I think it may have just happened again. A momentary *hiccup*, the site wasn't available for a short time literally in the last few minutes. DDoS?
The "one side" being referred to here could easily change depending on who's reading. Yes, I know you have examples. So do they.The Lunatic said:We know the threads which were DDOS'd were the threads featuring GG discussion. Given one side is trying to shut down debate of such things, and have actively tried to censor users on twitter and other websites. It stands to reason, at least to me, they were likely the cause.
My argument would be that it's not really overwhelming. As much as some insist on boiling everything down to GG vs. ANTI GG, my reading is that there are a lot of people involved and their motivations probably aren't nearly as in sync as many would like to believe.MathHamy said: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.
It did. I just looked back at the site and had 1008 messages in my inbox. I've only ever posted one short comment on the topic, and not even in the main thread - it was a reply to a Critical Miss comic last week.KingsGambit said:I think it may have just happened again. A momentary *hiccup*, the site wasn't available for a short time literally in the last few minutes. DDoS?
KennardKId5 said: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.
the Oxford dictionary and others are authoritative sources on language and many linguist reach on mutual definitions. in such cases many bodies define the word very similarly, and when a person uses a definition they usually state the definition they use but they always follow a certain structure or meaning, in all cases of misogyny they all are similar enough, that when laymen talk they mostly have similar definitions of the word, their is unity in this sense, and the authoritative make decisions on they definitions on words on their usage in the public, they still set the structure, before literally was added to mean an informal use for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true, it was used wrongly used even though many people used it didn't mean it was correct at that point in time, the authoritative sources gave it recognition, just because it is sounds like a autocratic system doesn't mean that it works strictly like that, many professionals gather to discuss and define word used in the public and give it merit.Zachary Amaranth said:Except words don't have an authoritative source, they operate upon mutual consensus. This is why we define and agree upon terms in debates, in papers, etc. There is no one dictionary or one source for language except common uses, which the multiple dictionaries reflect and catalogue. It's a start point, not the end all. there are multiple bodies which "define" language within a given body of language.Dante dynamite said:actually in arguments of language, word used are actually symbols which we as people or society as a whole give meaning to, words them selves are meaningless and we give meaning to them, and to do so in a way that people can successfully communicate it requires an authoritative source to define these words, so when a person uses the word with a different definition either that they apply themselves to the word or a different authoritative source for a conversation to occur must properly convey that to the other parties involved, this is because without a set authoritative detention words have no meaning at all just random symbols in sequence(also some would argue that a personal definition is useless because with no linguistic background they are someone without the full understanding and letting anyone just change or make their own definition means anyone can make everyday words have sinister meanings or cause problems like new English in 1984)
Demonstrating my point, there are multiple definitions of misogyny. Which is THE definition? The one true definition? How can you determine that when people actively use multiple definitions and they are recognised? And how does the fact that we still manage to communicate without a unified definition not prove you wrong about the need for a set definition? How does language manage to evolve within such an authoritative structure? Why does "literal" now have a definition that means the exact opposite as codified by some dictionaries?
Words are often imprecise. For one person to say something is misogynistic and another to immediately jump on them for not knowing what the word means because they must have meant a particular definition is utter sophistry.
Same reason Kim Kardashian is a big deal. She's not, but we keep bringing her up, so she is.Grayjack said:Why the hell is this GamerGate thing even a big deal?
I highly doubt anybody is saying that.undeadsuitor said:If people can believe that every female developer and reviewer is faking their own death threats, and that theres a large conspiracy of SJWs controlling gaming journalism for their own agenda, I can believe that the Gamergate people after being kicked out of 4chan would DDos their own threads in an effort to both bring Gamergate back into the public eye (which its been falling out of in the last weeks) and make the other side look worse
What gets me is even after 4Chan booted them, these guys think that anybody out there thinks they are in the least bit reasonable or even vaguely likeable.BobDobolina said:The board that was their erstwhile home, and which is obviously incredibly sick of their shit and populated with people perfectly at home with such tactics, still seems the likeliest suspect to me. Most of that kind of stuff has been happening to GamerGaters since 4chan booted their threads and they started yammering about Moot's "betrayal" and 4chan's "hypocrisy" and crusading to take back the homeland from the "SJWs."undeadsuitor said:If people can believe that every female developer and reviewer is faking their own death threats, and that theres a large conspiracy of SJWs controlling gaming journalism for their own agenda, I can believe that the Gamergate people after being kicked out of 4chan would DDos their own threads in an effort to both bring Gamergate back into the public eye (which its been falling out of in the last weeks) and make the other side look worse
Could of course be someone else, who knows.
Sorry, I don't feel like addressing some bullshit.Josh12345 said:Oh you don't care?Stats ^1 said:I.
Don't.
Care.
Your ridiculous ramblings are no excuse to make a separate thread for this issue. It already has a huge thread dedicated to it.
Then why are you here?
Nice job discrediting my post there by addressing nothing about it in a throwaway comment, mad props.
And yeah there's a separate thread dedicated to this issue, but then YOU should have posted your initial comment there if you gave enough of a crap.
And the ENTIRE SITE was down for a few hours, I didn't make this thread, but it seems A LOT of people deemed such a thread necessary.
So in other words you think it's unreasonable to demand that gaming websites have a publicly displayed ethics policy?Bruce said:What gets me is even after 4Chan booted them, these guys think that anybody out there thinks they are in the least bit reasonable or even vaguely likeable.
Even 4chan isn't having any more of their shit.
Can we do it to "bemused," too?Caiphus said:Well, actually you're wrong.
Words can only have one meaning, and that meaning shall henceforth be primarily determined by its Latin roots.
So the next time someone uses, say, "terrific" when referring to anything positive, they should immediately be attacked with a wet fish.
Bodies which don't necessarily agree on definitions, often employ multiple definitions for the same word, and include things like history and usage notes. Further, they don't codify the language, they reflect it. That's why "literally" has a new definition in dictionaries. Because the dictionaries are deciding to reflect the diction employed by people, not set edicts about it.Dante dynamite said:the Oxford dictionary and others are authoritative sources on language and many linguist reach on mutual definitions. a
No, this discussion is a GG discussion, to a point where the OP even admitted that a replica of the discussion is going on in the big thread.MathHamy said:-unnecessary wall of text-
Wait, was GamerGate ever in the public eye? I've seen like one mention of it outside gaming news sites and other gaming sources. I think you're giving the "movement" more credit than it deserves.undeadsuitor said:If people can believe that every female developer and reviewer is faking their own death threats, and that theres a large conspiracy of SJWs controlling gaming journalism for their own agenda, I can believe that the Gamergate people after being kicked out of 4chan would DDos their own threads in an effort to both bring Gamergate back into the public eye (which its been falling out of in the last weeks) and make the other side look worse
There's been talking about it on The Young Turks, actually.Zachary Amaranth said:Wait, was GamerGate ever in the public eye? I've seen like one mention of it outside gaming news sites and other gaming sources. I think you're giving the "movement" more credit than it deserves.
I can ignore the large thread, but that's the point. this should be kept to the large thread.MathHamy said:I can be snarky as well.Stats ^1 said:-blatant public display of illiteracy and stupidity-MathHamy said:-unnecessary wall of text-
OP opened this thread for people who are unwilling to delve through the GG Megathread but want to talk about why Escapist was down. Again, the GG thread is for GG things. This thread is for the DDoS attack. Some people in this thread even question whether or not the DDoS was related to GG at all.
So how does "ignore stuff you don't like" sound as a personal policy?