The Big Picture: Remembering the Real Jack Thompson

[Lightknight]

That's what GG was SUPPOSED to be about, ethics in games journalism before everyone started getting their political agendas involved.

I think you're working from a faulty timeline if you think that's what came first. What came first was a false accusation of trading sex for reviews. GG would be on FAR stronger footing if the instigating event and continued focus was Shadow of Mordor marketing or the like.

Right, unfortunately the trigger point ended up being extreme nepotism and cronyism that was benefitting a potential political movement/position/group of sorts. It would definitely have been much better with the more AAA level style of corruption.

However, people fail to realize that both are wrong and both deal with games journalism. That widespread political favoritism in the industry happens is a problem. Individual causes and arguments should be dealt with on their own merits. They should not be avoided or covered because you're friends with the person championing them. That's bad in any kind of journalism and failing to root that out if you agree with the group getting extra attention only reinforces an environment that may turn out to harm you on other issues in the future.

The truth is, there are many areas of corruption in the industry and they don't have to be addressed exclusively. It starts with full disclosure of relationships and friendships and ends when both sides of the issue are discussed openly. It happens when charities aren't blacklisted just because someone's friend says they're bad. Heck, in those cases journalists should be even quicker to interview them to expose them as bad rather than just not interview them.

 

[Lightknight]

snip

Bravo, sir. Your good coherence and rational behaivor are something rare in those kind of statements in the Internet. Hats off to you!

Thank you! Hopefully I can maintain that respect.

Now, I'd like to point out that not all comments against her are legitimate criticism of her points. There is a lot of delusional criticism of feminism or mere name-summoning of Thompson in a Godwin-esque law fashion (and a lot of other things that aren't even criticism, but they aren't part of this topic). Who can hear the former when the later are much noisier?

I fully agree that there are non-rational, even borderline obsessive responses to her arguments.

But just because there are loud crazies out there doesn't mean that the truth shouldn't be pursued or the conversation shut down. We should be able to shift through nonsense and listen to reasonable arguments. I mean, you just did. Why shouldn't we expect journalists and other people to be able to also? Liana Kerzner of Polygon points out that she also has problems with Anita's argument [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp3kzy3eTcU] (this link is an excellent two-sided discussion) but the environment would automatically label any male writer disagreeing with Anita as sexist and any female writer would automatically get labeled as the Anti-Anita and when her fame wanes, so will theirs.

So the environment is damaged. We need to have rules in place where the default is to include two sides. Where it's expected to see a piece on Anita that includes a critic of hers where relevant. If that's expected then we can avoid people being afraid of covering the counter point.

 

[The Choke]

she pulled about 20 super negative ones... Does it really seem that unlikely that the trend remained the same?

Or... actually a lot more than that, screenshots up on her Feminist Frequency site, and did three separate posts about it on her website, but sure, we can keep trying to lie about the numbers. How about I say there were FOUR HUNDRED negative ones, and you can come back and tell me how the top 300 confirm that there was actually six hundred positive comments, since we're both clearly mathmagicians who can conjure numbers and facts out of thin air.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

Bob, dude, seriously...

It's your show and technically you can do whatever you want but regardless of ideological difference NO ONE came here to listen to you rant about this issue. Do yourself a favor and take this discussion to another outlet unless you want to alienate viewers who enjoy the big picture for discussing geek nostalgia and other "fun" topics.

Speak for yourself, buddy. Or do I have to change my name to "Nevyn" now (uber-obscure fantasy novel geek reference).

 

[The Choke]

300 negative comments you say.

Pssst. That isn't what I said. Also, if you look up you'll see the point whizzing over your head.

 

[The Deadpool]

she pulled about 20 super negative ones... Does it really seem that unlikely that the trend remained the same?

Or... actually a lot more than that, screenshots up on her Feminist Frequency site, and did three separate posts about it on her website, but sure, we can keep trying to lie about the numbers. How about I say there were FOUR HUNDRED negative ones, and you can come back and tell me how the top 300 confirm that there was actually six hundred positive comments, since we're both clearly mathmagicians who can conjure numbers and facts out of thin air.

I wasn't conjuring up the numbers. I am saying that, in the comments on her youtube video I was personally privy to, the break down was largely positive.

If your argument is that because I did not read and tally up EVERY SINGLE COMMENT EVER MADE TO HER therefore I cannot speak as to the average breakdown of positive to negative, then the question becomes... why can you?

You said it was largely negative. I actually counted and looked at the numbers. You... Have a sense of things?

 

[The Deadpool]

After the Kickstarter, all the videos comments filled up with some pretty vile stuff.

That is actually untrue.

She used to close off her comments section before the Kickstarter. FOR the Kickstarters she opened them, and stated (herself) that she was doing so to prove that there would be a negative reaction.

Actually she never opened the comments as such.

Sorry, should have specified. I was talking about her youtube video in particular, not her Kickstarter page.

She had a post of her own on her comment section, saying something to the effect of keeping it open to show people the kind of reaction she'd get.

 

[The Choke]

You said it was largely negative. I actually counted and looked at the numbers. You... Have a sense of things?

Sorry, but if my anecdotal evidence is sullied by confirmation bias, then your own is, too. I told you, I read the negative comments as they came in. You told me you read the positive comments in a screenshot after the fact, then told me that it was actual the comments on the video, only it was just the most recent 300.

Also, "I actually counted and looked at the numbers." lol. Some of them. Which supported your already held belief.

 

[The Deadpool]

I apologize for interjecting but I can't seem to see what the argument is here. What point is choke trying to make? Are we somehow surprised that negative comments are happening on the internet?

The argument is actually over what percentage of the gamer population is actually misogynistic.

The argument I presented is as follows:

If Anita's hypothesis is correct and games have a serious effect non the misogyny of people who play them, then the grand majority of players would be misogynistic.

If someone is misogynistic, said person would be against Anita's statements.

I postulate then that since the majority of gamers seem to be AGREEING with Anita, then games simply don't have any noticeable effect.

He argues that the majority of gamers are AGAINST her, citing the large percentage of negative comments against her.

That's how we came to argue over how large the percentage of negative comments against her ACTUALLY was...

 

[The Choke]

I apologize for interjecting but I can't seem to see what the argument is here. What point is choke trying to make? Are we somehow surprised that negative comments are happening on the internet?

The argument is actually over what percentage of the gamer population is actually misogynistic.

The argument I presented is as follows:

If Anita's hypothesis is correct and games have a serious effect non the misogyny of people who play them, then the grand majority of players would be misogynistic.

If someone is misogynistic, said person would be against Anita's statements.

I postulate then that since the majority of gamers seem to be AGREEING with Anita, then games simply don't have any noticeable effect.

He argues that the majority of gamers are AGAINST her, citing the large percentage of negative comments against her.

That's how we came to argue over how large the percentage of negative comments against her ACTUALLY was...

I've actually just been asking you to clarify that point over and over again because it's, first of all, weird, and secondly was worded in such a way that I had no idea what you were trying to say.

I don't like the total-sum "misogyny equals this" because it ignores how subtle sexism actually is, but whatever sweeping statement floats your boat.

Right now we seem to be arguing over the fact that your supporting your opinion with random numbers that don't actually work as evidence.

 

[The Deadpool]

You said it was largely negative. I actually counted and looked at the numbers. You... Have a sense of things?

Sorry, but if my anecdotal evidence is sullied by confirmation bias, then your own is, too.

The difference is, I didn't say "I got the sense it was largely positive when I skimmed it."

I actually sat down and added them up, splitting them into categories and added the results. MY personal bias has no bearing on the actual numbers.

Now you can argue that 300 isn't a large enough sample size for her entire youtube comment page, but it's the largest unmoderated sample I can find. But to argue that my bias somehow created positive comments is absurd.

 

[Jaytr13]

Not sure how in the world you think you can claim a media that makes more money than movies and music together.

Nice logical fallacy yourself. ..you don't understand the first thing about strawman and logical fallacies, lol.

Sorry, I guess I should have used "people" instead of "you"; it's moronic to think anyone can claim to represent all gamers. I guess I thought the context made that obvious.

It really does not, because your first sentence

The thing is, this is OUR medium, not the feminists, and we're allowed to have and voice our opinions too, thunderf00t included.

I'm a feminist who has been gaming since my Atari 2600 and Commodore 64 days. It's far more my medium than yours.

contradicts your last one

The thing is, this is OUR medium, not the feminists, and we're allowed to have and voice our opinions too, thunderf00t included.

I'm a feminist who has been gaming since my Atari 2600 and Commodore 64 days. It's far more my medium than yours. Not sure how in the world you think you can claim a media that makes more money than movies and music together.

like I already explained, this is what you sound like.

Nice logical fallacy yourself. "I played video games before you were born, therefore I own them more than you. You're an immature nerd, and you can't claim this medium but I can." No evidence, nothing to back up your assertions, using your own subjective life experiences as ammo for your arguments..you don't understand the first thing about strawman and logical fallacies, lol.

To claim something means that you are GOING to take something, to claim it as your own that no one else can have (mostly).

You said "it's far more my medium than yours." To own something means that you have and already owned something, possibly for a short or long period of time. It is something in your possession. In your own words "it's moronic to think anyone can claim to represent all gamers. I guess I thought the context made that obvious." when your sentence clearly displays the context that you own the medium but I do not.

Not my fault you suck at putting together proper context and using words in conjunction with each other in order to invoke meaning by way of a sentence.

If you don't like current gaming journalism, go start your own site.

Not how games journalism works. ... When you see something wrong, we have this thing called "vote with your wallet and call people out on their bullshit". Because we have the right to do so as game consumers.

That's exactly what I said, and exactly how journalism works. People thought there was a liberal bias in news and so there was a market for FOX News' creation. You, or any other GGer, are perfectly free to start your own site and those appalled with "ethics" are free to join you.

Again, it just sounds like to me that you're just trying to dismiss the issue at hand here. I like MovieBob's videos, I don't agree with this political opinion he has stated. Where exactly did I say that I was against his views so I wanted to create my own website? No. I as a consumer, have a RIGHT as someone who plays video games and reads journalistic reviews or editorial pieces am allowed to question something if it comes across as strange.

Where exactly did you arrive at the conclusion, this magical idea that a bunch of gamers need to create a website because we disagree with people? that's most bizarre notion I've ever heard.

I think you're working from a faulty timeline if you think that's what came first. What came first was a false accusation of trading sex for reviews. GG would be on FAR stronger footing if the instigating event and continued focus was Shadow of Mordor marketing or the like.

Really? Zoe Quinn never had sex with five guys? I'm sure you have proof, arguments, evidence to the contrary of the blatantly obvious. Typical for a feminist to claim you allow open analysis but then deny certain facts and allegations. It's actually about both of those things, since you've just denied the allegations that these incidents took place.

That's how and why debates exist, hon. Again, I'm sure you have proof to the contrary, right?

Are you ignorant? Feminist theory can be traced back to the 1700s. Feminist analysis has been pretty much going on steadily, with much debate for, against, and within, for almost a hundred years.

No. Are you stupid? I did not think so. Really? feminist analysis has been going on for hundreds of years? well, as someone who doesn't identify with your movement allow me to analyze something for you I've come across as kind of interesting.

As a feminist who surely lives in a first world country, how do you feel about David Cameron refusing to wear a pro-feminist t-shirt?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/27/david-cameron-feminist-t-shirt-refusal

Now, how do you feel about the fact that these t-shirts are made entirely on a small, foreign island called Mauritius by women who who work in sweatshop conditions, for a dollar an hour when these t-shirts sell for 70?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2817191/62p-HOUR-s-women-sleeping-16-room-paid-make-Ed-Harriet-s-45-Feminist-Looks-Like-T-shirts.html

why haven't your feminist ideals extended to the women who make t-shirts supporting your cause, and have David Cameron looked down upon by other women? I thought feminism was about extending equal rights to all women? not very fair that these girls get driven like slaves.

 

[The Deadpool]

I don't like the total-sum "misogyny equals this" because it ignores how subtle sexism actually is, but whatever sweeping statement floats your boat.

I did not say misogyny = ONLY this. But surely you are not arguing that some of the people defending her are actually misogynistic, are you? Because that'd be an interesting new turn of events...

 

[The Choke]

I actually sat down and added them up, splitting them into categories and added the results. MY personal bias has no bearing on the actual numbers.

Now you can argue that 300 isn't a large enough sample size for her entire youtube comment page, but it's the largest unmoderated sample I can find. But to argue that my bias somehow created positive comments is absurd.

Your personal bias is enough for you to treat your pathetically sized sample as evidence. You also... categorized the comments. Based on how they seemed to you. Interesting.

 

[The Choke]

I don't like the total-sum "misogyny equals this" because it ignores how subtle sexism actually is, but whatever sweeping statement floats your boat.

I did not say misogyny = ONLY this. But surely you are not arguing that some of the people defending her are actually misogynistic, are you? Because that'd be an interesting new turn of events...

Oh, I'm sorry. I can see that misogyny is a very confusing subject for you. Sometimes people do believe that some of their sexist behavior is actually polite, or even scientifically motivated. It's really not as simple as: "misogyny means that you don't support Anita." Anita herself has used what I would consider misogynistic language when talking about sex workers, so, once again, slightly too complicated to be boiled down it "if you support Anita, you are automatically not sexist." Too bad, too. That'd be a nice, easy litmus test.

 

[Lightknight]

I apologize for interjecting but I can't seem to see what the argument is here. What point is choke trying to make? Are we somehow surprised that negative comments are happening on the internet?

The argument is actually over what percentage of the gamer population is actually misogynistic.

The argument I presented is as follows:

If Anita's hypothesis is correct and games have a serious effect non the misogyny of people who play them, then the grand majority of players would be misogynistic.

If someone is misogynistic, said person would be against Anita's statements.

I postulate then that since the majority of gamers seem to be AGREEING with Anita, then games simply don't have any noticeable effect.

He argues that the majority of gamers are AGAINST her, citing the large percentage of negative comments against her.

That's how we came to argue over how large the percentage of negative comments against her ACTUALLY was...

But the framing of the argument itself, as you just presented it to me, is flawed.

You both spoke about confirmation bias when the biggest problem that people seem to forget is responder bias. Only two sorts of people are ever going to comment. The people who care enough to comment in support and the people who care enough to comment against.

At best you may come to a solution of the composition of people who are the most interested in the subject rather than get any sort of baseline of the gamer demographic.

Additionally, people may be critical of Anita's claim that games are sexist or make you sexist without necessarily being misogynistic. Posting negatively or critically with respect to Anita isn't inherently posting negatively or critically regarding feminism or equal rights. For example, I reject her premise that the damsel trope is negative and inherently sexist whenever a woman is damsel-ed (she also made the claim that gender power disparity is a socially constructed myth rather than a medical fact in which the average woman is as much as 50% weaker than the average male in upper body strength). Disagreeing that stopping evil villains from taking away damsels' agency isn't me saying that there aren't sexist depictions of females or that female consumers don't deserve representation at least equal to their participation as consumers in the medium. Also, those who believe she has misrepresented herself may disagree with her as a person rather than her topic but if it's the kickstarter page you're referring to then some of these wouldn't have come around until later.

Then there's the assumption that Anita's claim being true means that gamers would automatically believe it only if they were not misogynistic. Without having provided any proof then it would be easy to not believe such a claim when comparable studies have said otherwise. So being against her claims at all wouldn't generally follow. Likewise, there are several specific components of her argument that disagreeing with have nothing to do with feminism at all. Saying that the damsel trope actually teaches people to stop those who would kidnap people or take away their agency doesn't mean that you think women shouldn't have equal rights.

 

[MaddKossack115]

Ok, so Anita is entitled to criticism from those who don't like her work, but what I meant to say is that the guys who voice that criticism through SEXUAL HARASSMENT and DEATH THREATS will ALSO face the consequences. If that means torpedoing whatever point they had on gaming journalism by twisting it into feminist-bashing, then they should've thought a bit harder about just how people would react when they went overboard on criticizing Anita.

Ignoring any and all criticism from many people because a few people engage in sending threats and internet harassment is not a satisfactory rebuttal to the aforementioned criticism. There will always be threats and harassment, and while I wish law enforcement all the best in bringing the perpetrators justice, I'm almost certain there's always going to be more, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. The best option is to report any such illegal activities to the proper authorities and then quietly ignore them.

Doens't change the fact people were willing to abuse loopholes from 'common firearm laws' to credibly threaten a public assassination/massacre just because she said things they disagree with. If you're trying to say Anita basically 'staged' her speech cancelation just to criticize both lax gun laws and her more homicidal critics; guess what? I'd totally approve of her exposing how many people seriously want to kill her, and how in some parts of the country they have the perfect opportunity to do so.

There's nothing abusive about exercising common state law to carry firearms, and no law in America will actually stop someone who's willing to commit murder: Law enforcement stops lawbreakers, not laws. Considering how often Anita gets around, and how many public appearances she's made, I seriously doubt many people wish to kill her and I've seen no evidence anyone has even come near her with such intent.

Huh. Funny all the sources claiming "Mateus Prado Sousa made this threat" (at least, from what I found by a quick Google search) were all from GamerGate members. Don't get me wrong - looking at Sousa's Youtube channel, he's clearly not one of Anita's fans, and he definitely sounds like a prime suspect to try pulling the 'send death threats to her family' bullshit. But until some other official source outside of GamerGate confirms this story, I'm not going to buy it just yet.

And we've heard no word on who 'Kevin Dobson' actually is, yet people find it perfectly acceptable to hold him up as the legitimate standard of gamergate, even though it's abundantly clear it was an account made solely for the purpose of sending those threats.

Yeah, the whole 'no membership, no leader, no organized methodology' thing is NOT going to help GamerGate actually reform the game journalism system. Even the most bottom-up movements needed to figure out who their leaders were and how to properly organize their statements if they wanted to gain traction in their points.

And yet, the movement seems to be doing just fine. The only ones who seem upset that Gamergate lacks official membership, leadership, or concrete methods and goals are it's critics.

But Gamergate does not exist to appease it's critics, it exists as a result of growing contempt for the media's misrepresentation of gaming and gamers. Until something is done to appease Gamergate, the contempt will remain.

Claiming 'no organized methodology' certainly isn't an excuse for GamerGate members to allow anti-feminists and misogynists to run around making threats against Anita.

This would imply Gamergate actually has the ability to disallow anti-feminists and misogynists from making threats. This is incorrect. No force on Earth could stop 'Kevin Dobson' from making those threats, he was an anonymous user on a public website.

In spite of this, not only did Gamergate condemn Kevin Dobson, but they've tried to seek out the real person behind the alias and have him brought to justice. How is that not the appropriate response?

You can't claim disorganization as an excuse to just ignore the sexist lunatics dragging GamerGate's name through the mud; if the GamerGate community is going to be anything beyond a social punchline, its members NEED to openly say that sexists and misogynists are not welcome, and that their criticisms of the gaming business has nothing to do with anti-feminism, end of discussion.

The only ones dragging Gamergate's name through the mud is the media; the evidence that Gamergate actually harbors a significant number of sexists is scant at best, and the methods of somehow addressing the presence of anonymous users who may or may not be sexist are wildly impractical.

And absolutely none of those claims are relevant because Gamergate has no membership. There is as much of a gamergate community as there is a gaming community: It's just a loose collection of many individuals with an aligned interest in criticizing gaming media. Whether they be sexist, misogynists, or cishetwhitemales is completely irrelevant to that criticism.

Ok, so long story short, I understand that you clearly don't support the sexists that try to abuse the Gamergate hashtag to harass people, and I appreciate how your policy is to get the proper authorities to get on the case whenever one of these threats show up. But just because the police are going after the guys who make death threats under the Gamergate name doesn't really mean Gamergate itself can ignore the fact the guys making death threats are there. Even taking into account of how "Gamergate isn't an organization with membership, it's a community with people of similar interests in it" doesn't mean the Gamergate community can't make more effective steps to disavow and separate themselves from those using Gamergate as a tool of abuse - again, in MovieBob's Game Overthinker video, the metal 'community' united to disassociate itself from the Neo-Nazi skinheads that were into metal, and Bob went on to claim that the gaming community can dissociate itself from the trigger-happy right wing lunatics like Anders Breivik (the Oslo Massacre guy), who outright claimed Call of Duty was literally part of his 'training simulation'. I'm certain that if Gamergate made a far more conscious effort to exorcise the misogynists who are only in it to bash feminism from their community, they can easily do that. They can certainly afford to do more than just claim 'hey, it's up to the police to catch these guys. We're just going to give the police information, and then stay away from the whole issue while the cops do their thing'. And you can't just blame the media for exclusively trying to smear Gamergate's name. There wouldn't be much for the media to smear Gamergate with if it wasn't for the misogynists giving them plenty of material to cover.

 

[The Deadpool]

I actually sat down and added them up, splitting them into categories and added the results. MY personal bias has no bearing on the actual numbers.

Now you can argue that 300 isn't a large enough sample size for her entire youtube comment page, but it's the largest unmoderated sample I can find. But to argue that my bias somehow created positive comments is absurd.

Your personal bias is enough for you to treat your pathetically sized sample as evidence.

I treat it as superior evidence to... NOTHING.

I'm still wondering why you think you can claim the comments were largely negative with nothing but your gut, but complain about sample size...

Oh, I'm sorry. I can see that misogyny is a very confusing subject for you. Sometimes people do believe that some of their sexist behavior is actually polite, or even scientifically motivated. It's really not as simple as: "misogyny means that you don't support Anita." Anita herself has used what I would consider misogynistic language when talking about sex workers, so, once again, slightly too complicated to be boiled down it "if you support Anita, you are automatically not sexist." Too bad, too. That'd be a nice, easy litmus test.

It isn't about EVERY SINGLE MEMBER, but simply about a population trend.

I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that the number of misogynistic gamers who agree that their games make them hate women is small enough to be insignificant.

Also, calling sex workers "prostituted women" is insensitive to sex workers. It isn't misogynistic. The word kinda gets thrown around a little too easily...

 

[MaddKossack115]

Anita, on the other hand, is challenging the CONSEQUENCE-FREE SPEECH

Likewise, she now faces the consequences of her own speech, none of which are legally binding or government supported.

Why the concern over silencing critics when no one is actually being censored?

Ok, so Anita is entitled to criticism from those who don't like her work, but what I meant to say is that the guys who voice that criticism through SEXUAL HARASSMENT and DEATH THREATS will ALSO face the consequences. If that means torpedoing whatever point they had on gaming journalism by twisting it into feminist-bashing, then they should've thought a bit harder about just how people would react when they went overboard on criticizing Anita.

The death threats against Anita can't be shrugged off when she had to cancel a presentation because the threat of a school shooting could've been carried out thanks to how guns weren't banned from the school she was presenting [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/138046-School-Shooting-Threat-Sent-to-USU-about-Anita-Sarkeesian],

False; Anita made the decision to cancel her talk even after being assured the threat the school had received was not credible by the police. Many college campuses allow guns to be carried, typically in states with similar laws. She's been giving talks at length across the country for some times, she knows these laws exist. Refusing to talk at a previously planned presentation because of death threats she has allegedly been receiving this entire time because of a common firearm law she would have undoubtedly encountered before is disingenuous.

Doens't change the fact people were willing to abuse loopholes from 'common firearm laws' to credibly threaten a public assassination/massacre just because she said things they disagree with. If you're trying to say Anita basically 'staged' her speech cancelation just to criticize both lax gun laws and her more homicidal critics; guess what? I'd totally approve of her exposing how many people seriously want to kill her, and how in some parts of the country they have the perfect opportunity to do so.

and when she was forced to flee her own house after the threats to break in and murder her family proved all to real not to brush off as a sick joke or empty boast [http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/27/6075179/anita-sarkeesian-says-she-was-driven-out-of-house-by-threats].

False; The threat of posting an address of a public figure, or the address of a public figure's family with nothing more than words to back it up is not a credible threat. Considering Anita continues to make public appearances in well-populated spaces to this day, and much of her personal information can be found online through completely legal means with nothing more than her full name, it is laughable to asserts this had any more reason to 'drive Anita from her home' than any other anonymous death threats.

Also? Gamergate is pretty sure they found 'Kevin Dobson'. He was a Brazilian journalist by the name of Mateus Prado Sousa doing it to stir up controversy: http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2j2gun/identity_of_one_of_anita_sarkeesians_harassers/

Huh. Funny all the sources claiming "Mateus Prado Sousa made this threat" (at least, from what I found by a quick Google search) were all from GamerGate members. Don't get me wrong - looking at Sousa's Youtube channel, he's clearly not one of Anita's fans, and he definitely sounds like a prime suspect to try pulling the 'send death threats to her family' bullshit. But until some other official source outside of GamerGate confirms this story, I'm not going to buy it just yet.

At the very LEAST, the GamerGate members who DON'T support trying to outright kill Anita just to shut her up should call out any of their members who tried to do so, if only in a "GUYS!! Stop making US look bad!" motive.

GG has no membership, no leader, no organized methodology. It simply is. Trying to call out anonymous users who engage in bad behavior for no other reason than they used the GG hash tag is beyond impractical.

Yeah, the whole 'no membership, no leader, no organized methodology' thing is NOT going to help GamerGate actually reform the game journalism system. Even the most bottom-up movements needed to figure out who their leaders were and how to properly organize their statements if they wanted to gain traction in their points. Claiming 'no organized methodology' certainly isn't an excuse for GamerGate members to allow anti-feminists and misogynists to run around making threats against Anita. In one of Bob's GameOverthinker episodes, he pointed out how metal music was starting to get controversy over being the 'music of choice' for skinhead Neo-Nazis, and the reason that controversy didn't get out of control (at least, compared to some other metal controversies) was how the metal community as a whole banded together to openly declare that "Neo-Nazis aren't welcome here!" (See 14:18 of this video for the part explaining it).

You can't claim disorganization as an excuse to just ignore the sexist lunatics dragging GamerGate's name through the mud; if the GamerGate community is going to be anything beyond a social punchline, its members NEED to openly say that sexists and misogynists are not welcome, and that their criticisms of the gaming business has nothing to do with anti-feminism, end of discussion.

The campus found no credible threat to Anita so her cancelling the planned talk event seems extremely bizarre for someone who goes out to make public speeches despite being "in fear for her life".Makes me think Anita isn't as scared to death as she,the media,and you are implying her to be.

What I find incredibly funny about the last part of your post is that you only call out one side to openly say that it's trash elements aren't welcome.Why not extend the same courtesy to Anti Gamer Gate who houses a Neo Nazi,many racists and sexists who go around bullying LGBT organizations and the like?

Can you tell me exactly WHO in Anti Gamer Gate are "a Neo Nazi,many racists and sexists who go around bullying LGBT organizations and the like?" Like, with links showing the people making Neo-Nazi, racist and sexist comments? I'm not even being sarcastic, or anything - if guys like that really are running around Anti Gamer Gate, they deserve to be called out for their radical beliefs just as much as if they were running around Gamer Gate instead.

 

[Mahha]

I just wanted to say that there's lots of research into the third-person effect, and I'm actually surprised that more GG-supporters don't use it and first-person effect in their arguments against critiques that focus on social equality.

You have a point. There should be more of a strongly argumented approach to debunking false claims.

However, as far as I've understood, GG has nothing to do with social equality in games. I'm pretty sure GG is all about journalistic integrity of the games media, something that really has nothing to do with Anita and her "research". I find it funny that it's often the opponents of GG that bring them up, it's never (or rarely) GG supporters.
I think it's important to distinguish between that GG has nothing to do with social equality in games, it might have arose from affairs of a game developer with games journalists, but it's purely about ethics in journalism and not social equality.