well, the the escapist was just attacked.

[MathHamy]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[chadachada123]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

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?

 

[SnakeTrousers]

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.

The "one side" being referred to here could easily change depending on who's reading. Yes, I know you have examples. So do they.

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.

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.

 

[Remus]

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?

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.

 

[Velventian]

Again? what is that, do ddos operate like earthquakes?

 

[Adam Lester]

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.

I think it goes a lot deeper than that. For the past few years, the gaming scene has been pretty much infected by non-gamers whose only interest was and still is nothing more than shouting down and shaming everyone or making paltry attempts to bend everyone to their will. The things that went down in Gamergate really blew the lid off the tensions that have been brewing between the gamer crowd and the SJWs' that seem have little to no interest in our hobby, but a lot of investment in calling us all privileged, white neckbeards from the ivory tower every time we so much as fart in a way they don't like.

I think one guy said it best to a SJW who confronted the board asking why they were so hated after they overran the message boards; "Eat shit and die. All I asked for was to be left alone."

 

[Dante dynamite]

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)

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.

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.

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.

for your example the blame falls on the first person for not clearly present their definition of the word instead of the more popular definition which the second person subscribes to, the second person can claim the first is ignorant because with no evidence to the contrary was presented at first, that the person has created their own detention of the word to fit their argument or context, the first person failed to reach to a consensus of the word.