You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 06, 2016, 12:06:05 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Gamergate  (Read 4503 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline consortium11Topic starter

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #50 on: October 21, 2014, 03:43:29 PM »
*EDIT: Sorry, forgot to mention that there don't appear to be direct comment links on that page. Search for "Eliza" and the first hit is her.

Direct link here; seems you just linked from the wrong comment.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Gamergate
« Reply #51 on: October 21, 2014, 03:52:47 PM »
Both go to the top of the page for me, but I've updated the post. Thanks.

Offline consortium11Topic starter

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #52 on: October 22, 2014, 08:46:06 PM »
You have serious, legitimate concerns hopelessly intermingled with the delusional fantasies of a scorned and embarrassed ex-boyfriend.

I've generally resisted commentating on that aspect of the story (outside of decrying the abuse against her) because I don't want her to be involved; I think the whole thing would be better if Zoe Quinn was never mentioned in the context of Gamergate again and left to get on with her life and making games.

(Although I'm actually going to somewhat contradict myself further down in this reply...)

But I think this article should probably be necessary reading regardless. Just to give some context on the author, Philip Wythe is a social justice activist himself and is probably most notable for being one of the leaders of the movement to place trigger warnings on classic literature. And for those who don't want to read the entire article the basis of it is this; if you read Quinn's ex-boyfriends call-out it has all the classic signs of an abusive relationship... with the boyfriend being the abused. The use of terms like "the delusional fantasies of a scorned and embarrassed ex-boyfriend" is essentially shaming someone for calling out what appears to be an abuser (at least in that relationship). If the genders were reversed and it was a woman calling out an ex-boyfriend about the same things (remembering #listenandbelieve) would the coverage have been anywhere near as hostile?

If this argument is correct, that these things cannot be separated from it, then it is irresponsible to use the platform of gamergate to raise these serious issues.

Doing so risks two things.

1) The serious allegations that have been discovered become tainted by association with a flawed methodology and a hashtag of ill-repute thus allowing the guilty to escape justice.
2) The frivolous and libelous accusations that have been thrown about for personal reasons within the hashtag inherit legitimacy from the serious allegations thus causing the innocent to be punished.

At worst case, it's possible for both to occur.

The breaches of journalistic integrity you've mentioned are worth producing an expose upon and bringing to light. However it would be the height of irony for this exposure to be achieved through what would be in itself a breach of journalistic integrity.

I largely agree... but here's the thing.

The breaches of journalistic integrity I've mentioned have been brought to light. Through Gamergate. We can't suddenly stick them back in the box, pretend they haven't been discovered yet and then release them into the wild without any link to Gamergate. Steampunkette previously used the example of unethical medical research and it's actually a good one. The influenza vaccine (and to a lesser extent the polio vaccine) were both developed with the help of incredibly unethical and almost certain illegal practices. Yet we still used those vaccines despite their source and I think anyone saying that all the research should be thrown out, the vaccines destroyed and starting again would be laughed out of a room. Likewise with gynecology. Likewise with malaria pills. One can rightfully say that Thomas Francis, Jr was a deeply immoral man who did some horrific things in his search for the influenza vaccine while also using the vaccine he developed. The fact that some Gamergaters are nothing more than misogynists, abusers and trolls doesn't change the fact that through Gamergate breaches in journalistic ethics have been revealed.

So what do we do? Ignore the breaches in journalistic ethics because of the poisoned well? Give people a free pass? Pretend it never happened?

Or do we take both the good and the bad from Gamergate... decrying the abuse, looking at the investigation?

I'm trying to talk about the ethical concerns of using a hate movement, specifically one founded on a series of lies and hate-speech with the willful intent of creating attacks on women, to try and elevate a position discussing the ethics of other people.

I note you've put me on ignore (no worries) so you'll perhaps understand why I don't engage with your entire argument. But I do want to touch on one thing, for the benefit of everyone else as well.

The lie.

(This is where the contradiction mentioned above comes in).

It's been well established that the "Zoe Quinn slept with reviewer for good reviewer" or "Zoe Quinn's boyfriend reviewed her game and gave good review" narratives have been debunked; they may have been worth asking a question about early on but they were quickly disproved; the only people still harping on about the sex aspect are the abusers and trolls who unfortunately still appear.

But has everyone seen the credits on Depression Quest?

(You can play the game for free from the DQ website; it's an interactive fiction work and fairly quick to play if you just want to get to the credits to verify this point)

Because if you've seen the credits you'll see the name Nathan Grayson there listed amongst a group of people who the game would have been "dead in the water" without.

When this was brought up Zoe said Grayson was a tester. Grayson said he wasn't aware he was in the credits, wasn't a "tester" but he'd been sent an early build of the game, played it and sent some tips/recommendations/bugs to Quinn. In industry parlance that would generally be considered an alpha tester but the point here isn't the try to trap Grayson in a linguistic hole.

The point is that whatever we want to call it, Nathan Grayson assisted in the creation of the game enough for Zoe Quinn to think him worthy of credit. And then while back in his rockpapershotgun days, Nathan Grayson considered the game a "standout" and drew the readers attention to it within making any mention of his involvement, calling it a "powerful twine darling" (twine being the interactive fiction system the game was written on) and including a pun about the game as the title of the piece and using a screenshot from it as the picture for the article.

Now, you (using the universal you) may not think there's anything wrong with that (and I should note people are only really drawing attention to it now so more information should come out). But it's exactly the sort of issue that Gamergate has been interested in; journalists and developers essentially working hand in hand to build and promote games without declaring their connections or interests in a game. All it would have needed was a simple one line disclaimer ("For the record; I provided some alpha testing for a very early build of this game but haven't been involved since"). Isn't that a topic worthy of discussion?

In this case it has nothing to do with the eventual sexual relationship between Grayson and Quinn. It's entirely about his involvement with the games development. In truth I wish it wasn't Grayson or Quinn involved... I wish it was another case of Patricia Hernandez or some other journalist and developer... because the fact it's these two will inevitably bring back mentions of their eventual relationship. But the point remains. It appears Grayson had an interest in Depression Quest that he didn't declare... just not the one people originally dogpiled in about (and which was proven wrong).

It's still doing pretty much nothing for actual ethics issues, except where those ethics issues can be used in service of attacking women and their allies. This tells me that "journalistic ethics" is not their terminal goal.

The "and their allies" strikes me as being overly vague here.

Who has been the major target of Gamergate over the past week or so? Gawker, specifically editor in chief Max Read and journalist Sam Biddle. And they became targets not because Biddle, Read and Gawker put up a defence of Quinn, Anita etc or because Biddle, Read and Gawker set themselves up as anti-Gamergate. They did so because Biddle went on twitter (in the middle of anti-bullying month of all things) to talk about "bullying nerds" and why it was a good thing, then offered a clearly disingenuous "it was only a joke" defence which only became more clearly disingenuous when emails about the subject from within Gawker surfaced and with some of the more recent articles about it Gawker put up. Gamergate supporters have spent most of the week complaining to Gawkers advertisers about this and had a seemingly decent level of success doing so and possibly revealing more unethical practices (some of the companies listed on Gawker's partners page... now removed... say they weren't partners with Gawker and that Gawker were using their logos without permission which is a pretty big deal in the corporate world). I haven't seen a similar level of activism (for lack of a better word) coming from Gamergate against pretty much anyone else or any other company... hell, even Kotaku, while being owned by Gawker, isn't getting the same level of interest; they're targeting Gawker directly.

Is that Gamergate attacking an ally of women? I struggle to see it as being so.

And frankly... even if they do have a point? It's very, very hard to appreciate someone's nuanced positions on the finer points of socioeconomic theory while they're still punching you in the face.

Isn't this somewhat similar to the arguments people raise when they complain about "social justice warriors invading gaming"; that any good points they make are ruined by the fact that people think they imply that gamers and gaming is misogynist/racist/homophobic/bigoted etc etc. It's not a good argument when raised then and it doesn't strike me as a good argument now. The legitimate journalistic points about Gamergate may be combined in with the abuse but that doesn't mean one can't discover them or discuss them without having someone screaming "bitch!" in all caps or sending death threats... we are right here after all.

You ask where the actual movements for journalistic ethics are? I say "We need heroes? Build them." If you think this is an actual concern worth spending time and effort addressing, then do something about it without all the misogyny and hatred and abuse. It's costing the movement resources - both in creating these attacks and in deflecting criticism about them - and it's completely tanked any trust or credibility they ever could have earned. Even before you begin taking the first look at whether equality is, y'know, a good thing - even if literally your only concern is dealing with ethics issues in journalism - Gamergate is a toxic, festering pit that can do nothing but harm you. The only way to actually do something productive at this stage is to walk away from it and try building something useful.

And let's say people do walk away and do create something new and useful... how long before the "it's just Gamergate rehashed!" complaints begin if one of the issues focuses on a woman involved in the industry? We've already seen how people view the Gamergate tag as corrupted... a name change doesn't change that. What happens when this new and useful thing treads over the same grounds relating to integrity, challenging the same people on the same points (and in this case I'm refer to the integrity points not the abuse)? How long before people dismiss it as a "cynical rebranding". Moreover, how long till the abusers return and continue to abuse and troll... one can't control who attaches a hashtag to their twitter posts and one can't control who responds to one raising a journalistic ethics point by calling the person challenged a "hateful cunt" or hoping they get raped?

GamerGate will get my respect only when they start policing their own beyond the token "we're sorry about the bad apples, just ignore them!" when said bad apples have doxxed and harassed people out of their homes.  And overwhelmingly women who are transgender and/or have feminist views at that!

How do you police who uses a hashtag? How do you police who posts to an imageboard?

Do we demand the same standards of anti-gamergaters who have their own history of doxxing, harassment and death threats? After all, it was an anti-gamer gater who got one of the most prominent #notyourshield guys (a black developer himself... on that note it might be worth reading this entry by a black social justice advocate on gamergate; he's not exactly positive about those opposed to it and their actions) fired from his job. It was an anti-gamergater who doxxed someone and threatened to reveal their trans status to their family. It appears to be anti-gamergaters (or at least trolls) promoting the idea that the person involved in the current Parliament Hill shooting in Canada was done by someone wearing a Gamergate t-shirt, leaving an X-Box status referencing gamergate and a note talking about "SJW's". Personally I don't; I know that anyone can set up a reddit account go on either KiA or Gamerghazi and post whatever they want, put whatever hashtag they feel like after a tweet etc etc.

In the same way I don't think it's right to judge feminism by the TERF's, Muslims by ISIS, Christians by the Westboro Baptist Church or any other group merely by an element they have little to no control over, I don't judge either anti or pro gamergate supporters by the worst elements to claim alignment with them.

Let's also remember that Gamergaters have done a fair amount of active policing rather than just telling people to ignore them; the discovery and reporting of a Brazilian "journalist" (and I use the term loosely) who made a number of death threats to Anita combined with subsequently noticing and reporting his new twitter spam accounts being an obvious example.

On the "should we accept this person/group or not" point, I note there's been a genuine discussion within Gamergate about an offer to help from Return of Kings (a site which likes to think of itself as being about "alpha males" but all too often is simply misogyny and other bigoted traits) and several are pretty hesitant about the amount of attention Mike Cernovich is getting (who's been doxxed while I write this) for much the same reason. There's been even more discussion about some wanting to try to get Fox News involved and others being hugely opposed to it; again, how do you police who sticks #gamergate at the end of their tweets? While this is basically attacking people rather than the argument which I hate I'd also note that the anti-gamergate side has its own issues; Ian Miles Cheon and his nazism or Chris Kluwe (who may have done a lot of good speaking on gay rights but is still perfectly happy to make jokes about children being abused... and then used the "it was just a joke" defence... and seemingly knew about at best child abuse and at worst a child rape without reporting it) to name two. Or Gawker as a whole with its "let's no pay interns" thing. But as I say, that's not something I think is really important here... what matters is the argument and an argument stands or falls on its own feet, not the feet of those who support it.

Likewise on Gaymer X, it's worth noting where the attacks came from. Gaymer X essentially said "we don't want anything to do with any of this, although we think there are concerns on both sides, we accept that some gay gamers support Gamergate and we think it's wrong to exclude them, everyone is welcome". Then Christina Love (who remember is directly implicated in the journalistic ethics side of things because of her friend promoting her games) turned it into an "us or them" issue. Gaymer X themselves say that they got hatemail from both sides (as always I'm not going to whitewash the pro-Gamergate aspect... there is certainly abuse there).

The only reference I can find to Milo and Gaymer X with relation to this come after Gaymer X rejected/were pushed into rejecting Gamergate; there's nothing in Gaymer X's tweets or statements to implicate that Milo was involved in their decision (in fact they make it utterly clear it was pressure from anti-Gamergaters which made them change their position).
 

Offline Caehlim

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #53 on: October 23, 2014, 12:00:12 AM »
The use of terms like "the delusional fantasies of a scorned and embarrassed ex-boyfriend" is essentially shaming someone for calling out what appears to be an abuser (at least in that relationship).

You know those moments when you say something and are confident that you know what you're talking about, then on reflection realize that you actually know nothing about it at all and have simply internalized a lot of rumour and gossip that you've heard. Yeah... just realizing that I actually know nothing about those people's relationships beyond how it was described to me by someone else who had read some of the articles about this. I really shouldn't have commented on it without at least doing some more reading or research.

Quote
The breaches of journalistic integrity I've mentioned have been brought to light. Through Gamergate. We can't suddenly stick them back in the box, pretend they haven't been discovered yet and then release them into the wild without any link to Gamergate. Steampunkette previously used the example of unethical medical research and it's actually a good one.

I think it's a good analogy as well, and I would recommend using the same approach as science usually does. You replicate the results in an ethical fashion (i.e. confirm the story with independent sources), publish them in a peer-reviewed journal (or in this case a more respectable medium), acknowledge their original origin with whatever condemnation of the ethics of their origin is appropriate.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Gamergate
« Reply #54 on: October 23, 2014, 12:36:25 AM »
The "and their allies" strikes me as being overly vague here.

Who has been the major target of Gamergate over the past week or so? Gawker, specifically editor in chief Max Read and journalist Sam Biddle.
Okay. And the time leading up to that? This is the problem - there's way less legitimate action than harassment. It is, by any definition, a harassment movement that happens to include some legitimate concerns, not a legitimate movement that happens to have some harassment.

And they became targets not because Biddle, Read and Gawker put up a defence of Quinn, Anita etc or because Biddle, Read and Gawker set themselves up as anti-Gamergate. They did so because Biddle went on twitter (in the middle of anti-bullying month of all things) to talk about "bullying nerds" and why it was a good thing, then offered a clearly disingenuous "it was only a joke" defence which only became more clearly disingenuous when emails about the subject from within Gawker surfaced and with some of the more recent articles about it Gawker put up.

And you can clearly establish that this has nothing at all to do with them taking a strong and public anti-gamergate stance? You... might want to look at the context of those tweets before you make such a strong assertion. (This is not to say that that's the only motivation, but... it certainly isn't a non-factor. Again, I'm for actual honesty here.)

Is that Gamergate attacking an ally of women? I struggle to see it as being so.
Concurrent to that, there's also been an attack on the career of Rebecca Watson - who, again, is not associated with gaming, and not a journalist. By lying about her. Because she spoke out against an ethics breach. So... Yeah, they're still targeting women who dare to say things they don't like, often without even the fig leaf of "It's about ethics!"

Isn't this somewhat similar to the arguments people raise when they complain about "social justice warriors invading gaming"; that any good points they make are ruined by the fact that people think they imply that gamers and gaming is misogynist/racist/homophobic/bigoted etc etc. It's not a good argument when raised then and it doesn't strike me as a good argument now. The legitimate journalistic points about Gamergate may be combined in with the abuse but that doesn't mean one can't discover them or discuss them without having someone screaming "bitch!" in all caps or sending death threats... we are right here after all.
Two things: One, social justice warriors didn't invade anything. We were already here. Believe it or not, it's possible to want less sexist/racist/transphobic bullshit in games because you like games and want them to be better. This is literally the point of art critique. You know, the thing that Anita Sarkeesian was doing that earned her a mountain of death and rape threats and misogynistic insults. Two, the overwhelming majority of people who want social justice aren't saying that. They're saying that there are problematic elements - and that Gamergate is counterproductively making those elements look way bigger than they are.

And let's say people do walk away and do create something new and useful... how long before the "it's just Gamergate rehashed!" complaints begin if one of the issues focuses on a woman involved in the industry?
Pretty damn long if you, y'know, actually refuse to engage in vicious harassment and threats, and disavow and speak out against those who do such things. The reason this doesn't work with Gamergate is because most of their output from day 1 was anti-woman. The express purpose of a number of its founders and major players was anti-woman. Its output continues to include strong anti-woman elements that are in no way being repudiated.

We've already seen how people view the Gamergate tag as corrupted... a name change doesn't change that. What happens when this new and useful thing treads over the same grounds relating to integrity, challenging the same people on the same points (and in this case I'm refer to the integrity points not the abuse)? How long before people dismiss it as a "cynical rebranding". Moreover, how long till the abusers return and continue to abuse and troll... one can't control who attaches a hashtag to their twitter posts and one can't control who responds to one raising a journalistic ethics point by calling the person challenged a "hateful cunt" or hoping they get raped?
But you can direct the actions of the crowd in targeted campaigns, right? Maybe use that to make it clear that these people don't represent you or speak for you? You can't police a hashtag, but you can police who you stand against.

Do we demand the same standards of anti-gamergaters who have their own history of doxxing, harassment and death threats? After all, it was an anti-gamer gater who got one of the most prominent #notyourshield guys (a black developer himself... on that note it might be worth reading this entry by a black social justice advocate on gamergate; he's not exactly positive about those opposed to it and their actions) fired from his job. It was an anti-gamergater who doxxed someone and threatened to reveal their trans status to their family. It appears to be anti-gamergaters (or at least trolls) promoting the idea that the person involved in the current Parliament Hill shooting in Canada was done by someone wearing a Gamergate t-shirt, leaving an X-Box status referencing gamergate and a note talking about "SJW's". Personally I don't; I know that anyone can set up a reddit account go on either KiA or Gamerghazi and post whatever they want, put whatever hashtag they feel like after a tweet etc etc.
Gamergate is an at-least-somewhat organized campaign with central gathering points and staging grounds - which are still being used to run anti-woman attacks. The response to it is not. So no, you can't expect to see the same type of concerted repudiation - though, yet again, as an individual who stands against Gamergate but has no connection to others doing the same, I will again reject all of those practices as, frankly, disgusting and horrifying.


In the same way I don't think it's right to judge feminism by the TERF's, Muslims by ISIS, Christians by the Westboro Baptist Church or any other group merely by an element they have little to no control over, I don't judge either anti or pro gamergate supporters by the worst elements to claim alignment with them.
And I'm not saying to judge it by the worst. I'm saying to judge it by the bulk, and by the major influences.. And it appears that the bulk of Gamergate output has been harassment, intimidation, lies, coverups, and distractions, and a lot of its early influences made their anti-woman position clear.

Let's also remember that Gamergaters have done a fair amount of active policing rather than just telling people to ignore them; the discovery and reporting of a Brazilian "journalist" (and I use the term loosely) who made a number of death threats to Anita combined with subsequently noticing and reporting his new twitter spam accounts being an obvious example.
A "fair amount" would be to at least shut it down in places where Gamergaters gather and have tools to do so (like, say KiA), speak against it when it comes out on issues they're speaking on already, etc. Not to report some guy to authorities who have no jurisdiction over him.

On the "should we accept this person/group or not" point, I note there's been a genuine discussion within Gamergate about an offer to help from Return of Kings (a site which likes to think of itself as being about "alpha males" but all too often is simply misogyny and other bigoted traits) and several are pretty hesitant about the amount of attention Mike Cernovich is getting (who's been doxxed while I write this) for much the same reason. There's been even more discussion about some wanting to try to get Fox News involved and others being hugely opposed to it; again, how do you police who sticks #gamergate at the end of their tweets? While this is basically attacking people rather than the argument which I hate I'd also note that the anti-gamergate side has its own issues; Ian Miles Cheon and his nazism or Chris Kluwe (who may have done a lot of good speaking on gay rights but is still perfectly happy to make jokes about children being abused... and then used the "it was just a joke" defence... and seemingly knew about at best child abuse and at worst a child rape without reporting it) to name two. Or Gawker as a whole with its "let's no pay interns" thing. But as I say, that's not something I think is really important here... what matters is the argument and an argument stands or falls on its own feet, not the feet of those who support it.
But here's the thing: There being no antiGamergate movement, just speaking against Gamergate does not mean standing with those people. There being a coordinated Gamergate movement, speaking under the Gamergate banner necessarily means standing by A Voice For Men - at least, as long as Paul Elam and his supporters are an accepted and unchallenged part of that movement.

You are drawing false equivalence, pretending that there is literally no coordination or planning at any level for Gamergate and therefore it's the same as the response to it. This is not true.

ETA: You've hammered pretty hard on the "How do you police a leaderless movement?" point. How about we invert the question: There have been leaderless movements before. They haven't had this problem. Why is Gamergate waist deep in a cesspool of misogyny and lies?
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 02:20:35 AM by Ephiral »

Offline Shjade

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #55 on: October 23, 2014, 03:08:50 AM »
I think it's a good analogy as well, and I would recommend using the same approach as science usually does. You replicate the results in an ethical fashion (i.e. confirm the story with independent sources), publish them in a peer-reviewed journal (or in this case a more respectable medium), acknowledge their original origin with whatever condemnation of the ethics of their origin is appropriate.

Problem: where the hell are you going to find "independent sources" worth a damn who haven't already covered the "GG is harassment" angle at this point? It's been going for coming up on three months now.

There are a lot of things that could have been done to resolve/improve this shitstorm. Trouble is, a lot of them probably needed to happen in September, or earlier; it's too late for a lot of things at this point.

Offline Slywyn

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #56 on: October 23, 2014, 02:17:57 PM »
http://gawker.com/felicia-day-says-shes-afraid-of-gamergate-immediately-1649790900

Quote
Actress and geek icon Felicia Day had stayed relatively silent about #Gamergate, the anti-feminist troll mob that's been targeting women in gaming for the past two months. But on Wednesday, she expressed her worst fears about the movement: That if she spoke up against it, her personal information would be spread on the internet.

"Personally I am terrified to be doxxed for even typing the words "gamergate." I have had stalkers and restraining orders issued in the past, I have had people show up on my doorstep when my personal information was hard to get," she wrote.

She had good reason to worry. Shortly after her post "The Only Thing I Have to Say About Gamer Gate" went up on Tumblr, "a commenter with the username 'gaimerg8' posted what they claimed was her address and personal email in the comment section," the Guardian reported.

The comment has since been deleted, and the comment section has been shut down entirely.

Gamergate supporters continue to insist they aren't specifically targeting women, even as they harass them and drive them from their homes.

The cognitive dissonance is galling to some of the campaign's most vocal critics. Chris Kluwe, the ex-NFL kicker and avid gamer who recently condemned Gamergaters as a pack of "slopebrowed weaseldicks," tweeted, "And for the record, none of you fucking #Gamergate tools tried to dox me, even after I tore you a new one. I'm not even a tough target. Instead, you go after a woman who wrote why your movement concerns her. Fuck #Gamergate and anyone aligned with it."

Those most affected by #Gamergate have been women. Developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu and game critic Anita Sarkeesian have all written about leaving their homes after having their addresses published online and receiving death threats.

Day hasn't tweeted since her Tumblr post went up.

But, you know. Gamergate isn't at all about targetting women. Not at all.

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/21/chris_kluwe_i_hope_you_all_every_gamergater_picks_up_a_debilitating_case_of_genital_warts/

Quote
Chris Kluwe, former punter for the Minnesota Vikings and outspoken cultural critic, wrote a scathing takedown of #Gamergate and the gamers involved. (I’d personally love to carefully curate each creative insult, hilarious alliteration and blistering description.)

First, what is #Gamergate? Kluwe has one of the better, more succinct descriptions of this “scandal” in the gaming community. Among other things, #Gamgergate has revealed a simmering cesspool of misogyny and anger, which has resulted in death threats made against female developers and cultural critics like Anita Sarkeesian. Kluwe describes:

Quote
“#Gamergate, for those unaware, is what happened a bit over a month ago, where an angry neckbeard posted demonstrably false allegations about his ex-girlfriend, claiming she slept with video game site reviewers for better scores for her games (again, demonstrably false), and then a whole bunch of other angry neckbeards on the Internet went full Denis Dyack and spitfrothed themselves into national attention by making an array of threats on numerous female game developers, including ones about their death, tried to hide behind a shield of ‘it’s about journalistic ethics because they said gamers are dead,’ and generally proved why the Internet needs to be burned to the ground and the ashes salted. If you’re curious about the details, here’s a good background link.”

With the inflammatory speech, this is the exact takedown the entire #Gamergate community deserves. However, looking beyond the spectacular insults, Kluwe makes some excellent points about the entire issue.

Kluwe isn’t very fond of the #Gamergaters, whom he describes as “a blithering collection of wannabe Wikipedia philosophers, drunk on your own buzzwords, incapable of forming an original thought.” Kluwe takes issue with them because he is a gamer.

“I’ve been made fun of by the jocks, even when I was on the football team,” Kluwe writes. “Gaming is part of who I am, I can promise you that.”

And Kluwe dislikes all the misogyny and name calling and “tantrum throwing” because he is glad that “gamers are dead”:

“Thus, when I see an article titled “Gamers are dead,” referring to the death of the popular trope of a pasty young man in a dimly lit room, it fills me with joy, because it means WE FUCKING WON. So many people are playing games now that they are popular culture. They are not going away. All sorts of cool things, that I like, are now things that a whole bunch of other people like! There’s enough space now for people to make games that are strange and disturbing and maybe highlight a different perspective of the world, because gaming is no longer a niche activity, it’s something that everybody does. There is room for art in video games. That’s awesome!

Quote
“You slopebrowed weaseldicks with zero reading comprehension and even less critical thinking skills who think an article claiming ‘Gamers are dead’ is something bad? Fuck me sideways with a sandblaster.”

Point taken. Kluwe also tears down the knee-jerk, terrifying misogynistic component that has come to define #Gamergate, which he describes as such:

Quote
“a) Making misogynistic threats against a wide variety of female game developers and critics because somehow they’re going to keep games you enjoy from ever being made again”

or

b) Being stupid enough to get sucked in by people busy making misogynistic threats against a wide variety of female game developers and critics, and supporting their idiotic crusade for the dumbing down of everyone everywhere ever.”

Beyond the fact that treating other humans this way is terrible, Kluwe does not want gamers associated with death threats, which forced founder of Feminist Frequency Anita Sarkeesian to cancel an event at Utah State University, or with incessant harassment of female developers.

“When people think of ‘gamers,’ I want them to think of Child’s Play, and athletes who play competitive League of Legends, and all the normalization we’ve accomplished over the years,” Kluwe states.

Quote
“I want them to think of feminism, and games as an art form — something more than mass entertainment. I want them to think of all the amazing things that video games have done, and can do, because that means we get to keep playing more games.”

The biggest threat to #Gamergaters, according to Kluwe? Themselves.

Quote
“You, #Gamergaters, with your bilious Internet rage, you think you’re speaking for some core demographic, some historic legacy, but you’re not. You’re speaking for a lie trapped inside your mind; a lie that one somehow has to be “hardcore” in order to appreciate games; a lie formed by social ineptitude and too much time spent picturing yourself as the only creature that matters in the universe. A lie about male power and privilege, and how dare those women try to ruin your fun? (No matter whose expense you’re having it at). The lie you tell yourselves is one completely incapable of recognizing just how far society has come — that equality is important, and that the tech industry has been misogynistic for a very long time, and that we need to change that, and we’re in the process of doing so, despite the mouthvomits you like to pretend are logical trains of thought.”

In terms of ethics in gaming journalism Kluwe makes this point:

Quote
“In fact, #Gamergaters, if your concern really was ethics, the very first thing you would be saying about this whole mess is, ‘Holy shit, get these fucking misogynistic creeps away from us. Let’s find a different hashtag to assemble under RIGHT FUCKING NOW.’ You’d be doing everything in your power to make sure the legitimate cause you’re concerned about wasn’t hijacked or used as a shield by those with no other agenda than to make women and minorities afraid, simply because they can. You wouldn’t defend the oppression of someone simply based on their gender (because let’s be real honest here, I haven’t seen a single #Gamergater go after Activision, or Ubisoft, or Rockstar), and you definitely wouldn’t concoct ever-more wild conspiracy theories to support your increasingly flawed view of reality.”

“I’ve spent too long as a gamer, seen too much progress made, to let you tarnish that name,” Kluwe concludes. “I hope you all, every #Gamergater, picks up a debilitating case of genital warts. The rest of you — find a different hashtag.”

For comparison, this is what a guy wrote about Gamergate. And what happened to him? Absolutely nothing at all.

Felica Day posts about how she doesn't want to talk about it, gets attacked. A guy VICIOUSLY attacks Gamergate? Nothing.

So, you know, tell us some more about how GamerGate isn't targetting women. Please.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Gamergate
« Reply #57 on: October 23, 2014, 07:22:13 PM »
What's more, Felicia Day, supporter of gaming says she doesn't want to post about this because being doxxed will put her in real physical danger, and... yeah.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Gamergate
« Reply #58 on: October 23, 2014, 07:24:32 PM »
           Actually I can't decide if this goes better here or in the thread about firearms and Utah State.  But I think this does have something to do with the conversation about whether the group tends to keep producing threats as a sort of institutional purpose or tendency...  Or at least, whether and how people are able to recognize or talk about that in various circles.

           There is a rather interesting column now by Branko Marcetic in Salon.  I would say it actually has a few points. 

           Some of them, while related, are more using treatment of Islam lately as counterpoint -- thus, spoilered at the end for now.

1.  The sort of threats posed, multiple times already, by various people who have gathered around Gamergate, should be considered terrorism as much as any jihad ideology-related attack or pattern of threat.  At least, he would specify, for threats against civilians - though I'm a little dubious myself about just how broadly useful that distinction would be.

2.  Re #1, they often are not reported as such in our media.  They tend to be cast as merely about "death" or "murder," but not described as terrorism.  But oh hey, these are often young white guys and largely American-born citizens to boot?  If they're just domestic conservatives, it can't be reported as terrorism if they call up and threaten attacks with guns and pipe bombs on a specific location?  Or if they threaten to attack someone in their home over political speech? 
----
          Or...  Much in the same vein I might add, is the scope of the word "terrorism" now obviously too terrible to be applied to the Good Ol' Boys (represented here by certain very vocal young gamer cliques with often similar or offshoot ideologies)...  After all, it gives the police all sorts of dubiously constitutional powers if one buys that someone is really a terrorist.  But somehow this is at the same time not too awful a word to apply to Others like Muslims.  Or even -- among the GOB's and their more misogynist or paranoid kids -- it might still be okay for them to apply it to those feminists, speakers against rape culture at large, perhaps also affirmative action supporters, etc. or whoever they wish to silence?  Quite regardless of whether the fight is over say, who is threatening to use a bomb - and who is currently and already being treated as lesser or intimidated in public space. 

There's more to the column. 
But the rest take this all more into where discussion of armed rightists, and discussion of views of Islam and Muslims overlap.

3.  It's become in fashion for some to claim Islam itself and generally is somehow a hotbed of terrorist ideas.  On another level, in fact the government has been profiling, infiltrating and monitoring based on race and religion with a particular suspicion of Muslim communities at least (or if you prefer, especially) since 2001.  Yet there is less open scrutiny of largely White, and often enough male, conservative groups with ideologies that tend toward violence or quite vocal and active preparation for it (sometimes including violence against civilians). 

4.  Perhaps it is tricky to pin down exactly how many people in a given demographic are likely to be involved in terrorism or conspiracy with any real operational direction (I'm not much into chasing thought crimes myself)...  But there is certainly a double standard in both these folk movements against Islam qua anything Muslim generally and the institutional profiling and policing of (mostly) Muslims since 2001.  We have already seen how many conservatives get riled up if the government even mentions in documentation that it needs to be more active in chasing down right-wing armed and groups who often do make open claims of some interest in violence.  But oh, how many of the same speakers want us to believe there is some vast, sweeping faceless evil that permeates much of Muslim society left and right and cannot be understood or traced to social causes and international history -- because that might distract us from demonizing whole peoples and incarcerating without charge or intervening endlessly in foreign territory?

         

« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 07:49:14 PM by kylie »

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Gamergate
« Reply #59 on: October 23, 2014, 08:32:44 PM »
Yes, you've got it - "terrorist" only applies to Them, not to Us. Even if We are currently engaging in a campaign of violence and threats against civilians to incite fear and force political outcomes. Case in point: I recently saw an article that called the recent attack on Parliament Hill the first terror attack in Canada, and later mention the FLQ crisis with no apparent understanding of the contradiction.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Gamergate
« Reply #60 on: October 23, 2014, 08:43:50 PM »
Case in point: I recently saw an article that called the recent attack on Parliament Hill the first terror attack in Canada, and later mention the FLQ crisis with no apparent understanding of the contradiction.

Translation for those south of the Great Lakes
A kidnapping of two government officials by the Front de libération du Québec in 1970, with the purported aim of obtaining the independence of Quebec.  Only time that the War Measures Act has been used in Canada during peacetime.

Offline Shjade

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #61 on: October 23, 2014, 11:20:22 PM »
For comparison, this is what a guy wrote about Gamergate. And what happened to him? Absolutely nothing at all.

Felica Day posts about how she doesn't want to talk about it, gets attacked. A guy VICIOUSLY attacks Gamergate? Nothing.

So, you know, tell us some more about how GamerGate isn't targetting women. Please.

Devil's advocate: doesn't this pattern actually suggest the threats are just coming from misogynists in general rather than anything to do with Gamergate, since they're attacking women consistently but GG's opposition only when it happens to coincide with a female target?

(I feel like I should note, I don't support the GG tag at all. It's just surrounded by too much bile to feel useful to me. However, I think attributing any and all attacks seemingly related to the topic to GG specifically shows a kind of tunnel vision that's detrimental to considering the situation in a reasonable fashion.)
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 11:22:43 PM by Shjade »

Offline Slywyn

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #62 on: October 24, 2014, 01:17:45 AM »
This is how I feel when someone says that: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_sake_of_argument.png

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Gamergate
« Reply #63 on: October 24, 2014, 01:42:55 AM »
Devil's advocate: doesn't this pattern actually suggest the threats are just coming from misogynists in general rather than anything to do with Gamergate, since they're attacking women consistently but GG's opposition only when it happens to coincide with a female target?

(I feel like I should note, I don't support the GG tag at all. It's just surrounded by too much bile to feel useful to me. However, I think attributing any and all attacks seemingly related to the topic to GG specifically shows a kind of tunnel vision that's detrimental to considering the situation in a reasonable fashion.)
When they do so under the Gamergate banner, and Gamergate as a whole does nothing to repudiate them, then these women are Gamergate targets. No True Scotsman won't get you out of this.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Gamergate
« Reply #64 on: October 24, 2014, 06:54:13 AM »
At the very least, it gives the impression that the 'true' Gamergaters don't give a crap.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #65 on: October 24, 2014, 10:46:45 AM »
My take on this...

-There are relevant points on both sides.
-There are clear threats being put out.

Why I don't back the 'guy side'
-While they have some relevant points, some have done vile things. Cyberstalking folks for disagreeing with you? Oh you lose my backing there.
-Guys..the industry is big enough for everyone. You don't like a game.. don't buy it. 'Vote with your dollars'.


Bluntly put.. you don't police your sides actions, you can't deny them.

And till someone on the 'guy side' does that.. I'm not buying any of what they are selling. Sorry. The game industry is big enough for everyone. Money talks and truth be told while I like some shoot em ups.. I also like seeing things more 'balanced'.

Additionally:
I have a lot friends who just happen to be female who are gamers, and who I'd kill to protect. I got friends who are too fragile to deal with the sort of stress these griefers put on a person. I have a niece who is a bit of a gamer, and I'd kneecap some foul troll who did half the crap these guys have done to folks that publicly state what they are entitled to. Their opinion.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 10:59:28 AM by Callie Del Noire »

Offline Shjade

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #66 on: October 24, 2014, 03:56:51 PM »
When they do so under the Gamergate banner, and Gamergate as a whole does nothing to repudiate them, then these women are Gamergate targets. No True Scotsman won't get you out of this.

They did it under the Gamergate banner? All I've seen on the subject is Felicia was doxxed, not by whom or even where it happened.

Also, No True Scotsman doesn't matter to me - I'm not a Gamergate supporter. I'm simply pointing out that, in all the fervor to damn GG for every crime under the sun that happens around this issue, it seems like people are willfully overlooking other possibilities that explain events just as well.

To put it another way: GGers aren't the only ones who appear to be ignoring explanations that don't fit their beliefs.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Gamergate
« Reply #67 on: October 24, 2014, 08:06:16 PM »
It happened in the comments thread of the very article in which she explained why this was actually a real danger to her, under the username "gaimerg8". Please spend 30 seconds on Google before you sling accusations.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Gamergate
« Reply #68 on: October 24, 2014, 09:39:56 PM »
Quote from: Callie
Additionally:
I have a lot friends who just happen to be female who are gamers, and who I'd kill to protect. I got friends who are too fragile to deal with the sort of stress these griefers put on a person. I have a niece who is a bit of a gamer, and I'd kneecap some foul troll who did half the crap these guys have done to folks that publicly state what they are entitled to. Their opinion.

         I haven't spent time poking around the site to check...  But this is the sort of impression I'm getting from reading talk and reports about it:  Maybe if even a larger fraction of the people frequently posting there would take the time to say things like this more often, then it would be easier to imagine that the community on the whole could, at least maybe, actually pursue some more balanced agenda of merit. 

         But instead, the reports appear to be that very few people speak up or demand the community mount any position or response beyond the vague, legalistic and general disclaimers the site already has.  When someone goes off threatening someone very specifically and even using things like physical addresses or mention of major crimes and weapons, there's very little opposed reaction on the site.  (Or is the reaction that's there, even often praising that sort of thing and seeing it as a pleasant brotherly banter?)  I'm getting the impression that's both on the community site itself, and in the broader and foggier "hashtag" community out there dragging out the name. 

        And while I imagine what goes on in various places under the hashtag might be rather more nebulous and sometimes more craven, that tag is also I think, implying it should be treated as "a big thing" with some sort of 'community' oriented political purpose under the same name.  Even if it may not totally overlap with all of the Gamergate site community?  So there's a problem on two levels:  1)  Any original balance the site might have had, is now terribly hard to see through all people have done in its name both on and off-site, and  2)  the "home" community as it were does not sound so strongly interested (as a group) in taking back a more balanced profile for its name either.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 09:44:36 PM by kylie »

Offline Shjade

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #69 on: October 25, 2014, 02:51:42 AM »
It happened in the comments thread of the very article in which she explained why this was actually a real danger to her, under the username "gaimerg8". Please spend 30 seconds on Google before you sling accusations.

If you would kindly point out where, in any of my recent posts, I made any accusations about anything toward anyone, I'd appreciate it.

I spent more than 30 seconds on Google when it happened looking for more than people saying it happened and didn't find anything, so thanks for the update despite the unfriendly delivery.

Offline Skynet

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #70 on: October 25, 2014, 01:23:12 PM »
They did it under the Gamergate banner? All I've seen on the subject is Felicia was doxxed, not by whom or even where it happened.

Well, it happened within minutes of her expressing concerns about her welfare for speaking about GamerGate, so I kind of think that that's related.  Nevermind that the ex-football player Chris Kluwe said far worse things about GamerGate and did not get doxxed or threatened.

So I'd take an educated guess that the doxxers are misogynists using the climate of fear to their advantage to silence female critics, whether or not they believe in GamerGate's warped understanding of journalistic ethics.  Which kind of makes them no different than the original GGers who organized the personal vendetta against Zoe Quinn in the 4chan IRC logs.

Edit: Newsweek paid a media research company to do number-crunching on GamerGate tweets to see what the majority of advocates talk about.  The data shows that they tweet far more often about critics in the gaming world and game developers than the journalists they supposedly want scrutinized.  The women critics receive 14 times as much negative Tweets as their male counterparts, but I'm sure this is just an incredibly strange coincidence that has nothing to do with misogyny. ::)

GamerGate's most popular talking points

« Last Edit: October 25, 2014, 01:37:19 PM by Skynet »

Offline Shjade

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #71 on: October 25, 2014, 03:59:34 PM »
On the one hand, those all sound like solid suppositions to make.

On the other, it seems like a chicken-egg thing: are those women being talked about the most because they're the targets, or are they targeted because they're talked about the most? Pretty much ALL coverage of this stuff has been about threats and harassed women, so it stands to reason that's where the conversation would sit regardless of the intent at this point. Also keep in mind people against GamerGate also use the tag in their tweets, and since pretty much all those people tend to be talking about are instances of harassment and reminding people "this is what GamerGate is about" etc., that'd tilt things considerably in the direction of that topic as well (unless your graph there takes that into account already somehow? someone parse every tagged tweet for content, or was it just a word search?).

Regarding Felicia vs Chris in particular, maybe I don't know as much about trolls as I think I do, but I'm pretty sure a timid, "soft" target seems like a perfect one to fire at, whereas Kluwe's latest piece basically is him raging already, so all you'd really have to say to it is, "u mad?" and your job is done. 'Cause really, how much more could you possibly piss him off? Not trying to say gender's a non-factor, just that it's probably not the only one, at least not in that specific instance.

All I'm trying to say is having an open mind isn't a terrible idea. Is it all bullshit excuses to hate on women? Probably, at least for some portion of their group. Is that any reason to become single-minded in thinking about it? I don't think so. But that's just me.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Gamergate
« Reply #72 on: October 25, 2014, 05:41:17 PM »
If you would kindly point out where, in any of my recent posts, I made any accusations about anything toward anyone, I'd appreciate it.

I'm simply pointing out that, in all the fervor to damn GG for every crime under the sun that happens around this issue, it seems like people are willfully overlooking other possibilities that explain events just as well.

To put it another way: GGers aren't the only ones who appear to be ignoring explanations that don't fit their beliefs.
Given that this was a response to me stating the facts, in a post questioning those facts, the accusation is clear despite your passive-aggressive waffling.

I spent more than 30 seconds on Google when it happened looking for more than people saying it happened and didn't find anything, so thanks for the update despite the unfriendly delivery.
This information was above the fold in a search for "felicia day doxxed". Considering that I simply stated facts and pointed out that the info in question can be had in under a minute using the most obvious search terms possible, while you decided to sling passive-aggressive accusations based in ignorance... you calling me "unfriendly" is more than slightly hypocritical.



On the one hand, those all sound like solid suppositions to make.

On the other, it seems like a chicken-egg thing: are those women being talked about the most because they're the targets, or are they targeted because they're talked about the most? Pretty much ALL coverage of this stuff has been about threats and harassed women, so it stands to reason that's where the conversation would sit regardless of the intent at this point. Also keep in mind people against GamerGate also use the tag in their tweets, and since pretty much all those people tend to be talking about are instances of harassment and reminding people "this is what GamerGate is about" etc., that'd tilt things considerably in the direction of that topic as well (unless your graph there takes that into account already somehow? someone parse every tagged tweet for content, or was it just a word search?).
You're right! That's quite a conundrum. If only there were some way to resolve it - like, say, evidence that some of them were targeted from pretty much moment one. Or maybe a preexisting harassment campaign, started the moment a relatively low-profile woman announced that she would be talking about video games and feminism, which Gamergate gleefully jumped on board with? Or maybe a comparison between when someone became a topic and when the rape and death threats started. If only!

Regarding Felicia vs Chris in particular, maybe I don't know as much about trolls as I think I do, but I'm pretty sure a timid, "soft" target seems like a perfect one to fire at, whereas Kluwe's latest piece basically is him raging already, so all you'd really have to say to it is, "u mad?" and your job is done. 'Cause really, how much more could you possibly piss him off? Not trying to say gender's a non-factor, just that it's probably not the only one, at least not in that specific instance.
There's an easy way to test this hypothesis: Find a woman who takes a hard-line stance and gets ignored. Find a man who takes a mild stance and gets threats of rape and death. If you can do this, there may be some validity; now let's look for the pattern. If you can't, that's pretty strong disconfirmation.

I can't; can you?

All I'm trying to say is having an open mind isn't a terrible idea. Is it all bullshit excuses to hate on women? Probably, at least for some portion of their group. Is that any reason to become single-minded in thinking about it? I don't think so. But that's just me.
There's a point where you've opened your mind so much your brains fall out. What you're arguing here is the modern-day equivalent of "At least Mussolini made the trains run on time."
[/quote]

Offline Shjade

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #73 on: October 25, 2014, 05:59:50 PM »
It's not even close to that, but it's pretty clear you're more interested in taking it out on me than talking about it, so I think I'll just leave you to your fuming. Thanks anyway.

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Gamergate
« Reply #74 on: October 25, 2014, 06:14:58 PM »
Englishman, Irishman and a Scotsman walk in to a bar.

Barman says "Is this some sort of joke"

"Bu-dum" and indeed "ching".