Demonization of Moviebob and other Escapist Staff

[Velventian]

Ok let me just start by saying that the vast majority of "abuse" perpetrated by our said has been made up out of whole cloth. Almost every single case of doxxing can be proved false. For instance, Devin Faraci "doxxed" a guy who's purported name was Winky Dinky and his email was [email protected], and even though he checked off for anonymity (just to fuck with him) I think it's safe to say that the guy's personal information is safe. Oh, and if you can police your own why can't Zoe Quinn go home yet? Why are her parents still getting calls yelling that their daughter is a whore? How come people (all of them women) have been driven out of the industry because they couldn't handle the abuse? Oh wait, there was one guy. His name was Phil Phish and you guys doxxed him and harrassed him and he quit the business again because of it! How can you say you've got this under control!?!

And just because you say that the abuse from your side was made up suddenly makes that statement true, well guess what, the abuse from our side was made up too!! What a coincidence!
And Devin Faraci doxxed something like 4 or 5 people by now, winky dinky was one of the last which already knew that faraci was gonna dox them. The first one didn´t know and supplied his real name and got doxxed!
And zoe herself doxxed several people over time.
Phil fish has been an utter asshole towards gamers from the very start of his public existence so don´t make him out as the poor little victim.
As long as zoe quins parents don´t live in a closed down motorbike shop in Hawaii i doubt the have been doxxed. Cause that was the address "of her parents" that has been doxxed.

And you just proof my point, when people on your side get insulted or doxxed its horrible. But if your side doxxes someone its somehow justified.
You will always spin the narrative to make us out as the villains cause that the only way you can use the methods of a villain without having to admit that you are one yourself.

If you honestly ask "why don´t you have them under control" you are either playing very very dumb or have absolutely no idea how the internet works. It would be the same as asking you why you didn´t stop zoe quinn from sleeping with nathan grayson...

 

[Netrigan]

And if jim is even half as smart as he claims to be he should know that those 80% blind consumers will never roar, at best they will just stop playing games and we will have another big games crash. So jim at least would have to listen gamergate more closely just to make sure. He might be in the right now with his very distanced pseudo neutral position but if this thing turns sour he will have utterly failed his audience.

Companies do listen. They may not do anything about it, but they are listening. They can be swayed, if only because they don't want mainstream media to pick up on a particular controversy. They want to be the ones framing the narrative; they don't want their marketing efforts derailed by a small gamer uprising that gets reported higher up the chain.

And largely it serves the purpose of producing enough content to keep eyes on the Press Release News coverage which is the reason why Enthusiast Press exists in the first place... Journalistic Ethics, who cares; they've got an exclusive sneak peak for the Halo game. Largely that's what drives fans to sites such as this in the first place, wanting to know more about what's coming out and maybe checking out their reviews to see if a game is worth buying.

Advanced users are the ones who take this opportunity to complain about how much your review sucks

 

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

During the worst of his Twitter-outburst in wake of the #GamerGate/Quinnspiracy/whatever mess, Bob exposed himself as every bit as unsavory the very worst people he rails against. A real low point was his retweeting of a tweet from Devin Faraci (whom he basically idolizes) where the latter made fun of a Youtuber named boogie2988 for absolutely no reason, only for the both of them (Bob and Faraci) to tiptoe around or outright deny the fact that they attacked him.

Could somebody give me some links to these attacks? I know that they apparently got into a fight but all I've seen was Bob saying that he liked Boogie but was disappointed in him.

It started with this tweet from Devin Faraci:

https://twitter.com/devincf/status/505495442994380800

Which Bob retweeted, and when people called him out on his BS he avoided owning up to it by saying this:

https://twitter.com/the_moviebob/status/505542119906627584

Personally, I found it fascinating to see otherwise blunt-as-hell guys like Bob and Faraci play the "Teehee, I didn't actually mean it like that! What gave you that idea [other than the entire context]?-card.

EDIT:

In addition to that, Bob also seems rather indifferent to the fact that Jack Thompson also received death threats and harassment for voicing his objections with gaming.

There was a very real possibility that figures like Jack Thompson were going to convince actual legal authorities to restrict or otherwise ''clamp down'' on video-game violence and the like, and only by assembling into a single unified front and pushing back were we able to hold it back from happening.

...

I think that was necessary at the time, in the same way that I think sometimes ?civil disobedience? protests about far more important things DO have to break a window or vandalize a wall sometimes to get the point across: It was a ?war,? at least as much of one as the situation could allow, we did what we had to do at the time.

So I wonder, where was the widespread outrage when Jack Thompson was receiving death threats? Most of us agree that the harassment of Sarkeesian is bad and wrong, but why didn't the gaming community extend the same basic decency to Jack Thompson?

 

[Netrigan]

So I wonder, where was the widespread outrage when Jack Thompson was receiving death threats? Most of us agree that the harassment of Sarkeesian is bad and wrong, but why didn't the gaming community extend the same basic decency to Jack Thompson?

As someone who has pulled this trick quite a few times... trying to flip these things almost never comes across as clever as you think it does. People recognize the bait in the trap, set up their own trap & bait, and you end up being "clever" at each other when everyone knows the freakin' answer.

In this case, there was absolutely no doubt that Thompson was a censor and any idiot who made a death threat against him deserves everything they would have had coming to them if they got caught. But no one is going to shed crocodile tears for him.

With Sarkeesian, many of us firmly believe she is nothing more than a Social Critic. We reject your comparison to Jack Thompson because we have a fundamental disagreement about who and what she is. To you, she's a secret censor. I and many others reject that assumption until such a time that she proves herself to be one... and I'd wager almost every last one of us would turn on her in a heartbeat if that happened.

So, no, we're not super far apart on this subject. We're just making different assumptions about a person. Being clever at each other doesn't reveal some grand hypocrisy.

Just to throw some Math Nerd stuff at this.

Three friends have a nice meal together, and the bill is $25

The three friends pay $10 each, which the waiter gives to the Cashier

The Cashier hands back $5 to the Waiter

But the Waiter can't split $5 three ways, so he gives the friends one dollar each and keeps 2 dollars as a tip.

They all paid $10 and got $1 back. $10-$1 = $9

There were three of them 3 X $9 = $27

If they paid $27 and the waiter kept $2: $27+$2=$29

Where did the other dollar go? $30 - $1 = $29

There is, of course, no missing dollar. The dollar is only missing being we have this horrible habit of mixing up two similar equations. You can't project your equation onto someone else's and expect a meaningful answer. This is the problem with being clever at one another. You're actually being really, really stupid... and I say this as someone who has been really, really stupid at other people quite a lot, thinking I was being clever. So I'm not accusing you of anything I don't accuse of myself. It's horribly, horribly easy to do.

 

[Velventian]

As someone who has pulled this trick quite a few times... trying to flip these things almost never comes across as clever as you think it does. People recognize the bait in the trap, set up their own trap & bait, and you end up being "clever" at each other when everyone knows the freakin' answer.

In this case, there was absolutely no doubt that Thompson was a censor and any idiot who made a death threat against him deserves everything they would have had coming to them if they got caught. But no one is going to shed crocodile tears for him.

With Sarkeesian, many of us firmly believe she is nothing more than a Social Critic. We reject your comparison to Jack Thompson because we have a fundamental disagreement about who and what she is. To you, she's a secret censor. I and many others reject that assumption until such a time that she proves herself to be one... and I'd wager almost every last one of us would turn on her in a heartbeat if that happened.

So, no, we're not super far apart on this subject. We're just making different assumptions about a person. Being clever at each other doesn't reveal some grand hypocrisy.

well in that case i would like you to tell me how jack thompson was a censor and anita is not? Both are calling for specific elements/themes in games to be removed/suppressed.
Whats the difference aside from which specific thing the want to remove/change.

 

[Netrigan]

As someone who has pulled this trick quite a few times... trying to flip these things almost never comes across as clever as you think it does. People recognize the bait in the trap, set up their own trap & bait, and you end up being "clever" at each other when everyone knows the freakin' answer.

In this case, there was absolutely no doubt that Thompson was a censor and any idiot who made a death threat against him deserves everything they would have had coming to them if they got caught. But no one is going to shed crocodile tears for him.

With Sarkeesian, many of us firmly believe she is nothing more than a Social Critic. We reject your comparison to Jack Thompson because we have a fundamental disagreement about who and what she is. To you, she's a secret censor. I and many others reject that assumption until such a time that she proves herself to be one... and I'd wager almost every last one of us would turn on her in a heartbeat if that happened.

So, no, we're not super far apart on this subject. We're just making different assumptions about a person. Being clever at each other doesn't reveal some grand hypocrisy.

well in that case i would like you to tell me how jack thompson was a censor and anita is not? Both are calling for specific elements/themes in games to be removed/suppressed.
Whats the difference aside from which specific thing the want to remove/change.

I won't speak for others, but I see a gigantic chasm between someone who introduces government legislation in defiance of the protection of Free Speech and someone who uses their Free Speech to encourage perfectly legal self-censorship. And I'd like to add, I'm not sure she's even going that far... I personally think she's just asking people to think about the tropes they're using and if that's what they really want to communicate... or maybe that's just how I choose to interpret her. Either way, I don't think she has the power to do diddly or squat.

A third categories for companies or institutions who legally act as censor, such as DC Comics who has every right to say to Garth Ennis, "no you can't have someone ask Margaret Thatcher if he can piss in her mouth."

That's a true story, by the way

 

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

As someone who has pulled this trick quite a few times... trying to flip these things almost never comes across as clever as you think it does. People recognize the bait in the trap, set up their own trap & bait, and you end up being "clever" at each other when everyone knows the freakin' answer.

In this case, there was absolutely no doubt that Thompson was a censor and any idiot who made a death threat against him deserves everything they would have had coming to them if they got caught. But no one is going to shed crocodile tears for him.

With Sarkeesian, many of us firmly believe she is nothing more than a Social Critic. We reject your comparison to Jack Thompson because we have a fundamental disagreement about who and what she is. To you, she's a secret censor. I and many others reject that assumption until such a time that she proves herself to be one... and I'd wager almost every last one of us would turn on her in a heartbeat if that happened.

So, no, we're not super far apart on this subject. We're just making different assumptions about a person. Being clever at each other doesn't reveal some grand hypocrisy.

I suggest you stop projecting, I wasn't trying to be clever. I simply believe that whatever Jack Thompson was (or wasn't) is irrelevant to the idea that he didn't deserve to receive death threats, no matter how stupid, annoying or repugnant you might find him; the same way Anita Sarkeesian does not deserve to receive death threats, no matter how stupid, annoying or repugnant one might find her. It's not about ''crocodile tears'', it simply baffles me that Bob can go around justifying the way gamers responded to Thompson as ''We did what we had to do''*, then get up-in-arms over similar treatment of Sarkeesian.

* Source: http://moviebob.blogspot.nl/2014/09/a-long-post-about-gamergate.html

 

[Velventian]

As someone who has pulled this trick quite a few times... trying to flip these things almost never comes across as clever as you think it does. People recognize the bait in the trap, set up their own trap & bait, and you end up being "clever" at each other when everyone knows the freakin' answer.

In this case, there was absolutely no doubt that Thompson was a censor and any idiot who made a death threat against him deserves everything they would have had coming to them if they got caught. But no one is going to shed crocodile tears for him.

With Sarkeesian, many of us firmly believe she is nothing more than a Social Critic. We reject your comparison to Jack Thompson because we have a fundamental disagreement about who and what she is. To you, she's a secret censor. I and many others reject that assumption until such a time that she proves herself to be one... and I'd wager almost every last one of us would turn on her in a heartbeat if that happened.

So, no, we're not super far apart on this subject. We're just making different assumptions about a person. Being clever at each other doesn't reveal some grand hypocrisy.

well in that case i would like you to tell me how jack thompson was a censor and anita is not? Both are calling for specific elements/themes in games to be removed/suppressed.
Whats the difference aside from which specific thing the want to remove/change.

I won't speak for others, but I see a gigantic chasm between someone who introduces government legislation in defiance of the protection of Free Speech and someone who uses their Free Speech to encourage perfectly legal self-censorship. And I'd like to add, I'm not sure she's even going that far... I personally think she's just asking people to think about the tropes they're using and if that's what they really want to communicate... or maybe that's just how I choose to interpret her. Either way, I don't think she has the power to do diddly or squat.

A third categories for companies or institutions who legally act as censor, such as DC Comics who has every right to say to Garth Ennis, "no you can't have someone ask Margaret Thatcher if he can piss in her mouth."

That's a true story, by the way

Anitas message is very much one of censorship, she mostly points to the bad and tells you why its bad and you should feel if you like it and that you should feel superior for seeing it as bad. She doen´t give any usefull examples how to make it better, nothing concrete and sure nothing even close to the bad.
As an engineer i have to deal with and focus on problems, but understanding the problem is only half the work, the other half is figuring out the solution. And she never does that. Her point of view is concentrated on the aspects of gaming she wants removed instead on what she wants improved or added.
Jack thompson might have more power but in intention i see them very much the same. Who says anita wouldn´t try to pass laws if she had the power, and who says jack thompson wouldn´t have only used free speech like anita if he wouldn´t have had said power?
What counts here is their intent more then their current influence, both don´t to improve games but bow them to their will. They don´t know what they want they only know what they don´t want.

 

[Netrigan]

As someone who has pulled this trick quite a few times... trying to flip these things almost never comes across as clever as you think it does. People recognize the bait in the trap, set up their own trap & bait, and you end up being "clever" at each other when everyone knows the freakin' answer.

In this case, there was absolutely no doubt that Thompson was a censor and any idiot who made a death threat against him deserves everything they would have had coming to them if they got caught. But no one is going to shed crocodile tears for him.

With Sarkeesian, many of us firmly believe she is nothing more than a Social Critic. We reject your comparison to Jack Thompson because we have a fundamental disagreement about who and what she is. To you, she's a secret censor. I and many others reject that assumption until such a time that she proves herself to be one... and I'd wager almost every last one of us would turn on her in a heartbeat if that happened.

So, no, we're not super far apart on this subject. We're just making different assumptions about a person. Being clever at each other doesn't reveal some grand hypocrisy.

I suggest you stop projecting, I wasn't trying to be clever. I simply believe that whatever Jack Thompson was (or wasn't) is irrelevant to the idea that he didn't deserve to receive death threats, no matter how stupid, annoying or repugnant you might find him; the same way Anita Sarkeesian does not deserve to receive death threats, no matter how stupid, annoying or repugnant one might find her. It's not about ''crocodile tears'', it simply baffles me that Bob can go around justifying the way gamers responded to Thompson as ''We did what we had to do''*, then get up-in-arms over similar treatment of Sarkeesian.

* Source: http://moviebob.blogspot.nl/2014/09/a-long-post-about-gamergate.html

Did not realize you were citing an actual example. But then MovieBob has always been a bit of a joke. It took forever for him to stop treating Halo fans versus real gamers as a Revenge of the Nerds remake.

But I saw someone pull this crap when the #GamerGate girl got harassed. He was practically daring people to not give a shit about her, and most everyone said, "what a bunch of fucking assholes". They didn't get super worked up about it, but that's likely due to the obvious set-up in front of them.

Aha, you have fallen into my devious trap. You either White Knight this girl like you do your precious Saint Anita or expose yourself as the hypocrite I know you truly are. And everyone is basically "fuck you, you sanctimonious twit". And I'm sure you can find plenty of examples where someone tried that shit on you... oh, you care so much about this, why don't you give equal time to something similar on my side of the debate... or are you #GamerGate people a bunch of hypocrites.

And you treat said person like the sanctimonious twit he really is.

 

[Netrigan]

As someone who has pulled this trick quite a few times... trying to flip these things almost never comes across as clever as you think it does. People recognize the bait in the trap, set up their own trap & bait, and you end up being "clever" at each other when everyone knows the freakin' answer.

In this case, there was absolutely no doubt that Thompson was a censor and any idiot who made a death threat against him deserves everything they would have had coming to them if they got caught. But no one is going to shed crocodile tears for him.

With Sarkeesian, many of us firmly believe she is nothing more than a Social Critic. We reject your comparison to Jack Thompson because we have a fundamental disagreement about who and what she is. To you, she's a secret censor. I and many others reject that assumption until such a time that she proves herself to be one... and I'd wager almost every last one of us would turn on her in a heartbeat if that happened.

So, no, we're not super far apart on this subject. We're just making different assumptions about a person. Being clever at each other doesn't reveal some grand hypocrisy.

well in that case i would like you to tell me how jack thompson was a censor and anita is not? Both are calling for specific elements/themes in games to be removed/suppressed.
Whats the difference aside from which specific thing the want to remove/change.

I won't speak for others, but I see a gigantic chasm between someone who introduces government legislation in defiance of the protection of Free Speech and someone who uses their Free Speech to encourage perfectly legal self-censorship. And I'd like to add, I'm not sure she's even going that far... I personally think she's just asking people to think about the tropes they're using and if that's what they really want to communicate... or maybe that's just how I choose to interpret her. Either way, I don't think she has the power to do diddly or squat.

A third categories for companies or institutions who legally act as censor, such as DC Comics who has every right to say to Garth Ennis, "no you can't have someone ask Margaret Thatcher if he can piss in her mouth."

That's a true story, by the way

Anitas message is very much one of censorship, she mostly points to the bad and tells you why its bad and you should feel if you like it and that you should feel superior for seeing it as bad. She doen´t give any usefull examples how to make it better, nothing concrete and sure nothing even close to the bad.
As an engineer i have to deal with and focus on problems, but understanding the problem is only half the work, the other half is figuring out the solution. And she never does that. Her point of view is concentrated on the aspects of gaming she wants removed instead on what she wants improved or added.
Jack thompson might have more power but in intention i see them very much the same. Who says anita wouldn´t try to pass laws if she had the power, and who says jack thompson wouldn´t have only used free speech like anita if he wouldn´t have had said power?
What counts here is their intent more then their current influence, both don´t to improve games but bow them to their will. They don´t know what they want they only know what they don´t want.

Well, until she advocates illegal governmental censorship, I will not call her a censor.

I think of that word like misogynist or racist or numerous other attack words. You pull that out when you want to go nuclear, not when you want to have a discussion.

I could very easily call you a censor as you're trying to influence her to stop criticizing video games... yes, I know on censorship grounds, but it still amounts to roughly the same thing, but, remember, I don't agree with your use of the word, so (see other post) we're really using two incompatible equations so mixing them leads to a meaningless result.

I've said it elsewhere, but I'd heartily suggest to absolutely everyone to talk about stuff you love and don't get to stuck on what you hate. I kind of bailed on major aspects of this conversation because I realized I was boring myself by trying to pound round pegs into square holes and, no insult intended, that's exactly what we have right here. We're drawing the censorship line at two completely different points. These are deeply ingrained beliefs for both of us and we're not going to budge from them. If you want to counter her, then go out there and tell people why Crank 2 was awesome. Why we need Grand Theft Auto. Make your argument instead of just disagree with someone else.

You don't have to bail from these conversations. I haven't completely... I think the discussion is still worth having; but recognize the serious limitations of reactionary politics. I fell out with the Republican Party because they went down a Reactionary path, I could no longer support. The wonderful thing about these discussions was it helped me reconnect with my own Republican Ideals, the ones I had spent far too long being embarrassed about because of the fucking idiots who took over my Party. In trying to fuck with you guys, I decided to stop arguing on the left of the argument and went hard right... and BAM there was what I believed in. Not fucking with you guys, because I was boring myself, but recognizing that there's all this cool shit that I love and I need to push that instead of trying to hammer you guys down.

Anyway, I'm rambling, but that's the state of my brain as of 10:53am on the the 16th of September, 2014

 

[Velventian]

/snip

Anita throws words like misogyny around like it was free candy so according to you she would be going nuclear all the time.

 

[Netrigan]

/snip

Anita throws words like misogyny around like it was free candy so according to you she would be going nuclear all the time.

And I cringe at that stuff. Feminist have a bad habit of over-using certain words and I've learned to ignore it over the years.

Although I will say that in my experience with interacting with Feminists of all different stripes, I've not had one throw that shit at me.... and you can see what an argumentative ass I can be. It's often just bullshit buzz words they use when writing. They use it in a general sense and not as an insult directed at someone they deem as reasonable.

I just wish they didn't throw it at my beloved Stephen Moffat so much. He just loves women and loves looking at them... and engages in a bit of bloke humor. Come on, he doesn't hate you ladies, he's just a bit sexist... and not in a horrible way. He does his best to write interesting and dynamic female characters who give as good as they get. Why, Feminists, why?!

 

[Velventian]

/snip

Anita throws words like misogyny around like it was free candy so according to you she would be going nuclear all the time.

And I cringe at that stuff. Feminist have a bad habit of over-using certain words and I've learned to ignore it over the years.

Although I will say that in my experience with interacting with Feminists of all different stripes, I've not had one throw that shit at me.... and you can see what an argumentative ass I can be. It's often just bullshit buzz words they use when writing. They use it in a general sense and not as an insult directed at someone they deem as reasonable.

I just wish they didn't throw it at my beloved Stephen Moffat so much. He just loves women and loves looking at them... and engages in a bit of bloke humor. Come on, he doesn't hate you ladies, he's just a bit sexist... and not in a horrible way. He does his best to write interesting and dynamic female characters who give as good as they get. Why, Feminists, why?!

And what i see as a problem with anita is that she throws the term at gamers in general. And she does so quite often, far beyond any reasonable application. If she has a right to be offended by specific scenes in video games then people have the right to be offended by what she says, yet when one tries to criticize her all one gets is to be called sexist or misogynist. And here lies the censorship. Maybe she doesn´t do it but her followers and the media do it for her. Basically everyone who went and applied legitimate criticism got kicked down. Once you are being accused of being a misogynist people don´t listen to your arguments anymore, its the same (smaller of course) with calling out rape.

And i hope you do see that stephen moffat can be directly compared to a lot of the things likes to pick on video games...

 

[Netrigan]

And i hope you do see that stephen moffat can be directly compared to a lot of the things likes to pick on video games...

And I hope do see that I'm only half-serious about the Moffat complaint.

Yeah, it gets my panties in a twist, but I can recognize they have some valid points mixed in with their serious over-reach. I try to keep a sense of humor about it, which helps mightily when discussing the matter with other Who fans. Just acknowledging there are valid points being made on their side defuses a lot of butt hurt. It becomes a friendly argument instead of a death sport.

And I've had zero problem discussing the Sarkeesian videos elsewhere. I defend several of the examples she uses, because I think they're well-written scenes which deserve some defense. I recognize her valid points, but tend to shift the reasoning to a much more friendly "bad writing" angle rather than repeating her accusations of sexism. Watch Dogs is a shitty story. I can't bring myself to defend it even though I know it's heart is in the right place in that two second clip she showed. By not putting enough emphasis on the women's experiences in that situation, by focusing on the male quest for justice, that scene just plays weird. I wouldn't call it sexist, but I think a lot of people will enjoy that scene in a sexist way (i.e. look at all the boobies). Yeah, there's no reason for Hitman: Absolution to have a level set in a strip club and I thought it was a boring level (likewise the Fetish Nuns level), but she totally fucked the commentary there.

Perhaps I'm engaging in a bit of victim-blaming here (and this is general commentary, not directed at you), but often when people react badly to your opinions, it's because you worded them really fucking awfully. If you're getting accused of being sexist in criticizing her videos, take a step back and ask yourself what they're objecting to exactly. Chances are you hitting a raw nerve or they're objecting to your use of buzz words (that she uses them doesn't excuse your own). Just look at me in some of these threads. I was getting a bad reaction and that was on me; I was provoking a fight. I was deliberately pushing buttons. Other times I accidentally push those buttons. Sometimes you get punched in the face because you're being an asshole. Doesn't make that punch right, but doesn't mean you didn't help start the fight. The law makes this distinction, so it's legally enshrined victim-blaming... and the law can never be wrong

 

[EpicMike7]

Ok let me just start by saying that the vast majority of "abuse" perpetrated by our said has been made up out of whole cloth. Almost every single case of doxxing can be proved false. For instance, Devin Faraci "doxxed" a guy who's purported name was Winky Dinky and his email was [email protected], and even though he checked off for anonymity (just to fuck with him) I think it's safe to say that the guy's personal information is safe. Oh, and if you can police your own why can't Zoe Quinn go home yet? Why are her parents still getting calls yelling that their daughter is a whore? How come people (all of them women) have been driven out of the industry because they couldn't handle the abuse? Oh wait, there was one guy. His name was Phil Phish and you guys doxxed him and harrassed him and he quit the business again because of it! How can you say you've got this under control!?!

What do you mean you guys? Point to one person here who identifies with GG who is:

Personally responsible for hacking or doxxing Phil Fish.
Personally responsible for harassing or threatening Zoe Quinn
Personally responsible for harassing or threatening Anita Sarkeesian.

Please do, I'd love to give those creeps a piece of my mind.

What's that? You can't? No, you can't because you don't have the slightest idea who these people are or what their motivations were, none of us do. You talk about "us" twisting the narrative yet here you tarring us with the brush of internet sociopaths in order to fit your narrative. In your eyes, the Anti-GG side are all saints and heroes who could never possibly resort to such heinous acts as harassment and doxxing while every GamerGate supporter is either completely complacent with it or up to it himself.

The fact that you dismiss jayedefox's doxxing as "made up out of whole cloth" but don't doubt for one moment the authenticity of Phil Fish's exposes you as a hypocrite of the highest order.

 

[carnex]

/snip

Anita throws words like misogyny around like it was free candy so according to you she would be going nuclear all the time.

And I cringe at that stuff. Feminist have a bad habit of over-using certain words and I've learned to ignore it over the years.

Although I will say that in my experience with interacting with Feminists of all different stripes, I've not had one throw that shit at me.... and you can see what an argumentative ass I can be. It's often just bullshit buzz words they use when writing. They use it in a general sense and not as an insult directed at someone they deem as reasonable.

I just wish they didn't throw it at my beloved Stephen Moffat so much. He just loves women and loves looking at them... and engages in a bit of bloke humor. Come on, he doesn't hate you ladies, he's just a bit sexist... and not in a horrible way. He does his best to write interesting and dynamic female characters who give as good as they get. Why, Feminists, why?!

You might understand their use of the words. That is perfectly fine. But words have certain meaning that people have as a part of their vocabulary. And misogyny is generally perceived as worst possible meaning (actually should be perceived as that, definition ranges from totally benign behavior to pathological hatred. Way too wide for my taste) which is hatred of women as a gender based on a fact that they are members of that gender thus having some mutual traits. Now that is a pathological state of mind.

You can be labeled sexist for simply because you insult her the certain way even when she deserves criticism or criticize her for something benign. Not my cup of tea but i can see some logic there. But you have no reason to label someone with a pathological state of mind.

And that is something that really irks me.

 

[Netrigan]

/snip

Anita throws words like misogyny around like it was free candy so according to you she would be going nuclear all the time.

And I cringe at that stuff. Feminist have a bad habit of over-using certain words and I've learned to ignore it over the years.

Although I will say that in my experience with interacting with Feminists of all different stripes, I've not had one throw that shit at me.... and you can see what an argumentative ass I can be. It's often just bullshit buzz words they use when writing. They use it in a general sense and not as an insult directed at someone they deem as reasonable.

I just wish they didn't throw it at my beloved Stephen Moffat so much. He just loves women and loves looking at them... and engages in a bit of bloke humor. Come on, he doesn't hate you ladies, he's just a bit sexist... and not in a horrible way. He does his best to write interesting and dynamic female characters who give as good as they get. Why, Feminists, why?!

You might understand their use of the words. That is perfectly fine. But words have certain meaning that people have as a part of their vocabulary. And misogyny is generally perceived as worst possible meaning (actually should be perceived as that, definition ranges from totally benign behavior to pathological hatred. Way too wide for my taste) which is hatred of women as a gender based on a fact that they are members of that gender thus having some mutual traits. Now that is a pathological state of mind.

You can be labeled sexist for simply because you insult her the certain way even when she deserves criticism or criticize her for something benign. Not my cup of tea but i can see some logic there. But you have no reason to label someone with a pathological state of mind.

And that is something that really irks me.

It's the problem of going 0-60 too quickly... and having been called all sorts of names here for fairly trivial reasons in this debate, it gets hard to gauge what threat-level SJW I'm currently being accused of... so if I choose the absolute worst possible meaning, then it's on mother-fucker.

Or it could just mean, I disagree with you and I don't properly communicate the shadings of the words I use. If you use SJW or Misogynist for all the people who disagree with you, there's no up to go, even if they don't mean the full weight of the insult.

If someone is pretty reasonable, they kind of figure out their word usage is a problem and dial it down. If they're an asshole, they won't and they keep throwing their rudest insults at you because they probably don't understand the distinction between a mild disagreement and all-out war.

There's also the question of substance. If I can see the point you're driving at, then I'm more forgiving of the language used. If I think you're talking in gibberish buzz words and I don't have a clue what you're on about, then I won't be. And there's a few folks around here who have a serious buzz word problem as bad as I've seen on any Feminist. I don't pay overly much attention to user names here, so I can't point them out; but there's been some threads where I don't have the slightest clue what two folks are arguing about.

 

[Baghram]

The problem I have with Anita Sarkeesian and writers like Leigh Alexander is that they accuse the people who don't think exactly like they do of being sexist or misogynist or pigs or other [insert derogatory term here]. And how they constantly try to victimize, objectify and/or oppress women. While their videos and arguments are usually made up of; cherry picking, taking things out of context, attributing thoughts and/or intent that aren't there, blowing things out of proportion and sometimes even downright lies. And they go through all this effort to show that women are the victims. They are the ones being oppressed and subject to the whims of white heterosexual males.

So the party that is doing everything in their power to showcase women as the victims that is the one ISN'T sexist. But the people that generally just want to play decent games and don't care about the social political agenda they just want decent gameplay and a fully fleshed out story and characters be they male/female, straight/gay, black/white/whatever, they are at fault and the real bigotted ones.


Real talk for a moment on how I see this whole Social Justice thing which also ties into why I disagree with certain strains of the modern feminist movement.

I am of the opinion that both sexes are of equal worth, but they are not the same. Men can't do all the things women can do and women can't do all the things men can do. In general, men are physically stronger, and women are more empathetic. Lots of research suggest this is because of evolution, the natural dividing of tasks. Since the dawn of our species, the males went out hunting while the females took care of the group and they each developed the tools which made them better at their respective tasks. This also changed the make up of their brains and how they worked and perceive the world. Men and women perceive the world differently, which leads to them having different interests. Men generally like dumb action movies and women don't. Women generally like romantic comedies and men don't. These are generalisations and there are exceptions I know, but this is usually the case.

Anita Sarkeesian and Leigh Alexander and her ilk, point to men enjoying the things they are interested in and say: 'You should feel bad about enjoying those things, because me and lots of other females don't enjoy them. And you need to change those things so that we don't feel bad because of your enjoyment.' This is where we have our problem. They punish males for liking things that are targeted at their demographic. It'd be the same if I went and asked the network to drop or change Ellen Degeneres' show which is marketed primarily to women because it doesn't take male sensibilties into account enough. This shouldn't be done. Don't expect everything to appeal to everyone, be they books/movies/magazines or video games.


Conclusion: Men and women are not the same. This is not a bad thing, embrace it. Don't change what doesn't need to be changed and stop with all the harassment.


P.S. Moviebob needs at least a stern talking to by The Escapist management, doesn't have to be fired.

P.P.S. I'll go hug a tree now. #mushy

 

[Kevin Bennett]

You had no knowledge of what was happening, but you put up a thread defending someone? Really?

Devin Faraci - He thinks #notyourshield is fake. Moviebob retweeted it after his apology.

https://twitter.com/the_moviebob

That is highly offensive to try to disregard minority opinions.

Not only that, but Moviebob got into a spat with Boogie for saying we should be skeptical of gaming media. Body shaming of a guy who can't walk.

Rami Ismail - Disregards everything because of "how it started." Stifling discussion.

http://ramiismail.com/2014/09/my-brief-opinion-on-gamergate/
https://twitter.com/tha_rami

Also says we should just drop the whole thing. Just because.

Hell some off these comments say gamers are "just bored" so they "invent drama."

On september 4th, Moviebob retweeted Andy Khouri saying any gamers who care about gamergate should be told to fuck off by journalists and content producers.

Moviebob's entire twitter is retweeted insults.

I am aware of Devin Faraci (in fact I started the thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.859458-Devin-Faraci-on-what-is-driving-the-gamergate-gamers#21334557] that seems to have brought him to the forum's attention). As for #notyourshield it really was [https://archive.moe/v/thread/261343810/#261347271] started on 4chan, with the link taking you to the first known use of the term. Also, Zoe Quinn's IRC posts showed people saying they'd go "blackface" [https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy/status/508184768815448064/photo/1] on twitter to support #notyourshield. It's also worth mentioning that someone brings up the fact that they're not Caucasian in the IRC pic, and the fact that he bothered pointing that out seems to show that white people using sockpuppets is the norm. As for what he's been saying himself, I agree with most everything he's said and don't think he should've apologized for it.

What I think is hilarious is that its NOT conservatives banning anything, you can be as ultra left as you want and you will be allowed to speak on their sites. Notice what has happened to those that don't follow the gamerghazi groupthink here? THEY ARE SILENCED. You have mods here being as outright blatant as one can possibly about being biased, does the owners do anything? Nope, not a damned thing.

But lucky for us, no matter how much the anti-GGers gnash their teeth and wish they lived in a communist utopia the FREE MARKET WORKS and by voting with our dollars and refusing to support sites that make it clear they don't value us, as well as using our free speech rights to contact advertisers and point out their OWN WORDS where they insult minorities that refuse to be token, attack the disabled like myself with insults like "crips" and "gimps" because we too refuse to be used as tokens? We ARE affecting change, we ARE causing sites to have to fire the bigots to try to stem the bleeding of revenue, they can hate it all they want but the free market WORKS and we will continue to use it to get rid of the REAL bigots trying to destroy our hobby, we will not stop, we will NOT be silenced, and we will NOT be tokens or put up with the insults!