I want to ask what you guys know about gamergate and you think of it. Personally I'm very much in favor of it because of a few reasons.
1. Lack of rational argument on the opposite side. I've look into the opposition to gamergate and what I see is 3 things. A lack of addressing the points about corruption and censorship that gamergate coalesced around. A lack of rational argument for their positions and evidence to back their claims. And a complete lack of argumentation in good faith. In fact I have been banned from 5 other subreddits simply for posting in the gamergate subreddits these include: /r/rape /r/offmychest /r/ gamer girl /r/ natural hair /r/ gamerghazi. Three with out ever making a single post their and the other 2 I made one post, both quite civil.
2. I fucking loathe censorship and corruption. You don't like a game? Go buy one you like. Can find games you like? Make one, do something positive. Don't try to censor developers that don't include enough people of color because the game is set in 15th century Bohemia (this happened with the upcoming kingdom come: deliverance) and don't charge people because they disagree with you on twitter, or fuck the people your reporting on with no disclosure (kotaku)
3. The otherside seeing people as collectives. An example of this was when a hashtag called not your shield was spawned and many anti gamergate people called them sockpuppets. This was a movement of women and minorities standing against censorship, and corruption in the media.
4. The fact that the threats received have not been linked to gamergate, and that none that I have seen so far even mention it.
5. The continued use of disproven facts to attack gamers. This has been going on since games got popular. First it was Satanism, then violence, now sexism. Now I won't deny that sexism exists in some gaming communities, mostly in the form of shit talking to get a rise out of people. Now the that games make people sexist runs in direct contradiction to the fact that in the same time frame that gsmes have become mainstream, violence agianst women, and violence as a whole has dropped quite significantly. Also a 2011 study called they could be bunny rabbits for all I care was targeted directly at minorities and lgbt people found that race, sex, and sexuality had little to do with the players ability to enjoy the game or relate to the character.

Your thoughts?

They suck and I hate them.

(March 4, 2016 at 5:09 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: They suck and I hate them.

Oh?

Gamer what?  Click...click click click click.  
-on global
"Ha! Wrecked nub, you suck at life, reroll" 
-on team comms 
"3 to spawn, time to dismantle the campwhores, we need a 105 upfront for this O-Ni" 

Yup. What began as a serious discussion about integrity in journalism rotted from the inside out by the social cancer that is the regressive left.

I'm against Gamer Gate, because it has absolutely NOTHING to do with ethics in journalism. They've had absolutely no problem with ethics in gaming journalism when it comes to AAA titles. It wasn't until indie developer Zoe Quinn was revealed to have had a relationship with someone who briefly mentioned her work (and not even while they were in a relationship) that they started screaming about CENSORSHIP (Which I'm not sure they understand the concept at all) Funny how the people who claim their movement is about censorship want to censor and silence women in the industry (especially when they criticize the industry over the portrayal of women. Apparently this is not censorship, but criticism apparently is). Most of their targets have been women too.

And the no-true scotsman fallacy applies here too. The movement may not have made any coordinated efforts to make threats (though it appears they have, at least from what I've read with sites set up specifically to attack Zoe Quinn and others, including listing her family's home address and phone number), but members of the movement have certainly issued threats. Among them: "Next time she shows up at a conference we … give her a crippling injury that’s never going to fully heal … a good solid injury to the knees. I’d say a brain damage, but we don’t want to make it so she ends up too retarded to fear us.”"

Essentially Gamergate is a bunch of people who think that freedom of speech means freedom from criticism. Much like religious people like freedom of religion means their religion is protected from criticism.

Is this going to be on the final?

(March 4, 2016 at 6:40 pm)Cecelia Wrote: I'm against Gamer Gate, because it has absolutely NOTHING to do with ethics in journalism. They've had absolutely no problem with ethics in gaming journalism when it comes to AAA titles. It wasn't until indie developer Zoe Quinn was revealed to have had a relationship with someone who briefly mentioned her work (and not even while they were in a relationship) that they started screaming about CENSORSHIP (Which I'm not sure they understand the concept at all) Funny how the people who claim their movement is about censorship want to censor and silence women in the industry (especially when they criticize the industry over the portrayal of women. Apparently this is not censorship, but criticism apparently is). Most of their targets have been women too.

And the no-true scotsman fallacy applies here too. The movement may not have made any coordinated efforts to make threats (though it appears they have, at least from what I've read with sites set up specifically to attack Zoe Quinn and others, including listing her family's home address and phone number), but members of the movement have certainly issued threats. Among them: "Next time she shows up at a conference we … give her a crippling injury that’s never going to fully heal … a good solid injury to the knees. I’d say a brain damage, but we don’t want to make it so she ends up too retarded to fear us.”"

Essentially Gamergate is a bunch of people who think that freedom of speech means freedom from criticism. Much like religious people like freedom of religion means their religion is protected from criticism.

I've been involved for a few weeks and that isn't what I've seen at all. Fact is I have seen a lot of wanting to move the conversation past her because she is irrelevant at this point. I would also disagree that no one has issues with corruption from AAA titles. There are three up right now that are active in the gamergate community, one is a active investigation into companies buying steam reviews, another is the active campaign against fire emblem fates for the localization butchery and another game being called for not allowing any reviewers pre-release access. Also none of the threats have actually been linked to gamergate or mention it, and a lot of it somewhat generic stuff like that sniper copy pasta that most internet personalities get. People on both sides have getting threats and in fact both kotaku in action and the hashtag are actively policed against such trolling. I'd also like links to those sites. Now to get into Zoe herself. She never came out with the relationship at all. It was her boyfriend at the time that outed her for cheating on him, and was collaborated by Nate greyson, the writer in question. Also worth pointing out that no one is calling for silencing women or forcing out of them out of the industry, what have heard is multiple calls for these people making threats to brought to justice, and a lot condemnation for john Kelly on the whole allison rapp thing. I highly recommend you look at the hashtag and Kotaku in action with your own eyes and see what is being discussed there and how it is being talked about.

(March 4, 2016 at 5:29 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Gamer what?  Click...click click click click.  
-on global
"Ha! Wrecked nub, you suck at life, reroll" 
-on team comms 
"3 to spawn, time to dismantle the campwhores, we need a 105 upfront for this O-Ni" 

You forgot the best whores, killmail whores. And logi with whore guns.

(March 4, 2016 at 10:55 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: I've been involved for a few weeks and that isn't what I've seen at all. Fact is I have seen a lot of wanting to move the conversation past her because she is irrelevant at this point. I would also disagree that no one has issues with corruption from AAA titles. There are three up right now that are active in the gamergate community, one is a active investigation into companies buying steam reviews, another is the active campaign against fire emblem fates for the localization butchery and another game being called for not allowing any reviewers pre-release access. Also none of the threats have actually been linked to gamergate or mention it, and a lot of it somewhat generic stuff like that sniper copy pasta that most internet personalities get. People on both sides have getting threats and in fact both kotaku in action and the hashtag are actively policed against such trolling. I'd also like links to those sites. Now to get into Zoe herself. She never came out with the relationship at all. It was her boyfriend at the time that outed her for cheating on him, and was collaborated by Nate greyson, the writer in question. Also worth pointing out that no one is calling for silencing women or forcing out of them out of the industry, what have heard is multiple calls for these people making threats to brought to justice, and a lot condemnation for john Kelly on the whole allison rapp thing. I highly recommend you look at the hashtag and Kotaku in action with your own eyes and see what is being discussed there and how it is being talked about.

I've seen it from the beginning.  It wasn't until the Zoe Quinn/Anita Sarkeesian stuff that GamerGate even started.  They say they care about Journalism ethics, but mainly they only care about when someone goes against their opinion.  Like when GamerGate pushed to have a woman fired over a review of GTAV which criticized the portrayal of women in the game.  That's not trying to silence women?  Really?  Especially when similar reviews done by men didn't get calls for them to be fired?  It's a clear example of gamergate trying to censor someone.  Over a view they don't agree with.

Why would Zoe need to come out with the relationship?  He never wrote a review for her game.  He only mentioned her before, and when he did--the two weren't in a relationship (Her ex-boyfriend admitted this). (Also it would be on HIM to announce this relationship if he did, which he didn't, yet he somehow gets a free pass while Zoe became the target, at least until Gamergate realized that people had caught on to their shit and decided it wasn't about her anymore, even though they continue to bring her up whenever they can)  Somehow Gamergate people ALWAYS neglect to mention this.  So why does she need to come out with the relationship?  Because she happens to be an indie developer?  What ethics did she violate?  Having a relationship with someone who happens to be a reviewer in the industry?  I mean that's not a violation if she's not asking for any favors.  That's not a violation when the guy didn't even write a review on her game.  It's mainly because she cheated on her boyfriend, which doesn't have a damn thing to do with gaming journalism ethics.  It's funny that GamerGaters mention ethics, but then either mislead people with the whole Zoe Quinn thing, or they move the goal posts and say that she was mentioned by him favorably (you know, during a time before she actually had a relationship with him)

People who are genuinely concerned with Journalism Ethics in Video Gaming (ACTUAL cases of ethic violations, and not non-existant ones like the Zoe Quinn case, and yes I realize GamerGate would like everyone to forget who Zoe Quinn is, except that they keep bringing her up and defending their actions) would be better off starting an entirely new movement.   Maybe one based around an actual controversy this time.