GamerGate goes after reviewer for review they didn't even write

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

renegade7:
Why the fuck does Gamergate still exist.

1. They achieved little 2. Some GGers used their platform for insulting whoever they feel like. They hope to still get away with it. 3. And this is my assumption, some are longing for the good old days of 2014

runic knight:

Smithnikov:

runic knight:

How does that relate?

gamergate is a loosely associated group of people joined only in their opposition to the gaming media's bullshit. They share no ideology, nor any motivation among the group. There is no uniformity of thought or ideal there, just a loose agreement to work together and oppose gaming media's bullshit. As such, the only way to even remotely fairly make claims about it would be based on population of the group, with majority support for an action being the closest indicator of "gamergate does a thing" claims.

Antifa is an ideologically motivated and organized group opposed to "fascism" that ultimately means being opposed to the enemies of the modern radical left that are labeled fascists. As such, unlike gamergate's lack of shared motivation in their opposition of gaming media, antifa does have a shared political stance that guides their opposition and is thus more uniform in comparison. Because of this, any claims of "antifa does a thing" are stronger because of their shared ideology, motivations and their organization means that it is more likely representative of the shared motivation, ideology and organization. Not enough to damn them for the actions of a single individual alone, of course, but enough to see actions, such as violently beating people in the streets, being cheered by others in antifa as being representative of the whole of the group there.

Finally SJW is a term relating to people who commit certain degrees of actions and behaviors done in the name of their political ideology. As such, this one is not even a group in the same way as the prior two are, but rather a description of people based on their behavior and actions in the same way that calling someone who kills people intentionally a murderer is. Notice that calling someone a murderer does not associate them to a group. As such, any generalizations about "SJW" are not even relating to a group of associated people but rather a group of people defined by their actions and behaviors itself.

Or, to put it another way while saying "antifa did a thing" or "gamergate did a thing" implies group responsibility of people associated by other reasons, saying "sjw did a thing" or "murderer did a thing" applies to a person or group of people defined by their behavior and actions without group responsibility.

So your point raised here, and whatever the implications from it you were insinuating, is nonsensical.

You were the one projecting your own bias about the fanboys and you got called out for the complete lack of any evidence or justification for it outside your own deep need for there to be the connection. Your response was to imply hypocrisy on my part by trying to compare apples to oranges, with antifa, and apples to squids with the SJW thing.

Blah blah blah, it's okay to generalize and demonize left wing affiliated groups, but not right. I've seen freshly washed glass less transparent than this, spare me.

You can dislike that I called you out for comparing apples to oranges and squids all you like, but it doesn't change the fact you are making a false comparison for the sake of an appeal to hypocrisy.

Also, I never made mention to specific political leans, you should stop projecting.

I explained why they were not the same based on what they were.

Gamergate is a loosely associated group with a shared goal but nothing else. They are akin to an other boycott in response to poor customer service. Generalizations about a group like that is hard to do and relies on percentage of the group overall.

Antifa is an ideologically motivated, structured and organized group that shares motivation, politics, and leadership. They are akin to an actual political group. Generalizations about it are easier because of how uniform they are in belief and motivation, but still require demonstrated acceptance and lack of rejection by the rest. With examples like those cheering the violent actions of their members, this is often easy to see.

SJW is not a group but a label. It is applied based on actions and behaviors, thus any generalization about those that fall under the label would merely need to be consistent with that label.

Your biases motivate you and blind you, but if you are just going to keep making things up to support your personal political causes, regardless how many times people call out your blatant and malicious dishonesty, than you ultimately do more to help those you consider your political opponents than many of their own do. I am sure they thank you for your continued service. Myself, I wish you'd try to show a modicum of intellectual honesty.

you've made the 'Lefties' sound malice and the Right seem so peaceful. I could agree that Smothnikov as biased but clearly you are too

trunkage:

renegade7:
Why the fuck does Gamergate still exist.

1. They achieved little 2. Some GGers used their platform for insulting whoever they feel like. They hope to still get away with it. 3. And this is my assumption, some are longing for the good old days of 2014

runic knight:

Smithnikov:

Blah blah blah, it's okay to generalize and demonize left wing affiliated groups, but not right. I've seen freshly washed glass less transparent than this, spare me.

You can dislike that I called you out for comparing apples to oranges and squids all you like, but it doesn't change the fact you are making a false comparison for the sake of an appeal to hypocrisy.

Also, I never made mention to specific political leans, you should stop projecting.

I explained why they were not the same based on what they were.

Gamergate is a loosely associated group with a shared goal but nothing else. They are akin to an other boycott in response to poor customer service. Generalizations about a group like that is hard to do and relies on percentage of the group overall.

Antifa is an ideologically motivated, structured and organized group that shares motivation, politics, and leadership. They are akin to an actual political group. Generalizations about it are easier because of how uniform they are in belief and motivation, but still require demonstrated acceptance and lack of rejection by the rest. With examples like those cheering the violent actions of their members, this is often easy to see.

SJW is not a group but a label. It is applied based on actions and behaviors, thus any generalization about those that fall under the label would merely need to be consistent with that label.

Your biases motivate you and blind you, but if you are just going to keep making things up to support your personal political causes, regardless how many times people call out your blatant and malicious dishonesty, than you ultimately do more to help those you consider your political opponents than many of their own do. I am sure they thank you for your continued service. Myself, I wish you'd try to show a modicum of intellectual honesty.

you've made the 'Lefties' sound malice and the Right seem so peaceful. I could agree that Smothnikov as biased but clearly you are too

I never mentioned left or right at all though.

Gamergate is an apolicial group that is actually filled with more people who are left-leaning than not according to polls taken looking into the matter.

Antifa is certainly an extremist left-wing group.

SJW is just a label describing behavior in the name of a certain set of political causes. This label could theoretically apply to some people in either group.

So, no, I am not making the right sound peaceful, I am not mentioning them at all there. I am breaking down and describing two groups and a label and explaining the difference between them.

If you want to say I am making gamergate sound peaceful and antifa sound violent, well, then I will happily agree there. gamergate has been well documented as being by and far a group of internet jackasses who were not violent and were even investigated and cleared by the fbi and other investigators. Antifa has a track record of violent clashes, harming people, and largely being a band of hostile, dangerous ideological zealots.

But don't make the mistake in assuming it is a "left versus right" thing here. It is an apolitical consumer group compared to a radical fringe political group.

runic knight:

trunkage:

renegade7:
Why the fuck does Gamergate still exist.

1. They achieved little 2. Some GGers used their platform for insulting whoever they feel like. They hope to still get away with it. 3. And this is my assumption, some are longing for the good old days of 2014

runic knight:

You can dislike that I called you out for comparing apples to oranges and squids all you like, but it doesn't change the fact you are making a false comparison for the sake of an appeal to hypocrisy.

Also, I never made mention to specific political leans, you should stop projecting.

I explained why they were not the same based on what they were.

Gamergate is a loosely associated group with a shared goal but nothing else. They are akin to an other boycott in response to poor customer service. Generalizations about a group like that is hard to do and relies on percentage of the group overall.

Antifa is an ideologically motivated, structured and organized group that shares motivation, politics, and leadership. They are akin to an actual political group. Generalizations about it are easier because of how uniform they are in belief and motivation, but still require demonstrated acceptance and lack of rejection by the rest. With examples like those cheering the violent actions of their members, this is often easy to see.

SJW is not a group but a label. It is applied based on actions and behaviors, thus any generalization about those that fall under the label would merely need to be consistent with that label.

Your biases motivate you and blind you, but if you are just going to keep making things up to support your personal political causes, regardless how many times people call out your blatant and malicious dishonesty, than you ultimately do more to help those you consider your political opponents than many of their own do. I am sure they thank you for your continued service. Myself, I wish you'd try to show a modicum of intellectual honesty.

you've made the 'Lefties' sound malice and the Right seem so peaceful. I could agree that Smothnikov as biased but clearly you are too

I never mentioned left or right at all though.

Gamergate is an apolicial group that is actually filled with more people who are left-leaning than not according to polls taken looking into the matter.

Antifa is certainly an extremist left-wing group.

SJW is just a label describing behavior in the name of a certain set of political causes. This label could theoretically apply to some people in either group.

So, no, I am not making the right sound peaceful, I am not mentioning them at all there. I am breaking down and describing two groups and a label and explaining the difference between them.

If you want to say I am making gamergate sound peaceful and antifa sound violent, well, then I will happily agree there. gamergate has been well documented as being by and far a group of internet jackasses who were not violent and were even investigated and cleared by the fbi and other investigators. Antifa has a track record of violent clashes, harming people, and largely being a band of hostile, dangerous ideological zealots.

But don't make the mistake in assuming it is a "left versus right" thing here. It is an apolitical consumer group compared to a radical fringe political group.

'apolitical'... God, I haven't laughed this hard all week. I needed that.

This ideology (and your use of marketing skills to push it) does explain the way you, so thanks for that insight.

trunkage:
'apolitical'... God, I haven't laughed this hard all week. I needed that.

This ideology (and your use of marketing skills to push it) does explain the way you, so thanks for that insight.

Yea, way to expose he's never once been to KiA, let alone /gamergateHQ/ or /ggrevolt/

trunkage:
'apolitical'... God, I haven't laughed this hard all week. I needed that.

This ideology (and your use of marketing skills to push it) does explain the way you, so thanks for that insight.

Yes, it is apolitical in its cause and its makeup. The fact that the group it opposes relies on ideological ties in order to mount their defense does not change that nor does it inherently make political those that oppose their tactics, behaviors, attitudes or personalities.

On gamergate you have a collective of people from all walks of life, political lean, age, race and gender who share the common goal of "hates the gaming media's bullshit". That is not an ideology any more than people being mad at EA being a shit company is. It is apolitical. On the media's side you have media personalities and their friends and defenders who all share the same ideology and who openly lie that people oppose them because of their ideology instead of the horrible stuff they do in the name of it and the fact they abuse their positions in the media to help do that. While they are certainly political in their ideology (as it is what they excuse their behavior with and use to both attack others and deflect their own fuckups with), being opposed to their bullshit doesn't make those opposed a political cause. Being anti-corrupt asshole isn't what I would consider a political statement, but you might be more supportive of them and see it as an attack on your politics because of how tied to your political belief those in the media are, so I don't know.

But feel free to laugh, I got a good one as you called it "marketing" skills to point out the obvious. Well that and Smith's "expose" comment.

Smithnikov:

trunkage:
'apolitical'... God, I haven't laughed this hard all week. I needed that.

This ideology (and your use of marketing skills to push it) does explain the way you, so thanks for that insight.

Yea, way to expose he's never once been to KiA, let alone /gamergateHQ/ or /ggrevolt/

Expose? What an odd choice of word considering I openly admit I haven't gone to one of them, and barely interacted with the other two. My view is primarily here, twitter and youtube and get things through the cross-sharing of the various and diverse websites. Why, it is almost as if that makes the point I made multiple times about how gamergate isn't some uniform group hivemind but rather a collective of individuals across multiple sites with varied motivations, politics, and end-goals all unites just by their dislike of the gaming media.

runic knight:
.

Varied politics my ass. When GamerGate threw a fit over Farcry 5, that alone stomped that into the dust. Even here on the Escapist it was the conservatives who said it was good that the creative team behind it got political pressure to change that promo picture lest it promote "white genocide".

And yea, it is a proper choice of words, because unlike you, I went into the belly of the beast and lurked.

Runic, when I say these next things, I'm commenting on GG as a group. You might have these ideals you espoused but that's not what I saw the group do. Feel free to take it personally if you want, that is not my intention.

runic knight:
On gamergate you have a collective of people from all walks of life, political lean, age, race and gender who share the common goal of "hates the gaming media's bullshit".

As a person who didn't fall into either camp, you know what the funny thing is? If that incident stay on topic about journalism, there wouldn't have been a gamergate. Did you know most Anti-GGers agreed with gaming journal being corrupt?

I see it as the same problem as Feminist. They claim moral superiority over a particularly issue to try and stop others from having any input. Hence, you see groups like the MRA - which has some ideas of substance and some just being spiteful of being left out.

Its also like Occupy Wallstreet and the Tea Party - they have very similar beliefs but just don't want to work together.

Gamergate decided it was Pope on journalism and didn't bother listening to anyone else. Even when they agreed. Then some GGers started attacking females which derailed the whole topic

Yes, it is apolitical in its cause and its makeup. The fact that the group it opposes relies on ideological ties in order to mount their defense does not change that nor does it inherently make political those that oppose their tactics, behaviors, attitudes or personalities

So, its the Antifa of the Gaming Industry? Also, you realised GG was used by some asshats to promote their political bias and that's why GG has a bad name now?

Smithnikov:

runic knight:
.

Varied politics my ass. When GamerGate threw a fit over Farcry 5, that alone stomped that into the dust. Even here on the Escapist it was the conservatives who said it was good that the creative team behind it got political pressure to change that promo picture lest it promote "white genocide".

And yea, it is a proper choice of words, because unlike you, I went into the belly of the beast and lurked.

"gamergate" is not everyone you disagree with, nor the grossly misrepresented boogieman you perpetually try to make it out to be.

I remember that farcry thing, where people were talking about how it was against white supremacists. I remember people laughing at those first crowing about it like it was some big win against gamergate because it was the evil white supremacists being made the villian, and then those same people whining and bitching when the religious group of the game was found to have black people and women as well, thereby undermining the narrative they wanted. I remember gamergate mocking and laughing those complaining about the subject, the petition that was pushed, and then on those upset it wasn't their anti-right-wing revenge fantasy after.

The petition about the game is also noteworthy too. To start with, it was resoundingly laughed out and called an obvious ploy, and after reporting it was made by gamergate, even geek.com apologized for misattributing it to them. Going so far as to re-examine the article written and offer this apology.
"I?ve been proven wrong on this subject, and based on the reactions and feedback I?ve seen regarding the petition it seems clear that the core Gamergate community is not responsible for it. Shortly after the story went up, I was invited on Twitter to comment on the discussion thread on my piece in Reddit?s /r/KotakuInAction subreddit, one of the earliest and most prominent Gamergate forums.

"I can say with a fair amount of confidence that the petition is wholly condemned by that community, and if you consider KiA to be the defining community of Gamergate, that means that Gamergaters have been shunning the petition from the beginning."
"I approached the subject spoiling for a fight, with a political chip on my shoulder. I also didn?t directly go to KiA first to find reactions to the petition, and for that I apologize to its users and those who consider KiA to be the heart of Gamergate. I did you a disservice, and I?m sorry."

Well, I will give him credit, he can at last admit when he was blinded by his own ideology and sought to correct his mistake there.

But that brings us to your trips to the "belly of the beast" mentioned here. Considering the very thread here stands as testament to your persistent and maliciously-motivated intellectual dishonesty at every turn, I will put the onus on you to actually back up your words by demonstrating gamergate's stand as a collective group and not just the cherry picked, or outright fabricated examples you want to pin to the corkboard, connect by silly-string, and claim are evidence.

I also wait for you to recant your disprove accusations prior, both in this thread and elsewhere, since they now pile up like week-old rotting fish and really do undermine you every time you try to make unsupported, misrepresentative, or outright dishonest accusations against gamergate.

trunkage:
Runic, when I say these next things, I'm commenting on GG as a group. You might have these ideals you espoused but that's not what I saw the group do. Feel free to take it personally if you want, that is not my intention.

And when I read them, and I see your selective experience is not representative of the group as a whole, realize that, at best, I view your arguments and reasoning with the same perspective I view those who justify their own racism because of their own selective experiences. Misguided, misrepresentative, and while possibly understandable, not excusable when I see used in conjunction with accusations toward an entire group, especially when said group collectively rejected those actions repeatedly, and been investigated and cleared multiple times, and has corrected the misconception every time it showed up. One can only listen to the intellectual equivalent of "but of course black people all eat fried chicken, I SAW it one time so it must be true of the whole group!". At worst, I may begin to assume you are doing as smith there has been, and are actively and maliciously stating falsehoods and dishonest accusations about gamergate for the same of personal hatred of and vendetta against it. Now I assume you are at least more honest than to do as he has in instantly assuming something that he disliked involving gamers is the responsibility of gamergate collectively. After all, seeing a few nintendo fanboys call out a reviewer and assuming it is gamergate just because it fits biases is a pretty hard to top display of manufacturing outrage to blame on gamergate aside from those who claim gamergate made Trump win, so I have to believe someone like you who has been at least relatively civil is not that far gone.

runic knight:
On gamergate you have a collective of people from all walks of life, political lean, age, race and gender who share the common goal of "hates the gaming media's bullshit".

As a person who didn't fall into either camp, you know what the funny thing is? If that incident stay on topic about journalism, there wouldn't have been a gamergate. Did you know most Anti-GGers agreed with gaming journal being corrupt?

I see it as the same problem as Feminist. They claim moral superiority over a particularly issue to try and stop others from having any input. Hence, you see groups like the MRA - which has some ideas of substance and some just being spiteful of being left out.

Its also like Occupy Wallstreet and the Tea Party - they have very similar beliefs but just don't want to work together.

Gamergate decided it was Pope on journalism and didn't bother listening to anyone else. Even when they agreed. Then some GGers started attacking females which derailed the whole topic

Except, if people opposed to gamergate were so opposed to the media being corrupt, why was it they repeated the lies and narratives used by them, despite reality and logic itself revealing the lies within, that no, gamergate was never a harassment campaign and all attempts to paint it as such were demonization and guilt by association, often to people not actualyl part of it in the first place, be it through prior disowning, or post-rejection of it? Why did they excuse the actions of Grayson or Hernandez or Wu and defend their unethical behavior or try to dismiss it as not being such? Why did they pretend that the collusion didn't happen and then, after it was shown beyond any more doubt or dismissal, they pretended it didn't matter? Why is it, every time someone in anti-GG claims they are opposed to media collusion, it is said with the same tone and intention as "Well, I am not personally racist, but you know what they say about those black people"?

You know, for people so against a corrupt gaming media, what exactly did they, you know, actually do about it in any way or shape that didn't actively help those corrupt within it or those who profited off of it being corrupt? Hmm, perhaps this deserves a more in-depth breakdown.

First, the claim that gamergate wanted to be pope is wrong. Lets cover how GG happened. My introduction into gamergate was before it even existed, and I got to watch it evolve in realtime. Also have a nice post-history I can go back and dig through to show the evolution and occurance. But by first introduction into the topic was during the quinnspiracy where quinn herself, or someone acing on her behalf and using her email, had falsely DMCA'd the video discussing the blogpost by her ex which detailed how abusive she was and the fact she slept with people in the industry that represented major conflicts of interests. This had started to be discussed on reddit and was at the time the most discussed post ever. Considering she sold herself as a feminist, I called it out at the time for what I saw, hypocritical of her, damaging for her ideology, and her sexual promiscuity itself a stupid detail outside of how it reflected on her, her ideology, and so on. After that, the reddit talk about it by Total Biscuit got axed without warning and was later found to be the result of Quinn reaching out to reddit mods who claimed it was to stop harassment that all witnesses in the thread claimed was a lie. Now at this point, this WAS a major story. Considering the media gladly discussed things like sexual assault allegations against developers, there was no moral excuse not to there, and considering the story now involved possible award rigging, journalistic conflict of interest, and illegal prejury by filing false DMCA, plus the cover-up people were rightfully pissed when, after they asked many sites to cover the topic, those asked attacked and called them harassers. This drove the whole notion that the media was working together (later proven), were abusing their power to cover themselves and their friend, and started people into being the investigators that eventually dug up things like people sleeping and living with those they wrote about, the coverage or lack there-of for certain people, and the various ways the media was corrupt. That in turn lead up to the single unified event that spurred gamergate itself, the media's collective response to gamers pissed by the media's open bias about the story and utter contempt for their audience in misrepresenting those discussing it. This would be the "gamers are dead" articles which shared a uniform theme of "fuck anyone talking about this story as harassers and misogynists". That of course made many games, including many who didn't want to side with the rebelling gamers on the topic such as boogie and total biscuit, form up against the media and those who went to bat defending their bullshit. Considering it was revealed how they were colluding with each other at the time, this cemented gamergate as being right about that assumption. Considering how many opposed to gamergate have since been revealed as sex pest, it seems to be cementing many as being right about their motivations too.

The problem is, after all that, after gamergate started proper and the media was openly revealed to be totally scummy in their behavior and how they were dealing with those critical of them by openly and unapologetically demonizing, reinforcing stereotypes, maliciously misrepresenting, and outright lying through their teeth, after all that the defense of the media was both uniform in how it was defended, and utterly wrong about how and why GG even occurred. The defense was, as you presented here, that "gamergate was harassing women". The problem being, it wasn't. More than one study into the group, any worthwhile unbiased examination into the group, and an outright fbi investigation... it was clear that the harassment was coming almost exclusively from either third-party trolls or the media and their friends while the majority of gamergate was actively opposed to it. Hell, there was campaigns against harassment that was pushed and heavily supported by gamergate, such as anti-harassment infrographs, and the harassment patrol.

Made worse, it was revealed that more than one group of professional trolls was involved, including old friends of Quinn herself. This was proven as well, and not surprisingly, was ignored with all the rest by those seeking excuse to believe what they wanted to about the group, regardless the reality of it.

The biggest problem with gamergate was its biggest strength: it was a disorganized, decentralized collection of gamers who were only united in their dislike of the media and its handling. This made them immune to problem with ideological purity or leadership, since there wasn't any. It was people who disliked the media and wanted to support the protest against it. As the group solidified under the banner of it, it became anti-harassment as well, and people where pruned by the usual method of such social groups, by disassociation and mocking them and declaring they weren't part of the group. See king of pol for a good example there. Some others supported gamergate without being part of it. Even milo, for all his influence on events, has said he didn't think he was part of the group itself. And it is funny, as those who were neutral on the subject, people like boogie and biscuit early on. People like angry joe, they weren't "targeted" by gamergate or demonized for not siding with it. Those neutrals were, not surprisingly, attacked mercilessly by those opposed to gamergate though. You had places like gamerghazi and neogaf that hoped TB's cancer killed him or who would go so far as to attack him on twitter or reddit with such, while simultaneously decrying gamergate's "harassment" of woman.

In fact, the only "neutrals" I really saw being called out were those who claimed they were neutral only to keep regurgitating the same lies about the group that had been corrected multiple times, and who tried to tone police the group, often revealing an open bias and poor acting skills hiding it in the process. "Rival" hashtags that were claimed to be a less controversial protest of the media were quickly abandoned by such self-proclaimed champions against corrupt media. And that is funny, as if they actually cared about the subject as much as many claimed they did when they pushed things like "#gameethics", than they would have lasted more than 2 days before abandoning it and jumping into attacking gamergate and defending the media's actions.

It is hard to believe the people give a shit about gaming journalism being corrupt when they are repeating the outright lies of the gaming media about is as a harassment campaign and that the people in the media did nothing wrong and that everyone should shut up about it. Really sort of undermines the claim when actions are demonstrably not supporting it, especially when those people opposed to gamergate cite a reason that is a gross fallacy from the start and reject YEARS of explaining why it is wrong to keep repeating it.

Yes, it is apolitical in its cause and its makeup. The fact that the group it opposes relies on ideological ties in order to mount their defense does not change that nor does it inherently make political those that oppose their tactics, behaviors, attitudes or personalities

So, its the Antifa of the Gaming Industry?

Well, considering antifa is a terrorist organization with a uniform political ideology, actually has leadership, is endorsed by the media, and is not united by a common opposition so much as just a shared method of and desire to act like facist and force others to obey their ideology by force, I would say that, no, it is not like gamergate at all.

I'd say it would actually be more likely that gamergate is the complete inversion of antifa.

Also, you realised GG was used by some asshats to promote their political bias and that's why GG has a bad name now?

No, GG's name was dirt before it exited because of the media narrative about it, but you are partially right about asshats seeking to use it. Problem is, I also realize that was the direct result of the media demonizing it and misrepresenting it in the first place that forced the group to seek allies anywhere just to be allowed to speak on a platform equally, resulting in it accepting tentatively aid from people like milo. Or tolerating, even if only shortly, people like Ralph or KoP before they got laughed off. And, because of how they wanted to frame their position as a moral one against harassers of women, the media created the very sentiment against feminism and liberalism that has grown since. But, given that the sentiment within the remnants of gamergate is still pretty much against how they act and the stupidity of their belief over the politics of the belief alone, I don't think it is politically based, even now.

Gamergate didn't kick people out for their political lean, and even after this long, still has not. Liberals, conservatives and independents all are still within it, posting along the old interconnected web of channels and sites. That one political ideology was so opposed to them and so blatantly prevalent throughout the gaming news media that they could mislabel and demonize those critical of them as a single political party alone is a testament to the problem within it itself.

People of all leans supported gamergate, people of one lean opposed it. Not surprising those who were enemies of that singular ideology shared by those opposed to GG would try to use it. Funny enough, it wasn't all that effective. Most people rejected the attempts to unify for anything more than opposing the gaming media, and participating was voluntary throughout. When people pushed for boycotts against game developers, or when folks like King of Pol tried to make them into their political army, they were ineffective. Those that just supported GG such as milo were rewarded for it by being given a chance in return, but even then when you are fighting the same foe at the time, it is a little odd to think one side is using the other but not acknowledge the other was using the first as well.

I remember a lot of people at the time certainly expressed that idea, using milo for wider and more fair coverage even if a lot of people didn't like him much.

runic knight:
.

Same old excuses.

Same old claims.

Same old omission of groups like /pol/ and Reaxxion like they never existed

Same old ignoring of people like Vox Day, Roosh V, and Matt Forney

And most telling of all

Same old giving a pass to Rebel Media, the NRA and Micheal Savage by saying "Only one idealogy was against us!"

This is going nowhere.

Smithnikov:

runic knight:
.

Same old excuses.

Same old claims.

Same old omission of groups like /pol/ and Reaxxion like they never existed

Same old ignoring of people like Vox Day, Roosh V, and Matt Forney

And most telling of all

Same old giving a pass to Rebel Media, the NRA and Micheal Savage by saying "Only one idealogy was against us!"

This is going nowhere.

Same reasoned argument you ignore.

Same examples supported by reality itself.

Same reminder that such groups were neither representative of the whole, nor accepted by the whole after they went crazy. Oh, and added bonus, same reminder that half the people associated with GG openly claimed to not be part of it (such as Reaxxion which multiple people have corrected you on before). I guess intellectual honesty is the first casualty you are willing to make to justify your hatred of a boogieman that doesn't actually exist the way you want it to.

Same reminder that people like Roosh were laughed off and also were not representative of the whole regardless how much you try to pretend otherwise.

And same reminder that the media's campaign against was from a singular ideology. When the media's open lies are accusing sexism and racism, that isn't surprising though. And when one of the complaints is about the ideological uniformity in the media and the open bias that has on doing their job fairly and accurately, it is sort of undeniable by anyone being honest that it was the case.

I am curious where I gave a "pass" to any of them though. I remember laughing at rebel media along with a lot of others. And no clue what the hell you are talking about the National Rifle Association for. Were they involved in gamergate or is that you just unable to separate peoples you dislike from one another, as you already displayed prominently by the thread itself. Do you think that saying they aren't representative of the whole just because you have an ideological chip on your shoulder and wish it to be so is "giving them a pass"?

Or hey, maybe that is just more nintendo fanboys being called gamergate because you want to feel justified in your baseless accusations and irrational hate. Going to assume it is til you stop being maliciously dishonest.

renegade7:
Why the fuck does Gamergate still exist.

It doesn't really. There are 2 sites where it's still a serious hot topic issue, Escpaistmagazine and 8chan, and then there are a few people that still mention it occasionally on Twitter, but overall it's just something that very few people on any of these sites throw around when they want to make an argument around something that hasn't been a major thing in around 3 years.

RanD00M:

renegade7:
Why the fuck does Gamergate still exist.

It doesn't really. There are 2 sites where it's still a serious hot topic issue, Escpaistmagazine and 8chan, and then there are a few people that still mention it occasionally on Twitter, but overall it's just something that very few people on any of these sites throw around when they want to make an argument around something that hasn't been a major thing in around 3 years.

KIA still exists and is fairly active. Though it's turned into another generic alt-right cesspool like many of GG's detractors called out a long time ago to the denial by GG supporters.

Smithnikov:

ex951753:
Went to KIA and found nothing on this. Do you have an archive link or screen shot of said thread?

Sassafrass:
Are we sure this is GG and just not angry Nintendo fans?

Or are they one and the same nowadays and I missed the memo?

I'm going off the vocabulary and nature of the complaints. Has GG written all over it.

You mean you're going off your aggressive personal prejudices (again) :)

If SJWs hadn't got power mad, to go with their sneering pomposity and aggressively censorious attitudes, and tried to take over game journalism we wouldn't be in this mess.

See it's easy to descend into platitudial posturing about a largely undefined group isn't it ; )

ErrrorWayz:

Smithnikov:

I'm going off the vocabulary and nature of the complaints. Has GG written all over it.

If SJWs hadn't got power mad, to go with their sneering pomposity and aggressively censorious attitudes, and tried to take over game journalism we wouldn't be in this mess.

Smithnikov:

Yea, way to expose he's never once been to KiA, let alone /gamergateHQ/ or /ggrevolt/

Except that hq and revolt place were both started by people that threw fits about ideological purity and legitimately butthurt dumbasses that were told to get out of KiA...As in, they didn't like that people other than right-wingers were allowed to stay around and constantly brought in extraneous politics to everything they posted.

Way to expose he's never been to KiA? Way to expose you apparently know even less.

Smithnikov:

runic knight:
.

Same old excuses.

Same old claims.

Same old omission of groups like /pol/ and Reaxxion like they never existed

Same old ignoring of people like Vox Day, Roosh V, and Matt Forney

And most telling of all

Same old giving a pass to Rebel Media, the NRA and Micheal Savage by saying "Only one idealogy was against us!"

This is going nowhere.

There is something fascinating about someone claiming GG was somehow connected to the NRA. A group that blames videogames for violence and is specific to a single country. Almost like it is just marking all your enemy groups the same in ignorance that other places and causes even exist.

runic knight:

If you want to say I am making gamergate sound peaceful and antifa sound violent, well, then I will happily agree there. gamergate has been well documented as being by and far a group of internet jackasses who were not violent and were even investigated and cleared by the fbi and other investigators.

"Cleared by the FBI" is a strange way to say "the FBI declined to prosecute after interviewing suspects who said they wouldn't do it again/losing trails of evidence in attempted bank fraud cases/passed information to local law enforcement due to jurisdictional limits."

https://vault.fbi.gov/gamergate/Gamergate%20Part%2001%20of%2001/view

ScaredIndie:

There is something fascinating about someone claiming GG was somehow connected to the NRA.

Conservatives. Republicans.

Almost like it is just marking all your enemy groups the same in ignorance that other places and causes even exist.

Yea, kinda like how I got a nice big SJW branding because I dared to insist that State of Decay didn't have a left wing feminist agenda.

Smithnikov:

ScaredIndie:

There is something fascinating about someone claiming GG was somehow connected to the NRA.

Conservatives. Republicans.

The NRA is a group specific to the USA the Republicans as I believe you mean them here also are. Gamergate was not about the USA, their gun situation, or their political idiocy.

Almost like it is just marking all your enemy groups the same in ignorance that other places and causes even exist.

Yea, kinda like how I got a nice big SJW branding because I dared to insist that State of Decay didn't have a left wing feminist agenda.

I have no clue about your other conversations, nor do I care to hear this story that has nothing to do with myself, the topic at hand, or anything I said.

Redryhno:

Smithnikov:

Yea, way to expose he's never once been to KiA, let alone /gamergateHQ/ or /ggrevolt/

Except that hq and revolt place were both started by people that threw fits about ideological purity and legitimately butthurt dumbasses that were told to get out of KiA...As in, they didn't like that people other than right-wingers were allowed to stay around and constantly brought in extraneous politics to everything they posted.

Way to expose he's never been to KiA? Way to expose you apparently know even less.

That is the thing that has been an issue from the beginning. The actual people who started "gamergate" were kicked off other sites including 4chan. That was the entire reason they made 8chan and came whining here about them not being allowed to harass Zoe on other sites with nonsense they made up. Them being kicked out elsewhere was WHY they made kiA in the first place. They were kicked out for trying to harrass people, being stalkers, and threatening people. No one on many sites wanted any part of it for that reason. Even when you read through the fist threads posted here on it, it was a blatant attack on Zoe.

When it was the original people who started this as a harassment campaign, and were kicked off sites for doing so, people cannot then claim later that it is not what it was about. Claiming well "we kicked those people out.." does not change that was how it all got started in the first place, those people were kicked out for harrassing people and started ranting about it.

People jumping on their bandwagon later do not change what it was in the first place. They do not get to control the narrative, the people who created it do and they are only supporters of that harassment campaign over a lie an imaginary review that did not even exist. People were promoting paid Republican shills on every single one of gamergate's playgrounds even going as far as to call a paid republican think tank shill "based mom" of gamer gate. Seriously that is what she was paid to do, and yet you had all these noobs running around linking her as gospel. It was extremely " right wing" as it attacked the very definition of "liberal"

There is no denying what this was about, it was all right here for the world to see:
First post about it on escapist:

First time poster here, so please correct me if I am in the wrong topic. Both Off-topic and Politics seemed like alright choices to me, since this is about feminism as well as the state of the video game industry.

So we have a woman, feminist Zoe Quinn, who was:
A Cheating on her boyfriend with 5 other men. This is horrible, of course, but not at the core of what I want to talk about. If it was just a girl cheating, this wouldn't warrant a political thread.
B Very principled about not sleeping with another man, considering it a form of rape to then sleep again with her husband, and being a staunch feminist in general, but being a total hypocrite about it.
C Slept with her boss, Joshua Bruggs and a Kotaku employee who reviewed her game, Nathan Grayson (!!!)
D Lied about lying about lying about lying.
E Figuratively abused Robin Williams death to get more attention for her game by saying she wouldnt milk Robin Williams death to get more attention to her game
F Urged her boyfriend to not use protection even when she was sleeping with other men, culminating in the fact she had sex with the guy just a day after she went down on her boss

And yet all video game outlets, from GiantBomb to Kotaku to Destructoid to the Escapist to Reddit all the way through to 4chan's /v/ do their continual best efforts to simply not bring this up, both in official outlets and, in the cases of GB and /v/, by deleting threads about it, or in the case of Reddit downvoting it and making the links not work. And yet the slightest statement by men that can be twisted against men is twisted against men. For example, what this same Zoe Quinn did by blaming Wizardchan of abusing her and getting everyone to defend her. Even though Wizardchan is a place filled with depressed people, the very same people she pretends to help with her game Depression Quest.

Why? Why does news that is obviously not just tangentially related to video games, but a scandal at the very core of the indie game industry, get blocked out by ALL news outlets? Just because it might paint feminists in a bad light? And more importantly, can we fix this? I'm all for equality and I therefore like an open debate, which can never happen if we keep pointing at female activists and their supporters as the knights in shining armor, and the other possible party as cis scum that needs to die because they're white men. I don't think that's very healthy nor very egalitarian.

Any thoughts from you guys? Agree? Disagree?

EDIT: Oh, and then there's the fact that the blog post by Nathan Grayson has apparently been taken down. They're seriously trying to hide it, from my point of view.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.858347-Zoe-Quinn-and-the-surrounding-controversy

It was never apolitical.
This quote from the Person who created the original gg thread on the escapist sums up gamer gate:

it might just be that so many people in news outlets are just left-wing and do this because of their pov. In any case, scandals are news in my mind, and so is feminism in gaming as a whole, so when a feminist game developer causes what in my opinion would be a scandal, that's a big deal.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.858347-Zoe-Quinn-and-the-surrounding-controversy#21276263

and this one a few posts down in same thread:

she acted like a slut and deserves shaming for what she did

image

undeadsuitor:
"Just ignore that SJW crossdresser"

mario can wear a wedding dress in the game. clearly sjws have taken over nintendo

That doesn't even make sense since Nintendo is one of the companies that most stands against sjws.

Oh great, this subforum too.

Lil devils x:

That is the thing that has been an issue from the beginning. The actual people who started "gamergate" were kicked off other sites including 4chan. That was the entire reason they made 8chan and came whining here about them not being allowed to harass Zoe on other sites with nonsense they made up. Them being kicked out elsewhere was WHY they made kiA in the first place.

They "made 8chan"? This is how "Gamergate Time Machine" memes start, 8chan predating GG and all. But it seems the gist here is "this topic was BANNED across a wide variety of sites, so people went where it wasn't in order to discuss it", as if that's somehow proof of some inherent depravity. Which frankly ain't gonna fly. As for "made up nonsense", it's not as if Nathan Greyson, his editor Stephen Totilo or Quinn herself deny that Greyson had sex with Quinn, very shortly before covering Quinn for Kotaku as it happens. Still, it was never about the tender act of love itself (AKA Nate's Casting Couch), but rather the overall incestuous social scene these individuals were part of. That just happened to be the ultimate emblematic expression of a far more extensive, partly metaphorical bedsharing. With the "indie"-journo clique adopting a pose of moral righteousness all the while of course.

Lil devils x:
When it was the original people who started this as a harassment campaign, and were kicked off sites for doing so, people cannot then claim later that it is not what it was about. Claiming well "we kicked those people out.." does not change that was how it all got started in the first place, those people were kicked out for harrassing people and started ranting about it.

The "Gamergate" scandal itself relates to contemptuous dismissal of any ethical concerns about "games journalism" that very much included the silencing of the discussion, instead of simply owning up, apologizing and improving that was the alternative course for the media. No (dubious) "harasser" can claim "original" ownership of having an opinion about it. Furthermore, "Gamergate" was established as a "movement" solely because of these tactics of excommunicating what were simply individuals who wanted the media to be better at their ostensible job.

Lil devils x:
People jumping on their bandwagon later do not change what it was in the first place. They do not get to control the narrative, the people who created it do and they are only supporters of that harassment campaign over a lie an imaginary review that did not even exist.

People expressing their own opinions have their own motivations, and no media hack is morally entitled to spin it into a fraudulent narrative to protect their own privilege, especially after never giving them a fair hearing.

Lil devils x:
People were promoting paid Republican shills on every single one of gamergate's playgrounds even going as far as to call a paid republican think tank shill "based mom" of gamer gate. Seriously that is what she was paid to do, and yet you had all these noobs running around linking her as gospel. It was extremely " right wing" as it attacked the very definition of "liberal"

Ah, that would be Christina Hoff Sommers, a registered Democrat who I'm pretty sure voted for Clinton, considering her anti-Trump stance. Personally, I was always a little uncomfortable with the alacrity many people showed in casting her in that maternal role, but I guess it goes to show how badly many of the supposed "woman-haters" craved some specifically feminine approval. And while I wouldn't know how extensive your particular experiences of paid shills are, mine suggest that they are rather slow in picking up emerging causes. So your allegations appear a little more conspiratorial than seems warranted. Rather, defending what she would see as unjustly harangued boys and young men seems consistent with her long-term work, predating her position at the AEI.

Lil devils x:
It was never apolitical.

Definitely stating that would require a definition of politics that explicitly excludes certain connotations, such as party politics and comparable alignments. The protests were defined by their opposition to specific practices, rather than their endorsement of any existing platforms.

StatusNil:
Oh great, this subforum too.

Lil devils x:

That is the thing that has been an issue from the beginning. The actual people who started "gamergate" were kicked off other sites including 4chan. That was the entire reason they made 8chan and came whining here about them not being allowed to harass Zoe on other sites with nonsense they made up. Them being kicked out elsewhere was WHY they made kiA in the first place.

They "made 8chan"? This is how "Gamergate Time Machine" memes start, 8chan predating GG and all. But it seems the gist here is "this topic was BANNED across a wide variety of sites, so people went where it wasn't in order to discuss it", as if that's somehow proof of some inherent depravity. Which frankly ain't gonna fly. As for "made up nonsense", it's not as if Nathan Greyson, his editor Stephen Totilo or Quinn herself deny that Greyson had sex with Quinn, very shortly before covering Quinn for Kotaku as it happens. Still, it was never about the tender act of love itself (AKA Nate's Casting Couch), but rather the overall incestuous social scene these individuals were part of. That just happened to be the ultimate emblematic expression of a far more extensive, partly metaphorical bedsharing. With the "indie"-journo clique adopting a pose of moral righteousness all the while of course.

Lil devils x:
When it was the original people who started this as a harassment campaign, and were kicked off sites for doing so, people cannot then claim later that it is not what it was about. Claiming well "we kicked those people out.." does not change that was how it all got started in the first place, those people were kicked out for harrassing people and started ranting about it.

The "Gamergate" scandal itself relates to contemptuous dismissal of any ethical concerns about "games journalism" that very much included the silencing of the discussion, instead of simply owning up, apologizing and improving that was the alternative course for the media. No (dubious) "harasser" can claim "original" ownership of having an opinion about it. Furthermore, "Gamergate" was established as a "movement" solely because of these tactics of excommunicating what were simply individuals who wanted the media to be better at their ostensible job.

Lil devils x:
People jumping on their bandwagon later do not change what it was in the first place. They do not get to control the narrative, the people who created it do and they are only supporters of that harassment campaign over a lie an imaginary review that did not even exist.

People expressing their own opinions have their own motivations, and no media hack is morally entitled to spin it into a fraudulent narrative to protect their own privilege, especially after never giving them a fair hearing.

Lil devils x:
People were promoting paid Republican shills on every single one of gamergate's playgrounds even going as far as to call a paid republican think tank shill "based mom" of gamer gate. Seriously that is what she was paid to do, and yet you had all these noobs running around linking her as gospel. It was extremely " right wing" as it attacked the very definition of "liberal"

Ah, that would be Christina Hoff Sommers, a registered Democrat who I'm pretty sure voted for Clinton, considering her anti-Trump stance. Personally, I was always a little uncomfortable with the alacrity many people showed in casting her in that maternal role, but I guess it goes to show how badly many of the supposed "woman-haters" craved some specifically feminine approval. And while I wouldn't know how extensive your particular experiences of paid shills are, mine suggest that they are rather slow in picking up emerging causes. So your allegations appear a little more conspiratorial than seems warranted. Rather, defending what she would see as unjustly harangued boys and young men seems consistent with her long-term work, predating her position at the AEI.

Lil devils x:
It was never apolitical.

Definitely stating that would require a definition of politics that explicitly excludes certain connotations, such as party politics and comparable alignments. The protests were defined by their opposition to specific practices, rather than their endorsement of any existing platforms.

First and most importantly, CHristiana Hoff Sommers is a paid scholar at a far right think tank paid for by the koch brothers. It has been a well known fact for quite some time that Republicans often register as democrats so they can vote in the democratic primaries to try and vote in weaker candidates to help the GOP win borderline districts. Being a registered Democrat does not change that it is literally her job to try and spin things to push the far right narrative. She is even on SPLC for this reason. You are pushing a narrative that is not based in reality here:

Reality:
The American Enterprise Institute is a Far right Republican think tank funded by the Koch brothers. This is where they hire people to spin things to their narrative:

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Enterprise_Institute
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/charles-murray-wants-right-wing-to-use-scientology-strategy-in-legal-war-on-u-s-government/
https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/koch-brothers-exposed/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc_3wsLd01s
https://splinternews.com/right-wing-donors-are-the-ones-threatening-campus-free-1823651572
https://www.thenation.com/article/meet-the-feminists-doing-the-koch-brothers-dirty-work/

Christian Hoff Sommers is a paid Scholar working for American enterprise institute:
http://www.aei.org/scholar/christina-hoff-sommers/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christina_Hoff_Sommers
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/male-supremacy

According to the people who started Gamergate, it was started over Zoe Quinn cheating and being mean to her boyfriend, not "ethics in journalism" they just added that nonsense to attempt to excuse their " slut shaming". It is not " the media" spinning this it is what the people who started it, who brought it to the escapist, who brought it to 8 chan and the people who made it a " thing" in the first place. The media does not need to " spin" anything, you can read their words for your own eyes on this forum and posts they made themselves. The media just reported what they wrote and events that happened. People being in denial about it after seeing all of these things for themselves does not mean that this is not the actual reality here. This was all about slut shaming Zoe and attacking feminists, and has been from day 1.
https://medium.com/@srachel_m/gamergate-launched-in-my-apartment-and-internet-im-sorry-not-that-sorry-13e5650fd172

In addition, 99.9% of "game journalism" is brought to us by the game developers themselves in order to sell their products. They were the ones who created this in the first place as a form of marketing their products. Not only have many of them been paid directly by Game developers, they often give out free products to review and will give even more to those who gave them positive reviews. That is how it was created and it would not exist today without Game developers funding it, That is reality here.

Gamergate did not even care about that, that is not how they chose their targets, because apparently actual ethics was never the issue here, just attacking feminists and anyone they disagreed with. Unethical "journalism" was fine as long as they promoted right wing ideals and shunned feminism. The boycott list was not made determined by those who were paid for their reviews, it was a blacklist of people they disagreed with or supported Zoe in any way.

Claiming it to be anything else is pretty irrelevant because it would be like celebrating Christmas and trying to convince people that Christmas was really about promoting Judaism instead. It doesn't matter what those that decide for themselves what it is later, they didn't start this they just "showed up to the party" after the party was already started.

BTW: "it is not here too" This sub forum was created so they could talk about Gamergate here due to no one wanting it in any of the other sub forums.

Lil devils x:

First and most importantly, CHristiana Hoff Sommers is a paid scholar at a far right think tank paid for by the koch brothers. It has been a well known fact for quite some time that Republicans often register as democrats so they can vote in the democratic primaries to try and vote in weaker candidates to help the GOP win borderline districts. Being a registered Democrat does not change that it is literally her job to try and spin things to push the far right narrative. She is even on SPLC for this reason. You are pushing a narrative that is not based in reality here:

First of all, "far right think tank"? I believe the correct description is "pro business think tank", which you can disapprove of all you want. As long as you stick to the reality of it, that is.

Secondly, a gal's gotta work. And it turns out there are limited employment opportunities for feminist philosophy profs who get frozen out of academia for questioning their precious groupthink, as happened to Sommers. She had this strange idea that feminism had been taken over by hysterical man-haters, you see. Dunno where that comes from, maybe she reads too many fringe publications like Washington Post that print "straw feminist caricatures", like Northwestern University "Professor and Director of Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies Program" Suzanne D. Walters, instead of the real feminists who are all about teh LOVE:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.42dfda0ad17a

Third, SPLC? It's spelled with a "notorious scammers" prefix, I think. Oh how the once reputable have sunk into the mire.

Now, we have two possible scenarios here:

1) Cletus Koch, a hale 114 and a noted admirer of the Operatic Arts, summons Dr. Sommers into his Undersea Lair and tells her "Word is there's something' a-brewin' in this here vidya gaem biz. I want you to get in there and spin this thing into a big ol' Republican victory, obviously by never mentioning Republicans, incessantly snarking on the Republican candidate in the next presidential election, and voting for Hillary Clinton instead of whoever that's gonna be. Do a good job, and there's FIVE HUNDERT smackaroos in it for you!"

2) A public intellectual with a very flexible work schedule, known for sacrificing her academic career by a refusal to go along with a viciously misandrist and intellectually incoherent agenda, observes yet another example of said agenda spreading into pop culture commentary and decides to comment on it, based on her longstanding concern with this issue. That incidentally predates her alleged servitude to the devilish Koch masterminds.

Which one of these alternatives smacks of "pushing a narrative that is not based in reality" again?

Oh, and feel free to omit the links to whatever Sorosian cranks you have bookmarked the next time. It's not like I need a laugh so bad I would click on them.

StatusNil:

Lil devils x:

First and most importantly, CHristiana Hoff Sommers is a paid scholar at a far right think tank paid for by the koch brothers. It has been a well known fact for quite some time that Republicans often register as democrats so they can vote in the democratic primaries to try and vote in weaker candidates to help the GOP win borderline districts. Being a registered Democrat does not change that it is literally her job to try and spin things to push the far right narrative. She is even on SPLC for this reason. You are pushing a narrative that is not based in reality here:

First of all, "far right think tank"? I believe the correct description is "pro business think tank", which you can disapprove of all you want. As long as you stick to the reality of it, that is.

Secondly, a gal's gotta work. And it turns out there are limited employment opportunities for feminist philosophy profs who get frozen out of academia for questioning their precious groupthink, as happened to Sommers. She had this strange idea that feminism had been taken over by hysterical man-haters, you see. Dunno where that comes from, maybe she reads too many fringe publications like Washington Post that print "straw feminist caricatures", like Northwestern University "Professor and Director of Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies Program" Suzanne D. Walters, instead of the real feminists who are all about teh LOVE:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.42dfda0ad17a

Third, SPLC? It's spelled with a "notorious scammers" prefix, I think. Oh how the once reputable have sunk into the mire.

Now, we have two possible scenarios here:

1) Cletus Koch, a hale 114 and a noted admirer of the Operatic Arts, summons Dr. Sommers into his Undersea Lair and tells her "Word is there's something' a-brewin' in this here vidya gaem biz. I want you to get in there and spin this thing into a big ol' Republican victory, obviously by never mentioning Republicans, incessantly snarking on the Republican candidate in the next presidential election, and voting for Hillary Clinton instead of whoever that's gonna be. Do a good job, and there's FIVE HUNDERT smackaroos in it for you!"

2) A public intellectual with a very flexible work schedule, known for sacrificing her academic career by a refusal to go along with a viciously misandrist and intellectually incoherent agenda, observes yet another example of said agenda spreading into pop culture commentary and decides to comment on it, based on her longstanding concern with this issue. That incidentally predates her alleged servitude to the devilish Koch masterminds.

Which one of these alternatives smacks of "pushing a narrative that is not based in reality" again?

Oh, and feel free to omit the links to whatever Sorosian cranks you have bookmarked the next time. It's not like I need a laugh so bad I would click on them.

You are making unproven claims she voted for Clinton, that is just your imagination getting carried away with. Koch being anti Trump does not mean They or Sommers were Pro Clinton, or Pro Sanders in any way. They were Pro other Republicans, there is a huge difference. And Yes, "far right" when you consider that the Republicans of today in the United States are considered Far right by western standards and would be seen as extremists in numerous other nations. They are not " Pro business" they are "pro their business and anti other business. Do not assume that their business is the only businesses that matter here as there are plenty of businesses that are against Koch and their spin doctors. They do not represent the businesses or people they actively cause harm to. They cannot hide behind their business like it is the only business that exists, it is only their personal interests that they are promoting here under and pretending they are in favor of business", and they are very much against and unhelpful to businesses that do not conform to their narrative. Do they represent businesses that seek to reduce paper consumption? of course not, if people stopped using paper they would lose their businesses while the businesses that created alternatives would thrive. Attempting to make excuses for Sommer's being a paid far right shill does not change that she is a paid far right shill. Claiming "well a girl has to earn a buck" is not in any way an excuse. That is like saying well those human traffickers are just trying to earn a living doesn't really cut it either.

I think you have it backwards on SPLC, have you considered that they are not the one who has sunk here, it is portions of our society that are the problem? Claiming they have " sunk" because they have expressed opinions you disagree with does not make it actually so. Being a male supremacist is just as bad as the KKK, just they are targeting half the population rather than minority groups.

Yes, ignoring the links is your prerogative to maintain willful ignorance, However, let's just not pretend that the attack on feminism here is somehow apolitical when it is not.

Lil devils x:

I think you have it backwards on SPLC, have you considered that they are not the one who has sunk here, it is portions of our society that are the problem? Claiming they have " sunk" because they have expressed opinions you disagree with does not make it actually so. Being a male supremacist is just as bad as the KKK, just they are targeting half the population rather than minority groups.

Whoa. Well, let's consider this "screed", posted on the obscure far-right blog the "New York Times": https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/southern-poverty-law-center-liberals-islam.html

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was born in Somalia, where she had the culturally appropriate experience of having her genitals mutilated as a girl so that she would never be tempted by the possibility of sexual pleasure. She managed to escape to the Netherlands, where she made the (hmmm, what's the word? Oh right) feminist movie Submission with the director Theodoor van Gogh. However, after some trenchant criticism from the local Muslim community (the blood-splattered body of van Gogh was found on the street, throat cut so deep that his head had nearly come off, with a note attached announcing that Hirsi Ali would be "next"), she emigrated again, to the US. Ever since, she's had to be escorted by armed guards.

The SPLC in its wisdom thought it appropriate to add her to its blacklist of "anti-Islamic extremists", seeing as she has attacked the poor, oppressed, nearly 2 billion strong religion that dominates several countries from her unassailable position of privilege, with words calling for reforms. So clearly the SPLC is an unimpeachable authority when it comes to protecting women from all that male supremacy, and all those millions in donations are doing a super job in improving this sorry vale of tears we live in.

That is the tip, but it comes with a whole iceberg.

The woman toasted glasses with Matt Forney and Milo at a GamerGate event. That's all I need.

StatusNil:

Lil devils x:

I think you have it backwards on SPLC, have you considered that they are not the one who has sunk here, it is portions of our society that are the problem? Claiming they have " sunk" because they have expressed opinions you disagree with does not make it actually so. Being a male supremacist is just as bad as the KKK, just they are targeting half the population rather than minority groups.

Whoa. Well, let's consider this "screed", posted on the obscure far-right blog the "New York Times": https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/southern-poverty-law-center-liberals-islam.html

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was born in Somalia, where she had the culturally appropriate experience of having her genitals mutilated as a girl so that she would never be tempted by the possibility of sexual pleasure. She managed to escape to the Netherlands, where she made the (hmmm, what's the word? Oh right) feminist movie Submission with the director Theodoor van Gogh. However, after some trenchant criticism from the local Muslim community (the blood-splattered body of van Gogh was found on the street, throat cut so deep that his head had nearly come off, with a note attached announcing that Hirsi Ali would be "next"), she emigrated again, to the US. Ever since, she's had to be escorted by armed guards.

The SPLC in its wisdom thought it appropriate to add her to its blacklist of "anti-Islamic extremists", seeing as she has attacked the poor, oppressed, nearly 2 billion strong religion that dominates several countries from her unassailable position of privilege, with words calling for reforms. So clearly the SPLC is an unimpeachable authority when it comes to protecting women from all that male supremacy, and all those millions in donations are doing a super job in improving this sorry vale of tears we live in.

That is the tip, but it comes with a whole iceberg.

You do realize that the SPLC chose to correct their mistake and removed that don't you? That is exactly what should be expected to maintain credibility. No one is above mistakes, it is they who do not correct their mistakes that lose credibility, not those who do. You chose to use an example of them correcting their mistakes as why they should lose credibility?

Them reviewing something and finding that something you disagree with is not a mistake however, does not remove their credibility.

StatusNil:

Secondly, a gal's gotta work. And it turns out there are limited employment opportunities for feminist philosophy profs who get frozen out of academia for questioning their precious groupthink, as happened to Sommers.

First off, she's a philosophy professor. Feminism traditionally falls under Gender Studies or the broader umbrella of the Social Sciences. Considering how you've been a stickler for the strictures of academic disciplines in the past, this seems an odd mistake for you to make.

Second, she never got frozen out of anything. Getting employed by any think tank is not something that happens by mistake, especially not one with such extreme policy goals as AEI. Hoff Sommers might be registered as democrat, but she professes to be Libertarian leaning, which skews much further to the right than the democrats do.

Look, I find it highly amusing that you continually accuse the people and movement's you don't like of double speak and deception. It becomes much more so when you so obviously engage in it yourself, as you are doing right now.

Four years and everything is still the same, I would say never die escapist but at this point everything is over but the funeral.

Lil devils x:

You do realize that the SPLC chose to correct their mistake and removed that don't you? That is exactly what should be expected to maintain credibility. No one is above mistakes, it is they who do not correct their mistakes that lose credibility, not those who do. You chose to use an example of them correcting their mistakes as why they should lose credibility?

Them reviewing something and finding that something you disagree with is not a mistake however, does not remove their credibility.

Yeah, "honest mistake, could've happened to anyone!" I expect they'll be re-reviewing a lot of things from now on, seeing as:

Today, we entered into a settlement with and offered our sincerest apology to Mr. Maajid Nawaz and his organization, the Quilliam Foundation, for including them in our publication A Journalist's Manual: Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists.

[...]

As part of our settlement, we have paid $3.375 million to Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam to fund their work to fight anti-Muslim bigotry and extremism.

[...]

https://www.splcenter.org/news/2018/06/18/splc-statement-regarding-maajid-nawaz-and-quilliam-foundation

Ooopsie! I guess it took 18 months of "further investigation" to go from "anti-Muslim extremists" to "they're fighting anti-Muslim bigotry".

However, there are plenty more interesting issues that arise from their documentation, such as this IRS form for one: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/990_103117.pdf

Impressive stuff. I mean, they managed to transfer over $67 million from their "operating fund" to their "endowment fund" in just one year, bringing total assets of the latter to $432 million and change. For comparison, they claim to have spent around $20 mil on their little sideline, legal work, so less than a third of what they simply added to the hoard. Oh, and another $20 million on "education", which apparently includes mailing such educational materials as those letters that go "HATE is ON THE RISE! Gib monees now!"

Another interesting aspect is their "part ownership" in "several foreign corporations" that "does not rise to the level of reporting", conveniently enough, and "indirect ownership" in "several passive foreign investment companies". I wonder where these corporations... oh, here it is: Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, Bermuda. No doubt all worker-empowering Fair Trade cooperatives, right?

Can we be done with these scamsters for now? This is pretty off-topic for this thread.

Gethsemani:
...

I regret to inform you that I no longer feel comfortable responding to you, considering the power differential involved. After all, this happened the last time I did:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.1055507-Um-what-happened-to-this-site#24246301

Have a good day now.

StatusNil:

Lil devils x:

You do realize that the SPLC chose to correct their mistake and removed that don't you? That is exactly what should be expected to maintain credibility. No one is above mistakes, it is they who do not correct their mistakes that lose credibility, not those who do. You chose to use an example of them correcting their mistakes as why they should lose credibility?

Them reviewing something and finding that something you disagree with is not a mistake however, does not remove their credibility.

Yeah, "honest mistake, could've happened to anyone!" I expect they'll be re-reviewing a lot of things from now on, seeing as:

Today, we entered into a settlement with and offered our sincerest apology to Mr. Maajid Nawaz and his organization, the Quilliam Foundation, for including them in our publication A Journalist's Manual: Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists.

[...]

As part of our settlement, we have paid $3.375 million to Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam to fund their work to fight anti-Muslim bigotry and extremism.

[...]

https://www.splcenter.org/news/2018/06/18/splc-statement-regarding-maajid-nawaz-and-quilliam-foundation

Ooopsie! I guess it took 18 months of "further investigation" to go from "anti-Muslim extremists" to "they're fighting anti-Muslim bigotry".

However, there are plenty more interesting issues that arise from their documentation, such as this IRS form for one: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/990_103117.pdf

Impressive stuff. I mean, they managed to transfer over $67 million from their "operating fund" to their "endowment fund" in just one year, bringing total assets of the latter to $432 million and change. For comparison, they claim to have spent around $20 mil on their little sideline, legal work, so less than a third of what they simply added to the hoard. Oh, and another $20 million on "education", which apparently includes mailing such educational materials as those letters that go "HATE is ON THE RISE! Gib monees now!"

Another interesting aspect is their "part ownership" in "several foreign corporations" that "does not rise to the level of reporting", conveniently enough, and "indirect ownership" in "several passive foreign investment companies". I wonder where these corporations... oh, here it is: Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, Bermuda. No doubt all worker-empowering Fair Trade cooperatives, right?

Can we be done with these scamsters for now? This is pretty off-topic for this thread.

Gethsemani:
...

I regret to inform you that I no longer feel comfortable responding to you, considering the power differential involved. After all, this happened the last time I did:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.1055507-Um-what-happened-to-this-site#24246301

Have a good day now.

What exactly are you attempting to claim here? Nothing that you are showing here undermines their credibility. There is nothing shady about an endowment fund, and attempting to increase their resources to be able to provide more for those they are assisting is not something that should be considered a bad thing by any means. I think you are allowing your paranoia to get the better of you.

They have a better rating than even the red cross:
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4482
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277

You think the red cross has somehow lost credibility as well? Yea.

You do realize the SPLC does far more than put out pamphlets don't you? Again it looks like you are attempting to read more into what is actually there. It is better to not make assumptions than to assume something is wrong when it is not. Let's just look at what is actually here rather than allow our imaginations to run away shall we?

You chose to make unfounded claims of "scamsters" when the facts show otherwise. As for the topic, you chose not to address the other issues, and make unfounded claims against a well vetted and transparent charity instead of addressing the actual people and their reasons for starting this in the first pace. I posted links to their actual words here, it isn't like they need translation, they made it quite clear themselves what this was about.

A "scamster" would be someone who reads their slut shaming intentions here and then pretend it is really about ethics. LOL

Gethsemani:

StatusNil:

Secondly, a gal's gotta work. And it turns out there are limited employment opportunities for feminist philosophy profs who get frozen out of academia for questioning their precious groupthink, as happened to Sommers.

First off, she's a philosophy professor. Feminism traditionally falls under Gender Studies or the broader umbrella of the Social Sciences. Considering how you've been a stickler for the strictures of academic disciplines in the past, this seems an odd mistake for you to make.

I wasn't aware feminism was restricted solely to gender studies. I guess the memes are true if you thought that a valid enough point to raise.

Second, she never got frozen out of anything. Getting employed by any think tank is not something that happens by mistake, especially not one with such extreme policy goals as AEI. Hoff Sommers might be registered as democrat, but she professes to be Libertarian leaning, which skews much further to the right than the democrats do.

And it was likely those less than "proper" libertarian ideals that has her often claimed to not be a feminists or a democrat. The occurrence of which at all sort of defines his point.

runic knight:

I wasn't aware feminism was restricted solely to gender studies.

Me neither. And I'm still not, considering...

image

runic knight:

Gethsemani:

StatusNil:

Secondly, a gal's gotta work. And it turns out there are limited employment opportunities for feminist philosophy profs who get frozen out of academia for questioning their precious groupthink, as happened to Sommers.

First off, she's a philosophy professor. Feminism traditionally falls under Gender Studies or the broader umbrella of the Social Sciences. Considering how you've been a stickler for the strictures of academic disciplines in the past, this seems an odd mistake for you to make.

I wasn't aware feminism was restricted solely to gender studies. I guess the memes are true if you thought that a valid enough point to raise.

Second, she never got frozen out of anything. Getting employed by any think tank is not something that happens by mistake, especially not one with such extreme policy goals as AEI. Hoff Sommers might be registered as democrat, but she professes to be Libertarian leaning, which skews much further to the right than the democrats do.

And it was likely those less than "proper" libertarian ideals that has her often claimed to not be a feminists or a democrat. The occurrence of which at all sort of defines his point.

If you promote anti feminist rhetoric, and have actively voiced opposition to feminism, you are not then a feminist. If you disagree with the platform and policies of democrats you are not then a Democrat simply because you claim to be. People can claim to be all sorts of things all the time, that does not suddenly make them one any more than it would make you suddenly turn Jewish if you said you were but then run around telling everyone Jesus was the son of God. It is like saying " I am gay" but I am only attracted to the opposite sex. Saying you are something does not make it the truth when everything else you do shows otherwise.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here