well, the the escapist was just attacked.

MathHamy

New member
Sep 18, 2014
12
0
0
erttheking said:
No offense, I read your post and it is entirely speculation. Speculation is not what happened. I'm not going to change my opinion on a group for something I don't know that they did with 100% certainty. I am not taking sides in this clusterfuck unless those sides are based on solid facts. Too many rampant emotions have caused too many tears already for me to let myself fall into the same pitfall.

Heck, a good part of your argument hinges on the assumption that this attack even had anything to DO with Gamer Gate! Where's the evidence that it does? We've seen plenty of attacks on online games in the past done for laughs, why is this one automatically different?
No offense taken. I will attempt to address your concerns. I guess I should have included my reasoning for why I believe it has something to do with GamerGate.

It's all to do with two things. If it was only a random attack on an online gaming site, that means that the choice of target and the choice of time should be independent of the current GamerGate-related events.

There are many gaming-related websites, but the only website which has agreed to every demand made by the GamerGate protesters is attacked. You could count the statistical probability of picking Escapist by dividing one (representing the one choice, that is Escapist) by the number of possible choices. Even if only the major websites are included, it's a small number. Consider also that from all pages under the escapistmagazine domain, exactly the GamerGate thread was targeted. How much more certain do we need to be?

Then there's also the timing. Out of all the times of the year, the attack is made while GamerGate is a hot topic and especially one day after there was an e-mail dump in which Kuchera and Tito argued over banning policies at the Escapist forums. This probability is also very small.

You then have to multiply these small probabilities with each other to get the probability that the attack is unrelated to GamerGate. I haven't made the calculations, but it should be obvious that it's a VERY small number. You could do the whole hypothesis-testing thing with p-values thing that statisticians do, I believe, and you should get the result that we should not reject the hypothesis that the attack is related to GamerGate.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
MathHamy said:
erttheking said:
No offense, I read your post and it is entirely speculation. Speculation is not what happened. I'm not going to change my opinion on a group for something I don't know that they did with 100% certainty. I am not taking sides in this clusterfuck unless those sides are based on solid facts. Too many rampant emotions have caused too many tears already for me to let myself fall into the same pitfall.

Heck, a good part of your argument hinges on the assumption that this attack even had anything to DO with Gamer Gate! Where's the evidence that it does? We've seen plenty of attacks on online games in the past done for laughs, why is this one automatically different?
No offense taken. I will attempt to address your concerns. I guess I should have included my reasoning for why I believe it has something to do with GamerGate.

It's all to do with two things. If it was a random attack on an online gaming site, that means that the choice of target and the choice of time should be independent of the current GamerGate-related events.

There are many gaming-related websites, but the only website which has agreed to every demand made by the GamerGate protesters is attacked. You could count the statistical probability of picking Escapist by dividing one (representing the one choice, that is Escapist) by the number of possible choices. Even if only the major websites are included, it's a small number.

Then there's also the timing. Out of all the times of the year, the attack is made while GamerGate is a hot topic and especially one day after there was an e-mail dump in which Kuchera and Tito argued over banning policies at the Escapist forums. This probability is also very small.

You then have to multiply these small probabilities with each other to get the probability that the attack is unrelated to GamerGate. I haven't made the calculations, but it should be obvious that it's a VERY small number. You could do the whole hypothesis-testing thing with p-values thing that statisticians do, I believe, and you should get the result that we should not reject the hypothesis that the attack is related to GamerGate.
Look, there's plenty of evidence to suspect that the anti-gamer gate side did it. I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that there's not quite enough to push it over from suspecting them to flat out saying "They did it" That's my main problem here and it's why I'm not saying that they did it.
The Lunatic said:
erttheking said:
Well then the words "Anti-gamer gate people did it" are never coming out of my mouth with any sincerity. As far as I'm concerned, some random asshole did it for a laugh until I'm proven otherwise.

No I won't and I would appreciate it if you didn't make baseless accusations of me.

I don't appreciate being accused of twisting things to suit my own narrative. It's being intellectually dishonest, something I am very much against.

Maybe, maybe not. Unless we get some proof, we're never actually going to know now are we?
I never accused you of anything. Simply speaking broadly.

There are people who do what I said. I never said you were one of them!
Ah I see. I apologize for that. I should have read your post more carefully.
 

MathHamy

New member
Sep 18, 2014
12
0
0
erttheking said:
Look, there's plenty of evidence to suspect that the anti-gamer gate side did it. I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that there's not quite enough to push it over from suspecting them to flat out saying "They did it" That's my main problem here and it's why I'm not saying that they did it.
Very well, I can accept that position. My argument was simply that the overwhelmingly most likely scenario is that anti-GG crazies did it. Of course, crazies are still crazies, whatever they believe.
 

Davroth

The shadow remains cast!
Apr 27, 2011
679
0
0
erttheking said:
If I had ever made the claim that all men were to blame, you would have had a point. I didn't, so you don't.

And frankly maybe anti-gamer gate really did do this. I have no idea who did it, that's the point I'm trying to make and I don't want to blindly dive into speculation in order to make a claim.
I wasn't talking to you, then. I don't know why you felt addressed by this at all. It doesn't really change my point, though.
 

Mouser_House

New member
Sep 17, 2014
10
0
0
erttheking said:
Show me proof then we'll talk. Don't jump to conclusions and call it reality.
There is none. People are on edge because many terrible things happened in a short period of time. I hope no one minds when I repeat some things from my post at the start of the thread:

-We know that pro-GG are getting doxxed on twitter and receiving threats.
-The guy who started Notyourshield got fired because someone called his boss, supposedly with doxxed info.
-TFYC got attacked by a hacking attempt. For the second time.
-There are also rumors going around that moot is going to rule 4chan with an iron fist from now on, maybe because someone talked to him and told him to clean his act so it'll be easier to sell the site.

There is no evidence that anti-GG members performed the DDoS attack there probably never will be. As I said at the start of the thread, it seems almost too crazy to be true. But considering how many ludicrous things have happened, I wouldn't put it past members of the opposition to recruit hackers to try and stir shit up. It could simply have been done to intimidate people, not to silence the discussion (which would require the site to go down for days, maybe even weeks).

GG look like conspiracy theorists again just for complaining and anti-GG take the time to drop by and point this out. Just by getting everyone on the Escapist pissed off we end up wasting time because we have to spend the next 48 hours bickering about who did it.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
kyp275 said:
MarsAtlas said:
I go watch a movie with my little niece that I haven't seen in forever, and I come back to somebody who claims that "the SJWs" are worse than the Westboro Baptist Church. Really? Fucking really? My best fucking friend who pointlessly was sent around the world to get murdered didn't have a funeral because of those arses, and you're comparing people who don't buy into a vast of conspiracy theory bullshit that? Forget about the whole blatant and persistent failure to understand what "freedom of speech" actually means which is usually just frustrating, that comparison may be the single grossest thing I've seen said about this whole month-long fiasco.
I will assume that since the Westboro Church was involved, your friend was in the service. I have not heard of them actually manage to cancel a military funeral as the Patriot Guard riders are usually on top of these things, it is most unfortuante.

That being said, maybe now you understand how some of us feel when people from the SJW camp calls us "worse than ISIS". As a veteran who fought and lost fellow Marines to Sunni militants in Iraq, I found those comments to be offensive in the extreme (I'd like to see Faraci repeat that again to my face or other fellow veterans, though he may want to call for an ambulance first).

Yet what did the anti-GG people say back then? "Oh, he didn't meant all of you" "Oh, it's just a joke!" "it's just a hyperbole!"

Yea, how would you feel if I say those same thing to you now? would that make you feel any better?

shrekfan246 said:
Kungfusam said:
Leigh Alexander is a bully who makes jokes about destroying peoples dreams, I'm not sure why you'd defend her
Funny how nobody on the pro-GamerGate side says the same things about that Milo guy from Breitbart, or InternetAristocrat, or Davis Aurini... apparently, being a "bully" is okay when you're supporting the "right" agenda.
Funny how everyone on the anti-Gamergate side continues to refuse to call out Leigh Alexander.... even after getting buried by all the records of her bullying others. Apparently, being a "bully" is ok when they're supporting the "right" agenda.
She is angry over the death of a person she held very dear, and you turn around and weaponize it to your own personal agenda, the very same agenda that another person was preaching about when he made her mad about it? Are you serious? This is an elaborate joke right?

First of all, apologize to her. Right the fuck now.

Second of all, realize that when someone is angry over the death of someone, you show them a little respect. A little respect. It's not hard.

Third of all, what was the call sign of Gamer Gate? "Not your shield" She isn't your fucking shield. Don't be such a hypocrite if you want your movement to be considered with any respect.

Finally, never, EVER, compare the death of someone and the harassment of his family to an article that used hyperbole, it's the difference between the sun and the moon. The fact that you even compared the two shows that you think far too highly of this whole Gamergate bullshit.
 

Doomtrack

New member
May 3, 2011
15
0
0
This entire thread just makes me solidify my beliefs that this whole "debate" and i use that word very loosely considering it is just people trying to out-asshole each other to prove the other side is worse, should in fact just burn to the ground and never come back.
 

Skatologist

Choke On Your Nazi Cookies
Jan 25, 2014
628
0
0
erttheking said:
She is angry over the death of a person she held very dear, and you turn around and weaponize it to your own personal agenda, the very same agenda that another person was preaching about when he made her mad about it? Are you serious? This is an elaborate joke right?

First of all, apologize to her. Right the fuck now.

Second of all, realize that when someone is angry over the death of someone, you show them a little respect. A little respect. It's not hard.

Third of all, what was the call sign of Gamer Gate? "Not your shield" She isn't your fucking shield. Don't be such a hypocrite if you want your movement to be considered with any respect.

Finally, never, EVER, compare the death of someone and the harassment of his family to an article that used hyperbole, it's the difference between the sun and the moon. The fact that you even compared the two shows that you think far too highly of this whole Gamergate bullshit.
Calm down.

Take a deep breath.

He's not nearly as bad as that post led you to believe. It's basically too late to apologize to Mars, she'll be on a hiatus until people stop acting crappy here.

As for your second of all, what he attempted to do, and what I think he could have portrayed better, was a lesson in sympathy. He and others were compared to a modern terrorist threat while he was apparently an actual Marine, so imagine conflating what he felt when people compared him to essentially the kind of people he fought and the excuses they made. He feels as wronged, if not more so, than Mars from what he's seen.

Your third of all, I'm not exactly sure, I still rarely understand the not your shield thing other than it seems to be used for personal stories and minorities to not be used as examples of the problems of gamers, the gaming community, or GamerGate.

Finally, are we sure it was completely hyperbole? I did see quite a few people genuinely hold the position GamerGate supporters, perhaps mostly the poorer representations of them as harassers, bullies, hackers and such, were actually as bad as ISIS. This was a problem. He saw it, I saw, I tried to do something about it by calling it out, but he never saw people like me, he only saw those that made/justified the comparison when at least a few came from people who genuinely believed what they said, so he may have dismissed many anti-GGers as being just as bad, if not worse, than the bad elements of his side. He's angry too.
 

Geo Da Sponge

New member
May 14, 2008
2,611
0
0
Witty Name Here said:
Still, in terms of general "badness" SJWs are at the far end of the scale. Right up there with the Westboro Baptist Church. Granted arguably a little worse since those idiots don't infringe on others' right to free speech.
Hmmm... Who is more like the Westboro Baptist Church?

A) The SJWs who, whatever else you might accuse them of, are highly anti-homophobia

B) The 4channers who are distinctly anti-SJW and casually and constantly use homophobic language, to the extent that it gets written off as their "culture" (wtf?)

 

DemomanHusband

New member
Sep 17, 2014
122
0
0
Geo Da Sponge said:
Witty Name Here said:
Still, in terms of general "badness" SJWs are at the far end of the scale. Right up there with the Westboro Baptist Church. Granted arguably a little worse since those idiots don't infringe on others' right to free speech.
Hmmm... Who is more like the Westboro Baptist Church?

A) The SJWs who, whatever else you might accuse them of, are highly anti-homophobia

B) The 4channers who are distinctly anti-SJW and casually and constantly use homophobic language, to the extent that it gets written off as their "culture" (wtf?)

To be fair, at least 4chan was always up front with how most of its community operated. To most 4chan users, everyone was a "fag" of some sort, with it becoming so integral to their communication that it pretty much became the end-note to any kind of identifier. Social Justice Warriors are almost never up front with their intentions, always trying to present themselves as righteous and accepting, then turning around and doing whatever they can to loudly discredit anyone who just barely disagrees with them. 4chan only seems venomous on the surface, and genuinely becomes a good community once you find your favorite spot and stick to it in order to learn a particular board's general attitude and culture. SJWs are venomous to the core, but do not appear so at first glance, no matter what cause they "fight" for on any particular day.

So, in short, I'd say it's the SJWs. Do I win big money? :D
 

chadachada123

New member
Jan 17, 2011
2,310
0
0
Zontar said:
BobDobolina said:
2012 Wont Happen said:
I, for one, am glad 4chan took a stand against this thinly veiled hatred of women and it is disgraceful that so many gamers these days have their heads so far up their asses that /b/ has to be the voice of reason and tolerance.
Good post. I don't think 4chan even really cares that much about the misogyny on the whole, though; it's more that, aside from the "movement" being perhaps the most tiresome thing ever, they seem to have realized "waitasec, death threats and harassment are illegal and these dudes are about to bring a metric ton of drama down on us for absolutely no reason."
Then why is any discussion in support of anti-gamergate allowed when supporters of THAT movement are on record with one or two orders of magnitude more death threats and harassment being thrown towards others?

IF your assumption is correct it's a massive act of hypocrisy on their part, and that's with giving them the benefit of the doubt that this is only blanket censorship of everything to silence comments which are next to non-existent. Punishing the whole for the actions of a small few. That's the best case for them scenario, and it STILL makes them look bad.

And hell, I don't see anti-gamergate cleaning its house up. Right now as it stands the ratio is about 2 to 1 by the most conservative estimate in terms of harassment and death threats being thrown around, yet its US who need to go out of our way to deal with it before we can move forward? This whole situation is not even the pot calling the kettle black, it's more of a mass murderer complaining about someone who hit a dog with their car. Anti-GG complaining about harassment is turning into hypocritical white noise, and rightly so.
This is pretty freaking apt, since many, many pro-GG people on twitter have had their personal information stolen; some getting as far as having their PERSONAL HOME PHONE NUMBERS called by anti-GG people. I, myself, with a paltry 20 followers, have recently had a mass of hatred onto my twitter, accusing me of all sorts of misogyny and the like just for being male and supporting GG, despite being openly bisexual. And, of course, being accused of 'pretending' to be bi while using #NotYourShield.

Whenever someone suggests ANYTHING hate-related on the pro-GG side, they are quickly shouted down by the rest for trying to start shit, while there is far less calling-outs on the anti-GG side.
 

The Lunatic

Princess
Jun 3, 2010
2,291
0
0
Geo Da Sponge said:
Hmmm... Who is more like the Westboro Baptist Church?

A) The SJWs who, whatever else you might accuse them of, are highly anti-homophobia

B) The 4channers who are distinctly anti-SJW and casually and constantly use homophobic language, to the extent that it gets written off as their "culture" (wtf?)
Well, given you seem to be using homosexuality as a shield.

As somebody whom is considered homosexual.

It would be the SJW camp who are probably more like the Westboro Baptist Church.

4Chan is an equal opportunity offence machine. It is rare to find a 4channer who actually hates homosexuals.

With SJWs, rather than hating me for being homosexual, there's a number who just hate me for being a man.
 

KennardKId5

New member
May 26, 2011
128
0
0
This is frankly just getting insane. We all need to step back and reexamine what we're getting so pissy about: other people being wrong on the internet.
 

chadachada123

New member
Jan 17, 2011
2,310
0
0
BobDobolina said:
chadachada123 said:
Whenever someone suggests ANYTHING hate-related on the pro-GG side, they are quickly shouted down by the rest for trying to start shit
Yes, that's sure working out great [http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/09/21/mens-rightsers-take-up-arms-against-the-vidya-game-destroyers-never-give-up-never-surrender-and-dont-shop-at-kroger/#more-13385] and you guys don't have massive problems with self-aggrandizement and delusion at all.
Regarding the first half (e-mailing Kroger), not only is the writer purposely omitting the whole "gamers are dead" article which is what the writer is talking about, but is a) an e-mail, so not something we can reign in, and b) not even harassing to begin with, so isn't even something that SHOULD necessarily be reigned in.

The second half, again, is just a call to arms and morale post for a subset of #GG memebers, which is cherry-picked to begin with, likely from an obscure forum (notice the "5" on the left), but also nothing harassing and nothing to be reigned in.

Both are (extremely) hyperbolic at best.

Actually, it is almost certainly the case that the article-writer themselves very much needs to be reigned in, but is completely SUPPORTED by the commentors. Notice the "#againstmalerights" at the very end? Yes, not hateful at all.

At the risk of sounding rude, it seems like both you and the writer are being perfectly obtuse as to what the actual focus of GG is; being willfully ignorant just like most of those who have been writing all of the "gamers are white misogynists" and the like articles. I'll just leave with great example of something sent to the house of @Nero, one of the biggest/most famous members of the GG movement. Far bigger than Anita's death threats, I would say.


https://twitter.com/Nero/status/513666683916255232/photo/1

Note that my response isn't the best retort, and would love for someone else to make a better one in my stead if possible. I'm good at arguing against these types of arguments.
 

Adam Lester

New member
Jan 8, 2013
91
0
0
WhiteNachos said:
Witty Name Here said:
This is what the SJW side is truly like. This is what those who look at all the evidence and are still Anti-GG support.
This is the same logic used to dismiss GG as misogynists.

Calling a SJW a censorship-happy megalomaniac is like pointing at a neo-nazi and saying "I bet that guy supports white supremacy". You might be generalizing or jumping to conclusions, but are you really wrong for doing so?
 

MathHamy

New member
Sep 18, 2014
12
0
0
8bitOwl said:
Wait wait wait, what happened? Can anyone explain me??? I don't even know "Gamergate"? Is it something about hackers being against discussion of female rights or not?
People have strong opinions. Are you willing to read a couple of articles? In that case,
first read http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/
then http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/20/the-escapist-forums-brought-down-in-ddos-attack/

Those two are the most neutral articles I've found.

Then there's a pro-gamergate blog post with plenty of evidence attached: https://medium.com/@cainejw/a-narrative-of-gamergate-and-examination-of-claims-of-collusion-with-4chan-5cf6c1a52a60

I believe you should be completely up to date and in the know after that, though really, the first two are the only important ones if you just want to know what it's about.