being completely rational and reasonable?

    260. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure you understand how Patreon works. It's not goal-oriented like Kickstarter. It's more of "Let people throw money monthly at a creator, and the creator promises to deliver something nebulous from time to time." While in Kickstarter you're interested to see a specific completed product, in Patreon you 'show support' letting the creator 'keep doing the good job'. As result, popularity - especially victim style or activist style popularity - yields very good results.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    261. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Ah, the old "Few rotten apples" argument. It's so hard to debunk. Luckily, someone
      took time to collect quotes from about all leaders of one large slice of the SJWs - "3rd wave feminists". You'd be hard-pressed to find a non-rotten apple in this basket.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    262. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by lgw · · Score: 1

      Very well put, sir.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    263. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Simple: You're either lying through your teeth or simply so bigoted yourself that they seem perfectly reasonable to you.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    264. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

      yeah there was.
      On depression quest, kontaku wrote:

       

      DEPRESSION QUEST
      4/19/13The web has been abuzz about games with a focus on depression this year, Depression Quest in particular catching everyone's eye. But this very small subcategory of free games goes beyond just that title, and we can take in a true variety of experiences when exploring this space.

      There was no doxxing, no swatting just the author of a really shit game paying for positive reviews with her body. then game media BANNING people with actual depression who played the game and said it was shit from saying so.

    265. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by tsotha · · Score: 1

      I should have said "people who actually played..."

    266. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      If you aren't, go follow a couple of the high-profile ones on twitter and tumblr for a couple of months. That might adjust your view of the world a little.

      A social justice warrior is someone who thinks:

      1. Has a very particular and narrow view of "social justice" where groups, not individuals, are the only relevant actors, and where there is a set additive hierarchy of oppressed groups.

      2. that "we are at war", in other words, that anything is permissible to win.

      They think of themselves as the heirs to the civil rights movement and the anti-slavery movement and every righteous movement ever. But those movements tended to reject both 1 and 2. Note that the historical users of the phrase "social justice", mostly catholic activists and positive to paternalistic industry ("utopian socialism", model villages, worker communes etc. etc.), have especially little in common with modern SJWs

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    267. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      Social justice was originally an ideology from the early 19th century, a competitor to Marxism. Like Marxists, they were biological/social determinists, believing that no one, ever, did anything that wasn't dictated by his circumstances. Like Marxists (and any sane people) they agreed that the living conditions of Britain's urban, working poor were an affront to humanity. Like the Marxists, they were atheists (at least at first, SJ later caught on with Catholics as an alternative to Marxism - and arguably, Quaker and nonconformist religious industrialists were the proto-SJ's until Robert Owen came along).

      But where Marxists saw the revolution of the workers as the way out of that mess, SJ people said that's bullshit. The workers are living from hand to mouth, they are slaves of their circumstances, they can't change society, with violence or not. It's up to us, the rich factory owners, to change the social circumstances so that workers can escape poverty, misery and crime. So they built model villages and factory communes. Marx derided that as utopian socialism, which was easy enough as there were plenty of failed efforts to highlight.

      Modern "social justice" has almost nothing to do with this. Catholic social justice activists were still primarily fans of paternalistic factories, where the factory owner has a moral responsibility to care for his workers' material and spiritual well-being, but they did do a bit to promote the idea of privilege, i.e. that it can be hard to see things from the disadvantaged's perspective. Modern SJWs, aided by some upper middle-class academics, took that concept and twisted it into unrecognizability, and made it the centerpiece. In their world, privilege means that you're bad and I'm good, and you are totally unable to grasp that with your reason due to your privilege, so you must take it on blind faith and do as I tell you.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    268. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      Listen, words are just words, they can mean different things to different people.

      But there are some people who have an individualist attitude to equality. They will say that if a Roma is disallowed from entering a store, that's wrong because people are entitled to be treated as individuals. Even if it's true that Roma on average shoplift like crazy, that particular Roma has a right to be judged as an individual, and unless you caught that particular person stealing you must treat them just like you would treat anyone. Because people can't help what ethnic group they were born into.

      Then there are some people who say, no, the problem is that Roma are a historically disadvantaged group. They have been wronged in the past, they deserve our pity, therefore we should be nice to them. That's why discriminating against them is wrong. Some other groups are privileged, and those are totally OK to prejudge as a group. It is groups who are good or bad, Roma just happen to be a good group on account of their historic discrimination, that's all.

      I am one of the first type. It is people thinking like the second that I label SJWs. See the problem with them? Note that I do not dispute that Roma have been wronged in the past, and are still wronged I don't even dispute that they deserve pity. But I insist that whether you pity them or not, you meet each and one of them as individuals.

      An advantage of my viewpoint, is that if it turns out Roma do shoplift more than other people, that's not a problem for my conclusions. It does not change anything. Whereas SJWs are forced to strenuously deny or excuse anything that casts their supposedly oppressed group in a bad light, I can just say, "so?".

      Actual bigots, like the Pegida folks marching in Europe right now, love the SJW logic. They love that it's groups that are good or bad, not people - because that gives them excuses to feel better than they are, and it gives them plenty of avenues to attack muslims, Roma, or whoever the main outgroup is today. It affirms their us-and-them world view. It leads inescapably to the conclusion that segregation is a good idea! And the racists love that conclusion! (and when SJWs demand that white 14-year olds don't get braids, or complain of appropriating culture, they are of course demanding segregation too).

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    269. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      I would have just gone with, "Sex was inconsequential. Nathan was friends with Zoe going back as far as 2012, twitter history proves that. On top of that Nathan was thanked in the games credits, so even if they weren't having a sexual relationship, he was promoting his own game without disclosure and was friends with the dev he was writing about, without disclosure. Even if it was two days after he'd written about her, it's still proof their relationship was close enough he should have recused himself or disclosed the relationship."

    270. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      What privileged position does an ordinary white male occupy? There are plenty of poor white men and plenty of rich privileged white women. Not every white man is Donald Trump or Rupert Murdoch.

    271. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think Social Justice is bad in theory, but the vocal people pushing for it and the methods they use (Shame, Berating, Slander) are the absolute worst. Strictly in GamerGate the SJW opposition is made up of pedophiles, animal abusers, ex-neo-nazis, people who saw rape as it was happening and decided not to intervene or report it.

      You wrote those two sentences, one after the other, and you got moderated to +5 insightful. What the Hell?

    272. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Vanderhoth · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Sex was inconsequential. Nathan was friends with Zoe going back as far as 2012, twitter history proves that. On top of that Nathan was thanked in the games credits, so even if they weren't having a sexual relationship, he was promoting his own game without disclosure and was friends with the dev he was writing about, without disclosure. Even if it was two days after he'd written about her, it's still proof their relationship was close enough he should have recused himself or disclosed the relationship.

      Also the whole mess with Nathan Grayson was only the tip of the iceberg. Milo Yiannopoulos released the GameJournoPro mailing list, which was based of the JournoList mailing list that was a huge scandal in the mainstream media and got people fired back in 2010 for blacklisting and collusion, but hey didn't work for them lets start anther one. For the most part the GJP was harmless, but they did discuss blacklisting people, donating to patreons of gamedevs, how to narrate the GamerGate story, what game developers to suppress and what ones to promote, which is all collusion.

      Then there's the "Gamers are Dead" articles, which discuss the death of the "Gamer" identity. 10+ nearly identically worded articles all released in 24 hours, sorry but if that doesn't prove collusion I don't know what does. These articles are ACTUALLY what got GamerGate going. I could have cared less about Zoe Quinn and Nathan Grayson, but the gaming media slandering an entire demographic that's supposed to be their customers? To what end? In defense of their poor behaviour and being asked to be more ethical? Yeah that didn't fly with me, and if you look at the Topsy graph you can see August 28th is where GamerGate starts to go in to full swing.

      What's really funny though is at the end of the graph where #GamerGate is still getting 20K-25K tweets a day, most of the people I got into #GamerGate with aren't even using the tag anymore. We're all mostly following each other now, so using the tag to talk is pointless, we just read our regular twitter feeds, or spend time on KiA, or 8Chan. I'm pretty much just a twitter user myself, but I'm warming up to KiA. It's really easy to miss info on twitter and 140 characters sucks and encourages people to get into on sentence slap fights. Which is pretty much all you see on the #GamerGate tag now.

      The big issue is people are SOOOOOOO hung up on Zoe Quinn, most of us didn't care about her in the first place, but we're forever stuck explaining the origins rather than talking about what's happened since. GamerGate has already been successful:
      • It had several sites update their ethical policies, The Escapist, IGN, and PC Gamer.
      • Journalist ARE using disclosures now.
      • It helped point out blacklisting and collusion in the industry, like the blacklisting of Allistair Pinsof.
      • Pushed the FTC along in updating their guidelines and they're investigating sites like Gawker.
      • Cost Gawker Media millions in lost ad revenue and forced them to retroactively update articles with associated links
      • As a bonus GamerGate's donated over $120K to various projects to get women into the industry (TFYC & BasedGamer), and charities (anti-bullying, suicide prevention, UNICEF, GamerFruit, etc..) http://gamergate.me/charity/

      So whatever happens to GamerGate from here on out, it's already a win. People can throw all the crap they want at Gamers. Where people sit around and complain about the media or just accept it's corrupt and there's nothing to be done, we stood up and made an ACTUAL difference, even if people don't want to recognize it.

    273. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      What privileged position does an ordinary white male occupy? There are plenty of poor white men and plenty of rich privileged white women. Not every white man is Donald Trump or Rupert Murdoch.

      That's the point - the average white male doesn't realise how good he has it. It's not about just wealth. It's about the assumptions that go with being white males. They have better opportunities, they are assumed to be more virtuous and productive than anyone who is a non-white, non-male (or any combination of those things).

      This is why there's a pay gap between men and women of equal skill sets, and why less-qualified men are often promoted over more qualified women, or why less qualified whites are promoted over more qualified non-whites, or why non-whites viewed with more suspicion than whites.

      Boiling this down to purely a money thing is too simplistic.

      Our society is built on certain ingrained cultural assumptions that everyone has, conscious or otherwise. Some of them have fallen by the wayside as we have gone on, but the position as the white male at the top of that tree is the ongoing constant.

      This doesn't mean that because there are examples of white males who are worse off than others that the system doesn't hold. You have to look at it on a large scale.

      Now, what to do about that is a cause for some debate. I don't really have any answers, or feel like some of the proposed solutions are really adequate (for example, there are pros and cons to solutions like affirmative action that seek to address the ingrained hurdles that black people have when seeking employment that make such a system good in theory but at odds with a meritocracy in practice), but acknowledging that white male privilege exists is not controversial.

    274. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Males are not considered to be virtuous at all irrespective of colour. Try being anywhere near children as a man and see how 'virtuous' the man is considered to be. Men get shit for all the problems of society (even though we suffer from them too) and none of the credit for all the benefits. As to the pay gap, given that it's illegal to pay women less for the same job, can you give me some examples.

      White male privilege might exist for Harvard graduates but for ordinary men they can have their home and children taken away from them on the event of a divorce, can be forced to fight in wars, are more likely to go to prison and the prisons are far more dangerous, are just as likely to be assaulted by their partner but are more likely to be arrested of they report it and are widely portrayed by the media as witless buffoons.

    275. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by LaurenCates · · Score: 1

      So, giving my personal experience is "karma whoring" and I should just shut the hell up until I've taken my lashings like everyone else?

      What's your benchmark, then? When do I get to say there ISN'T a problem with sexism?

      And what's the problem with being a "gender egalitarian"? I've watched sexism happen in my life, I've watched reverse sexism happen. To me and to others. Maybe it's time MORE people came out as gender egalitarian, louder and stronger, so that people can actually engage with the notion that today's feminism isn't about equality but about how women are beyond reproach when accused of things like abuse?

      The fact is, I HAVE experienced harassment and discrimination, but I'm not calling it a "universal problem" anymore, because it isn't. I had to learn to pick up and move on and find places where there isn't discrimination, because there are plenty of places where there isn't, and I know plenty of women that are doing just fine, thank you very much.

      And there are plenty of places in gaming where women aren't harassed and discriminated against. I never said there weren't any places where that happens, just that it's not near the problem many feminists make it out to be.

      What you're talking about is like saying there's a crime epidemic everywhere because a few bad neighborhoods are overrun by thugs and gangs. Yes, those things are bad. Yes, people are never going to stop committing crimes. But that doesn't mean there's a crime epidemic. The same way there isn't a rape culture (except for the inconvenient truth of rape culture happening in prisons among male populations, but rape is only a sensitive issue to women, apparently).

      So yeah, I'm going to be a little patronizing here, but sorry if my enthusiasm for my own personal experience is kind of a bummer to you and doesn't meet up with the notion of the terrible experiences of women (myself included) you're characterizing here, but it's never going to get better if we don't acknowledge that there IS an upside and yes, we ARE getting there.

      --
      Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
    276. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      nuance is a good thing. my perspective, as an outsider with a slight bent toward the GG, due to my love of gaming, and a sympathy for the causes "SJW" espouse, is that it doesn't seem like the SJW has a very nuanced view of... well social justice.

      why are you for what you're for, what are the consequences, what are the root causes, how best to address them? you want gender equality, in the work place, in the video game, etc etc. so do i? does this extend to selective service? family leave is working toward true equality. how do we address pay equity, what are the actual numbers? why are boys doing so poorly in school, how do we address sexual violence on college campuses, why are women not getting into tech? how do we fix the "boys club" atmosphere at the top level of academia and business? what profession do women want to get into, and why? are we as a society keeping them from going where they want? or do they just not want to go there? maybe they don't want to go there because of societal nudges.

      but apparently, screw all that, because everybody complaining about the volume is a "neck beard" and against gender equality.

      I cringe at the term Social Justice warrior. social is fine. justice implies someone is a fault that someone must be punished... this in itself is alienating. warrior, takes on a religious connotation. and is a bit of a childish idea. if you want to call yourself anything, call yourself an advocate for social equality.

    277. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Males are not considered to be virtuous at all irrespective of colour. Try being anywhere near children as a man and see how 'virtuous' the man is considered to be. Men get shit for all the problems of society (even though we suffer from them too) and none of the credit for all the benefits. As to the pay gap, given that it's illegal to pay women less for the same job, can you give me some examples.

      White male privilege might exist for Harvard graduates but for ordinary men they can have their home and children taken away from them on the event of a divorce, can be forced to fight in wars, are more likely to go to prison and the prisons are far more dangerous, are just as likely to be assaulted by their partner but are more likely to be arrested of they report it and are widely portrayed by the media as witless buffoons.

      I see that's you're blinkered and looking for exceptions again. I rolled it all into one paragraph because I assumed you'd be able to see that *on the whole* white males are very privileged, but there are obviously situations where this is not the case.

      Let's look at some examples.

      Employment chance of equally qualified white male vs white female.
      Employment chance of equally qualified white male vs black male or female.
      Subjective trustworthiness of white male vs black male.
      Actual salary figures for white male vs equally qualified white female.
      Actual salary figures for white male vs equally qualified black male.
      Incarceration rate as a function of population for white males vs black males.
      Pervasive culture of "what did you do to provoke him?" victim-blaming in domestic abuse cases, sexual assaults, or discussions of the objectification of women. (note: this does not mean I am unaware of males as victims of sexual assault, domestic abuse and bullying).

      But, yes, males are considered occasionally to be automatically sex offenders. Woe is them, white male privilege must not exist! (note: I am not condoning that, just to be totally clear).

      It may be illegal to pay women less than men officially but this doesn't reflect reality. Simply making it illegal doesn't fix the problem unless something is actually done about it. There are many studies done on the wage gap. You might want to start at a non-primary source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap) and follow links from there - it's a pretty heavily cited article featuring a number of competing viewpoints, but the overall take-home message is that while the gape has narrowed in the past few decades, it still exists.

    278. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Rich white male privilege exists. Homeless white male privilege doesn't. Addict white male privilege doesn't. Mentally ill white male privilege doesn't. White male abused by authority figure of either gender privilege doesn't. Divorced white male wanting custody of his kids privilege doesn't. How many white men with obviously shit lives does it take for the new left to realise that life is a damn sight more complex than white man bad everyone else good.

    279. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get your point and agree, but don't make up shit to make it. Rosa Parks was just a normal person. She wasn't an activist at all. If you knew anything about her expect what your high school history book told you, you would know that.

    280. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Rich white male privilege exists. Homeless white male privilege doesn't. Addict white male privilege doesn't. Mentally ill white male privilege doesn't. White male abused by authority figure of either gender privilege doesn't. Divorced white male wanting custody of his kids privilege doesn't. How many white men with obviously shit lives does it take for the new left to realise that life is a damn sight more complex than white man bad everyone else good.

      Only you are trying to make the argument "white man bad, everyone else good". My past several comments clearly don't say anything like that. I have specifically addressed that it is clear that not every white male is better off than everyone else, but my point is that despite the many exceptions you raise (and that I also have mentioned), society is *still* strongly biased in favour of white males in myriad ways that make living life as a white male starting the game on easy mode. This still means that some people will be shit at the game despite it being on easy, or still have bad luck. Overall though, white male privilege exists. Less than it used to (witness, for example, the vastly shrinking gender pay gap over the past several decades, or the advancements of the civil rights movement for non-white citizens).

      To put it another way, would you argue that the problem of racism doesn't exist because there are successful black men? Or that homophobia is a sorted problem because most gays are leading decent lives that are better than some heterosexuals?

    281. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 1

      Lol, I don't foresee parent rebutting...

    282. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by onthemightofprinces · · Score: 1

      So proving support for people who are bullied is 'pointless'?

    283. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Raenex · · Score: 1

      If you look at the responses on YouTube very few of them actually critique her arguments. One of the closest is Thunderf00t's

      So Thunderf00t's videos went from being "particularly bad" to "one of the closest [that actually critique her argument]?

      It's a classic mix of ad-hominem and straw man attack

      You should know all about that, as the last time you argued this with me you were full of them: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    284. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Raenex · · Score: 1

      It isn't gaming culture as a whole, which is 50% female these days.

      Same old bullshit. Including in those stats are people who's extent into gaming is buying Angry Birds on their smartphone or playing Farmville. Those women in general don't play shooters, don't buy the next gaming console, don't update their PC to play games, and don't read gaming journals. Anita is critiquing games that are catered to men, because that's their demographic. And she does so in completely unequal fashion, having no qualms when men are portrayed in sexists ways.

      She is, of course, just a con artist riding the wave of feminism and video games while reading scripts for McIntosh. That was Jack Thompson's biggest mistake, not getting a female spokesperson.

      Of course it doesn't have to be - look at games like The Last of Us.

      Uses the zombie trope. Uses the young-girl-in-distress trope. Uses the poor, innocent daughter gunned down trope. Wow, I'm so glad we have you and Anita to save us from all these horrible, gritty, sexist tropes.

    285. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Oh, and I forgot to mention, it uses the threat-of-rape trope, another of Anita's targets. But yeah, no prostitutes! You really are bad at this.

    286. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by lgw · · Score: 1

      It would merely require people to be good at doublethink and maintaining inconsistent views. Since that's pretty much the core of the modern extreme left, the overlap could be significant. (SJW, BTW, is a handy label for 3rd wave "I bathe in male tears" feminists, race-baiters, and others seeking to use identity politics for personal/ideological gain. Seems we need a word for that, as its so damn common now.)

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    287. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by lgw · · Score: 1

      Works just fine, compared to reddit, where everyone even mentioning #gamergate was shadowbanned. I've been moderated up repeatedly for pro-immigration comments, and even once or twice for pro-Microsoft comments. Also, just browse at -1 like most people do.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    288. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this is an awesome post. Thank for taking the time to write it.

      A man.

    289. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      Anita has even openly stated that she hates video games.

      [Citation needed]

    290. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      I'm starting to think this gamer gate is just another grouping of right wing nuts.

      No, that's been researched. GG is mostly left of center. This is authoritarian left (SJWs like Quinn, Alexander, Grayson, McIntosh, Chu, etc) vs libertarian left (GG).

      Say what? GG's supporters include writers at Breitbart, Ed Morrisey at Hot Air, conservative Adam Baldwin, Christina Hoff Sommers, etc. This is Tea Party-style "libertarians" and conservatives against progressives.

    291. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      OR how as part of the gag order, she claimed that Gjoni spread internet links to nude pictures of her, while failing to mention these were images she had made public of her own volition, while working as a model/camgirl.

      And claimed that he and Milo, are part of some professional doxxing organization, despite in reality they had never spoken prior to GG

      http://theralphretort.com/wp-c...

      *Police report obtained via FOIA

      First, your link doesn't say what you claim it says. The word "professional" never appears anywhere in there, nor "paid", "compensation", or anything else that might imply it was a professional organization.

      Second, the police report indicates that the restraining order forbid any posting of her personal information by Gjoni. But, as you admit, Gjoni spread internet links to nude pictures of her. Regardless of who put them up initially, it certainly seems like you're admitting he violated the restraining order.

      Restraining orders are explicit orders to not do certain things. If you do them, you're in deep shiat, even if they seem to make no sense at the time. For example, when people with restraining orders who are told to stay away from each other due to a domestic fight later reconcile and get back together without first going to a court and having the order withdrawn go to jail. If the order tells Gjoni not to post any personal information about Quinn, and he posts a copy of a white pages entry naming her, he's still in violation of the order. There's no "sure, I posted personal information, but other people did too" or "sure I posted personal information, but it wasn't secret" defenses. You simply can't do it, or you're in violation.

    292. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by firex726 · · Score: 1

      First your entire understanding is completely incorrect.

      She initially claimed that a RO was needed becuase he was spreading nudes of her, while it was she who posted them publicly when working as a model. A) He did not spread the links (or rather nothing concrete can be found to link him), and B) they were distributed BEFORE the RO was issued; give they were used as justification for one.

      Unless you are now arguing that action which promoted the issuance of a RO can then be used as evidence of violating it after issuance?

      Secondly, I guess you missed the start of the second paragraph, wherein she claims Milo and Gjoni are part of some group whose purpose is to spread doxx information. When in fact they had never met or spoken before GamerGate and only talked as reporter and interviewee. You might as well claim that Brianna Wu is part of the same group becuase she interacted with Milo in the same capacity.

      Third, if you simply listen to the podcast, it was not Gjoni discussing that information. KoP was, and Gjoni was just present. So even if the information was spread, it was not Gjoni spreading it. A RO may prevent Gjoni from discussing the matter but that does not hold him liable for when others do.

      Also in followup to this, Gjoni's Lawyer was then doxxed and threatened; and the doxxer is now being sued.

      RalphRetort has the rest of the links but I am opting not to share them directly due to doxxing issues.

    293. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >"It's even funnier when you realize a common complaint of feminists are men who try and "speak for them" and the majority of the Internet feminists you find will be men speaking for women."

      There is something funnier than that:
      Two of the loudest voices for the anti-GamerGate faction (Brianna Wu and Chloe Segal) complain about "how life is like for a woman in this rape culture full of fedora-wearing MRA's".....while both are pre-op transsexuals.
      Sooooo....the two "spokewomen" for the anti-GamerGate side aren't actually women....and they are getting so loud, they will soon drown out Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkesian, who at least were born female and have room to talk.

    294. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what your argument is. There are successful white men therefore white men have it easy.

    295. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      First your entire understanding is completely incorrect.

      She initially claimed that a RO was needed becuase he was spreading nudes of her, while it was she who posted them publicly when working as a model. A) He did not spread the links (or rather nothing concrete can be found to link him), and B) they were distributed BEFORE the RO was issued; give they were used as justification for one.

      Unless you are now arguing that action which promoted the issuance of a RO can then be used as evidence of violating it after issuance?

      The police report you linked says that they were distributed in a podcast on 09/20/14. It also says the restraining order was issued on 09/16/14. Now, I'm no mathematician, but I do believe that 9/16 is before 9/20, not after.

      Or are you arguing that the police report you provided is fake?

      Secondly, I guess you missed the start of the second paragraph, wherein she claims Milo and Gjoni are part of some group whose purpose is to spread doxx information.

      Nope, read it. You claimed - and I quote - she "claimed that he and Milo, are part of some professional doxxing organization." I responded that the word "professional" doesn't appear there. Are you now backpedaling on that and admitting that she's only claiming that he's part of a group that doxxes people? Or do you want to double down and claim that use of the word "organization" automatically means it's professional?

      Third, if you simply listen to the podcast, it was not Gjoni discussing that information. KoP was, and Gjoni was just present. So even if the information was spread, it was not Gjoni spreading it. A RO may prevent Gjoni from discussing the matter but that does not hold him liable for when others do.

      Do you have a copy of the transcript? I can't find one online, so I can't verify. Also, depending on the wording of the restraining order, a judge is still going to crack down on Gjoni if he tries to pull a "I didn't reveal her personal information, the person sitting to my right (reading the note I passed him) revealed her personal information".

      Also in followup to this, Gjoni's Lawyer was then doxxed and threatened; and the doxxer is now being sued.

      First, got a link? Second, I'm not sure how this is relevant to what we're discussing. Is there any claim that Quinn was the doxxer?
      Incidentally, if by Gjoni's lawyer, you mean Mike Cernovich, I really hope he's not claiming to be Gjoni's lawyer, because he's not a member of the Massachusetts Bar, and unlicensed practice of law can get him huge sanctions.

      RalphRetort has the rest of the links but I am opting not to share them directly due to doxxing issues.

      I'm not sure what you mean by that. You can't provide a citation because you're afraid of being doxxed?

    296. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by TimboJones · · Score: 1

      Game journalists are friends with game developers. That is true industry-wide, and it's not an ethical problem. Political journalists are friends with political staff. Foodie journalists are friends with restaurateurs. That's how it works -- that how you get the story.

      There are real problems with game journalism. Paid video bloggers; advertisement vs. editorial; publisher-sponsored 'reviews'. Zoe Quinn is not among these real problems, yet she is still front and center in the GamerGate discussion six months later. Literally nobody outside GamerGate and depression treatment advocates cares that a free game got top billing in a minor piece as one of 50 minor games that were greenlit, nor that the developer and the writer were friends, nor that the writer was mentioned within a long list of other pre-release testers in the credits of that game. It is in fact counter-productive to keep bringing it up.

      GamerGate folks keep complaining about someone shooting a squirrel while ignoring the concentration camp next door. If GamerGate was really interested in journalism ethics, Zoe Quinn would be the least of their concerns. Why aren't you talking about Geoff Keighley or Shadows of Mordor -- i.e. real, major, glaring problems with game journalism? Why is GamerGate so narrowly focused on women? Even in relation to the minor ethical issue with Depression Quest, GamerGate is entirely focused on Zoe Quinn, and not on Nathan Grayson, to the extent that in a slashdot article about Zoe Quinn -- not about GamerGate nor game journalism -- GamerGate still pops up to spout this inanity.

    297. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see a conflict here. Thunderf00t's videos contain both the closest thing to an actual critique of the arguments, and the worst ad hominem attacks, of the lot.

    298. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by TimboJones · · Score: 1

      One side is arguing based on preponderance of evidence, the other side is arguing based on exceptions to the rule. Which side are you arguing?

    299. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by TimboJones · · Score: 1

      If you are not a racist, homophobic, misogynistic cockstain, then those names are not directed at you.

      The thing is, the perception of GamerGate is preponderantly misogynistic. That's what people see when their only targets are outspoken women who provide evidence that they are targets of constant, vile death and rape threats. Some people in GamerGate, presumably you among them, are not misogynist, and are truly interested in improving the state of video game journalism. Yet you align yourself with this stained movement that continues to focus on these women despite the arguments against them being largely debunked, and ignores the very real and very pervasive real problems with game journalism. Shadows of Mordor? Gamergate gives a quick mention at best, then crickets as people continue to point fingers at Sarkessian, Wu, Quinn.

      You take offense when people call the movement out on its bullshit, then wonder why you're getting smeared with the same brush?

    300. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by TimboJones · · Score: 1

      Let's recap here. Zoe Quinn slept with all the major game reviewers and/or their editors. She gets rave reviews for a game people who actually bought have panned mercilessly. Literally caught with their pants down, they point to their customers and scream "sexist!". That's the point of the scandal. You can dress it up however you like, but at the root it's about corruption in the gaming press.

      This sounds about right to me.

      You are right that GamerGate has some kind of unholy obsession with Quinn instead of Grayson, who should be the target of criticism if that criticism has merit. That criticism has very little merit.

      But if you think the italicised summary is 'about right', you haven't been paying attention. Here's what really went down:

      a) Grayson wrote two articles talking about Zoe Quinn's game as an interesting tool for dealing with emotional issues and an interesting direction for games to explore
      b) Months after these articles were published, Grayson and Quinn slept together
      c) Months later, Quinn's ex aired his dirty laundry in public and made a lot of false accusations along with one or two true ones
      d) Depression Quest was and is a free game. It never got rave reviews, except as an interesting anomaly. It's pretty similar to the reviews of Dear Esther.
      e) The "Gamers are dead" articles all talked about "The word gamer carries a common stereotype: basement-dwelling misogynistic nerd. That stereotype is inaccurate -- gamers cross all demographics -- and should be discarded. Studios should make more games that appeal to wider and alternative audiences"
      f) Actual basement-dwelling misogynistic nerds got mad about this and made a hue and cry.
      g) Non-basement-dwellers, non-misogynists, and non-nerds who identify as gamers heard this hue and cry, skipped reading the actual articles, and got involved
      h) Folks who have been campaigning for ethics in game journalism for a long time jumped on the bandwagon
      i) GamerGate continues to dig into the lives of outspoken women and 'expose' their exploits, and call for boycotts of sites that do actual criticism and talk about larger societal issues in the context of game review, while largely ignoring real actual problems in game journalism like paid shills and editorial conflict of interest with advertisers.
      j) The misogynistic troll segment of GamerGate explicitly uses "it's about ethics in game journalism" to distract from their trolling.
      k) 4chan (4chan!) kicks these assholes out and they regroup on 8chan.
      l) The proponents of ethics in journalism fail to realize that their flag has been ripped and smeared with shit by the channers and continue to wave it.

    301. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      The preponderance of the evidence is that life is more complex than the new left would have it. Reducing it to the Oppression Olympics contributes nothing and just annoys the people you want on your side. I wonder what Dr Matt Taylor for example thinks of you idiots as you ruined his greatest moment over fuck all. Was his privilege checked as you nobodies reduced him to tears.

    302. Re: Slashdot stance on #gamergate by TimboJones · · Score: 1

      Yes, life is more complicated than the argument that white men start on easy mode. But that is the basis on which the more complicated fractal reality exists, and the new right wants it even simpler: they think everybody has an equal opportunity -- it's right here on this piece of paper -- so if you're poor, you fucked up. The left's argument is more complex than the right's, and less complex than reality.

      Who are you calling you people.

    303. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An activist fights for a ramp into a building for handicapped people.

      Social Justice Warriors fight to remove the stairs

      Well that's just dumb as hell! Who would do that? I'm with you: To hell with these social justice strawmen - uh, I mean warriors!

    304. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Only if you have google history of extremely pro-SJW searching, in which case it delivers you your circlejerk, just like if you only search for climate change denialist articles, it will deliver you only those.

      Search through a proxy and results will be telling.

    305. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by davydagger · · Score: 1
      gross stereotype. For every "lazy leftist" in some PAC/Activist org/media group, there is a "conservative" in think tanks, lobbying agency, etc...

      socialist movements were mainly formed by people working in factories and coal mines.

      you are being whole decietful on ideaology.

    306. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by davydagger · · Score: 1

      however it applies only to "left wing" blowhards, and not their equally obnoxious fascist and libertarian blow hards. Its a sly use of weasel words to discredit multiple spectrum of ideaologies based on a few blowhards. It also implies that all social justice sought by "the left" is the same.

    307. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by davydagger · · Score: 1
      that shouldn't scare you off from "feminism" in general. Just mainstream feminists are fucking tools, and often more or less tools of PR and marketing.

      The larger crime is the amount of time they spent raking some nerds over the coals, and completely missed the handful of domestic assault cases in the news involving NFL players and the rape case against Bill Cosby, and subsequent rape apologism. Roman Polanski(movie producer who admitted to raping a 13 year old girl, and fled the country), is now trying to get back in, and I've heard so called "feminists" apologize for all of the above.

      But no, one nerd says something remotely misogynist, and its a "war on women".

      Modern feminism is nothing more than Public Relations, Media Department, to keep consumers consumers, and attack anyone who questions the status quo.

    308. Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate by davydagger · · Score: 1

      its between that, and another loaded term "cultural marxist" used by fascists to describe everyone who doesn't hold traditional social values. The term "Social Justice Warrior" is used almost exclusively by fascists and conservatives to describe everyone who believes in activism in lines that go against their values. Its a perojative that uses a stereotype of the worst of feminism and socialism to paint a negative picture of both to avoid any real intellectual discussion.

  3. misspelling by Lehk228 · · Score: 5, Informative

    you misspelled "doxxing perpetrator"

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    1. Re:misspelling by maztuhblastah · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Mod parent up. Zoe and some of her supporters aren't always innocent...

    2. Re: misspelling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It makes me wonder how they "found out" about a Swatting to prevent it.

    3. Re:misspelling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? I'm no fan of Mike but that second sentence is just wierd. He is launching a campaign to keep women down so they are pliant for a bunch of neckbeards and he is going to benefit off that how? Nevermind the fact that his so called harrassment campaign is a twitter war against white balding males. He seems civil to women who aren't trying to get him disbarred because they have a different point of view.

      Zoe knew what she was doing when she retweeted his details.

      Also he is a lawyer, so I think that tweet makes sense in lawyer speak. Zoe claims Swatting and Doxxing go together. Zoe assisted in doxxing Mike. Therefore Zoe assisted in swatting Mike. I think it's a stretch too but it is my understanding from law and order that that is how lawyers think.

    4. Re: misspelling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it. There is nothing derogatory about females there. He is just telling guys that hot girls aren't gold diggers and that they should talk to them?

    5. Re:misspelling by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I read a few other posts on his blog. He uses Encyclopedia Dramatica as a reputable source. I can't tell if it's an elaborate troll, or if he really does have no credibility.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:misspelling by AndIWonderIfIWonder · · Score: 2

      No. Zoe didn't doxx anyone http://idledillettante.com/201...

      And it doesn't even look like there was a SWATing attempt http://idledillettante.com/201...

    7. Re:misspelling by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      Your link is to a GG blog full of allegations and innuendo, but no actual evidence. Go read TFA, statements from police are what we call evidence. The guy doesn't seem to have reported the incident to the police or FBI, presumably because he doesn't want it investigated too closely. I mean, if it were true it would be a golden opportunity to rid the world of the awful Zoe Quinn by getting her convicted and locked up, right?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:misspelling by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      she retweeted it, she participated and encouraged it.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    9. Re:misspelling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is parent even remotely flamebait?

    10. Re:misspelling by AndIWonderIfIWonder · · Score: 1

      She retweeted the article not realising the streetview on the page was his house and deleted the tweet as soon as she realised it was. Not sure that is really encouraging it.

    11. Re: misspelling by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      It's a form of adhom, "Look at all the horrible things he's said about WOMEN!!", rest of anything else he has to say is irrelevant. It's usually followed by, "HE'S THE LEADER OF GAMERGATE!! IF YOU SUPPORT ETHICS IN JOURNALISM YOU SUPPORT MISOGYNY!!!", because you can't obviously agree with people on some points, but disagree with them entirely on others.

    12. Re:misspelling by BobSutan · · Score: 1

      Right?! She's hardly a "victim" in all of this. If anything, the article just betrays their anti-gamer stance and leftist politics.

      --
      "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
    13. Re:misspelling by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      The actual details of what happened is that someone else doxxed him and started a campaign to have people file false complaints against him (How to Report Mike Cernovich to the LAPD w/o a Single Deadlift). Zoe Quinn then retweeted the doxxing. To be fair, she has tens of thousands of followers more than the person who originally did the doxxing so it's not too surprising that some people saw it on her Twitter feed and assigned her credit/blame.

      One of Mike's buddies (the somewhat infamous PUA Roosh V) has since turned around and got a photo of the original doxxer, her name, and some other assorted info and posted that info, and said doxxer has decided that that makes them stalkers.

  4. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    She personifies everything wrong with the gaming media.

  5. Better Late Than Never by Kunedog · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Gamergate's Harassment Patrol has been decrying, detecting, and reporting such behavior for months, no matter which side it came from. Glad to see someone from the anti-GG side finally express willingness to follow their lead (this is an anti-harassment operation and not just a partisan anti-Gamergate PR stunt, right?).

    1. Re:Better Late Than Never by firex726 · · Score: 0

      Not sure why this is flamebait, it's 100% accurate and the GG-HP was accepting of any volunteer. This just get's ZQ more publicity.

    2. Re:Better Late Than Never by jbolden · · Score: 0

      OK. I followed this issue a few months ago when it was pretty clear that extreme emotion which provided support for terrorism was definitely part of the GamerGate culture. I'm willing to be educated though. What have they done about such behavior? Who have they reported to police or stopped or ....?

    3. Re:Better Late Than Never by Iamthecheese · · Score: 5, Insightful

      GamerGate runs a harassment patrol, tracked down a harasser in Brazil, and generally loudly shouts down any support of doxxing and harassment. The behavior does not come from within GamerGate.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    4. Re:Better Late Than Never by kentrel · · Score: 0

      One naturally begins to suspect the movement is less than entirely honest about who and what it's targets are.

      That's not really a nice way to look at people. You personally find it difficult to see what their goals are, so your next assumption is that they are dishonest? I believe that's a variation of argument from incredulity. Surely you can't be going around in life assuming dishonesty everytime you don't understand the aims of a group.

      I don't really see what the goals are for most political movements, to be honest, such as Occupy Wall street, but they sure seemed like nice friendly people when I talked to them.

      Also, how does an entire group of probably tens of thousands of loosely connected people act dishonestly? It would be difficult to organize that. It also doesn't hold up well to Occam's Razor.

    5. Re:Better Late Than Never by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Actually from a completely outside perspective, GG has been overwhelmingly on the correct side of history on misogyny, harassment, maturity and ethics.
      But if you want to candidly investigate how deep the corruption goes in the press, you're not going to be short of powerful enemies with all the shoutting power and whose best ally is the overwhelming laziness and outrage-now-factcheck-never attitude in today's clickbait audience.

      It's quite difficult for me to come to terms with the fact that anyone who has sincerly given an effort to find out the truth behind the GamerGate scandals could possibly then proclaim to support the side that's practically extorting corroboration at ad-hominem-point over the side that's encouraging you to think for yourself and treat people decently despite being treated like shit.

      This is sad, not funny.

    6. Re:Better Late Than Never by Rennt · · Score: 0, Troll

      When the actions and outcomes are not only counter to stated goals and purpose but align exactly with the opposite, you want to be really careful you are not holding the wrong side of the Razor.

    7. Re:Better Late Than Never by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it far more productive to not take the stance of being "willing to be educated" but rather being willing to educate yourself. In that spirit, I will encourage you to research the facts for yourself so that you can't accuse anyone of cherry picking and contaminating you with confirmation bias. Do consider both sides and then consider their evidence, not just with a quick glance but with the sort of rigor you would afford an entire generation of people about to be condemned for behavior so bad I would argue that it sounds suspiciously political.

      I can forgive anyone for getting a bad first impression of gamergate from second hand rumors and misinformation and hastily speak out a stance that relies on intellectual laziness to propagate but I've yet to meet a single reasonable individual who gave it an honest effort to find the truth behind the cacophony and then still remained convinced that it was the gamers who were being bad.

    8. Re:Better Late Than Never by NiceGuyVan · · Score: 2

      For an organization with no goal, we sure have forced a lot of sites to make ethics policies. For an organization about harassment, we sure have been victims of a lot of it.

    9. Re:Better Late Than Never by NiceGuyVan · · Score: 2

      Comparing us to racists is what started this mess and is intellectually dishonest.

    10. Re:Better Late Than Never by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1
      The actions have been writing letters to advertisers and the FTC to point out dishonest media.
      The out come was advertisers pulling ads and the FTC updating their guidelines and investigating the media.
      The response was the media claiming the letter writing group was misogynistic and harassing women, which resulted in a slap fight on twitter.

      I've read this a few times:

      "The media has been investigated by the media and the media was found to be largely innocent of all allegations. Plus the media's accusers are anti-feminist neo-naiz pedophile rapist shitlord misogynerds. Go get'em." - The media.

    11. Re:Better Late Than Never by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      I almost think adopting that persona would be better for us. At the very least it might scare the hell out of the few dozen people that eat up the media BS and venture in daily to accuse us of swatting someones dog and hating on women, despite our most vocal supporters being women...

    12. Re:Better Late Than Never by jbolden · · Score: 1

      That's good to hear. OK so who then is behind the current attacks? For example the threats in Utah against Sarkeesian's speech?
       

    13. Re:Better Late Than Never by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I'm not a gamer. I did a bit of research a few months back, and that is what happened. The claims about journalistic connections are exactly the kind one would see in any trade press. Depression Quest was a terrible game, but it was the sort of politically correct ground breaking art piece that critics often swoon over and moreover hate to pan especially since it was a charity work. Sarkeesian I find to be wrong on lots of facts in her analysis and intermixing various categories of feminist critique but she's entertaining and the camera loves her. Also she's doing important activism work, so I didn't see her as particularly outside what activists often are like.

      The totally overblown emotion I did see and I did find the claims of harassment credible given how many different semi-independent sources supported them.

      So I yeah I did research and I did come to agree with the critics. If I'm wrong I'd like to see things like a sensible complaint about lack of ethics in gaming journalism that isn't just as true of say fashion journalism or biking magazines and websites.

    14. Re:Better Late Than Never by narcc · · Score: 1

      Is it? Don't most hate groups like to think of themselves as an oppressed, but righteous, minority? Isn't that exactly what you guys believe?

      Or do you mean that it's dishonest to compare two hate groups if their targets differ?

    15. Re:Better Late Than Never by Pubstar · · Score: 1

      You mean the ones that the police and FBI said were not exactly credible, eminent threats?

    16. Re:Better Late Than Never by Pubstar · · Score: 1

      How about the IGF Scandal that came to light? The tl;dr version of it was Phil Fish tries to push a game that doesn't even meet the standards for what they needed (i.e. a finished game). They allow it in, he wins first price, gets tons of free press over the unfinished game. Then it comes to light that (I think) 5 of the judges had directly invested into the game. They are looking at racketeering charges over this. What does Phil Fish do? He self-doxxes him company and puts up the financial statements online then tells everyone Polytron is for sale.

      http://gamesnosh.com/fez-inves...

      Also, I think that if the guy just had a hard on for the game that ZQ released because it "was the sort of politically correct ground breaking art piece that critics often swoon over" - well, that is one thing. The fact that he had a sexual relationship with her and repeatedly mentioned the game in his articles is another. The thing here is that if media outlets want to be taken seriously, they need full disclosure. That is what the original fight was for, and that was one that was won. Where things are going now is more just a pissing contest then anything else between SJW and a bunch of guys that want things to be back the way they were.

      My personal stance on this is that we do need more disclosure in the industry (especially after the guy at PCGamer that writes about UbiSoft was found to be dating the PR Rep from Ubi), and that we need #GG to stay on the ball to out these people... but I also believe that this shitstorm of harassment needs to die down on both sides.

    17. Re:Better Late Than Never by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Yes those ones. I didn't realize that the investigation had dismissed her concerns until I just looked it up now. 2 points for you. Since you seem to know what you are talking about what about the other threats?

    18. Re:Better Late Than Never by rochrist · · Score: 1

      But amazingly appropriate.

    19. Re:Better Late Than Never by Pubstar · · Score: 1

      Honestly? No idea. I just remember hearing about the whole incident on NPR while driving home a few weeks ago. Since there is so much BS going around right now, its hard to pick out what could be a real threat and what isn't... but since these people like poking the hornets nest that is 8chan/4chan/wizardchan, I have no idea what the future holds for them.

    20. Re:Better Late Than Never by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First I'd like to applaud you for putting some time to research something instead of trusting the first narrative the press is pushing.
      Perhaps the most common reccuring theme with folks who are entire divested of the gamer culture is that it all seems like a whole lot of emotions over petty drama, and that the drama itself is ultimately over nothing important. And perhaps in the grand scheme of things, you might be right at this point in time. That said, gamergate's stance when everything is boiled down, to me at least, seems quite reasonable in that the only thing it will ask of you is to remain skeptic of all information from the press on every side of the debate and resist the temptation of going the lazy path of making up your mind based on incomplete and wrong information. In the same way, it would help to sanitize your intake of the rampant corruption in all sectors of the press, whether it's when a new york times appointed oil industry shill gets caught falsifying numbers while reviewing a tesla model s, or when it's a story published about a college student being threatened turned out to have fabricated the threats herself, or when scientists' words are twisted into a ludicrous campaign of fearmongering against research in artificial intelligence... gamers might be a silly thing to care about right now but perhaps the senate taking a vote on the reality of climate change might wake us up to our vulnerability to the demagogue machine in the form of corrupted hournalism.

      Call me naive but I used to think that we as a people had grown immune to the brand of bs that had installed dictators and committed genocide through ethical education and understanding the importance of rigor and intellectual honesty. I understand it still sounds guano levels of crazy but I'm dead serious. I see the outrage-now-factcheck-never attitude in the hate campaign against anyone loosely affiliated with gamergate truly hurt the innocent while the dishonest are getting away with it with fortunes and praises. These people represent the most disgusting kind of parasites on society that whose end goal is nothing short than rewriting history after having infiltrated and taken over every institution capable of proclaiming themselves the heroes and they rely on apathy, laziness and the sort of cowardice that would drive someone to take the "safe side" of the conflict in order to frantically avoid having to justify themselves to the thought police. They are exactly the species of con artists, sociopaths and career manipulators that who wouldn't flinch at the idea of ruining people's lives in order to obtain a foothold in a place of influence. They've extorted support from vulnerable and disabled people with threats of unleashing harassment upon them. They've lied under oath in order to silence witnesses. They've attempted every vector of character assassination on people who saw through their tactics early on. They've wasted countless amounts of public resources in order to mount their farce to appear as if they were in danger. They've incited their followers to mail dead animals, machetes, death threats, fake pipebombs, use swatting, mass harassment, emailed outright lies to employers, purchased ddos...etc on several targets that they felt were getting too close to exposing their wrongdoings. They've been caught through poor use of social media in attempts to purchase hacking services and harassment services. None of them genuinely believe in the cause they claim to fight for and any amount of investigation makes that obvious when you see that all their actions gravitate around their monetary revenues.

      Don't take my word for it. All you need to do to see it for yourself is to ask any of them an inconvenient question and refusing to take a deflection for an answer. Or if you'd rather not turn into a target yourself, you can see the documented evidence of their e-warfare on almost any archiving site or imgur boards with a simple search using relevant keywords. I have zero incentive for speaking against them and I have everything

    21. Re:Better Late Than Never by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Obviously I don't follow 4chan and so forth. I'm not involved in these social networks. Taking over small groups that are tightly affiliated is very different than taking over large diverse groups in terms of skill.

      Obviously if there was a campaign against GamerGate proponents for ethics in journalism using the very sort of tactics Anita and Zoe were talking about that is wrong, and likely criminal. If there are really two gangs involved that's different than there being one gang. I'd want to hear specific names and sources of harassment verified by good quality authorities like police departments or mainstream media. If someone on the pro-GamerGate side gets hurt or killed by the anti-GamerGate side that would prompt such an investigation.

      So right now having 0 evidence for game warfare what I do have evidence for is the rhetoric. Anita's rhetoric strikes me as mainstream feminism. The anti-Antia rhetoric strikes me as juvenile and overblown. I've seen the pro-GamerGate videos and they seem like sort of broad based rants.

      But I will agree that believing that one side is less emotional doesn't mean anything about the gang warfare aspect. The only evidence I have is lack of mainstream coverage or even gaming press coverage. I fundamentally believe our media while imperfect has become so diverse it works.

    22. Re:Better Late Than Never by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I've tried following Phil Fish... and the story was too complex. Mostly though Phil Fish seems to be someone who uses negative media attention to promote his work. A Larry Flint of your generation.

      . Where things are going now is more just a pissing contest then anything else between SJW and a bunch of guys that want things to be back the way they were.

      Exactly. And a slightly less heated version of that contest is what I believe Anita was originally aiming for. A discussion about sexism in games.

      What you are describing above is what you would see in any trade press. I don't have a huge problem with the gaming press customers driving the gaming press to be a model of ethics that's terrific if it is accomplished. But I think the people in the gaming press to have a legitimate complaint that you are demanding more of them than what's normally needed for a trade press and aren't really thinking through the implications of the how. How are gaming magazines going to get exclusives without cultivating relationships of trust with sources.

    23. Re:Better Late Than Never by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...between SJW and a bunch of guys that want things to be back the way they were.

      And a slightly less heated version of that contest is what I believe Anita was originally aiming for. A discussion about sexism in games.

      The former will not lead to the latter, dude.

      You can have a completely freezing cold contest between SJWs and anybody else, but it still won't be a discussion about sexism in games. It won't be a discussion in anything, for that matter.

      Why? Because you can't have a discussion with SJWs. They stand for social justice after all. Whether you mean the term sardonically or not, there's no arguing with justice. You cannot argue with somebody who so deeply believe that they stand for righteousness.

      It's akin to having a discussion of murdering orphans and harvesting their organs to be sold to people who have sexual fetish for them. To those involved, the idea is just so repugnant that discussion is out of the question.

    24. Re:Better Late Than Never by russotto · · Score: 1

      You can have a completely freezing cold contest between SJWs and anybody else, but it still won't be a discussion about sexism in games. It won't be a discussion in anything, for that matter.

      If you argue with an SJW, you're part of the problem in their eyes. (Not sarcasm; you can't make this stuff up)

    25. Re:Better Late Than Never by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I just don't believe that. Lots of people believe their cause is moral and righteous. They also frequently once they start focusing on pragmatic accomplishments can see how they have to take other views into account. Politics is about building coalitions and that means coalitions with people who don't share all your views.

      Feminism in particular has lost enough battles over the years that it has matured.

    26. Re:Better Late Than Never by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Not so much argue as discuss. Obviously if you are totally opposed to the entire program, and impossible to persuade, there isn't much to discuss. But in real politics there are often people who somewhat support parts of a goal, but object to some of the risks and costs. Those people are where the point of discussion happens. Once it stops being about agitating the base and instead becomes a discussion of persuading moderates you often get a lot of practical agreement emerging because moderates frequently side with the side that seems to be more reasonable and less heated (as the mainstream media's endorsement of anti-GamerGate I think shows).

      So for example I that the video games she's pointing to most have misogynistic themes that sexual exploitation of women is used to make games gritty. I'm not sure however that's avoidable in gritty games and I don't think she's fully taking into account how important sex is for setting a mood. Characters in a distopia can't be having healthy happy sexual relationships without it breaking the mood. I also think playful sexuality is fine while she often doesn't. OTOH where I think she makes far more sense is when it is counter productive. For example the Lego advertising she talks about. That's an area where I see no reason that either sexism or violence needs to be part of the product and I'd fully support what's doing.

      That's the kind of discussion I think SJWs would welcome. And I think that's the kind of discussion the anti-SJW side should be more open to. People who think sexism is a problem and think game worlds need to use sex to build the mood.

    27. Re:Better Late Than Never by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just don't believe that.

      Exactly. You believe. As do SWJs believe in whatever it is they believe in. It's faith. You cannot reason with faith.

      Cognitive dissonance is a well observed phenomenon. When one puts their faith in something, they would rather rationalize to keep believing in that thing than to consider the possibility that what they believe in is wrong, or even the possibility to compromise on it.

      Lots of people believe their cause is moral and righteous. They also frequently once they start focusing on pragmatic accomplishments can see how they have to take other views into account.

      What is pragmatic and what you believe is moral righteous are two different things. That you may compromise on one does not mean you are for the other.

      What you believe in influences what you'll be pragmatic about, but not the other way around. If you believe rape is wrong, you cannot compromise on rape as being ok "some" of the time without being a hypocrite.

      Politics is about building coalitions and that means coalitions with people who don't share all your views.

      First, SWJs aren't about politics. They're about justice. Again, justice cannot be compromised. Not to those who believe in their justice. See above about rape. It's the "We do not negotiate with terrorists" stance. To one who believes they are justice, anybody that doesn't share their views is a terrorist.

      Second, coalitions with people who don't share all your views is merely one way to play politics. You don't have to always work with people who don't share your views. Politics is about influence, and you can simply weaker their influence or make yours stronger by numerous methods. Gerrymandering, for example, allows political parties to establish strongholds without much need to court other groups of people.

      Feminism in particular has lost enough battles over the years that it has matured.

      Except this whole GG fiasco is example of the contrary, both to the notion that feminism has lost enough battles (you for one seem to think Anita and others benefited and gained more exposure and people siding with her), or that they have matured (given all the mudslinging and flame fests in places like this comment section)

    28. Re:Better Late Than Never by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here we go, a nice pictorial list of some ethical issues the GG crowd have been investigating:

      Games journalism fails

  6. Task Force 2.0 by GrandCow · · Score: 5, Funny

    Crash Override being the 2nd version of the task force's site. Version 1 was ZeroCool. Zoe will be running under an admin account named AcidBurn.

    Don't forget to type cookie.

    --
    "Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
    1. Re:Task Force 2.0 by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      All her fellow warriors will also need new gfx cards so they can find those garbage files.

    2. Re:Task Force 2.0 by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Bring out your best viruses!

      I've no idea where the random reference to H4x0rz comes from but as far as I'm concerned that's always on topic.

      BRB, off to hack the Gibson.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  7. Another day, another socjus post by Iamthecheese · · Score: 0, Troll

    Dead Slashdot owners and editors,

    I get it. You think GamerGate is the SS reborn and you support every form of elevating women above men wherever and whenever possible. You are feminism reborn, with a vengeance. Men are pigs and hail the SCUM manifesto.

    You may be surprised to hear this, but I absolutely support you having and expressing that opinion. I think each person should say the thing they feel strongly about as frequently and loudly as possible. I would never, ever try to take that voice from you. From the most extreme Marx worshiper to the people who worship the ground Bush II walked on I love they have a voice. It's cliche but I feel it so strongly: I would gladly die to support and defend that voice. Go you! I mean that.

    These things said I must admonish the way you go about voicing your opinions. Slashdot is taken as a news source: as the place to gain new insight and understanding of the world. As such choosing and phrasing stories in a politically biased manner does great disservice to your readers and harms your credibility as a place to learn. Newspapers in the past have had this problem too: How to say what should be while honestly reporting on what is? The answer they came up with suited very well, and has become an honored tradition.

    That tradition is the editorial column. When you feel a social or political issue is important you can have a separate place to announce your opinion, and it will be given the eyes of every reader who chooses to learn what you have to say. The key word there is choice. When you present these opinions by changing the choice of article and editorializing in the summary, you're trying to take away people's ability to learn facts without political bias.

    I still respect you. I still read you. But please. Please. make and maintain an editorial column and choose the stories you publish as news to be pure, unadulterated information about the world around us.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
  8. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Doesn't mean she deserves harassment. Condemnation maybe. Harassment no.

  9. Biased editors, you say? by rmdingler · · Score: 0
    Bitcoin. Microsoft. Apple. Linux. Social Justice.

    I just always suspected Slashdot was Latin for deceased equine beaten.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Biased editors, you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever heard of "fex urbis, lex orbis"?

  10. Arg, not Slashdot too by guises · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Her name is Zoe Quinn. It's not a pseudonym, that's her actual name - she doesn't need to be doxxed. She's not a "victim" of doxxing, we already know who she is. Frikkin' hell, did someone hack her RAMs too? Was her CPU phreaked by 1337 script kiddies?

    There was a headline the other day about saying that Sony had been doxxed.

    1. Re:Arg, not Slashdot too by guises · · Score: 1

      Bleh. I can't even tell if you're joking, all that my searches come up with is Gamergate stuff. There are plenty of pictures labeled Zoe Quinn, but most of them don't even look vaguely like her and the ones that do could easily have been faked.

      If that's actually true then I deserve the downmods, but you certainly don't. One of us has been unjustly modded here, I don't know which.

    2. Re:Arg, not Slashdot too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is true that zoe quinn is an alias. It is also true she did porn. I don't know if the name was used as a stage name.

    3. Re:Arg, not Slashdot too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zoe Quinn is one of her two known aliases, and not the alias under which she was a nude model. Just googling for 'Zoe Quinn model' will fill you in on the details.

      Captcha: Fascism...

    4. Re:Arg, not Slashdot too by guises · · Score: 1

      This? That was the fist link for me. Man, I shudder to think that even half the stories about her might be true.

    5. Re:Arg, not Slashdot too by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      No, during her time as a porn model she went under Locke Valentine for at least two porn sites. Zoe Quinn is a separate alias she picked up later. Her actual name is Chelsea van Valkenburg.

  11. Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this on /.?

    1. Re:Who cares? by Iamthecheese · · Score: 2

      It's marginally tech related (internet trolls and all that) but it's on Slashdot for the twentieth time because someone is pushing an agenda. I'm about one socjus story from permanently closing my Slashdot account.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    2. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

    3. Re: Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think I'm done with /.

      I've realized I'm only here for the comments anymore, and even the comments are really starting to go to shit.

      It's been fun guys and gals, but this place isn't too great anymore. I'll be sure the door doesn't hit me on the way out.

    4. Re:Who cares? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The agenda is "page views" and you are actively pushing the agenda you claim you are against by reading it and posting.

    5. Re:Who cares? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Posting this to the front page really isn't supporting them if the tone of the comments is anything to go by. People of all stripes are fed up with both sides of the "debate". Consider this your opportunity to add your voice to those who are fed up with SJWs stirring up the pot and manipulating people to get attention.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    6. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He'll be back under a different handle.

    7. Re:Who cares? by russotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Posting this to the front page really isn't supporting them if the tone of the comments is anything to go by.

      YouTube: Never read the comments.
      Slashdot: Never read the article.

      So it is written, so it shall be.

    8. Re: Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been fun guys and gals, but this place isn't too great anymore. I'll be sure the door doesn't hit me on the way out.

      Who did you say you were, anyway? Well, I guess since you were just leaving, it really doesn't matter. Right, then. Off you go!

    9. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BarbaraHudson /.'s sick of you sockpuppet stalking/harassing http://slashdot.org/comments.p... BarbaraHudson. Sounds like an online scumbag like you is afraid of this happening and you ought to be you pig!

    10. Re:Who cares? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Could you please stop stalking BarbaraHudson.

      Some of her posts are nonsense, some have good points, some are inflammatory, some are insightful. Much like every other poster on here.

      Except you. You're adding no value. Go away.

    11. Re:Who cares? by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      certainly how it's become for me. especially true of hasselton drivel.

  12. Re:life on the wrong side of an online hate mob by Iamthecheese · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't believe this biased drivel is modded informative. The only evidence that GamerGate is about harassing people are the unsubstantiated claims of certain people who are profiting from the "harassment" amplified and echoed manifold by an agenda pushing media. I implore anyone who reads this to read the actual voices of GamerGate and to withhold judgement until they have. Go to 8ch.net/gamergate and see how many posts support harassment. Look at the ethics policies we've brought about. Look at what we do and not what the media says we do.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
  13. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Since people like you still exist who think she's an innocent victim, she must be doing quite well for herself. Three cheers, indeed.

  14. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    She doxxed and harassed the shit out of people before all of this happened. She's an oldschool SA forum troll. She's no fucking saint.

  15. Re:life on the wrong side of an online hate mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Oh please, I'm not going to even give boingboing, who've been in bed with Zoe Quinn since day one.

    I am against doxxing, but Quinn has ruined lives and events on her own.

    I wish we wouldn't give this this coverage or clicks.

  16. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 1, Insightful

    and the evidence for this would be?

  17. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why trust those who fell victim to such an attack to offer effective advice?

  18. Goes both ways, buddy. by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

    Let's check your world view- can you fathom why folks might be disdainful of social justice warriors?

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  19. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by kentrel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Judging by her online postings she doesn't seem all that different to this new wave of internet troll that we're getting these days. A whole lot of name calling, revelling in drama, and taunting her "haterz", and that kind of thing. It's a bit cringeworthy.

  20. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    curious too. but i've got to say, it's sad, but i find it all too easy to believe all the folks involved in this mess are generally horrible people. most allegations are very likely patent nonsense all around, and yet... i still find myself concluding that i am so glad i don't know any of them, or anyone like them. there aren't two side to annoying dipshit.

  21. Link please? by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 1, Informative

    can you link to a review of DepressionQuest that Zoe got in exchange for sex? No, because that review does not exist. It never happened.

    1. Re:Link please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Review? Who said it was a review? Nobody has said that except for SJW types trying to manipulate the language.

      Here's Grayson telling you how great some greenlit games are, including one by the girl he's fucking: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/08/admission-quest-valve-greenlights-50-more-games/ He manages to mention Depression Quest five times in an article purporting to be about a whole slew of new games. It's transparent and embarrassing how much he's trying to promote her game in that piece. Read the article - you're not coming away at the end thinking it was about Windforge.

      It's unfortunate that the anti-gg crew is too stupid to look at a piece like that and comprehend that the same thing is going on in virtually every article in virtually every gaming site. It's one crowd trying to promote the (often terrible) games of their girlfriends, wives and affairs on the side. You do get to say that you don't care, but you don't get to say it's wrong for the people doing this to get shit on.

    2. Re:Link please? by billstewart · · Score: 1, Informative

      Even Gjoni later admitted that didn't happen. But the *chan boards where he posted his long attack screed against his ex-girlfriend had been attacking Anita Sarkeesian for months, for the sin of showing totally made up clips of Grand Theft Auto and many other games being misogynist. (Oh, they weren't totally made up, they were right out of the game? Our bad, let's attack her for dissing Mario and Luigi, or harass Brianna Wu instead.)

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    3. Re:Link please? by russotto · · Score: 4, Informative

      Brianna Wu? Brianna "I don't know when I can return to my home, from whence I am giving this interview" Wu?

    4. Re:Link please? by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 2

      The "review" is a straw man made up by the very people being protested to try and spin out on a technicality. She very clearly got disproportionately favorable publicity and coverage from Grayson.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    5. Re:Link please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      "Do all the reviewers in "the best presses in the United States" bang the same girl and give her pathetic game good reviews?"
      "Can you link to a review of DepressionQuest that Zoe got in exchange for sex?"
      "Review? Who said it was a review?"

      Are you dense?

    6. Re:Link please? by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      Brianna Wu? Brianna "I don't know when I can return to my home, from whence I am giving this interview" Wu?

      Yes, that is in fact a common outcome of being doxxed. Whats your point here?

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    7. Re:Link please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point was that she was "a lying slut" who claimed to have been driven out of her home but still gave an interview from it. At least, that's what I think russotto was dishonestly getting at. Never mind that she went back en masse with a bunch of friends, so she could be safe for a brief interview, and then left again - no, her stalkers insist that since she returned to her home at all she was obviously lying about having left. Because, er, "sluuuuuuuut, ethics in games journalism, literally wu."

    8. Re:Link please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been watching the Gamergate blowup from the sidelines and it's been a fascinating exercise in wretched media behaviour that is going to do far more damage to women in the IT industry than a million 'neckbeards'.

      What got me interested was the initial kick-off about Quinn. Read a few stories and it seemed like a respected female games writer was getting hassle off evil nerds. So I checked out her game. It's a text adventure. Like one of those we used to play in the 80s but without anything clever like a parser. This is what passes for game development? Really? This is the game getting write-ups across the tech press including sites like Ars?

      On the surface Depression Quest = friends in the press promoted game and the respected female developer was basically a dabbler without any of the technical background you'd expect from a person promoted as a representative of female games experts. Well no matter, the games press is a bit rubbish so it isn't a big issue. Although if a male got similar treatment from the media and was revealed to be givin' it to the ladies you can bet sites like Jezebel would have ripped him to shreds.

      Next... the media coverage. Gamers were apparently over, the hideous spotty teen types are now being overwhelmed by an army of gaming women. The press is telling me this, across the entire political spectrum. This is followed by the harassment stories. Okay, harassment is bad, but that's why we have the FBI/police and other organisations. Instead we've had dozens of almost identically -worded stories that revolve around how so many women are threatened in the games industry. The examples given... Quinn & Brianna Wu. Oh, and Anita. Hence this apparently confirms the original narrative that gamers are all toxic woman-hating geekoids who should be banished from society.

      From time to time I've dipped into more articles over the past few months. They say the same. Brianna has had to leave her home thanks to harassers (here she is being interviewed at home). Zoe's harassment is so bad she's homeless (when it seems that she'd long planned a trip to European games events). Anita is getting hassle just because she's made videos telling gamers that everything they do is wrong and the press are using her vids as a stick to beat said gamers with.

      We have three woman and a couple of hangers-on, all of whom have issues (i.e. haven't told the truth) with their pasts, all of whom are presented as the legitimate face of an industry but.... ... the entire media apparently can't dig up any actual female programmers/game professionals who aren't in the Wu/Quinn axis. There must be thousands of women working in software entertainment but we seem to only hear the uncontested views of the same couple at the center of GG since the start. Especially telling was the recent ABC report which was a straight throwback to 80s/90s game paranoia (Gamers = minority youths in basement who hate women etc.)

      What's the deal? Why is the media seemingly trying to cause a war with nerds? Why are the big game companies staying silent while their industry is portrayed as the seventh circle of hell for female workers?

      Am honestly puzzled. Sure GG has attracted a few asshats, but the opposing side has plenty of those too.

      There must be an agenda at play here and I honestly can't see what it is? If you want more female game coders then telling girls they'll be attacked and raped by satanic man-children isn't the way to go about it. If you want to promote feminism and inclusiveness then why not talk to women outside of the 'rich white girls in SF who hate men' gaggle that is getting all the publicity?

      Bizarre story all round. Still in a year or so when the games industry has declined more due to terrified parents not buying their product ("I don't want my kid to grow up hating women thanks to these scumbag GTA-type efforts") they'll probably blame the decline on nerds, too ("Why won't these LOSERS WHO CAN'T GET LAID buy our games!?!?").

    9. Re:Link please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      His point is that Brianna Wu was never ran out of her home and has been caught being a serial pathological liar, just like Zoe Quinn.

      "Just 4 Tweets" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiWADnV8pmw

    10. Re:Link please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you link to where the ZoePost or the Internet Aristocrat videos make the allegation that she received a positive review?

      You can't , because that never happenned either.

      You're making a strawman argument just to be able to refute it. Yes, after the start of GamerGate, random internet people made the mistake of conflating review and coverage. This is normal in any controversy. The Catalysts that launched GamerGate however, being the two things I just mentioned, have not done that.

      This is why saying Gamergate was started based off a lie is at best inaccurate and at worst intellectually dishonest.

    11. Re:Link please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference between preview and review are like 1 and 2pm.
      Stop trying to corrupt the argument and deal with it like an adult.

      I mean, look at the tags. 1 other game is mentioned in the tags.
      So we have a picture of Depression Quest, several mentions of it, a tag of it in the main article.
      Yes. Totally not related at all. This whole article is nothing but a mention of Depression Quest and a bunch of other "nobodies". (especially considering the constant mention of it and NOTHING ELSE)

    12. Re:Link please? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Actually one of gaming magazines did an article with 6 semi-random female game programmers about gamergate. They were able to dig up other people.

    13. Re:Link please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brianna Wu? Brianna "I don't know when I can return to my home, from whence I am giving this interview" Wu?

      Yes the women the cops advised that her house was unsafe.

    14. Re:Link please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh.

      Gjoni did not *claim* that Zoe got a positive review in exchange for sex, at any point. He did not "later admit that didn't happen"; he later clarified that he never made such a claim, even though it was already perfectly obvious, to anyone who actually *read the blog post*, that he never made such a claim. He only claimed that the relationship happened, which is not in dispute (even Totilo's response cedes this).

      Gjoni's blog post was not in any reasonable sense "a long attack screed", which again is obvious to anyone who actually read it. He did not at any point post the story to "the *chan boards"; he posted it on the Something Awful forums and Penny Arcade forums, and then moved it to a Wordpress blog after those posts were deleted. 4chan found the link on their own. It was ( http://theflounce.com/harassme... ) a recounting of gaslighting and emotional abuse that he suffered in that relationship, that I am 110% confident would have been taken seriously by you and everyone who thinks like you if the genders were reversed.

      Some people, other than Gjoni, have erroneously claimed that such a review happened, because of a combination of it fitting the evidence / their mental models, and the natural corruption of rumors. What *did* happen is that Grayson painted an unusually positive picture of Quinn's involvement in the GAME_JAM debacle ( https://archive.today/qErD0 ), noting her as the creator of DQ in that article (at a point when neither she nor her game was notable), two days before joining her on a trip to Las Vegas; gave DQ top billing on a list of 50 newly greenlit games on Steam ( https://archive.today/iS4Ru ) - the only one to include a screenshot; and beta-tested DQ (his name is listed in the credits in the HTML source) without ever disclosing this fact in any of his coverage. Twitter search results confirm that he has at least known Quinn on a personal level since at least June of 2012 ( https://archive.today/j5DW0 ).

      (More info: http://wiki.gamergate.me/index... )

      As for criticism of Sarkeesian, if you think that's all the criticism amounts to, you are *seriously* delusional. The content of many games has been blatantly misrepresented; for example, she spoke about how Hitman:Absolution rewards and expects certain behaviour (shooting the strippers in a strip club in one particular mission), over top of footage that shows the player being *explicitly penalized* for it, and which LPers of the game overwhelmingly don't do. More to the point, she argues from a framework wherein any act of violence against a woman in a game is inherently evidence of misogyny and proof of encouragement of "violence against women", while literally orders of magnitude more violence against male characters in the same games is completely ignored. But you don't even have to look at the videos to criticize her for the fact that in spite of receiving over 25 times the funding she asked for on Kickstarter, she is halfway through a series that is now *over two years overdue* ( https://www.kickstarter.com/pr... ). There are also over 3,000 people to whom she owes "your name in the video credits".

    15. Re:Link please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even Gjoni later admitted that didn't happen.

      Gjoni never made the accusation. The only thing he said happened was that game jouralist Nathan Grayson had an affair with Quinn. That did actually happen, and was admitted to. And Grayson had previous given prominent coverage -- though not reviews per se -- to Quinn's work. Coverage is the life blood of an indie dev

      In most other sectors, these circumstances qualify as a straightforward sex scandal, journalists report on it in the public interest. But why cover a scandal say mr game journalists, when I can just demonize my own audience and Declare Gamers Dead? Afterwards the mainstream media picked up the story and is now running with sensationalist pieces on gaming like it's 1999 again.

      But the *chan boards where he posted his long attack screed ...

      Actually he posted the screeds on the Something Awful Forums first, later on Wordpress. I believe it was posted on Reddit as well before finally appearing on the /r9k/ board on 4chan.

      ...attacking Anita Sarkeesian for months, for the sin of showing totally made up clips of Grand Theft Auto and many other games being misogynist.

      GTA is not misogynist. Just as it wasn't a "murder simulator" when Jack Thompson was demonizing video games back in the day. The people proclaiming that Super Mario objectifies women and that GTA V promotes "rape culture" are not sane people. They are the same hysterical pearl clutchers decrying video games, only this time cast in a "progressive" mould instead of a "conservative" one.

      All I see if game demonizers cast in an American mold as yet another moral panic over video games sweeps through the game industry. This will eventually pass, and would have passed a lot sooner if video game journalists had not -- for what remain unexplained reasons -- jumped into bed (sometimes literally) with the spiritual successors to Jack Thompson.

    16. Re:Link please? by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      Six anonymous female developers, at the very beginning of GamerGate. I read them and the articles were highly suspicious, I'm skeptical when someone won't put a name (even a sudo name) on something they've said. Others who commented in favor of GamerGate, like all the devs that also support GamerGate, were quickly threatened and had their games boycotted... Which turned out to be a big mistake on the oppositions part. They called for a boycott, GamerGate had the game green-lit.

      Both sides are a minority of gamers overall, GamerGate (pro and anti) is some 150,000 accounts on twitter, Facebook groups, KiA (pro subreddit >25,000), GamerGhazi (anti subreddit ~4,750 subs)... The opposition seems to be primarily made up of non-gamers, or people that hate gaming and gamers at the very least. The pro-GamerGate side is MUCH larger than the opposition. Then there's everyone else that just doesn't care one way or the other and/or points and laughs at both sides for being idiots.

      Here's a guy that did a really nice network analysis of the twitter tag, who suffered a lot of abuse for it.
      http://chrisvoncsefalvay.com/2...
      http://chrisvoncsefalvay.com/2...
      http://chrisvoncsefalvay.com/2...
      http://chrisvoncsefalvay.com/2...
      http://chrisvoncsefalvay.com/2...

    17. Re:Link please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one claimed she traded sex for a review. (Well, except people like you who put up that straw-man.)

      The point was that, someone who works at a company that reviews a product, sleeping with someone who produces said product is an ethical issue. Maybe there is no conflict. But maybe he might be in charge of reviewing her next game, or a game of her friend. Maybe his friend and/or co-worker might review her next game. These issues can be more subtle than just 'sex for review', which is why they need to be disclosed.

    18. Re:Link please? by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the whole "ran out of home" and "giving interviews from said home" being mutually exclusive thing. Because most video shown of her after being "driven out of her home" has been taken in her home.

    19. Re:Link please? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to assume they were lying. There were members of the gamer press that came forward about seeing their friends and themselves attacked (i.e. threatened) by name. So the threat part we do have multiple independent names for.

      I do know of some devs that agreed with Anita who used their real names.

    20. Re:Link please? by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      Brianna Wu? Brianna "I don't know when I can return to my home [and spend the night and fall asleep without fear], from whence I am giving this interview [during the daytime with lots of people around]" Wu?

      FTFY. HTH. HAND.

  22. "anti-harassment task force" toilet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was I the only one who read "Zoe Quinn launched an online 'anti-harassment task force' toilet"? Does that count as precognitive abilities or do I need new glasses?

    1. Re:"anti-harassment task force" toilet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might. Her behavior online and irl leaves little to be desired.

  23. Chelsea Van Valkenberg's not a victim, but a perp. by sethstorm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For a known harasser, Chelsea Van Valkenberg's quite odd for wanting to stop something she has practiced often.

    Never mind that she's more than happy to see that opponents swatted (like Mike Cernovich) or gagged (like Eron Gjoni) - both cases based on falsified information.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  24. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Someone made a couple of posts on Wizardchan an off-topic comment about Zoe Quin being the cause of their sorrow and calling for revenge. No one did anything at all. Zoe and her clique got Wizardchan (a lonely guy support group) harrassed by falsely claiming these posts on a site she doesn't even go to were harassment from a hive of terrible neckbeard misogynist nerds.

    More? Google "The Fine Young Capitalists" - These are feminists who ran a gamejam to get girls into game development / design and it was shut down by Zoe and her clique of slanderous trolls. The #GamerGate folks of /v/ and /pol/ on 4chan found out (they who supposedly hate women) and so they got the feminist pro-women gamejam funded.

    I ask you, Presto Vivance, what evidence have you ever sought out about the #GamerGate affair? Would you believe KKK propaganda that they are fair and just and just want to inform you of the "inherent evils of blackness" without fact checking? No? Then why would you believe SJW propaganda that they are fair and just and just want to inform you of the "inherent evils of maleness" in games without fact checking?

    It wouldn't matter if I posted any evidence showing ties to SA forrumites, or links to anything else, since you don't matter, you aren't interested, you don't fact check, can't do a single google search and instead beg for facts on slanted media outlets like Slashdot. But you've got to be kidding me if you think, "She's no fucking saint" isn't spot on.

  25. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    A quick google search returns the following:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/
    http://www.crimeandfederalism.com/2014/12/margaret-pless-zoe-quinn.html
    http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2fvt9n/zoe_links_a_doxx_to_wikipedia_editors_who_tried/

    I don't make any claim whatsoever about whether thats factual or a fabrication, but Zoe Quinn rises all flags for professional con artist.

  26. ok, now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can this extend to bosses in the workplace?

    1. Re:ok, now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and employees who use their human network to oust people for differing political views (eg mozilla).

  27. Re:life on the wrong side of an online hate mob by kentrel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've looked into this too. There are certainly threatening comments on twitter, but these get labelled as "By Gamergate" without any kind of awareness of the association fallacy. A threatening comment is always the responsibility of the individual. There are threatening comments all over social media, and anyone can be a victim of it. The media have been parroting this online harassment as fact without distinguishing it from criticism or just rudeness, and also without any acknowledgement of the same harassment on the other side. Active Gamergate supporters seem to vastly outnumber the anti Gamergate crowd by an order of magnitude, so I wonder if that makes it seem worse.

    After 5 months of "GamerGate" there's been no arrests, no serious evidence of any imminent threat published or connection to any organized "harassment" campaign. Gamergate supporters themselves have been harassed, swatted, sent malicious objects in the mail and this is largely ignored in the media. Possibly because many of them took a different approach, and didn't kick up that much of a fuss about it, or perhaps because it doesn't fit the media's narrative.

    This is my personal experience only, but the vast majority of gamergate supporters I spoke to were laid back, intelligent, friendly, and positive. There was the same ratio of weird but nice people that you'd find in any group really. However, many of Zoe Quinn's supporters ranged from being rude to abusive to authoritarian. They had an air of mocking superiority that gets old really quickly, and why I stay away from twitter.

  28. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by ClintJaysiyel · · Score: 1

    And if she were a murderer, that would make it okay for you to be one too, by your logic?

  29. victim? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not sure I would exactly call Zoe Quinn a victim, she has behaved almost as badly as they have and when you verbally assault someone it is pretty unreasonable to not expect a similar or even more vicious attack in return.

  30. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by bloodhawk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    She personifies grace under pressure.

    really? I would have said she personifies the exact opposite and displays a heap of ignorance in dealing people socially, her responses to some of the attacks on her are what helped escalate the situation. She doesn't seem to understand social media at all or how to handle it.

  31. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She personifies grace under pressure.

    What the hell? She is as bad as the people that attack her, most of the attacks were responses to her attacks. Yes what they said to her was way way over the top but you can't abuse people publically and not expect a very negative response. She lacks charm, grace and any sort of humility, she is plays the classic self obsorbed victim where anything she says is fine, and just no matter who she is insulting and anything said to her or about her is an unfair unwarranted attack.

  32. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by bloodhawk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Doesn't mean she deserves harassment. Condemnation maybe. Harassment no.

    Very true, but the same can be said of her victims.

  33. Re:life on the wrong side of an online hate mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    OK, so why do you bring up Gamergate out of the blue? Neither the article above nor any of the things it links to mention it at all.

    This is one of those situations like when a stranger on the street walks up to you and says "I'm not drunk!" -- you might not have even had an opinion on the matter before he opened his mouth, but the very act of denying it creates suspicion.

    If you want people to not associate Gamergate with harassment, you're shooting yourself in the foot by bringing up Gamergate whenever someone talks about harassment.

  34. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yep, the 'feminist' game jam where the woman involved doesn't learn anything about how to code games at all, and is allowed to just submit an idea while men do all the work for her, because she shouldn't worry her pretty little head about the hard code stuff, right?

    The same feminist game jam that she did not, in fact, shut down - she linked to it on Twitter and it went down due to traffic. That hasn't stopped them from trying to exploit that for publicity, of course. /v/ and /pol/ only helped fund it to try and 'gotcha' Zoe in the middle of her being harrassed and threatened by the exact same boards.

    Don't have to listen to me though - her side of the story is documented here. It paints a very different picture than your average Gamergate proponent would have you believe.

  35. She doxxed people as well... by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... So I really don't see why she's in any moral position to judge anyone else that doxxes.

    I forget who it was, I think it was a civil rights lawyer from Los Angeles... so we'll hear more about this as that breaks down.

    But ol' Zoe has some esplaining to do.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:She doxxed people as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I forget who it was, I think it was a civil rights lawyer from Los Angeles

      Didn't you admit to robbing a bank once when you were high on meth? I can't find your post now... maybe it was deleted.

    2. Re:She doxxed people as well... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      No, anonymous coward, I did not admit any such thing.

      Have anything constructive or is this all you're worth?

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:She doxxed people as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... So I really don't see why she's in any moral position to judge anyone else that doxxes.

      I forget who it was, I think it was a civil rights lawyer from Los Angeles... so we'll hear more about this as that breaks down.

      But ol' Zoe has some esplaining to do.

      http://www.crimeandfederalism.com/2015/01/gamergate-swatting-and-zoe-quinn.html

    4. Re:She doxxed people as well... by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      she's not going to explain anything.. why? because she has a job now.

      not as a games developer(and really calling herself based on that game then my high school in '90s had 30 game devs), but you know, as a professional money asker/victim. that's pretty much it.

      much easier than developing actual games anyways.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:She doxxed people as well... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Even worse then I thought... I don't care about Zoe. She's a little schemer and nothing more.

      What remains troubling is both the people in the media that are backing people up like her and the large number of people in the public dumb enough to fall for this crap.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    6. Re:She doxxed people as well... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Oh obviously. She's been on that kick for awhile. Her game was just to create something so she could call herself a dev in the first place. She never had any interest in actually being a dev and making a living off of creating things.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    7. Re:She doxxed people as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have to admit I was a bit perturbed to find out she is making as much as me from Patreon donations for "Crash Override, Games, Writing, Art, and Other Internet STuff".

      https://www.patreon.com/zoe

      I obviously got into the wrong business taking care of the sick. So much easier just being a media whore.

    8. Re:She doxxed people as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      she doesn't care her sole purpose is to bitch and moan about anything she can find and twist to her advantage so she can collect more money from people with money than brains

    9. Re:She doxxed people as well... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Your comment sums up all the allegations made by GamerGate against her. No evidence, no proof, just allegations and an assumption of guilt repeated over and over until it becomes fact in your mind.

      Post your evidence, or better yet hand it to the police. If the guy was a civil rights lawyer surely he would have used his legal skills to do something about it. A police report, or a lawsuit maybe?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:She doxxed people as well... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Her doxxing is on record. I think someone else just cited it and I could provide other attributation if required.

      What is more, that evidence is far stronger then anything you could level against gamergate.

      Show me evidence of any prominent gamergate figure doxxing anyone.

      What twits like you don't seem to get is that gamergate was the reaction to being attacked. It was the defense. There was a massive media campaign which triggered the whole thing.

      And really, it seems since the fucktarded articles are starting up again that they've learned absolutely nothing.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    11. Re:She doxxed people as well... by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      Actually they've learned a lot. I'm a GamerGate supporter, but by continuing to put out click bait articles on GamerGate, which is a hot topic, they're keeping themselves in business because people are eating it up. It's clear when you read most comment sections on these articles or videos or sites like /. there are A LOT of people not buying the BS. They keep doing it because they don't care about creditability, or integrity, they're just trying to keep their crappy sites open by driving outrage. Yeah, GamerGate cost Gawker millions in ad revenue, but it's a drop in the bucket, I'm sure the increase in traffic from pro and anti GamerGate people alike is more than enough to post on quarterly site reports to drum up new advertisers. They'll keep doing it until it stops getting clicks then they'll move on to some other hot button.

      What GamerGate's taught me though is the mainstream really isn't any better. I knew it wasn't great, but I always expected "real journalist" did some amount of fact checking and sourcing. As it turns out sourcing is:

      Gawker: Kotaku said xxxx
      Kotaku: Gawker said xxxx
      Polygon: xxxx is true because Gawker and Kotaku
      BBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBC, all other liberal media: Most gaming media agrees xxxx is true
      BBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBC, all other liberal media for months after: ZOMFG!!!! WORLD ENDING BECAUSE xxxx!!!!! MISOGYNY!!!!

      I'm a liberal Canadian, GamerGate is the first time I've EVER given any props to the conservative media, but at the very least Fox News hasn't crapped all over gamers on this issue (that I'm aware of) and Sun News (Canadian Fox) actually gave time to Jennie Bharaj to talk about the issue and plug her site BasedGamer which is one of the alternative game sites that's come out of GamerGate.

      GamerGate, keeping women out of the industry by helping to raise $70K for TFYC to get women into game development and $50K to help women start alternative news sites... but misogyny right?

    12. Re:She doxxed people as well... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Ouch. That's a lot of cash for basically being an Internet troll.

      Rather than compare to myself, lets compare to Tarn Adams, who's actually delivering a game that entire genres are measured against. How the hell is Zoe worth more than him?

    13. Re:She doxxed people as well... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      As to conservative media, they were merely immunized from caring what the feminists said. They battle people from that general political alliance every day. So getting told "believe this or you're a bigot" rolls off them like shit down a sewer pipe.

      That isn't an attack on them or a defense. Just saying... what made them resistant is that they don't take the threats to make them outcasts from the "good people" to be especially credible since the left has already done whatever it could think of long ago to them.

      As to the TFYC, well yeah... because they actually care about the issues rather then seeing everything as a pretext to get donations and political support from morons.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    14. Re:She doxxed people as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look a few posts up the page:

      "
      Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate (Score:5, Informative)
      by firex726 (1188453) on Tuesday January 20, 2015 @08:40PM (#48861975)

      Don't like what they say?

      They have flat out said that DOXXING is acceptable, that it's only a matter of wrong targets, not methods.

      Hell, ZQ has retweeted doxxes of Wiki editors, including trans minors.

      Tweet:
      http://i.imgur.com/k96uLWF.jpg [imgur.com]

      The referenced doxx (censored):
      http://i.imgur.com/He7UCVW.png [imgur.com]

      OR how as part of the gag order, she claimed that Gjoni spread internet links to nude pictures of her, while failing to mention these were images she had made public of her own volition, while working as a model/camgirl.

      And claimed that he and Milo, are part of some professional doxxing organization, despite in reality they had never spoken prior to GG.
      http://theralphretort.com/wp-c... [theralphretort.com]

      *Police report obtained via FOIA
      "

      Now, take that "No evidence, no proof, just allegations", print it out, fold it until it's all sharp corners, and shove it.

  36. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn right! The law of the jungle, kill or be killed! First to draw blood will be the last standing. Juris Macto.

  37. The police are terrified by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 0

    RIGHT??! Why is that not the standard policy?

    Because the police are terrified.

    They have to respond to any incident as if it was the worst possible scenario, because if they ever, ever misjudge a situation they would be held responsible for "not doing enough" to stop crime.

    They have to respond in the most dickish way possible.

    Just ask them.

    1. Re:The police are terrified by onepoint · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You are correct. most people have never really faced a real threat, and walking into a house where a "person with perceived hostile intent" is just about as insane as it can be.

      if you did not grow up around violence, you might not understand what that cop is thinking, but I bet he's crapping in his pant's when he's got to use the foot instead of knock. like everyone, he just wants his shift to end and go home.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    2. Re:The police are terrified by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      And yet, when they try to get radar so they can see inside houses before/instead of kicking down the door, people react like the fucking sky is falling.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re: The police are terrified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The police are terrified and they are making sure everyone else is too.

    4. Re:The police are terrified by Pfhorrest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because the radar just gives them the results of kicking the door down without them having to lift a boot. It's not the kicking that people want to stop, it's what the kicking is done for: invading the privacy of their homes, without due process or even the decency to show proof that due process has in fact been done before invading. Cops being able to see into your house from the outside whenever they want is just as bad as cops being able to bust into your house whenever they want. Both breech the expected and due privacy of the home.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    5. Re:The police are terrified by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      very insightful post. i would say that at least with the radar thing there are no guns drawn, but from a constitutional perspective you're right on.

    6. Re:The police are terrified by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, fortunately we don't just have to make judgement calls based on gut feelings on this one.

      There's an awful lot of other police forces in the world which don't feel the need to go in in full armour and with guns blazing at the slightest opportunity. For example, I think the US is the only place where a SWAT-like force is used to serve warrants against nonviolent offenders.

      The thing is from the point of view of the rest of the world where such things don't happen, it looks awfully messed up.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:The police are terrified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it is fucking lethal at close ranges, that is why people are acting like the sky is falling.

      There are plenty of non-damaging methods of seeing inside houses.

    8. Re:The police are terrified by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      They do have to follow due process with radar. The Supreme Court ruling that guarantees you need a warrant (or exigent circumstances) is old enough to date. Or listen to Justin Beiber. Or whatever teenager-related thing you want to use. I understand that most people assume the worst, but there's definitely a legal requirement that exists that people assume doesn't.

      Neither the radar nor the kicking isn't being done to invade privacy. The kicking is being done because they believe there is an armed assailant attacking the family, and they are coming to help. I don't know what world you want to live in where "dear police, please help keep someone from killing me" gets a response of "I'm sorry, that would interfere with your civil liberties to... fight the invaders off yourself."

      At least with the radar, the police are less likely to have to bust down the door. At least with the radar, the police^H^H^H^H^H SWAT team is less likely to get surprised rounding a corner and shoot someone. Heck, it may even turn more attempted SWATings into "hostage negotiation"ings.

      Bottom line: When someone calls 911, the police are supposed to respond. We can obviously say that bad responses are bad. But you need to provide a better alternative solution. Because otherwise, what you are arguing for is "the police shouldn't respond to 911 calls". And I think you have an insurmountable burden to demonstrate that, and haven't even begun to attempt to meet that burden.

      (To preempt a deliberate misreading:) Not that people should be forced to rely on the police, they should be able to defend themselves. But some people opting to defend themselves shouldn't release society (thru the police) from an obligation to assist.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    9. Re:The police are terrified by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      There's an awful lot of other police forces in the world which don't feel the need to go in in full armour and with guns blazing at the slightest opportunity. For example, I think the US is the only place where a SWAT-like force is used to serve warrants against nonviolent offenders.

      I agree that no-knock warrants that are being delivered to people with no history of violence, and not suspect of violent crimes, is a bad thing.

      But in this case, the police believe someone from the house called and said there are armed intruders in the house. This doesn't seem like "the slightest opportunity". This seems like an immediate reaction to a request for help in a life-threatening situation.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    10. Re:The police are terrified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah?
      US cops are absolute assholes, who are thought by the federales that the constitution is "an oudtdated paper".
      So they do not follow proper legal proceeding.

    11. Re:The police are terrified by fche · · Score: 2

      "seem like"

      There's the problem there. The burden of proof for "seeming" is pathetically low, and yet the police create huge risks to the lives of the people they raid, and their own lives, by acting on such impressions.

    12. Re:The police are terrified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hah, police held responsible. Good one.

    13. Re:The police are terrified by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Except that cops misjudge situations ALL THE TIME and no one (important) gives a shit. No one gets fired, no one goes to jail, no reforms are put in place. The public (and on rare occasion, media) can be outraged all they want by the poor behavior / judgement of police and it means NOTHING. Also, the Supreme Court ruled that police have NO responsibility or duty to protect people. So this bullshit that "cops have to go full retard, because otherwise they risk being held responsible for not doing something" is a load of crap.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    14. Re:The police are terrified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There has been recently a lot of searching without warrants, as well as search warrants that state you can't tell the target they're being searched. It's a more powerful kind of surveillance, and it's also discussion-resistant so abuses can go on for longer, like the ACLU's warrantless surveillance case that got thrown out for lack of standing because the victim couldn't prove he was surveilled. Radar fits this environment better than a boot. Citizens are sane to refuse radar.

      won't stop nerds from screaming "hypocricy!" on these tight little thought-loops, but expand your mind a bit generously instead of leaping to contrarianism and you can find some differences between radar and boots.

    15. Re:The police are terrified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the US is the only place where a SWAT-like force is used to serve warrants against nonviolent offenders.

      Our military sends equipment to local police forces when it gets bored with it. Police squee over their new toys and use them at every opportunity. It's not really malice; it's just unfathomable stupidity.

    16. Re:The police are terrified by Totenglocke · · Score: 2

      This...this is so horribly uninformed. Yes, there are technically warrants issued for all of the raids, but they're rubber stamped and even can go get a warrant AFTER they already shot up your home just to cover their ass. We went from around 50 SWAT raids per year in the 80's to dozens PER DAY in the present, you cannot possibly be such a boot-licker that you think the current "Send in a two dozen man hit squad, guns blazing and don't even check the address, every time someone thinks of a bong or other activity" is okay.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    17. Re:The police are terrified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That police currently circumvent the very legal protections you argue for by kicking down doors without cause or legal justification of any kind completely nullifies any point you were trying to make. The rest of your post, being built on this foundation, falls flat, accordingly.

    18. Re:The police are terrified by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      you think the current "Send in a two dozen man hit squad, guns blazing and don't even check the address, every time someone thinks of a bong or other activity" is okay.

      The current discussion has nothing to do with drugs, or anything that remotely looks like abuse of power. (I said earlier that I didn't think using SWAT to deliver warrants for non-violent crime to people without a history of violence is wrong.) "SWATing" is using technical problems in the phone system to convince the police that someone is calling 911 from inside a house and is asking for immediate help dealing with an armed intruder.

      I suppose I am such a toady that I think when the police are being begged by a citizen to come to their aid, they should rush into that person's house. I also think the technical problems that mislead the police should be fixed.

      I'll defend that sometimes mistakes happen with regard to the address, under the "holy shit, if people had to execute policy perfectly for it to be a good policy, we wouldn't even be able to eat raw bugs" defense.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    19. Re:The police are terrified by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Wow, you really object to the term "seems like". To reiterate what I said: a legitimate belief that they are rushing to the aid of people are being accosted by an armed intruder doesn't seem like a taking advantage of the slightest opportunity. And your response is "seem like" has a crazy low burden of proof, so even if I live up to it, you don't care.

      Fine. Please replace "doesn't seem like" with "isn't beyond the shadow of a doubt" or whatever phrase you prefer.

      Keep in mind, in the case we are discussing, the police believe (due to technical flaws in the the phone system) that someone inside the house called 911 and asked for assistance fighting off armed assailants. It's a situation I want them to take seriously.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    20. Re:The police are terrified by fche · · Score: 1

      Taking the situation seriously ... ok.
      Staging a raid ... not ok.

    21. Re:The police are terrified by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why they shouldn't prep a raid. I mean, I don't want them outside eating doughnuts while I'm wrestling with a guy with a knife. I want them to come in and taze the fuck out of him.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    22. Re:The police are terrified by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      i see someone eating cake.

    23. Re:The police are terrified by fche · · Score: 1

      "I'm not sure why they shouldn't prep a raid."

      I thought the TFA (which you "actually do read") and this subthread is exactly about reasons for that.

    24. Re:The police are terrified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's the kicking. More people than you imagine *aren't* grievously offended by police knocking and asking if anyone in the house has been up to whatever violent crimes have been reported. As offensive as the radar is (or as you may find a cop knocking at your door to be) it doesn't kill your dog or emotionally scar your kids for life.

    25. Re:The police are terrified by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the key words there are "knocking" and "asking". Those are the important steps people want police to have to do. (And getting proper permission to do that first, and showing proof that they got that permission when they do it). I'm sure the people you're thinking of who aren't grievously offended by that behavior would still be offended if the cops could just walk into their house without knocking or asking, even if that walking-in didn't have to involve kicking the door down; say for example the cops had some kind of universal door key. That's what the radar is like. Except, it's like the cops walking in the door with the universal door key are also invisible, so you don't even know they're there. People want to know that the cops are there and that they have gone through due process first, rather than just suddenly having them in their homes.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    26. Re:The police are terrified by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Not that people should be forced to rely on the police, they should be able to defend themselves. But some people opting to defend themselves shouldn't release society (thru the police) from an obligation to assist.

      The courts have already ruled that the police do not have any obligation to assist.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    27. Re:The police are terrified by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      I don't think the cops are actually going to start using radar on their subjects as an alternative to in-person raids. How would they kill your dog and steal your cash?

    28. Re:The police are terrified by davydagger · · Score: 1

      Neither the radar nor the kicking isn't being done to invade privacy. The kicking is being done because they believe there is an armed assailant attacking the family, and they are coming to help. I don't know what world you want to live in where "dear police, please help keep someone from killing me" gets a response of "I'm sorry, that would interfere with your civil liberties to... fight the invaders off yourself."

      The case has been made repeatedly that the cops abuse the ever living piss out of this, and many times they've used this where the perpetrator was wanted on non-violent offenses and had no history of violence, nor was there reasonable suspicion of such. Thats what people are upset over.

    29. Re:The police are terrified by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Wow, you really object to the term "seems like". To reiterate what I said: a legitimate belief that they are rushing to the aid of people are being accosted by an armed intruder.

      I would sincerely hope that if someone calls that they are being held by an "armed intruder" that the police would treat that as a hostage situation. Typically those are ment with negotiation rather than storming a house. Storming is usually the last resort after all else has failed, and it looks like there is no other choice. The outcome foro the victims isn't all that good in those cases. So storming a house as the first resort gets it over quickly, but would likely end up with both perp and victim dead.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    30. Re:The police are terrified by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why they shouldn't prep a raid. I mean, I don't want them outside eating doughnuts while I'm wrestling with a guy with a knife. I want them to come in and taze the fuck out of him.

      Uh huh. They will get him that way, and you will probably be dead. Swatting a hostage situation is the last resort, for the reason given in my first sentence.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    31. Re:The police are terrified by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      They do have to follow due process with radar.

      Bitch, please.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    32. Re:The police are terrified by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      And they are right to be upset about no-knock warrants in non-violent situations. That's just not what we're talking about here.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    33. Re:The police are terrified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As said by another poster:
      "Because the radar just gives them the results of kicking the door down without them having to lift a boot. It's not the kicking that people want to stop, it's what the kicking is done for: invading the privacy of their homes, without due process or even the decency to show proof that due process has in fact been done before invading"

      You dumb fucking bumbling idiot.

    34. Re:The police are terrified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Rest of the world" on Slashdot = parts of Western Europe.

    35. Re:The police are terrified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please define non-violent offender. I know a marshal who got shot up serving court papers to a deadbeat "non-violent offender".

      Wish I could say it's not commonplace, but it is.

  38. "Quinn ruined lives", yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Ok, she may not have been a great girlfriend for Eron Gjoni, but any actual ruining of his life happened because he wrote up that massive attack article on her and posted it to a bunch of discussion boards that had already been harassing Anita Sarkeesian and other feminists in gaming. Zoe will probably date other people in the future, though perhaps he dissuaded a few potential boyfriends from bothering with her, but anybody would have to be out of their mind to date him, because of how he treats his ex-girlfriends, and if I were in the gaming business (or whatever business he's in now), I'd have more sense than to hire him.

    1. Re:"Quinn ruined lives", yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Zoe Quinn is a predatory abuser. That's why he didn't have a good relationship with her, and all he did was speak out about this so other people could be aware of it.

    2. Re:"Quinn ruined lives", yeah right by NiceGuyVan · · Score: 2

      His friend, a woman, said he didn't post it to multiple forums like you suggest. That he wrestled with the decision to even post it in the first place but SHE decided it was best to help others avoid an abusive woman.

    3. Re:"Quinn ruined lives", yeah right by LaurenCates · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As someone who's both read "The Zoe Post" and who has been in abusive relationships before (which is ultimately how she came to my attention, not the gaming stuff), let me offer a different perspective.

      It seems to me that Quinn was a rather nasty piece of work. Putting aside anything to do with gaming journalism, I'd say she was a full-on sociopath. And it isn't misogyny to point out that she was an emotional abuser. Based on everything I've seen, and lack of refutation on her part, or anyone else's for that matter, to the contrary, I can't even give her the benefit of the doubt.

      Now, you can err on the side of "personal business, don't air dirty laundry" here, but the thing about sociopaths is that they know there is always someone around the corner to manipulate.

      Maybe what Gjoni did was wrong, and maybe the response to it was disproportionate (and NO, I am not anti-GamerGate; in fact, I have a problem with every single woman who's come out and said "it must be GamerGate" every time they are threatened...I am a believer in personal responsibility, and with that comes assignment of personal responsibility to others as well).

      BUT, let me pose this question: how do you fitfully punish a sociopath so that the consequences take real effect? Particularly since emotional abuse is difficult to prosecute and damn near impossible when it's a woman committing the offense (yes, dammit, women CAN be abusers, and it is deeply frustrating when I see so-called "feminists" hide behind "misogyny" and the "weak little woman" stereotype to get out of jail free; it's truly funny how feminism is about equality but not at all about personal responsibility)?

      Well, if you let a sociopath know that there's nobody left to manipulate, that they ALL know now what your game is, maybe they have incentive to change, to seek help, to become better people?

      It's a dream, of course. It's a dream of abuse victims like me. That abusers have no outlets left. That all potential targets are now on their guard and won't play the game. That abusers get frozen out and realize that it is upon them to change. That there's a true reckoning involved, not more potential victims down the road.

      You may not like what Gjoni did, that's certainly your right. But remember, when you deal with sociopaths, the ideal of a polite society flies right out the window.

      --
      Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
    4. Re:"Quinn ruined lives", yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All Eron did was talk about personal experiences within his own life, warning people about Zoe Quinn, and what she did to him. It is not an attack, no personal information was released, it was not posted on other discussion boards by him, as the tumblr post simply just went viral.

      You're just spinning your own story about everyone hating those 'gosh darn feminists'. Please cease and desist.

      Zoe Quinn has gone on record to drag Eron Gjoni into a court with FALSE police statements to Boston police ( A fact that is backed up by other notable individuals ), and playing the professional victim in front of a judge, robbing the man of his first amendment right to free speech regarding his own, personal life, which is not hers' to take away, under the pretense that he somehow perpetrated and urged people to attack her, when absolutely none of this ever occurred.

      Chelsea Van Valkenburg is not a spearhead personality to end harassment and abuse. She dishes out abuse and hate on twitter on a daily basis, sicks her followers and members of her clique onto people who disagree with her and criticize her blatantly obvious misconduct and support for abusive behaviour, and continues to kick and poke a stick at the proverbial hornet's nest that is #gamergate, and associated communities, in order to get reactions to spin back into her role of Professional Victim.

      An anti-harassment task force? That's got to be the most hypocritical but somehow seriously unironic thing I've ever heard. What a joke. This is nothing more than a media stunt to further her Patreon funding numbers.

      This is all any of these people are after. Money.

      Anyone with enough sense to think for themselves can see that.

    5. Re:"Quinn ruined lives", yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who's both read "The Zoe Post" and who has been in abusive relationships before (which is ultimately how she came to my attention, not the gaming stuff), let me offer a different perspective.

      First, sorry to hear about you past relationship issues. No one should have to go through that.

      BUT, let me pose this question: how do you fitfully punish a sociopath so that the consequences take real effect?

      I don't think it should be your job to act as judge, jury, and executioner. Have you ever heard the expression "the best revenge is living well"? I think your best option is to put the past behind you as best you can. Yeah, it may not be easy but I truly think that is your best option. Just my $0.02 worth.

      It's a dream, of course. It's a dream of abuse victims like me. That abusers have no outlets left. That all potential targets are now on their guard and won't play the game. That abusers get frozen out and realize that it is upon them to change. That there's a true reckoning involved, not more potential victims down the road.

      Yes, it would be nice if abusers always got their just comeuppance. But that is not the world we live in. I guess one possible option is that if you see said sociopath going after another victim you can gently warn the potential victime of his past indiscretions. But that would have to be done very carefully. Sadly, you may have to accept the possibility that your offer of concern may not be well received.

      You may not like what Gjoni did, that's certainly your right. But remember, when you deal with sociopaths, the ideal of a polite society flies right out the window.

      Not, it doesn't! You still have choices you can make. Just because he is acting like a sociopath doesn't mean you must respond in kind. You don't have to go down that road. Chucking polite society out the window is not the answer.

  39. Women in Technology by billstewart · · Score: 1, Insightful

    And did your post just make technology look like a more friendly place for half the population to work, or less friendly?

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Women in Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Work is not friendly for most people. It is a ruthless competition. Don't like it/can't hack it? Please remain in your 'friendly' kitchen and prepare a sandwich for your friend.

  40. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of course she paints a very different picture, she paints a picture that doesn't match the recollections or the evidence that anyone else involved has, she even went to the extent of editing some of her previous postings to hide the evidence of her behaviour as it escalated. She behaved atrociously, she seems to be a highly obnoxious individual that believes she has some sort of exclusive right to insult and attack people without repercussions. That doesn't excuse the pathetic excuse for humans that launched vicious assaults on her, but if you whack a bees nest with a large stick then you have to expect to get stung.

  41. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guarantee you this post will get buried.

  42. It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by Kunedog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  43. No thanks by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    So we could deliver an update for a Heartbleed or Shellshock vulnerability, completely independently of the lawnmower control app that would come from the lawnmower company

    Which mean you can break my application and cause me many problems.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  44. Re: life on the wrong side of an online hate mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the members of the shitty Kotakuinaction subreddit you guys are bitches too, of course

  45. I don't get it. by B33rNinj4 · · Score: 1

    She doxxed herself though. So, will her "task force" help other victims of self-doxxing/self-swatting, or legitimate victims?

  46. Re: life on the wrong side of an online hate mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well, there's alsovthe proof demonstrated by the supposed pro Gamergate subreddit Kotakuinaction, a place brimming with ignorant shitheads chasing off any member who questions the raging asshole transphobia of Milo

  47. Re:life on the wrong side of an online hate mob by fractoid · · Score: 1

    Given the people involved, it's more like when you walk out of a pub and there's a group of people standing out the front waving signs saying "Drunks Are Abusers", "All Drinking Is Bad", etc.

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  48. Re:Fine Young Capitalists Game Jam? Oh, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are, hilariously enough, thinking of an entirely different game jam that Zoe Quinn intentionally sabotaged. That one was going to be televised and she got mad at being portrayed as a drama queen. (Gee, wonder how that might have happened?)

    The game jam people are referring to was one intended to support women game developers. Zoe Quinn tried to kill it because they didn't give her enough money.

  49. Re:life on the wrong side of an online hate mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because it is ZOE QUINN, her entire life is one big shitstorm brawl over gamergate. She fires insults and threats at them, they respond and she claims harassment. everything she is involved with publically in this area is to boost her profile and to keep this whole shitstorm going as without it she sinks back into obscurity. It is kinda amusing and sad really, she has some legitimate complaints, but her complete lack of grace and inability to socially interact with people except in slinging matches completely obscures anything she has to say. She seems to be a truly nasty vicious piece of work that is as bad as those that attack her.

  50. Is Obama Alive ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kyle was not at the POTUS speech to Congress.

    Had he been there, he would have killed POTUS.

    Sad. The millions of United States of America citizens are now rendered to suffer greatly.

  51. You Been Misinformed on Purpose by Kunedog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you want people to not associate Gamergate with harassment, you're shooting yourself in the foot by bringing up Gamergate whenever someone talks about harassment.

    Try this: link to the /. article that covers the Gamergate scandal without screaming about misogyny and harassment. You can't. And that's because overall, the Slashdot readership doesn't buy the "misogyny and harassment" narrative for one second. The editors quickly discovered that the discussion thread for any article that straightforwardly mentions Gamergate--even if it's one-sided--couldn't be trusted to go the way the editors demand.

    For a while, they found limited success by posting articles with the template "misogyny, harassment, threats, misogyny, harassment, threats . . . oh btw Gamergate" (i.e. a br But even that's not working anymore, and the editors' credibility on this issue is shot. Permanently.

    Slashdot wants desperately to cover Gamergate, but doesn't want to be honest and up front that it's doing so, and especially that it's taking the pro-corruption side. In the early weeks, they even tried to participate in the blackout, which led to almost every article about gaming at all becoming a Gamergate thread. The editors/ownership knew damn well what they were doing, and it's silly to blame anyone else for the consequences of refusing to cover Gamergate, except with propaganda.

  52. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    some corrections
    TFYC aren't feminists, weren't running a gamejam, their project is going forward.

  53. Harrassing a Suicide Prevention Support Group by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    How can anyone stand this woman? Even if we believe her every word we still get: Called by a single person who apparently claimed to represent or be a member of some suicide support group. So she decides to lead a harassment movement again the site and all of its members.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Harrassing a Suicide Prevention Support Group by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      What is it with people posting wild, unsubstiated claims about this person and then expecting everyone to just nod along.

      So far all of the most "credible" things, such as sex for good reviews, and doxxing a bunch of people have turned out to be utter fabrications. The onus is on YOU to provide evidence not just make up crap which then has to be refuted.

      And frankly at this point, any claim which is not VERY strongly substianted is beginning to get really suspect due the number of apparently well substianted claims which have turned out to be crap. Given the latter, it is clear there are a number of people out there making up wild claims and putting considerable effort into it. That makes further claimes somewhat suspect to put it mildly.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Harrassing a Suicide Prevention Support Group by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Well if you are unwilling to even be generally informed about things that Zoe herself has officially posed on twitter, you cannot expect everyone else to keep you up to date with events.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    3. Re:Harrassing a Suicide Prevention Support Group by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Yet more allegations with no proof. Typical gater.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:Harrassing a Suicide Prevention Support Group by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      You are the one making allegations without proof, and not even providing enough information to look up the evidence you apparently saw. If you are interested in Zoe Quinn, follow her twitter, read her old tweets, come to your own conclusions.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    5. Re:Harrassing a Suicide Prevention Support Group by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      You are the one making allegations without proof

      You posted an allegation, and provided no evidence to back it up. For proof go and read your own post where you made an allegation and provided no link or anything similar.

      That's called making an allegation with no proof, and here's my proof:
      http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

      See the bit where you make an allegation about harassment? That's called an all-eee-gay-shun. See the bit where you provide no evidence? That's called "not providing any evidence".

      and not even providing enough information to look up the evidence you apparently saw

      There you go. I gave you a link. Though honestly I would expect to remember a post that you yourself made higher up in this thread.

      If you are interested in Zoe Quinn, follow her twitter, read her old tweets, come to your own conclusions.

      So basically you have made an unsubstianted allegation and your "proof" is to go and tell me to find proof for myself. At this point I'm going to label you as "yet another gater" because you seem to expect everyone to simply believe you that "Zoe Quinn is Evil".

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  54. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The irony in your post is highly amusing. The old everyone that says something different to me is an intolerant ignorant asshole, but I am just a confident person with a view that is different to yours. Your attitude is the problem and sadly I don't think you are capable of even seeing the ignorance and intolerance you are displaying all the while saying how much you hate it.

  55. Re:life on the wrong side of an online hate mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The only evidence that GamerGate is about harassing people are the actual behaviors of the people involved.

    FTFY.

  56. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With all the bad press that 4chan gets, it's really SA that's really the source of the horrible shit online.

    Where there's dirt going on online, you don't have to look far to find somebody following the SA trolling handbook. The're like the CIA of Internet drama. Goons wrote the manual for stirring up shit online, trolling, infiltrating & destroying online communities.

  57. No wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No wonder Zoe Quinn was linked to the "Enumclaw case" in some way.

    Also "a developer" /s

    1. Re:No wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://archive.today/v0i5s

      "Congrats to Stephanie Galvez of Enumclaw, WA on her purchase of Toreador Afire." They were the CON artist's first clients.

      Wow, thanks anon...

  58. g8 b8 m8 I r8 8/8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

  59. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1, Informative

    the central allegation of "corrupt media" in GG was a falsehood. the original thing where "zoe quinn slept with some guy from some games mag in order to get a good review" falls flat because the guy never wrote an article about zoe's game! just a lot of hate.

  60. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She doesn't seem to understand social media at all or how to handle it.

    "Doesn't matter; had sex and got rich." -Zoe Quinn, attention whore extraordinaire.

  61. http://tech.slashdot.org/~AmiMoJo by Tasha26 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    developer? Please go to her shitty website and show me where she held a developer or programmer position?

    doxing victim? She re-tweeted a dox and it was a made-up address but never told her followers. She is known to send herself threats & ddos and will then blame others (TFYC, Wizardchan and now GamerGate). This is what we call a professional victim.

    Are you Zoe Quinn or her friend ShitLipz? You pathetic person.

    1. Re:http://tech.slashdot.org/~AmiMoJo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't her "doxxed" address/phone number for a pizza place or something like that?

    2. Re:http://tech.slashdot.org/~AmiMoJo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "built by Quinn and game developer Alex Lifschitz"

      Why do people get so angry about the use of the word developer in the same breath as Zoe Quinn, and in this case become so enraged that they can't fully comprehend the sentence which only names Alex Lifschitz as a game developer?

      Why, if you gamergaters are so convinced of your superiority over those who are less convinced of the extensive web of corruption(or SJWs as you might prefer to call them), and quite sure that zoe quinn is a professional victim and revelling in the drama, have you not worked out that you could, you know, just stop the fucking drama already? Kill the animosity, present the facts in a sane and digestible way, stop being a bunch of whiny dicks, is that a possibility?

    3. Re:http://tech.slashdot.org/~AmiMoJo by B33rNinj4 · · Score: 1

      No, I believe it was for an auto repair shop in Hawaii. Either way, the doxxing was fake, much like she is.

  62. Re:life on the wrong side of an online hate mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    sighborg @TheQuinnspiracy Jan 12
    If you continue to be neutral of or in support of gamergate KNOW you're silently approving of attempted murder by cop pic.twitter.com/ehrtTT1eUs
    0 replies 330 retweets 141 favorites

    Carpet statements like this piss me off... I don't even support doxxing, but oh, because I believe in proper gaming journalism and disagree with forced cultural arm bending to get my group (be it feminists, LGBTs, asexuals, or whatever) included in video games, represented exactly how I want, I'm supporting MURDER. Great.

    I'm bisexual, and I wouldn't want support (caveat: from my limited understanding) in the way the so called SJWs seem to believe in. I'm against the tactics of individuals on both sides of the aisle.

  63. Busted by lucm · · Score: 1

    I have a theory about the secret agenda of Slashdot editors. It's actually a clever endless loop of business:

    1) Slashdot reader is angry (or bored) because of the editors, so he decides to start a blog to bitch about gamergate, feminazis and other hot issues

    2) reader goes to the Deals page to buy the $49 Wordpress bundle (93% off!)

    3) reader puts link to a Slashdot discussion on his responsive and mobile-ready blog

    4) reader's reader clicks (or taps) on the link

    5) goto 1

    Flawless. It is basically a money printing scheme.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
    1. Re:Busted by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      No, slashdot are fricking amateurs in the clickbait business, and I've seen no evidence it gains them much. Even when they tried to pump unbreakablecoin yesterday (lol!), it barely made a dent in its price.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  64. Re:life on the wrong side of an online hate mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After 5 months of "GamerGate" there's been no arrests, no serious evidence of any imminent threat published or connection to any organized "harassment" campaign. Gamergate supporters themselves have been harassed, swatted, sent malicious objects in the mail and this is largely ignored in the media. Possibly because many of them took a different approach, and didn't kick up that much of a fuss about it, or perhaps because it doesn't fit the media's narrative.

    That's a funny double standard there. I notice no one was arrested over the harassment, swatting etc. of the Gamergate supporters either so that obviously invalidates any right they have to complain.

  65. wat. by lucm · · Score: 2

    I tried to read that page but this is like listening to teenage girls arguing about who saw that pair of jeans first at wal-mart the week before homecoming. The level of mental confusion and social ineptitude displayed in those messages is mind-blowing.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
    1. Re:wat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like the summary and this whole junior high subject.

  66. Down with haters by lucm · · Score: 1

    taunting her "haterz"

    I'm getting fed up with the "haterz" thing. It's a self-serving and simplistic conversation stopper, like "homophobic" or "patriarchal".

    I don't "hate" Justin Bieber, Zoe Quinn or Jar Jar Binks. I just consider that those persons have nothing of value to contribute and are not helping to improve the signal-to-noise ratio in their respective sphere of influence. I would have to care about them to qualify as a hater.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  67. Slashdot effect harrasment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will the SJWs get mad at slashdot for "harassing" ZQ by taking down her site? Im sure the slashdot effect, almost equivilent to a DDOS, will not help that site's network capabilities. They got extremely upset at David Packman, when he asked her publicly for an interview.

    1. Re:Slashdot effect harrasment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She'll probably claim Gamergate DDoS'd her by the end of the day. Calling it now.

  68. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only person who loosely qualifies as a "victim" is a psychopath who ran to 4chan with the deliberate aim of ruining her life. She should probably have told him to fuck off sooner.

  69. Re: life on the wrong side of an online hate mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean the subreddit where a transwoman is one of the favorite posters and got modded recently?

  70. Tagged !victim by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Kind of hard for Ms. Van Valkenberg to be the victim when she's the one calling for the damage.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  71. Re:life on the wrong side of an online hate mob by NiceGuyVan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because no one will listen to any gamergater reporting harassment.

  72. Re:life on the wrong side of an online hate mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's a video with their hateful, vile and uncivlized message to journalists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr7u1tWsGBk

  73. Re: life on the wrong side of an online hate mob by NiceGuyVan · · Score: 1

    that's the one. It's also the same one that told a transgendered person that they must agree with them because they OWN tg people. Oh wait, that one was the antigamergate subreddit, gamerghazi. My mistake.

  74. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The central allegation no-one made?

    "They claim it was for a review but there's no review!" is the oldest of the cover-up's lies. It was for EXPOSURE. And in an article on -50- upcoming Twine games, Depression Quest was
    a) the only game sourced for a screenshot, despite being an unattractive text adventure
    b) used as inspiration for the title of the article
    c) mentioned first
    In merely ONE of his several articles mentioning what is frankly a cripplingly unimpressive game even for Twine.

    So sure, you can count cheating on someone five different times (constituting rape by your personal definition), isolating them from their friends, inducing panic attacks when they rightly suspect your infidelity, and any of the rest of the abusive acts found in the Zoepost as "not a great girlfriend for Eron", I guess implying that some people LIKE being abused?, but that's not really going to remove Grayson's positive coverage for a dev who has cheating with him, it's not going to have her not sleep with an IGDA staffer who is now in bed with a known harasser's anti-harassment (of her friends, I don't trust her involving "white hat hackers", someone who criticized her is getting doxxed inside 3 months GUARANTEED) initiative, and it's not going to have a reddit mod not delete 15,000+ comments after she made the personal request to censor the discussion by email.

    It will still be an ongoing consumer revolt regarding the anti-consumer nature of the gaming press as it stands, including its backroom collusion with Silverstring Media and their ideological partners. A lot of the people watchdogging the press now don't even know who Chelsea is. Keep pushing your genetic fallacy though, it certainly created a temporarily effective smokescreen in the beginning.

    I don't normally bother using Slashdot, so forgive my lack of login. ThisIsFrigglish on Reddit, if you'd like to follow up directly.

  75. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by NiceGuyVan · · Score: 5, Informative

    > because the guy never wrote an article about zoe's game! Yes he did. http://wiki.gamergate.me/index... FFS, he's even in the credits for the game. http://theralphretort.com/zoe-...

  76. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by NiceGuyVan · · Score: 2

    Confidence is not screaming "I'm a victim" anytime anyone points out she's wrong.

  77. Re:life on the wrong side of an online hate mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    If all harassment is bad, why was zoe quinn doxxing other people?

  78. Re:Fine Young Capitalists Game Jam? Oh, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are, hilariously enough, thinking of an entirely different game jam that Zoe Quinn intentionally sabotaged. That one was going to be televised and she got mad at being portrayed as a drama queen.

    You mean the game jam that was supposed to be a worthy documentary, but got derailed by a sociopath manager that tried to shoehorn a battle-of-the-sexes reality show unto the developers, so all them went on strike? Get your facts right.

  79. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they would make an excellent couple, seems they are both psychopath's. Both exhibit same complete disregard for others and a self centered belief that no one else has a right to a differing view.

  80. Actually, it's about ethics in doxxing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doxxing is journalism. Is it being done ethically?

  81. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She personifies very thing wrong with SJWs.
    Pathan Grayson and Patricia Hernandez and Nathan's boss, and Stephen totally who all did shady shit are what is wrong with journalism.

    Anyway, why is slashdot talking about zoe? GG peop,evmoved on from her bullshit back in August. She likes to think the world revolves around her and thre press eats that shut up but GGers almost never bring her name up anymore because she is just a blip on the radar of bullshit going on in gaming.

  82. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats the picture the opponents of the gamergate paints, and it is just as wrong as the image the proponents of the gamergate movement also paint.
    It's not about the corruption indeed, but not about "uh stronk independent women", but simply about saving the indie games from people wanting to ruin em as well.
    You see, /v/ sees the modern triple A games as a heaping pile of uninspired shit devoid of any fun or decent gameplay, and many of em actually believe that the independent games are the last hope, and the very thing that will cause the next video game crash, thus killing all the companies they hate like Capcom, EA, Activision, ubisoft...
    And then Ms.Quinn appears and shits on it, telling em "see? i can get my horrible "game" up and greatly awarded and crushing more deserving games just because i got my *AHEM* skills" and thats kinda triggers em hard, because many of em see the last hope being crushed or hampered by stupid agendas and crooks.
    Also that TYFC thing was not about "getting a good reputation" or even being truly good, but simply because the games if offered looked better than the "game" Zoe Quinn did, so was just a "do this, not that" message.

    They're just a mass of blind people wanting good games no matter the cost struggling and hitting themselves in the process quite a few times.

  83. Re:life on the wrong side of an online hate mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She also seems quite sneaky. Her online persona is very abrasive but when she's interviewed on TV she comes across as super-adorable. The audience then think 'Holy shit, this poor girl is being driven to panic by those basement dwellers'.

    Is clever manipulation and will backfire in an epic way.

  84. A lie is a lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If she was at home, and claim she could not return home, that is a clear lie, period. She could have qualified that outlining protection she had; she chose not to. You can spin it all you like but to call it a lie can only be accurate.

  85. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by Vintermann · · Score: 1

    You've got a couple of small things wrong. Eron Gjoni never said she slept with a journalist "in order to get a good review". Go and read the post yourself. Even the job Quinn got (from a guy she was having an affair with), Gjoni said she probably would have gotten anyway, and certainly was qualified for.

    You're right there's no review involved, but that was never the allegation. You are, however, wrong that there is no article involved. Depression Quest (and Zoe Quinn personally) got lots of positive press from Nathan Grayson.

    --
    xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  86. Re: life on the wrong side of an online hate mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are right the anti harrasment thing doesn't accept money but that doesn't mean it isn't designed to get people to fund her patreon further...which is exactly what happened.

    This girl does nothing and she's pulling in a liviable monthly wage for doing that nothing via donations. Also as of right now her boyfriend is incredibly wealthy so she's living the dream. She's also in Europe a trip that was planned BEFORE the Zoe post ever happened to her blaming this on gg and saying she's hidng is nonsense.

    Let's also not forget every time Zoe falla out of discussion, which is often, she starts attacking again whether it by directly insulting gamers or other people or posting pictures of her "drinking tears" or throwing "gamers" in the trash...point is she starts the shit storm herself every single time and every time she does it her donations go up. She fell out of the dialog again so she starts this nonsense crash over ride network...come on wake up.

  87. I find both sides of GG reprehensible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    One side of gamergate is a bunch of misogynistic neckbeard trolls who are pretending that their strawman of ethics in video gaming journalism is sufficient moral justification for all the hatred, bile and harassment they spew. They simply do not want women in their boys club of gaming and IT. They are completely inept with women and do not understand them. The other side are much of misandrist hipster koolaide hair dyed, plastic horn rimmed glasses, hipster, feminist SJW freaks, who get themselves off by offended by everyone and everything they see. They are more than willing to suspend the first amendment for anyone who disagrees with them, and producing games is a form of free speech. They are completely inept with men and do not understand them.

    Both sides have mental issues that need to be addressed. Maybe if each camp gets some therapy they can solve the emotional and socialization problems they have with the opposite sex. It's basically a fight between comic book guy vs future crazy cat lady.

  88. Re:life on the wrong side of an online hate mob by markass530 · · Score: 2

    The money has gone to professional victim Anita Sarkeesian

  89. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    she's counting condemnation and being critical of her "game" as harassment though... that being a part of the whole reason for the backlash.

    a professional troll of sorts and other trolls getting involved in it. it's a fucking TROLLGATE and not gamergate..

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  90. Suggestion to author by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Terms doxing and swatting are slang and have not been around that long. Recommend updating the article to define what these terms mean.

  91. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See my comment up thread, since I can't post it twice:
    It wasn't a review, it was an article about her involvement in the collapse of a reality TV show:
    http://tmi.kotaku.com/the-indie-game-reality-tv-show-that-went-to-hell-1555599284

    according to Nathan they didn't start having sex until after the article was published. However that happened while they were on a trip to vegas together that was planned before the article was written.

  92. GG lets re by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take that feminist sensationalism back to Jezebel

  93. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    if #GG is truly about ethics in journalism, then why isn't nathan grayson the one being doxxed and hated at? he's the one who supposedly broke journalism ethics rules. but instead all the hate is directed at zoe, possibly because #GG is actually about hating women.

  94. Re:life on the wrong side of an online hate mob by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    I went to 8ch.net/gamergate as you suggested. On the first page there were numerous posts talking about how effective doxxing is (http://8ch.net/gamergate/res/250844.html), and the rest was a mixture of planned attacked on various groups and websites, soft porn and complaining about feminists. Didn't see much of the anti-harassment stuff or the analysis of games journalism ethics.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  95. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Vanderhoth · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm really tired of that line, "Doesn't mean she deserves harassment"

    I've been in GamerGate now for almost six months. What I've seen is people like Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, Anita Sarkeesian and Randi Harper harassing people then claiming they're the ones being harassed. Other than Anita Sarkeesian, I'd never heard of any of these other people before GamerGate.

    Wu for example, created a twitter account BROLOLZ and used it to mock and harass GamerGate back in the beginning. When no one responded she created the "Oppressed Gamer" meme. Someone took that meme and ran with it, then she claimed people using her meme was harassment. Then she got threats from a zero day twitter account called "DeathToBrianna", there was no mention of GamerGate, but she screen capped it and sent it flying around twitter as evidence GamerGate had a hate on for her, that's what got her on a media tour.

    I don't believe anyone deserves harassment, but what I'm seeing is people purposely going in and kicking bee hives, then calling for the extermination of bees when they get stung by a wasp. It's ridiculous, the media is eating it up and plastering it all over as, "these poor, poor innocent souls."

    So yeah, I'm about to victim blame. If you poke a bear, it's your fault if you get bitten. I've lost all sympathy for people living under the double standard that it's ok for them to lie, cheat, steal, defame, dox, harass and threaten people, but then turn around and play the victim and advertise their patreons. Check the patreon accounts for anyone of the three I named above:

    Randi Harper (antagonist, creator of the GGAutoblocker blocks GamerGate, which is fine. Continues to tweet at GamerGate and bullied an anti-GamerGate person off twitter for not being anti enough):
    $2,422.86 a MONTH https://www.patreon.com/freebs...

    Zoe Quinn (abuser, antagonist, liar, trust fund baby. Frankly we'd all be happier NOT talking about her because she's not relevant beyond the people that were involved around her [journalist, indi devs, indi judges], but every time she's forgotten she pulls some crap like this article to reinsert herself. She got in a twitter slap fight with Brianna Wu over who was the most harassed):
    $4,000 a MONTH https://www.patreon.com/zoe

    Brianna Wu (antagonist, liar, trust fund baby. She answered someone questioning her saying GamerGate was only 350 people with, "Thanks for the sexists remark" and accused David Pakman of running a hit piece on her for asking her how she knew it was GamerGate harassing her:
    $13,000 a MONTH https://www.patreon.com/user?u...

    ^ this ^ is what a professional victim looks like.

    I got into GamerGate because I was tired of the media BS about gamers being cis-white-male shitlord misogynerds. I won't lie, in the beginning, I didn't think GamerGate was important, it's about frigg'n video games. I thought it'd be like a week long thing, we'd write some letters to advertisers and the journalist involved would just apologize for being idiots, but it's just been one thing after another after another. The opposition to GamerGate is full of ex-neo-naizs (Ian Miles Cheong), pedophiles (Shara Butts), animal abuses (Randi Harper, Shara Butts), rape apologists (Author Chu) and professional victims (Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, Zoe Quinn, Randi Harper, Grace Lynn) all sexists, racist, homophobic, hateful people who pretend to have the high moral ground because they alone are allowed to speak for women and minorities (Look up #NotYourShiled). All pointing fingers at a largely harmless group of people that are just tired of being demonized for a hobby that doesn't hurt anyone, and the media eats it up. You can look into the background of just about any of the major GamerGate "targets" and se

  96. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > She's an oldschool SA forum troll.

    Ah... I was having trouble figuring it out based on wikipedia articles. Her name is all over the place and yet she's only really worked on one released forgettable game. As an oldschool SA forum troll myself, all of this suddenly makes sense. What was her forum name(s)?

    She must be laughing her ass off at all the press attention.

  97. Re:life on the wrong side of an online hate mob by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

    When Islamist terrorists murder people we expect Muslims to respond. It was done in the name of their religion. They could try to stop it, they could argue strongly against it. It's blackening the name of their religion, after all. When they don't they receive criticism for it.

    In the same way, if you head over to 8chan's GamerGate board you won't see many "real" GamerGaters trying to steer things in a more productive direction. Like it or not, your argument is basically the No True Scotsman one. If you really care about what you claim the GamerGate issues really are you should either try to fix GamerGate or do what other groups, particularly religions, do in this situation and split off with a new identity. Like it or not GamerGate is what 8chan is using, and they seem to be dominating at the moment.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  98. oops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    please ignore this. posting to undo incorrect moderation.

  99. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

    You say Quinn harassed Wizardchan, but don't provide any evidence.

    You say Quinn "shut down" TFYC's gamejam, but the reality is that she simply criticised it. They responded to her criticism, but due to that and other factors like heavy support from 4chan and GamerGate people quickly lost interest in it. They failed on their own, Quinn didn't somehow force them to shut it down. Plenty of references here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  100. how to "win" at gamergate: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    don't give a fuck

    useless heat on the internet is just that

    of course, if it bothers you so much you have to take it offline, with harassing calls, doxing, swatting, etc.: yeah, you should probably be in jail

    if you can't tell the difference between shit talking on the internet and real life stalking and harassment, you have a serious defect in your social development

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:how to "win" at gamergate: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think this strategy of ignoring the haters works. Gamergate doxed Felicia Day for the sin of saying she was afraid of gamergate, for goodness sake. What's the point of that?? She's a female gamer, yes, but that isn't enough reason to dox and harass her. Whatever you think of the attack on Quinn, you should be against it spreading to other women gamers just because they're relatively famous. Gamergate is no longer just about Quinn, whether it ever was or not.

  101. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

    Neither of your links are to a review of Quinn's game. The first one claims there was some kind of link, to the extend that her game was mentioned in a list of 50 that the guy wrote. Not a review or article about her game by any stretch of the imagination.

    He stopped even mentioning her after they got together. He did the ethical thing and stopped covering her work. Are you saying that even being friends with a game developer is problematic? Because I have news for you bro, most journalists have some kind of friendly relationship with the people they report on because otherwise it's kinda hard to report on them.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  102. Crazy by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 1

    Don't you have laws against wasting Police Time and/or perverting the cause of justice ?

    http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_...

  103. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People would do that? Lie over the internet? No, we should just believe what she said even though her public posts on Twitter are a completely different story.

  104. Re: life on the wrong side of an online hate mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only because it hasn't gotten non-profit status. Why ask donators to spend money that'll be taxed?

    Better to fund it yourself and write it off as a business expense. Thenjoy after achieving non-profit status, have your Patreon supporters move to your non-profit. Then not only is your income tax-free, but your donations get a tax write-off.

    Currently, Zoe has to pay taxes for her Patreon money.

  105. Oh thanks Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever since Cracked.com stopped posting an article a week on it I'd have almost forgotten that GamerGate was ever a thing.

  106. Re: life on the wrong side of an online hate mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ice4r and at least one other person were SWATed. KingOfPol was also Firetrucked.

  107. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by jbolden · · Score: 1

    OK I've looked at Antia's work. Under your theory she would have initiated the harassment. What harassment did she engage in when this started? Whom did she start harassing to create the backlash?

  108. Re: life on the wrong side of an online hate mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I see nothing talking about how effective doxing is on that page you linked. I only see people talking about smearing GamerGÃhzi because they're infamous for, yknow, doxing in the early days of GG.

  109. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The #GamerGate folks of /v/ and /pol/ on 4chan found out (they who supposedly hate women) and so they got the feminist pro-women gamejam funded.

    That's great and all, but at the same time /v/ and other boards were quite busy doxing people and spamming "five guys burgers and fries" and "he does it for free". You can't really speak of 4chan as a collective in other terms than that the sum of its parts is a waste of the parts without referring to several expletives, and I really doubt that anyone on 4chan would debate to the contrary ("ocean of piss" etc).

    The whole gamergate thing is poisonous as a "movement", and it pretty much showed from day 1 it showed up on 4chan. It was like arming an angry group of peasants with pitchforks and torches and blaming the bad harvest on a witch. Sure, some will try to turn the tide towards something positive, but most just want to go lynchmob mode because most of the times there are no repercussions to those kinds of online activities. Kudos to parts of /pol/ and /v/ for doing something positive, but in the greater context it's a small drop of water in a desert of teenager angst and edginess and antisemitism.

    It wouldn't matter if I posted any evidence showing ties to SA forrumites, or links to anything else, since you don't matter, you aren't interested, you don't fact check

    That's the thing. Nobody really cares about it, which is why a 4chan lynchmob was used as a tactic in the first place. Nobody would have cared about Zoe Quinn and whatever acts she may or may not have done in order to get a favourable review. Nobody cares about video game reviews except the marketing departments of the publishers. The very clickbaity nature of those websites headlines show how hard they have to try to get anyone to care about them. But if you start enough e-drama around the whole thing, suddenly mainstream media picks up on it as a "huge internet fight" and now you've got spokespersons for inequality, online harassment, and god knows what else in videogaming, because there's no way in hell a rational person would want to side with the lynchmob, once they've been caught preparing the stake you wanted to burn several witches on.

    why would you believe SJW propaganda

    And that's the best joke of it all. Both of the parties have clouded the original shitstorm so much with their own propaganda that it's become a soap opera, all of it disguise that it's really just a fucking storm in a glass of water. Now there's ethics in game journalism, slut shaming, diversity in videogame industry, feminism, and god knows what else. Nobody in their right minds would care enough to keep up with the whole thing as it's become a Lernaean Hydra that neither side really controls anymore. The only way to kill it, unlike in Greek legend, is to stop paying attention to it, and stop giving Kotaku & co easy clickbait on the topic. The more shitstorm you cause, the more they make in advertising revenue.

    The worst decision in this whole thing was to get enough people to talk about "ethics in gaming journalism" in the gamergate context. With the shitstorm that it was, nobody is ever going to take that topic seriously in any kind of context again, because they'll associate it with this particular pitchfork movement.

    You want to know the worst part of it all? There are REAL issues in the videogame industry you could talk about and rally against in a civilized manner:

    • more and more restrictive licensing terms on videogames where "ownership" is eroded to becoming a licensee
    • day 0 DLC, ever increased nickle and diming of the consumer
    • pay to win, especially in mobile games is a plague
    • the growing trend of publishers asking money for an alpha/beta that they don't finish but slap v1.0 on it for legal reasons
    • the pre-order tactics being us
  110. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The final result of all this online harassment is going to be the end of anonymous access to the internet. And then we shall all be fucked.

  111. BarbaraHudson the stalker doesn't like this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject + this link (no small wonder why) http://slashdot.org/comments.p... just because apk slammed her trolling stalking harassing mouth shut on her stupidities regading hosts files. Barbarahudson ran like the cowardly multiple sockpuppeting trolling harassing stalking online SCUM "it" is http://slashdot.org/comments.p... when challenged fairly after he/she shot their mouth off on hosts files and had to "eat his/her words" for it in a "run, forrest: run!!!" evading facing up to her/his scumbaggery online.

  112. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

    So with Anita, she had NOTHING to do with GamerGate. She wasn't involved and no one cared about her until SHE started claiming GamerGate was harassing her. There is absolutely NOTHING connecting threats she's received to GamerGate. She received "harassment" before GamerGate, she'll probably still get "harassment" after GamerGate. And I have to put harassment in quotes because what she claims to be harassment a lot of the time, not always, amounts to people just disagreeing with her views, often politely disagreeing.

    Pointing a finger at people and accusing them of serious offenses without proof is encouraging harassment and I consider it harassment in itself. On top of that, members of GamerGate actually tracked down one of the people who was actually harassing her, who as it turns out is a Brazilian click bait game journalist (YES, A FRIGG'N JOURNALIST)

    She's also posted e-mails on twitter with names, return e-mails and IPs from people that were literally just people calling out her poor research, no swearing or threats, which is explicitly to have her followers harass whomever sent the letter. It's also doxing which is harassment. Criticism isn't harassment, encouraging your followers to attack people and posting private e-mails with peoples names that criticize you is harassment.

    Rather than attribute harassment to random internet trolls and actually attempt to track down the real harassers, she's taking advantage of the media blitz against GamerGate to turn a profit. So, sorry, I have no sympathy for her.

    I'm not talking about her again after this point because, frankly, she doesn't deserve the attention.

  113. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Free. You forgot it was free. It was released free on Steam. Nobody got rich off it.

  114. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by jbolden · · Score: 1

    Exactly. Anita had nothing to do with game journalism corruption, she is openly a political activists. The group of people hassling Quinn were the same people hassling Sarkeesian. Your sequence of events is wrong. GamerGate can after the harassment started not before it.

    As for Sarkeesian I've seen the stuff written about her. The critiques of her analysis are included with all sorts of overblown drama and then of course there were the outright insults.

    As for the profit her fundraising was before GamerGate. That's what resulted in her raising $100k. Certainly GamerGate and Zoe Quinn helped her move from minor to midsized feminist celebrity activist.

  115. Re:Chelsea Van Valkenberg's not a victim, but a pe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mike was never swatted. He made that up.

  116. Re:life on the wrong side of an online hate mob by Coren22 · · Score: 2

    Rather than a wall of text claiming to refute his claim, how about you link to twitter harassment that is actually able to be tied to gamergate instead of just saying that they are tied to gamergate. The claim was that harassment was being falsely attributed to gamergate, and you attributed harassment to gamergate without any evidence to back it up. If there is so much evidence that gamergate people support harassment, it should be quite easy to post links to it.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  117. Fist full of assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's kinda sad to see how many assholes there are on slashdot.

    1. Re:Fist full of assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was getting caught part of your plan?

  118. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by Vintermann · · Score: 1

    Now you jump from one argument (that the central allegation of "corrupt media" in GG was a falsehood) to an entirely different one, without acknowledging any errors.

    I did not even say that gamergate is "truly" about ethics in journalism. Gamergate is about many things, for different people. But the supposed disparity you point out is nothing nefarious about. It's easily explained by the other things people have done - both the things they have done in the past (e.g. having an encyclopedia dramatica track record) and the things they currently are doing.

    If you ask me, I think it's far worse for people to have an affair with someone whose career they can make or break (whether they do so or not), than the opposite. But I also think that Zoe is cynical, attention seeking and abusive, from reading the Zoe post and the accounts of people who've worked with her. And it's really alarming that the gaming media circled the wagons to defend someone like that, just because the case made them look bad too.

    --
    xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  119. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ehh, most of those types of things don't teach you shit. Hell attending normal tech conferences barely teaches you shit. It's a networking event =/

  120. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While we're on the topic of Grayson's connection to Depression Quest, it's worth also noting that he is personally listed in the credits in the HTML source, having beta-tested for Quinn, and never disclosed this in any of his coverage. Promoting, as a "journalist", something that you worked on without disclosure is a clear breach of ethics in and of itself, even without anything else that's been turned up.

  121. Re: It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This.

    it is the Scarlet Letter. Nobody hates the guy despite being 50% of the problem. Automatically in everybody's head, the evil woman tricked him.

  122. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > because the guy never wrote an article about zoe's game!

    Yes he did. http://wiki.gamergate.me/index...
    FFS, he's even in the credits for the game. http://theralphretort.com/zoe-...

    If this is about ethics in game journalism, why isn't GG supporters focusing their attention and criticism on the actual game journalist who actually did the alleged unethical journalism. His role seems to be a side story in most of these discussions, when it is claimed to be the main agenda.

  123. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by mSparks43 · · Score: 1
  124. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Kinda funny as it seems that most of his claims were factual. She was cheating on him with a reviewer at Kotoku who did write a story about her video game.

    It seems he was a victim of a horrible girlfriend who ruined his life by driving away all his friendships then screwing around on him.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  125. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    my problem is I can't keep up with all the BS. so many falsehoods and fallacies and anger and hurt flying around, it's like I'm swatting at a swarm of mosquitos.

  126. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Game jams aren't about teaching you to code and there is more to game dev than just coding. They were offering resources to help bring someone's game to fruition.

    A.so, storing is a site for abrands to fabricate a story from selected pieces of content around the net. Referring to that is like referring to Philip morriss' ads for information on smoking.

  127. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if #GG is truly about ethics in journalism, then why isn't nathan grayson the one being doxxed and hated at?

    Maybe because #GG is not about doxxing, and people doing the doxxing are only using #GG as an excuse, and would have found another excuse to doxx people if #GG didn't exist?

  128. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Criticism and scruitny is harassment. The internet needs to protect women from misogynist mobs.

  129. Re:life on the wrong side of an online hate mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *groooan* another person who hasn't the faintest idea what a No True Scotsman argument is, yet feels compelled to accuse people of making one...

  130. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by rochrist · · Score: 1

    Exposure of a FREE FUCKING GAME! Are you insane? Why do you mouth breathing trolls continue to go after her and not, say, I don't know, Electronic Arts? Oh, I know, because she's a tiny one person operation and she's an ICKY GURL! You're all fucking pathetic. And everyone normal is quite well aware of it.

  131. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by rochrist · · Score: 1

    Congratulation. You've personally proved all their points for them. Dickweasel.

  132. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by rochrist · · Score: 1

    Um...she isn't IN the media. Coward.

  133. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by rochrist · · Score: 1

    How do you imagine she got rich? Selling her free game?

  134. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by rochrist · · Score: 1

    Right. Because it's unsightly for icky gurls to fight back. They should just lay back and think of England, amirite?

  135. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You want to know the worst part of it all? There are REAL issues in the videogame industry you could talk about and rally against in a civilized manner:

    • more and more restrictive licensing terms on videogames where "ownership" is eroded to becoming a licensee
    • day 0 DLC, ever increased nickle and diming of the consumer
    • pay to win, especially in mobile games is a plague
    • the growing trend of publishers asking money for an alpha/beta that they don't finish but slap v1.0 on it for legal reasons
    • the pre-order tactics being used to boost initial revenue

    The list really goes on and on... But I guess "5 guys, hamburgers and fries" was just dramatic enough to get things going.

    Aww, hell! Now you ruined the whole thing! You took a perfectly fine shitstorm about nothing and injected some real issues into it. Well, stick a fork in it because this one is done. I hope you're happy now.

  136. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget Shanley, dude. She's currently mounting a campaign against Linus Torvalds for being a sexist pig.

  137. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anita appears to have played the same game as Harry Knowles. However as she's female and attractive she got lots of press coverage while Knowles... didn't.

    Originally Anita appeared to make a success of herself by fighting against trolls. She put up a Kickstarter, then said she was being harassed and got lots of sympathy & friends in the media to chip in cash. Result: A lot of cash, far more than the $6000 she asked for. The money was meant to be for making a multi-part webseries on gaming.

    Knowles put up a Kickstarter to fund a film show webseries. He got harassed as most of his audience thought he was being a con man and were NOT happy. Knowles also got help from friends in the media thereby making his critics positively ginger with rage.

    Fast forward a year or so. Anita's multi-part webseries she got all the money for is so far only three or four short videos. Instead she's set up a feminist organisation and is now apparently an expert on all things computery. Many people aren't happy because a) She hasn't done what she was paid for and b) Saying anyone who questions her is a harasser is kind of shitty.

    Knowles meanwhile also didn't produce his web-series on time. He's finally got it running now (many months late) and regularly gets shit off his own readers for doing the same things Anita does (not answering critics, ignoring comments).

    So why is Anita a saint and why is Knowles seen as a tubby conman? And when will Zoe and her friends mount a campaign to help out poor Harry and his online haters?

    I suspect the answer is 'When something divided by zero is seven'.

  138. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

    I only just read about that last night. Something about her trying to claim Linux == GamerGate == 8Chan therefore Lin... MISOGYNNNNNYYYYY!!!!

    I don't know enough about her to bring her up here, but apparently she's pissed at Linus for being a dick? which everyone on /. I'm sure can agree to, but I think most of us would shrug it of as, "so"...

    I'm not aware of her profiting off of it just yet though, but I'm sure she's working up to it.

  139. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by Whorhay · · Score: 1

    The price of the game is irrelevant. There are many motiviations besides just short term economic gain. And it has clearly worked in this case as probably millions of people now know her name and what she does, and likely view her in a positive light. Name recognition is a huge deal, just look at the money that major brands pour into advertising and sponsoring stadiums so they can rename it.

  140. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by jbolden · · Score: 1

    Well I see Anita's recent efforts as being a lot more expensive than her earlier work. She clearly is running late and slower than expected. But this is exponential effort rule: 20% more quality requires 80% more effort. It wouldn't shock me if the current longer, more complex, better produced videos are 10x the work / cost of her earlier work and now she's drawing salary. She might very well burn through the kickstarter money. Think about the difference between a $5k movie, $100k movie, $1m movie, $20m movie, $100m movie, $300m movie. Does a $300m movie really seem like 60,000 $5k movies? I suspect she's learning that, though I am giving her the benefit of the doubt.

    I don't know anything about Harry Knowles at all so I can't comment on the analogy though it sounds like you are making an interesting simile.

  141. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sir is the BIG issue that everyone is ignoring. I've been watching the press coverage over the past few years in the UK and we regularly have cases where 'Twitter trolls' are hunted down and tossed in jail. A few of these are clearly criminals but most appear to be simply idiots. There was even a case last year where a woman who was mounting an amateur investigation of an unsolved child disappearance was hounded to death by the media. The response by most people was 'oh but she was a troll' even though by any definition of the word 'troll' she wasn't...

    With the constant 'anonymity is bad, it encourages harassment' meme and the promotion of it through the Zoe story I get the feeling the real agenda behind the scenes in a clampdown on people's ability to be anonymous online.

    The ironic thing is a push for people to post under their real names causes most of the shit in the first place precisely because it gives trolls ammunition. Feminists applauding this nonsense will be changing their minds in a few years while actual vulnerable women are being hunted down by psycho exes because they've had to use their real details online & so can't hide from abusers anymore.

  142. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by Whorhay · · Score: 1

    Like I've said elsewhere the fact the game is free is irrelevant. There are far more motivations than short term profit. In this case name recognition is probably the biggest pay off. The reason it bothers me is that a writer posing as a journalist clearly sold out his ethics, and was then vociferously defended by his "journalist" peers who should have known better.

    The really damning thing for grayson is that he should very clearly have known better. RPS had already had a bit of a bruhah over promoting a game without posting a disclaimer every other sentence saying that some of the staff was directly involved in the game. That instance didn't really bother me because in the original article they did actually acknowledge that they were involved with the game, they just didn't make it obvious enough for some peoples taste. To remedy that any further mention of that game got a big disclaimer. Grayson contributed to Quin's game and was actually included in the credits, which should have prompted him to include some kind of disclaimer any time he wrote about it.

    I don't particularly care about Quin, though all of this has helped inform me to avoid her. I think the reason she continues to garner so much attention though is that she seems to revel in it and stir it up at every opportunity. It's not that she's all that different from normal drama queens/kings she just managed to jump into the spotlight and hold it rather effectively.

  143. Re: life on the wrong side of an online hate mob by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

    More importantly, with both Goon Squad and GNAA admitting to trolling the fuck out of th GG issue, the default assumption without actual proof must be professional troll.

  144. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by russotto · · Score: 1

    Exactly. Anita had nothing to do with game journalism corruption, she is openly a political activists. The group of people hassling Quinn were the same people hassling Sarkeesian.

    You know this latter HOW? As far as I know, only one person hassling Sarkeesian has been identified (by GamerGate, in fact). A Brazilian journalist, as it happens. And when Anita was informed, she said they already knew about that guy.

    Sarkeesian inserted herself into GG by making the claim that GG was the people who have been harassing her for years, but presented no evidence for it.

    As for Sarkeesian I've seen the stuff written about her. The critiques of her analysis are included with all sorts of overblown drama and then of course there were the outright insults.

    Being dramatic and insulting doesn't mean their objections were wrong.

  145. Re: life on the wrong side of an online hate mob by evilRhino · · Score: 1

    So you really trying to say that it's #rupertsfault that pedophiles exist? One person in a group is responsible for everone else?

  146. Re:Chelsea Van Valkenberg's not a victim, but a pe by russotto · · Score: 1

    Mike was never swatted. He made that up.

    He never claimed to have been swatted. He claimed two people were encouraging their followers to report him to the police for spurious reasons, and that this was in order to get him SWATted. I'm not convinced of the latter, but the former is certainly true.

  147. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

    Because he wasn't the one to hijack the whole GamerGate movement and try to present it as 'anti-feminist with thin excuse of being anti-corrupt-journalist'.

    The movement is random people, attacking 'targets of opportunity', Zoe was just one of the random targets - then she went nuts and - since she couldn't attack a movement with a just case - made up a fake case and presented it as the actual one of the movement.

    Imagine you take part in a protest against building a mall over a park in your town. One of the protesters breaks the sign over the head of one of investors of the new mall. Said investor happens to be afroamerican, and a local Black minority activist. Next day you see the investor say to the press "Ku Klux Klan members and neo-nazis protest against Afroamericans' right to start businesses!"

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  148. Re:life on the wrong side of an online hate mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if you concede that she's had some online threats/trolling, she's the last person I'd believe it had some actual real effect on. She's an SA goon. She knows exactly what all this stuff is. She's not some doe-eyed innocent wondering how this here internet thing works.

  149. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by SharpFang · · Score: 1

    She got friggin' 20 times the budget she planned. So don't make up any excuses for failure to deliver. People paid for what she promised to deliver, not for any allegedly superior product she'd fail to deliver.

    If I request 50 cheapest McDonalds' hamburgers, and give you $1000 for it, don't make excuses about delivering two gourmet steak burgers instead, claiming that steaks are more expensive and more difficult to cook, and take more time. And especially I don't want to hear $1000 is not enough for 50 steak burgers. It's not what I paid for and what I paid is far more than enough to deliver what I paid for.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  150. Re:Chelsea Van Valkenberg's not a victim, but a pe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cernovich was never swatted. He also sells magic juice purported to give men addictive semen.

  151. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by SharpFang · · Score: 1

    Oh, you don't understand the kind of grace she displays.

    If you prove she's been factually wrong, she will find your house, break in, taze you, kick you in the balls, take your wallet, then call the cops and get you locked up for attempted rape. Then she'll give an interview how you abused her horribly. And she'll look fabulous all the while. It's this kind of grace under pressure.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  152. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    What? We've got eyes. This whole thread started with _you_ posting a falsehood.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  153. Swatting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "They have already managed to preemptively warn at least one victim of a swatting attempt in Enumclaw, Washington."
    Why didn't they try to warn Mike Cernovich when he was about to get swatted? Oh thats right, ZQ and friends actively TRIED to get him swatted.

  154. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    the central allegation of "corrupt media" in GG was a falsehood. the original thing where "zoe quinn slept with some guy from some games mag in order to get a good review" falls flat because the guy never wrote an article about zoe's game! just a lot of hate.

  155. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by jbolden · · Score: 1

    She got friggin' 20 times the budget she planned. So don't make up any excuses for failure to deliver. People paid for what she promised to deliver, not for any allegedly superior product she'd fail to deliver.

    What she already delivered is well beyond what she promised. The quantity isn't there but the length and quality is. Besides the people who paid aren't unhappy it is people who didn't pay who are objecting.

    As for 20 times the budget that is the excuse. It totally changed the nature of the program.

    If I request 50 cheapest McDonalds' hamburgers, and give you $1000 for it, don't make excuses about delivering two gourmet steak burgers instead, claiming that steaks are more expensive and more difficult to cook, and take more time. And especially I don't want to hear $1000 is not enough for 50 steak burgers. It's not what I paid for and what I paid is far more than enough to deliver what I paid for.

    That's actually a fairly good analogy. If you give $1000 for 50 hamburgers the McDonalds has to go the steak shop across the street. While McDonalds can do 50 burgers in 5 minutes the steak place can't. So 30 minutes into it, the steak place is still cooking burgers while McDonalds would have been done 20 minutes ago.

  156. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by jbolden · · Score: 1

    You know this latter HOW? As far as I know, only one person hassling Sarkeesian has been identified (by GamerGate, in fact). A Brazilian journalist, as it happens. And when Anita was informed, she said they already knew about that guy.

    I've seen people saying mean things about both of them. Generally bringing them both up together. This thread shows the connection. The two were at least by the time of the blow up grouped.

    Being dramatic and insulting doesn't mean their objections were wrong.

    The issue what whether they supported the harassment. The dramatic insulting critiques mostly were stupid. I suspect they were right on some of the facts they kept hammering on though.

  157. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by russotto · · Score: 1

    I've seen people saying mean things about both of them.

    Wait, wait, when you say "hassling" you're not talking about death threats or posting of personal information or anything like that, you're talking about "saying mean things"? Welcome to the world... no one except Kim Jong Eun is beyond criticism.

  158. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't mean she deserves harassment. Condemnation maybe. Harassment no.

    She should be "Cleansed". Or is it the world that should be cleansed? Yes, that's right. She's the garbage on the sidewalk.

  159. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by jbolden · · Score: 1

    No I'm not saying that.

    1) People who dislike person X dislike person Y
    2) This correlation grows stronger as the amount of dislike grows stronger
    3) Person X and person Y are both being attacked more strongly (death threats..) by anonymous attackers

    C) By (2) is is unlikely (though not impossible) that there is a point of disconnection. Hence it is reasonable to conclude that X and Y are being attacked by the same people in the absence of other information.

    I'm not certain but it seems reasonable.

  160. Yeah, I read the screed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't remember if I finished it or got fed up partway through.

  161. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    your point is well reasoned, except for the part that makes no sense which is everything. from day one, zoe quinn faced the nastiest of sexual and mysoginistic slurs and threats. it was clearly about gender from day one, long before she "made it an issue" as you say.

    following your tortured logic, it's like a group of protesters gathered round a new store to protest it. but when the owner (who is gay) walks out, the protesters start shouting "get outta town, you homo! we don't like your kind here! go back to queersville!" Next day you see the press say "homophobes hurl slurs at gay businessman"

  162. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

    "from day one, zoe quinn faced the nastiest of sexual and mysoginistic slurs and threats."

    Could you substantiate this? I mean, specifically, the number (to prove it wasn't isolated incidents) and connection to GamerGate (as in specific instances was actively disproven).

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  163. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by Vintermann · · Score: 1

    Now you're repeating exactly what I replied to with comment #48863757. No, it was not a falsehood, because the media rallied around Quinn largely to protect their own nepotistic behinds. Yes, there were no reviews, but that wasn't the allegation. Yes, the guy wrote many articles giving Zoe and the game publicity.

    Do you think you're "drawing fire" by persisting to waste people's time or something? In that case, I'd like to inform you I haven't harassed anyone. So Zoe Quinn is going to get exactly as much (or as little) harassment as she otherwise would, regardless of whether you keep up this nonsense.

    --
    xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  164. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Schadrach · · Score: 1

    She's also posted e-mails on twitter with names, return e-mails and IPs from people that were literally just people calling out her poor research, no swearing or threats, which is explicitly to have her followers harass whomever sent the letter. It's also doxing which is harassment. Criticism isn't harassment, encouraging your followers to attack people and posting private e-mails with peoples names that criticize you is harassment.

    The irony is that HotWheels got a Twitter suspension for doing the same thing, but with complaints he'd received from his registrar when anti-GG folks were trying to shut down 8chan by having the domain name seized.

  165. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

    WTF DID I JUST READ?!!!!

    Hand in your nerd badge and GTFO, you've failed all logic and lose the internet -_-

    You dislike person X therefore you dislike person Y for the same reason? No, I dislike person X because she's a hypocritical abuser, professional victim and people won't stop talking about her. Plus she's been give a free pass from being criticized for being hypocritical abuser and professional victim because of her gender. <== this is sexism at it's finest. If the genders had been reversed concerning the Zoe post, we'd be praising Zoe for being a strong independent women that called out an abusive ex. I know, I've actually praised women in the past for doing exactly that, but Eron gets shit on by people that NEVER even read his post, which has evidence FROM ZOE that she was an abuser. On top of this she's ACTUALLY used sex to further her career reinforcing the negative stereotype that that's how women in the industry operate.

    She's rich brat that comes from a rich family and a horrible human being who's being defended for being a horrible human being at the expense of hardworking women and other indi devs just trying to make ends meet. She's taken advantage of her "privilege", real privilege, not this made up "you're white so you never had to work for anything in your life and the fact that you don't know that means your privileged" privilege, to ATTACK things like the WizzardChans, TFYC and GamerGate. AND SHE'S GETTING AWAY WITH IT!!

    I dislike person Y, because she's a liar and a con artist that had NOTHING to do with the current situation, but inserted herself and claimed, without proof, people looking for ethics in journalism were attacking her. Even though THOSE people tracked down one of her harassers to HELP her and she's gotten a shit ton of media attention for slandering them.

    Go read the comments on ABC Nightline's Youtube video with her, or their Facebook page, the VAST majority of commenters, including women, see right through it, but she's STILL held up by people like you as an example of how bad "gamers" are because they don't like being talked down to and told they're misogynistic shitlords for playing Mario because Peach is a "damsel in distress", by someone that plays a real life damsel in distress and HATES GAMES. Then when anyone so much as scratches their head in her direction, MISOGYNY!!!!.

    Other than the fact that BOTH these women are using GamerGate as a spring board for attention they are completely unrelated. I hate a lot of people, most of whom are men, Jack Thompson, Nathan Grayson, Sam Biddle, Geordie Tait, Barnie the Dinosaur and the Red Power Ranger to name a few and I don't hate them all for the same reason, not even for remotely the same reasons. And God help you if you say no one else on Earth has a common hatred for Sam Biddle and Barnie the Dinosaur -_-

  166. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by jbolden · · Score: 1

    Hand in your nerd badge and GTFO, you've failed all logic and lose the internet -_-

    Correlation is a probabilistic assertion of equality, "with X probability we can act as if A = B". So no.

    If the genders had been reversed concerning the Zoe post, we'd be praising Zoe for being a strong independent women that called out an abusive ex.

    I'm not going to get into grading their relationship but I don't see abuse. If the boyfriend wanted an exclusive claim on her sexuality then put a ring on her finger. Otherwise she decided to trade in her fuck buddy for a better model. They weren't married, so let's not raise cheating a boyfriend to "abusive". But even if they were married he should have been secure enough in his own relationship to have dealt with her flirting for advantage if it was working.

    Now let's look at the sort of unhinged rhetoric that I was talking about from this post above:

    but inserted herself and claimed, without proof, people looking for ethics in journalism were attacking her.

    As mentioned the attacks on her started before the discussion of ethics in journalism. And we've discussed the proof above.

    Go read the comments on ABC Nightline's Youtube video with her, or their Facebook page, the VAST majority of commenters, including women, see right through it,

    She's gotten pretty favorable coverage from the mainstream press once the story went mainstream. To the extent people know about her she's held in high regard.

    but she's STILL held up by people like you as an example of how bad "gamers" are because they don't like being talked down to and told they're misogynistic shitlords

    No they don't like the medium getting the same kind of feminist cultural critique that other media gets. The fact that you identify with the media so personally as to see an attack on a game as an attack on your person is part of what you people like me don't like.

    for playing Mario because Peach is a "damsel in distress",

    I actually saw that episode and she said nothing of the kind.

    and HATES GAMES.

    First of all who cares if she hates games? I don't game. BFD. But more importantly she seems to show a fairly high degree of knowledge of gaming. Where did she get that? What drew her to critiquing gaming? The whole "hates games" thing is another example of the sort of overblown rhetoric I was talking about.

    Her behavior is fully consistent with an avid gamer who is conflicted because she believes the medium is inconsistent with her developing politics. I find her story quite credible.

    Then when anyone so much as scratches their head in her direction, MISOGYNY!!!!

    Nonsense overblown hysterical defensiveness like the above is also a perfectly reasonable explanation. Over identification is another perfectly reasonable explanation. What isn't a perfectly reasonable explanation is a well reasoned disagreement with fairly mainstream views.

    Other than the fact that BOTH these women are using GamerGate as a spring board for attention they are completely unrelated.

    Again impossible. Anita's attention comes before GamerGate.

    I don't hate them all for the same reason,

    If they correlate strongly then it almost invariable is the same underlying reason. You may not be aware of what that reason is, but beliefs that correlate are driven by the same factors though the rationalizations can differ. I don't think misogyny is that reason, because misogyny would likely imply hatred for more prominent women: Nancy Pelosi, Condoleezza Rice or Opera are more likely targets for misogyny than say Anita Sarkisian. But the underlying cause being the same... yes.

  167. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sounds like a sociopath.

  168. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

    Correlation is a probabilistic assertion of equality, "with X probability we can act as if A = B". So no.

    You've failed at stats and logic.

    I'm not going to get into grading their relationship but I don't see abuse. If the boyfriend wanted an exclusive claim on...

    I only discussed it because you said GamerGate hates Anita and Zoe for the same reasons, which clearly isn't the case. And no amount of you saying it's true will make it true. Her cheating on her BF, or her cheating at all, doesn't matter. What does matter is she is abusive, manipulative and a liar. What also matters is who she cheated on him with, but whenever someone tries to talk about Nathan Grayson or Joshua Boggs it gets dragged down to accusations of slut shaming and being concerned with her sex life. Move past it, no one cares about her sex life except you. It's not about her, it's about a society of double standards that's being used to prevent discussion of a series of events around a horrible human.

    I don't game.

    But more importantly she seems to show a fairly high degree of knowledge of gaming.

    And here in lies the problem, you don't game, so you know very little about it and CAN'T possibly know what she's talking about, but you're assuming she has a high degree of knowledge of gaming. I guess this is why you think you're such and expert in discrete math, statistics and logic.

    Are you aware she doesn't write her own material?
    Are you aware that she's consistently factually wrong about the games she "critiques"?
    Are you aware that she doesn't actually play the games she "critiques"?
    Are you aware that her footage is "borrowed" from Let's Play? too bad she doesn't credit her source material otherwise you might be

    I can only assume you're not aware of any of this, but you believe her anyway. THIS is harmful to the gaming industry, games and gamers. It's someone saying art is misogynistic and makes people misogynistic and people who don't consumer that form of art are agreeing blindly because she's an "expert".

    Again impossible. Anita's attention comes before GamerGate.

    You're conflating what she's received in the past and her getting harassment anyway to her getting harassed and saying it's coming from a group without proving that group is doing anything of the kind to her.

    Why is she getting attention for her involvement in GamerGate from the media?
    Have you watched ABC Nightline that was just last week?
    Have you read ANY article in the last 5 months on GamerGate?
    Because just about everything is saying GamerGate is harassment campaign and has her face slapped on it, but nothing's actually providing proof there's ANY harassment coming from GamerGate.

    This is literally what the argument against GamerGate is.

    "Kotaku investigated Kotaku and found Kotaku is innocent of all wrong doings. Anyone holding Kotaku responsible for Kotaku's lack of ethics and requesting Kotaku be held to better ethical standards is harassing women and misogynistic." - Kotaku

    "Misogynist are harassing women in the gaming industry according to Kotaku, let's talk to someone unrelated to the controversy. Why are misogynist harassing you in relation to the controversy?" - Mainstream Media

    "ZOMFG!!111!11 I don't play games, but why is this person that doesn't play games being harassed by misogynist?!?!??!! Well I better get on the intertubes and give those misogynist a piece of my mind!!" - Public that doesn't know what the hell is going on

    "Um... We're not harassing anyone... We just write e-mails to advertisers for shitty click bait gaming websites and chat with other gamers on twitter about shitty click bait journalist and gaming related stuff... person unrelated to the controversy is entitled to their opinion, but they're not an

  169. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    No, it was not a falsehood, because the media rallied around Quinn largely to protect their own nepotistic behinds. Yes, there were no reviews, but that wasn't the allegation. Yes, the guy wrote many articles giving Zoe and the game publicity.

    Do you think you're "drawing fire" by persisting to waste people's time or something? In that case, I'd like to inform you I haven't harassed anyone. So Zoe Quinn is going to get exactly as much (or as little) harassment as she otherwise would, regardless of whether you keep up this nonsense.

    if #GG is truly about ethics in journalism, then why isn't nathan grayson the one being doxxed and hated at? he's the one who supposedly broke journalism ethics rules. but instead all the hate is directed at zoe, possibly because #GG is actually about hating women.

  170. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by jbolden · · Score: 1

    You've failed at stats and logic.

    You are trying to argue how you are reasonable people setting an appropriate tone and during that argument after I gave you a clear response that's how you come back. I think I've proven my point about tone. As for the math. Think about what I said.

    t, but you're assuming she has a high degree of knowledge of gaming.

    No she's demonstrated a high degree of knowledge about gaming by being able to pull in multiple examples.

    What does matter is she is abusive, manipulative and a liar.

    Why does her being abusive to her boyfriend, matter in a discussion of ethics in journalism? Also why the tone? That's the problem. That's why people don't believe you that you have nothing to do with anti-woman terrorism.

    being used to prevent discussion of a series of events around a horrible human.

    There was no serious event. She got an article that mentioned her game a few extra times. That was the event.

    You're conflating what she's received in the past and her getting harassment anyway to her getting harassed and saying it's coming from a group without proving that group is doing anything of the kind to her.

    No I'm not. Again the correlation. Which BTW Nightline agreed with.

    Why is she getting attention for her involvement in GamerGate from the media?

    Because her argument is that GamerGate is a social movement that attacks women and not about ethics in journalism. An argument that others accept because the people who are arguing about ethics in journalism don't seem interested in say ethics in political journalism or computer journalism while they do have interests in anti-feminism with regard to gaming.

    Have you watched ABC Nightline that was just last week?

    Just did. And well there is another highly credible news organization asserting that she is under serious threat.

    Have you read ANY article in the last 5 months on GamerGate?

    Yes.

    Because just about everything is saying GamerGate is harassment campaign and has her face slapped on it, but nothing's actually providing proof there's ANY harassment coming from GamerGate.

    I just did. You dismissed it while being insulting.

    Um... We're not harassing anyone... We just write e-mails to advertisers for shitty click bait gaming websites and chat with other gamers on twitter about shitty click bait journalist and gaming related stuff... person unrelated to the controversy is entitled to their opinion, but they're not an expert on gaming, they're full of shit and I don't personally like them."

    Stop using the word "shitty". People unrelated to this controversy don't need to be experts on gaming they may very well be knowledgeable about how trade presses work in other industries and if this is about ethics in journalism gaming knowledge isn't that important.

  171. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by SharpFang · · Score: 1

    For the outside people she'll be attempted rape victim that looks fabulous. Only "mysogynous haters" know the full story (and whoever learns, automatically is classified as one of these "mysogynous haters")

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  172. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by russotto · · Score: 1

    Grayson gets plenty of hate. Along with other men like Arthur Chu, Ian Miles Cheong, and Jonathan McIntosh (the other half of Sarkeesian's Feminist Frequency). McIntosh probably gets more than the rest, because he posts dumb stuff to twitter all the time; he's got his own hashtag, "#FullMcIntosh".

  173. But What's The Fun In That? by Toad-san · · Score: 1

    After SWAT and other wanna-bees worked so hard on their door-knock-down techniques?

    Toad

  174. Hahaha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A bully running an anti-bullying network, what a GREAT IDEA.

    What's next letting the weasels run the hen house?
    If I had a dollar for every time I've seen Zoe Quinn BULLY OTHER WOMEN at events and online I'd be rich.

  175. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Vordreller · · Score: 1
  176. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by Vintermann · · Score: 1

    Do you think people aren't seeing that you are just cutting and pasting, without ever responding to anything I write?

    Is the joke on me, are you only pretending to be retarded?

    --
    xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  177. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Raenex · · Score: 1

    Well I see Anita's recent efforts as being a lot more expensive than her earlier work.

    Going on a professional victim tour to raise more money for herself? Yeah, very expensive.

  178. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Raenex · · Score: 1

    She oscillates between fighting back and playing the victim. All you really need to know about her is that she's a compulsive liar: https://thezoepost.files.wordp...

  179. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by rochrist · · Score: 1

    There was nothing remotely unethical about what Grayson did. Despite what you think, simply mentioning a game's existence when you're NOT in a sexual relationship is not unethical. Neither is the fact that he knew her. Many many people know each other in the industry. And again, you coward won't take on EA, or Ubisoft. Just a basically one-woman operation making a tiny FREE game that was meant to draw attention to the problem of depression. Well congratulations. You troglodytes have managed to draw attention to depression AND Zoe Quinn. Far more attention than she ever got in a article listing her game with 49 others on a game blog. You're damn well written her into the history books.

  180. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    Do you think people aren't seeing that you are just cutting and pasting, without ever responding to anything I write?

    Is the joke on me, are you only pretending to be retarded?

    my problem is I can't keep up with all the BS. so many falsehoods and fallacies and anger and hurt flying around, it's like I'm swatting at a swarm of mosquitos.

  181. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You and the neckbeards"

    Hmm, I thought feminist said that judging people by external appearance was wrong? Hypocrite much?

    " don't give a flying fuck about the "gaming media." Nobody does."

    You certainly don't - but not everyone is like you. Some of us are capable of empathy for other human beings. Try it sometime.

    " A game is either good or it isn't, what award logos it has plastered on the cover really don't make much of a difference."

    In which case gaming magazines have absolutely no purpose. In fact, by your logic, journalism should just quit; if gaming journalism's corruption truly doesn't matter, who cares what newspapers et al say? Things are good or they aren't, and we shouldn't trust a journo to do fact checking or try and eliminate bias. Instead, like your magazines, they should just shop around for the highest bidder and shill for them.

    F**k that.

    "What she does personify is everything that makes you seriously uncomfortable"

    A liar? A corrupt person in power? An icon of a wave of feminism that has become indistinguishable from fascism? Wow, you got something right!

    " a confident woman with an opinion different than yours"

    Like Karen Straughan or Christina Hoff Sommers or Erin Pizzey or the author of Plebcomics - wait... none of those make me uncomfortable - but you certainly don't like dealing with them. You hound them. What happened to Erin Pizzey's dog?

    "You're no different than every other racist"

    Your the guy who belongs to the hate cult that's obsessed with the colour of people's skin.

    " homophobe"

    You realise many of us ARE GAY? Or are you the judge of whether or not we suck c**ks?

    " woman-hating bastard"

    Nup. we love women, many of use ARE women, like the ones you lot dox, like the ones you lot harass, like the ones your mob tried to deny funding.

    "The good news? We're winning."

    You announced in the magazines of Gawker media that "gamers are dead".

    WE ARE STILL HERE. WE ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE. SEE YOU IN HELL.

    #GamerGate.

  182. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by jbolden · · Score: 1

    No the recent videos are higher end. More complex, betted editing and longer. That substantially raises costs.

  183. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by Whorhay · · Score: 1

    Like I said already, I don't really give a fuck about Quinn one way or the other. Do I think she did something slimey, yes. Was it a breach of any kind of professional ethics on her part, not really. Does she deserve online harrassment, no. I can see your agenda in that 1/3 of my post was about Quinn and that was basically saying I didn't care about what she did, yet you go on and on about me attacking her. You sir, are full of shit and part of the reason why Social Justice Warrior is a pejorative.

    Grayson definitely did something unethical. As a writer and ostensibly a journalist for a major online gaming site he is responsible for at least trying to maintain a modicum of objectivity and disclose any conflicts of interest he may have when writing an article. Hell many of the bloggers I follow, who are clearly just expressing their opinions make disclaimers when they offer their opinion on games that have been given to them for promotional purposes. With Grayson it goes beyond that, he was apparently actually involved in the production of the game. And he may or may not have been romantically involved with Quinn by the time he wrote the article, hint you don't have to be porking to be involved or heavily prejudiced.

    What Grayson did goes far beyond just mentioning the game. In an article about the 50 best indie twine games, or something like that. He use the name of the game twice, used the name in the title of the article, and specifically called it out as the standout game of the 50. Only a few other games were even mentioned in the body of the article, the rest being relegated to an ordered list with no actual feedback. I don't know how closely you follow non-AAA gaming but that is precisely the kind of advertising that works best for that market. In fact it is probably more effective than writing an article clearly dedicated to reviewing and promoting a game.

  184. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by rochrist · · Score: 1

    I'm sure she's racking in the dough from her FREE GAME.

  185. Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. by Whorhay · · Score: 1

    It isn't always about making a ton of money in the short term. Many people do things that boggle the mind purely out of egotism. Although in this case it can lead to wealth as well. If you had polled gamers here on /. a day before this all started you might have seen a 1% result showing that they knew who Quinn was or had even heard of her before. And you might have gotten as high as 10% for Grayson seeing as how he is a writer for RPS, I doubt it'd be that high, but I'm being generous with my guess.

    If you did a poll now I'd bet the results for Quinn would be over 50% at the very least, if not closer to 80%. Grayson would probably only poll around 40% as his name isn't brought up as frequently in all the vitrol. People in the business of selling things know that name recognition is a huge part of increasing sales. You can bet dollars to donuts that whatever either one of them touches from now on will get a lot more attention. Honestly it's a genius move on Quinn's part, even if only a small fraction of people who hear about the whole mess look favorably on her that represents a huge increase in people who know who she is and have a positive view of her.

  186. Still with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She sure is milking this, for all its worth!

    Which isn't that strange I guess, considering that she's only a game-developer in the broadest, most generous sense of the word.

    It sure must be aggravating for the actually talented women working in tech, that Zoe Quinn gets so much attention. Despite ZQ being a relentless hack, whose main claim to fame is allegations of harassment.

  187. nice by geoffrey195 · · Score: 1

    This is very nice and really appreciating. you can also see at the website for more information.

  188. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    zoe is a crying bby and looking for attention. she making herself and everyone that is involved with her look stupid

    another NICE girl doxed and raided by 4chan. instead of turning into a nutjob like these other girls kim handled it all with epic character and grace. she now well respected. all i can say is KIM AS FUCK

    !!!warning good article but is NSFW, read discretely!!!
    encyclopediadramatica.se/Kimmy

  189. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She personifies grace under pressure.

    really? I would have said she personifies the exact opposite and displays a heap of ignorance in dealing people socially, her responses to some of the attacks on her are what helped escalate the situation. She doesn't seem to understand social media at all or how to handle it.

    zoe is a crying bby and looking for attention. she making herself and everyone that is involved with her look stupid

    another NICE girl doxed and raided by 4chan. instead of turning into a nutjob like these other girls kim handled it all with epic character and grace. she now well respected. all i can say is KIM AS F@CK

    !!!warning good article but is NSFW, read discretely!!!
    encyclopediadramatica.se/Kimmy

  190. Re:Three Cheers for Zoe Quinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She personifies grace under pressure.

    really? I would have said she personifies the exact opposite and displays a heap of ignorance in dealing people socially, her responses to some of the attacks on her are what helped escalate the situation. She doesn't seem to understand social media at all or how to handle it.

    another NICE girl doxed and raided by 4chan. instead of turning into a nutjob like these other girls kim handled it all with epic character and grace. she now well respected.

    !!!warning good article but is NSFW, read discretely!!!
    encyclopediadramatica.se/Kimmy