GamerGate's Image Problem

[Camel]

Your second point is a pretty naked attempt to try and derail the conversation. As to your first, what evidence exactly? I mean assuming we're agreed that the bit last week where he misrepresented the SFPD in order to rile everyone up over Sarkeesian again was outright wrong of him, what else is there? In nearly a month the only thing he's "uncovered" is the mailing list, and reading the emails doesn't really support the idea of industry-wide collusion that you lot have been on about for all this time, not even if you only read the ones he cherry-picked for you. What exactly is there to bother with refuting?

Yeah, I know you prefer me and others to shut up rather than discuss or defend actions of a gaming blogger. Do you support Leigh Alexander's article "Gamers are dead" and her promise to destroy a career of a female developer? Why do you and your lot always try to ignore this?

Milo reported information from SFPD, when they gave him new information, he updated accordingly.


Ahem, no. Leaked e-mails show how gaming bloggers coordinated a first wave of articles on the same day against Gamergate. They're that bad in damage control that with their clumsy attempt they only exposed themselves.

Then they decided to make a letter of support and tried to hide behind game developers. But thankfully not all of game bloggers supported this idea, some even said about "the incestuous relationship between press and developers" and "It feels wrong to me. I think it feels very off to reach across the fence from journalist to subject in this way. I prefer professional distance, especially given the accusations being levied at us from outside. "

I like the signed letter of support idea. Even better if we can get some developers in on that. Anyone want to volunteer to draft something?
? Kyle Orland, Ars Technica

I'd also suggest that - if others think the letter is a good idea - we should do this entirely under the radar, organizing it through word-of-mouth and email rather than Twitter. I made the mistake earlier of publicly voicing support and in doing so drawing more attention to the issue. I'd rather not make that mistake again.
? Andrew Groen, WIRED contributor

As sympathetic as I am to the horrible harassment Zoe faced, I think this incident has raised enough questions about the incestuous relationship between press and developers already.
? Jason Schreier, Kotaku

I would prefer not to be associated with this. It feels wrong to me. I think it feels very off to reach across the fence from journalist to subject in this way. I prefer professional distance, especially given the accusations being levied at us from outside.
? Mike Futter, Game Informer

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/17/Exposed-the-secret-mailing-list-of-the-gaming-journalism-elite

 

[runic knight]

runic

First off, I won't ask you or anyone else to take what I say as anything more than my personal perspective on the matter. I will say I have devoted a fair amount of time to many sides of this well before my first comment. I also, like literally everyone else, want games journalism improved.

Now, when we talk about who said what to who and what is said to what gender, it confuses the issue. I do not think Zoe Quinn was completely innocent. However I do think the the hatred for her is much more complex than just misogyny. It all relates to what she actually did, she cheated. This is, I believe, the source that spawns a lot of dislike for her. The story was likely similar for many, including myself. And yes, I did not like her for it. Combine that with everything else and you really start to see why people wouldn't stop talking about her. She was a symbol for the people that hurt us the most in our own lives. This story combined with the articles and all the infighting and it starts getting clearer why we are here now.

I'll generally agree with this much so far. People did often mention they were disliking her because she cheated on a guy five times before this evolved into the journalistic aspect, so yeah, for the general point I agree though not quite with the symbol aspect.

About the misogyny. This is going in to why I think we are confusing the issue. Where we disagree is how we we are "defining" misogyny. You are looking at it in a very rational, almost mathematical way, which on the surface seem like a rational thing to do. But misogyny is not a rational concept anymore, very much like racism. In that, for many, the problem ended years ago, so when it happens we tend to look at it very black and white. The reactions are solely out of a clear hatred and or distrust for women, but to a perceived outsider. As someone making a criticism they have no business making. That is not a rational thought, but that's the start, and after that we start build rational behind that. Here's the problem, its hard to recognize or rationalize and it angers people because they're telling themselves they don't treat women as they did 50 years ago, and they are right. But its reacting to the outside criticism that riles people up.

This I still have to disagree with. You have to use words the way they are defined when it comes to this sort of thing. And that isn't even just dismissing misogyny itself as a thing of the past. It exists, I know it exists, but what it is remains consistent.

The problem with your line of thinking here is the same as before, you start with the assumption that the behavior is misogyny and work backwards from there. As you even put it, you have the presumption and then "start to build rational behind that" in order to support it. Sadly, since I don't start with that assumption, I can't help but notice the start you made and then fall behind.

There was 2 articles I saw and both were similar. Both were early views of Destiny and both had less than favorable, not bad, things to say about it. One of these had a measurably higher difference of opinion, I'll let you guess the differences. That could had been for various reasons, I won't deny it. And if you toss out the "back to the kitchen" comments you could make the case. But it was always the women that seemed to produce a stronger reaction when presenting arguments. Men get reactions as well, of course, but this is where the "mathematical" thought process comes in to play, its not the comments, its the tone. Its how quick we jump in the fight. Its the weird shit we can't see.

Should I take a guess as to who published those articles or would I not like to know who it was given the recent, lets say less then fully trustworthy, state of the gaming news industry?
To be fair though I would have to see the articles you are referring to and a side by side comparison to draw a conclusion from at any rate. You may well be right about the reply difference, and even about why that difference is there. But from all my study and investigation into the matter, I have realized that the general, sweeping statements tend to be the least credible about these sorts of things.

This is NOT my proof that gamers are misogynist. This is my argument that gamers react. Misogyny is a tough word since it doesn't just mean hate, but also distrust. Gamers distrust outside critique, I don't need to prove that. But if you look at the reaction to Anita Sarkeesian's videos, not comment by comment, but the big picture, its possible to see something different. See she expressed an opinion on certain tropes as she sees them, that's all. Its not a referendum on games development. Its not a list of demands. She clearly states it isn't, its an opinion and for the most part its backed up, there's very little ways to argue against them.

No, misogyny clearly is defined as hate. Specifically of women on the basis of being women. I know that sounds stubborn or black and white but words have meanings for a reason, as they represent ideas we are trying to communicate to others. We can't just change the definition of the word because we want to stretch it to cover more like that since the people communicated to will not have seen the change you made to the definition or may not accept it and while I applaud your intentions in trying to find a replacement for a word that doesn't exist yet by using something similar, it really just does not fit and is an unfair use of the word considering the massively negative connotations it has on those labeled by it, to say nothing of how redefining a words as such devalues it.

You make a case gamers distrust outside of their group, and I would agree. Given how they have been stereotyped and blamed since the 80's, I know well. Hell I once argued that very point in a thread I made many months ago. It was about feminism and gaming and the entire point of it was to try to break down how to improve the issues of gaming relating to women. Portrayal, participation and presentation were the points I touched on and as my first order of business I essentially wrote out why the gaming community is the way it is today as a way to try to frame the question with a "be aware how your solutions will be reacted to" sort of thing. I said that the best way to try to get women into games, both as developers and as being portrayed was the idea of just trying to get any gamer into games, as women would get swept in and since there were fewer women in gaming then men and thus a larger chance to get women in the attempt. I also argued what Anita was doing wrong and why people hated her in a thread around the same time. Anita was misrepresenting things, she was shielding herself from discussion and criticism and she was acting in the same political demagogue way that one Jack Thomson acted before her. And she got a very similar treatment from gamers for it. Remember, Jack himself was put into a mortal kombat game and you could kill him so you can't say Anita's gender is why she got her hate.

Little example, for arguments sake think of a game you love...I think it sucks, I didn't like x, y, and z. Now you could argue why you like it but you can't prove me wrong either. But I'm a gamer, you know this and you know its pointless to debate opinions after a point.

See regardless of what was accurate or not at the end of the day it was one persons opinion. If she was a man do you honestly think his videos would still be talked about? No, they would have been forgotten a long time ago. She is an outsider and a threat.

Sexism and misogyny exist in the world, we know this. Gaming is reaching adulthood, and here we are. You want proof of what I'm saying just look. Gender is an issue, people wouldn't be fighting the great SJW threat to games if it wasn't an issue.

Gamergate has so many issues its dealing with. We are all looking in a mirror right now. I know you don't hate women I don't either, we both still react, the difference is I'm not trying to rationalize it or mathematically put it in to a formula that makes sense, I realized I view life through a particular lens that colors everything I see and experience.


I fully understand that I will be completely disregarded in many cases. Gamergate is the reaction to so many things including ourselves and it happens to have serious issues thrown in the mix. As I see it the only way to address concerns is by separating them.

Considering how Jack Thompson was vilified, yes, I think she would have been given the same reaction under a similar situation. That of getting media attention and funding while being dishonest and misrepresenting things.

I am aware gender is an issue, but I do not thing gender is the issue here nor was it ever really. It has been used far too often as an excuse to deflect criticism or dodge responsibility as well, thus forcing me to be more critical of claims made about it as a response. The term has been cheapened.

It isn't that I am disregarding you, as unlike some others I have talked with, you are actively having a conversation with me on this. It is just your arguments simply require I agree on things I simply do no regarding what the words means, or what motivates people.

 

[Camel]

As an aside, and in a doomed attempt to try and bring this back to the original topic, I'm becoming of the opinion that Leigh Alexander is about to be dubbed Literally Who #3, in that it lately feels like they can't shut up about her, but might yet realize that, much like Zoe and Anita, it's problematic to their public image to be seen fixating on her, but since they can't stop themselves, they'll start using the nickname in the hopes of fooling anyone at all. Maybe I'm talking out my ass, maybe my psychic radar is acting up again, just a hunch is all.

You know, it's not good when you want people to shut up. Do you support Leigh Alexander's article "Gamers are dead" and her promise to destroy a career of a female developer?

I know you lot would really like people to shut up and not to bring this issue. I'd say when you have an influential gaming blogger like Leigh Alexander as one of the faces of gaming blogging, it's not really positive public image.

 

[BlackMageBob]

This image as a perfect example of Willful Ignorance. There is no other way I can describe it.

Where do you find this stuff?

it is not those promoting social advocacy that are the ones they have a problem with, but rather those who abuse the causes to manipulate and manufacture outrage.

Which has never happened ever? I don't get where this sentiment comes from at all.

Wait, the post I used as an example of how people can change what they think is their foe to the tactics and behaviors that underlay that assumption is being willfully ignorant? Or did you simple see the post and go "well, I disagree, all gamergate is hateful monsters so it must be untrue and the point he was trying to make is irrelevant since the example he used is something I personally don't believe in"?

What do you mean "never happened"? Hell, I gave you a perfect example of it historically with the McCarthyism example.

You know, I get the feeling you aren't actually reading my posts at this point.

No no no, that Image, the words in it, the guy is basically saying "I have an intense character flaw" and smugly shifts the blame for it on people who would otherwise tell him that "You are being shitty, please stop."

Its the sheer cognitive dissonance. Its frightening to me that people like that actually exist. Doesn't matter what age they are, there is only so much level of sheer absurd one can spew out. He is literally blaming people telling him not to be a shitty person for making him a shitty person.

Also, in the context of video games, the only witchhunts I have seen have been the blacklisting of supposed SJW journalists and the like. Which seem more in the vein of McCarthyism than anything else of late. There is nothing of the sort on the 'other side' if you will aside from a gallery of people laughing at just how absurd it is.

Didn't someone from their side try to get a charity to get more women into game development black listed?

Its not a charity?

What is not a charity? Sorry to ask, but do you know what I am talking about, since you sound a bit vague.

The Fine Young Captalists is a Not-For-Profit organization. That is different from a charity. (If I am reading into this correctly. I can't find the snippit I am looking for to explain)

Again, quoting M-W, "A gift for public benevolent purposes", "An institution founded by such a gift".
While slightly different legally, an NFP is often called a charity, and Charities and NFPs are often listed side-by-side.
See reference, the Combined Federal Campaign.

CFC is the world's largest and most successful annual workplace charity campaign, with almost 200 CFC campaigns throughout the country and overseas raising millions of dollars each year. Pledges made by Federal civilian, postal and military donors during the campaign season (September 1st to December 15th) support eligible non-profit organizations that provide health and human service benefits throughout the world. The Director of OPM has designated responsibility for day-to-day management of the program and to its CFC office.

Further in, the CFC catalog lists NFPs like NOW and SETI near or next to charities.

 

[Quadocky]

I don't think anti-feminism is a key issue in the least so much as anti-moral authority posturing under the guise of feminism. And it is because of that I would answer no to the second one as well. I have talked to a lot of people because of this, and it seems every time I talk to them about this, even if they rabidly hate "SJW" types, it is very easy to help them see that it is not those promoting social advocacy that are the ones they have a problem with, but rather those who abuse the causes to manipulate and manufacture outrage.

Hell, posted in the main thread, this sort of sums that up entirely.

Fun fact, the first, second and fourth feminist 'movements' all failed because they caused exactly what that guy said in that post. They acted in such a terrible manner that everyone got pissed off. Apparently that's a really bad way to gain support. Hell, if it wasn't for the extremely liberal stance because created by much of the youth in the 60s, the third feminist movement would have failed pretty damn hard too. Feminists groups are useless movements, who never help anyone, and hurt as many as they can, women the most. And whether or not there is good feminists or the majority are good, the movements always have caused more problems because exactly what that post states.

Wow. And let me guess, you don't have proof for any of this (Especially the existence of a 'fourth feminist movement')

Tell me HOW exactly feminists are pissing people off huh?

The fourth feminist movement does exist, even if its achieved nothing and gained no popularity, even if the media portrays like it has. The first feminist movement gathered no ground and pissed off a bunch of people, and hushed it up before it gained limelight. The second feminist movement took so long to gain support, they ended up becoming violent and got labeled as terrorists, destroying any impact they could ever cause, the third feminist movement got pushed ahead by the current liberal stance of the 60s, and the fourth movement has a primary demographic of entitled 14 year old girls, so has actually hit such firm resistance, it'll take a long time to get anywhere, although I highly doubt it will.

And heres the thing, no protest has ever gotten a group change. Its gathered similarly minded people, but it never actually helped anyone. The idea of it is you use the improved size from the protesting to do things that create change. Feminists never really figured this out, and the one girl who did destroyed the second feminist movement right when it was starting to gain popularity. And the thing about a protest is that it also pisses off the people you want to listen to you. If you do that in a way that actually makes life worse for them, that can cause them to give way to you. If you do it in a way that just makes you an annoying bee, they tend to react poorly and try and find better and better ways to either ignore or shut you up, and this has been true for pretty much every attempt at protesting of all time.

You just posted the same thing again but differently this time.

This is frustrating because it ignores all context of history as to how women were treated and shows to me you are more interested in making grandstanding claims about feminism when in my humble opinion you have no idea what you are talking about.

I dug through your profile a bit to get a better grasp on who you are. You seem to consider yourself 'every type of despicable human being all in one!'

You weigh yourself with too much importance. Maybe you are one kind of despicable person, but I am sure you are not all of them.

This kind of shit also bothers me. Do you consider yourself a despicable person because you are one? Or because of the things you like? I mean, you can like anything really, it doesn't make you specifically a bad person unless somehow you were breaking the law. Which in that case I wouldn't abide by it and would suggest you shift priorities in an effort to solve that problem.

 

[runic knight]

But what he is supposedly complaining about isn't actually happening. Maybe in a misconstrued superficial way in bizzaro-world but not what is actually happening.

So, you don't actually understand how these mindsets are formed then? Because you are kinda right, what he is complaining about isn't really happen, least not in a grand scheme kind of way. But it happens enough, such as in gaming media, and those small examples become proof for the underlying justification for the various -isms. You see something you think of as unfair, you grow a bias against it if you aren't careful. You see something that supports that bias, it is absorbed as justification for it. In this case, dislike for the social justice parasite crowd's manipulation of outrage and shaming of people to push whatever intent they had lead to the association to women and minorities in general. It isn't the most logical but that is sort of the various -isms in a nut shell.

 

[bazingabro]

Did you know the black dude who started not your shield was fired?

So anti-SJWs have funded a game designed to bring more women into the industry.
While SJWs have been trying to hack into TFYC, and have now caused a black guy to be fired.

Hmm.

 

[runic knight]

I don't think anti-feminism is a key issue in the least so much as anti-moral authority posturing under the guise of feminism. And it is because of that I would answer no to the second one as well. I have talked to a lot of people because of this, and it seems every time I talk to them about this, even if they rabidly hate "SJW" types, it is very easy to help them see that it is not those promoting social advocacy that are the ones they have a problem with, but rather those who abuse the causes to manipulate and manufacture outrage.

Hell, posted in the main thread, this sort of sums that up entirely.

Fun fact, the first, second and fourth feminist 'movements' all failed because they caused exactly what that guy said in that post. They acted in such a terrible manner that everyone got pissed off. Apparently that's a really bad way to gain support. Hell, if it wasn't for the extremely liberal stance because created by much of the youth in the 60s, the third feminist movement would have failed pretty damn hard too. Feminists groups are useless movements, who never help anyone, and hurt as many as they can, women the most. And whether or not there is good feminists or the majority are good, the movements always have caused more problems because exactly what that post states.

Wow. And let me guess, you don't have proof for any of this (Especially the existence of a 'fourth feminist movement')

Tell me HOW exactly feminists are pissing people off huh?

The fourth feminist movement does exist, even if its achieved nothing and gained no popularity, even if the media portrays like it has. The first feminist movement gathered no ground and pissed off a bunch of people, and hushed it up before it gained limelight. The second feminist movement took so long to gain support, they ended up becoming violent and got labeled as terrorists, destroying any impact they could ever cause, the third feminist movement got pushed ahead by the current liberal stance of the 60s, and the fourth movement has a primary demographic of entitled 14 year old girls, so has actually hit such firm resistance, it'll take a long time to get anywhere, although I highly doubt it will.

And heres the thing, no protest has ever gotten a group change. Its gathered similarly minded people, but it never actually helped anyone. The idea of it is you use the improved size from the protesting to do things that create change. Feminists never really figured this out, and the one girl who did destroyed the second feminist movement right when it was starting to gain popularity. And the thing about a protest is that it also pisses off the people you want to listen to you. If you do that in a way that actually makes life worse for them, that can cause them to give way to you. If you do it in a way that just makes you an annoying bee, they tend to react poorly and try and find better and better ways to either ignore or shut you up, and this has been true for pretty much every attempt at protesting of all time.

Not that this isn't interesting but what exactly is the overall point being made here?

Is it that gamergate has no hopes of changing public perception for being a movement of protest? I am afraid you sort of sound a little bit in the deep end of the discussion and honestly, I am not following it. Maybe time for me to sleep.

 

[aliengmr]

As an aside, and in a doomed attempt to try and bring this back to the original topic, I'm becoming of the opinion that Leigh Alexander is about to be dubbed Literally Who #3, in that it lately feels like they can't shut up about her, but might yet realize that, much like Zoe and Anita, it's problematic to their public image to be seen fixating on her, but since they can't stop themselves, they'll start using the nickname in the hopes of fooling anyone at all. Maybe I'm talking out my ass, maybe my psychic radar is acting up again, just a hunch is all.

You know, it's not good when you want people to shut up. Do you support Leigh Alexander's article "Gamers are dead" and her promise to destroy a career of a female developer?

I know you lot would really like people to shut up and not to bring this issue. I'd say when you have an influential gaming blogger like Leigh Alexander as one of the faces of gaming blogging, it's not really positive public image.

Just gonna say "Gamers are wierd-dorky-rapists" is slightly more off putting. Though Milo apologized so evidently its fine. So tolerant GG.

Would also point out that Leigh Alexander could leave tomorrow and I doubt it it would really impact anything.

If Milo left...well...Thank goodness GG is so forgiving, since that man can barely go a week without saying or doing something stupid.

 

[RexMundane]

Your second point is a pretty naked attempt to try and derail the conversation. As to your first, what evidence exactly? I mean assuming we're agreed that the bit last week where he misrepresented the SFPD in order to rile everyone up over Sarkeesian again was outright wrong of him, what else is there? In nearly a month the only thing he's "uncovered" is the mailing list, and reading the emails doesn't really support the idea of industry-wide collusion that you lot have been on about for all this time, not even if you only read the ones he cherry-picked for you. What exactly is there to bother with refuting?

Yeah, I know you prefer me and others to shut up rather than discuss or defend actions of a gaming blogger. Do you support Leigh Alexander's article "Gamers are dead" and her promise to destroy a career of a female developer? Why do you and your lot always try to ignore this?

Milo reported information from SFPD, when they gave him new information, he updated accordingly.


Ahem, no. Leaked e-mails show how gaming bloggers coordinated a first wave of articles on the same day against Gamergate. They're that bad in damage control that with their clumsy attempt they only exposed themselves.

Spoiler

Then they decided to make a letter of support and tried to hide behind game developers. But thankfully not all of game bloggers supported this idea, some even said about "the incestuous relationship between press and developers" and "It feels wrong to me. I think it feels very off to reach across the fence from journalist to subject in this way. I prefer professional distance, especially given the accusations being levied at us from outside. "

I like the signed letter of support idea. Even better if we can get some developers in on that. Anyone want to volunteer to draft something?
? Kyle Orland, Ars Technica

I'd also suggest that - if others think the letter is a good idea - we should do this entirely under the radar, organizing it through word-of-mouth and email rather than Twitter. I made the mistake earlier of publicly voicing support and in doing so drawing more attention to the issue. I'd rather not make that mistake again.
? Andrew Groen, WIRED contributor

As sympathetic as I am to the horrible harassment Zoe faced, I think this incident has raised enough questions about the incestuous relationship between press and developers already.
? Jason Schreier, Kotaku

I would prefer not to be associated with this. It feels wrong to me. I think it feels very off to reach across the fence from journalist to subject in this way. I prefer professional distance, especially given the accusations being levied at us from outside.
? Mike Futter, Game Informer

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/17/Exposed-the-secret-mailing-list-of-the-gaming-journalism-elite

Oh, uh, why hullo there, abruptly fractured conversation from 8 hours ago, how've you been?

Short response as I'm about to go to bed: I read the Breitbart article, and the referenced emails, and didn't reach anything like the same conclusion you did. And I'm not the only one, and, law of averages, we're possibly not all of us evil for failing to do so.

Also, and I didn't want to bring up Milo again, but the relevant fact is that he did misrepresent the SFPD position. The rep said she couldn't find the case, and Milo interpreted that as confirmation she never called, and went public with it as well as personal attacks without seeking further clarification. Grossly unprofessional.

As an aside, and in a doomed attempt to try and bring this back to the original topic, I'm becoming of the opinion that Leigh Alexander is about to be dubbed Literally Who #3, in that it lately feels like they can't shut up about her, but might yet realize that, much like Zoe and Anita, it's problematic to their public image to be seen fixating on her, but since they can't stop themselves, they'll start using the nickname in the hopes of fooling anyone at all. Maybe I'm talking out my ass, maybe my psychic radar is acting up again, just a hunch is all.

You know, it's not good when you want people to shut up. Do you support Leigh Alexander's article "Gamers are dead" and her promise to destroy a career of a female developer?

Spoiler

I know you lot would really like people to shut up and not to bring this issue. I'd say when you have an influential gaming blogger like Leigh Alexander as one of the faces of gaming blogging, it's not really positive public image.

See, it's this need to demonize the enemy that's unhealthy to the "movement." What kind of discussion can "me and my lot" even have with you now you're this crazy on the warpath? "Yes, I support her threatening to destroy a person's career?" And what do you even mean supporting her article? Does she have a right to her opinion? Do I need to agree with it, and with the offense you've chosen to take over it, in order to support it?

Or better yet, don't answer that. I don't really care either way but nothing you've thus far demonstrated suggests we're capable of having a reasonable discussion, treating one another as equals. I'm going to bed, it's damn-ass late here.

 

[Amakaze]

Did you know the black dude who started not your shield was fired?

So I gather. The news is fairly fresh, so I'm waiting to see if anything changes in that, but if so, that would be wrong. People shouldn't get fired for having different views.

That said, I'm not sure how it relates. Certainly a bad thing, and important, but i was trying to put aside who did what to whom to answer the OP's original question, about the image of gamer gate. Point me at any movement and you'll find idiots and, as mentioned, the internet has a third party of people willing to do stuff just to 'watch the world burn' as the quote goes. So I have no doubt it could have happened. But an individual or small group doing something doesn't prove or disprove a movement. (And for those leaping up to say that is what is happening to THEM and the association with the anti women crowd, I'll note very little in my post was about the bad behavior on either side)

Unrelated, Camel, I'm a little confused (Apologies its late, so I'll have to turn in after this post before seeing the clarification, but I'll check in tomorrow). Are you reading that tweet as a threat? As in 'I will personally make sure this person fails in this career?'. I don't know the context, but from the tweet alone, I got the usual 'I shouldn't say this, but this person really isn't good at their job' comment, which isn't good to say but is not personally threatening another person. (Hint to everyone. If you have to precede a comment with 'I shouldn't say this' or an equivalent, you probably shouldn't).

 

[bazingabro]

Did you know the black dude who started not your shield was fired?

So anti-SJWs have funded a game designed to bring more women into the industry.
While SJWs have been trying to hack into TFYC, and have now caused a black guy to be fired.

Hmm.

It's not confirmed that it was social justice warriors who made the call to his boss and got him fired. Although that is what he said about it himself in a tweet.

Not sure who else would want him fired.