You don't have to be afraid of taking a public stance against #GamerGate.

[Something Amyss]

Yes, by the unethical "journalists" who control the narrative and write non-stop attack pieces on anything and anyone that dares question their authority or self-proclaimed moral high ground.

Yes, only by one side ever and never by anyone else, because no true gamergater or something.

Come now.

 

[Timmaaaah]

I received a warning from the escapist for posting about my opinion on gamergate... I honestly think it's a big load of bullshit. The personal lives of 2 people taken to hilariously stupid extremes and this absolutely ridiculous "SJW" label that seemed to pop up out of nowhere... People fought and died for our right to social justice. If I believe in social justice does that make me a "craaaaazy SJW"?

 

[RolandOfGilead]

I feel sorry for those that genuinely care about journalistic integrity, cause that's not what started it, or its current aim, or its actual effect.

 

[Lilani]

The Gamergate flag has been shat on by too many people to have any worth anymore.

Yes, by the unethical "journalists" who control the narrative and write non-stop attack pieces on anything and anyone that dares question their authority or self-proclaimed moral high ground. This is like saying you should stop fighting in a war because the enemy is fighting back. Obviously gamergate is being attacked, that's how we know it's working. And the best part about GG is - the more you attack it, the stronger it gets.

It doesn't matter who you think did it, that doesn't change the fact that gamergate has no credibility as a movement. If you're really dedicated to this issue and if you really think it has legs, then it should be no problem to dump something that's holding you back so you can make sure your message is clear. To keep hanging onto it is just sabotaging yourself, there's no sense in it.

 

[Something Amyss]

That's actually a good point. So why should we take anything they say seriously? Why should we even let them call themselves journalists?

And while we're at it, why should we let embedded reporters call themselves journalists? Hell, there's a far more serious issue with this in politics right now, so why should we let political reporters call themselves journalists?

 

[fnakao]

Want another example of a true threat?

These journalists use their power to brow beat people into submission in any way possible.

These journalists pick out people and use their power to brow beat them.

Well, here's an unpopular opinion: Maybe the journalists should shame them. It's a way to filter out undesirable people out of their circle jerk (not judging, just reddit term). It definitely works.
If you said something on social media, it's public and according to free speech, people are free to criticize you because of it. She is amplifying what you already said. If you are confident about what you said, you should be thanking her for making it more known.

It's marketing 201. If you make something for everybody it will please no one. Choose your audience. Leigh is a SJW (not an insult). She frequently writes about women issues/perspective on gaming. People who dislike that she brings women issues to video games should just ignore her. She can take the loss of viewers. Cutting those people from her comments saves her more headaches than their attention is worth.

But what I really want to talk about is that I see gamergate as part of a cultural phenomenon that seems more common in the US nowadays. Or at least seems more common because we have access to information and can see it anywhere. People don't understand each other anymore. This is called Off-topic, so I'll run with it to the ends of the Earth. I think this is an underlying problem behind gamergate, but also feminazis, political extremists (be it liberals, republicans or democrats) and anything you want to attribute it to.

Now, there's a lot more information today, a lot more things to be aware of and so a lot more things for people to disagree and be aggressive about. If you talk about cisgender to my parents they will think you're playing some kind of practical joke on them.

But my point is that there?s been a human de-skilling process in modern society where we removed our conditions to learn necessary life skills to navigate the ambiguous terrains which require us to interact with people. We are removed from exposure to things that are different in our daily lives, the strangeness and things that require a measure of curiosity or wonder (engagement). We have our friends, neighborhoods, our sites, our communities and avoid straying too far from them. Doing so is a form of creating order in our social lives, but it also removes the opportunity to practice and use skills like negotiating a compromise, empathic ability that would avoid tribal mentality, argumentation for the sake of understanding (dialogic), etc. We are not using our tools meant to understand others and have a civil conversation like we are supposed to. And thus we are having trouble navigating this incredibly difficult social landscape.

For an outsider I have a hard time seeing how egalitarians and feminisms can disagree so much when they both want equal rights and equal opportunities (equity of opportunities?). It seems obvious they should work together, but you can frequently see them strongly hating each other on the internet instead of agreeing. I think this process of unlearning how to interact with others due to technology in the ample sense (housing, media, gerrymandering, urban design) is the answer.

This is a video that talks about this better than I can (the quote is spread through the next 15 min). Its main argument is that even the way our cities are designed, contributed to our incompetency in talking to and understanding each other http://youtu.be/tcXE4NEgLn8?t=52m43s
You might want to watch it from the begging if you want to understand what he's talking about better. It has architecture and sociology.

 

[Eri]

You're definitely right, OP, that you don't have to be afraid of being against GG.

You'll still be completely wrong but by all means, if you aren't afraid of being dead wrong, be my guest.

 

[Plunkies]

The Gamergate flag has been shat on by too many people to have any worth anymore.

Yes, by the unethical "journalists" who control the narrative and write non-stop attack pieces on anything and anyone that dares question their authority or self-proclaimed moral high ground. This is like saying you should stop fighting in a war because the enemy is fighting back. Obviously gamergate is being attacked, that's how we know it's working. And the best part about GG is - the more you attack it, the stronger it gets.

It doesn't matter who you think did it, that doesn't change the fact that gamergate has no credibility as a movement. If you're really dedicated to this issue and if you really think it has legs, then it should be no problem to dump something that's holding you back so you can make sure your message is clear. To keep hanging onto it is just sabotaging yourself, there's no sense in it.

And who determines credibility? The games media? It seems to me that people can make their own decisions on how credible gamergate is by using it or not using it.

How naive can you be? They're going to attack people under one label or another. Do you not know what spawned gamergate? A coordinated barrage of articles directly attacking gamers. Gamers. They had no "gamergate" to attack but they still had a name for us, didn't they? They still had a group of people to slander and deride and shame into submission. Unfortunately for them they only managed to piss people off in record numbers.

Notice how you talk about how bad gamergate is but have no statement on all of the horrible things done in the name of anti-GG. Do you know why? Because the media hasn't told you what to think yet.

 

[Nirallus]

That's actually a good point. So why should we take anything they say seriously? Why should we even let them call themselves journalists?

And while we're at it, why should we let embedded reporters call themselves journalists? Hell, there's a far more serious issue with this in politics right now, so why should we let political reporters call themselves journalists?

Why indeed. The GameJournoPros thought they were doing the same thing in gaming that JournoList was doing in politics (a good thing, by their reckoning). At least when JournoList was busted, David Weigel had the good sense to resign from the Washington Post the same day his emails were leaked.

 

[Jux]

"When I see industry wide trends, I will be. But so far, nothing shown even remotely suggests to me 'industry wide problem', and until then I'll simply call out the individuals when I see it." - your PM to me. I still have it in my inbox.

And this is supposed to be a quote where I am belittling minorities? Or is the the one where I'm defending journalists for 'setting their fans on' people? Because the quote says neither.

I can do a screencap right now.

Screen cap whatever you like, I have no issue with you posing my PM's here, so long as the courtesy goes both ways and I can post things you said here too.

You refused to believe in anything that might suggest that gaming journalism is toxic and entitled even with blatant evidence. You talk about how gamergate and notyourshield have no merit and aren't fighting for equality.

Aside from a few isolated people, I have yet to see evidence of an industry wide problem.

even when I sourced the transcript to DIGRA you refused to even read it.

You've been trumpeting the same thing over and over and now you're pissed that I put it all together.

I'm pretty annoyed that you may be insinuating I'm a racist. Other than that, most of this is just head scratching.

Nevermind that she did this in her own time independent from any think tank. Not to mention they failed to mention she isn't even a registered republican. Nothing but hit pieces because she didn't back up journalists.

Do you know the difference between a conservative and a republican?

The evidence is blatant. So drop the neutrality act because Its not fooling anyone anymore. You refuse to see anything until kotaku itself admits it. Every single piece of evidence is just you going "nuh uh!"

Are you shifting the goalposts again? Where was that source that journalists set their fans on people, and that I defended it?

When the anti GGs from other gaming journalism sites started a hate campaign against intel for pulling support on gamasutra, Leigh Alexander's website, it became obvious there was circling off the wagons. It was plastered on every website when it happened.

'hate campaign'? That's a pretty strong claim. Is gg a hate campaign for lobbying intel to pull sponsorship from gamasutra?

 

[laraem]

yes you did. When you said that gamergate was not fighting for equality and to hop off the cross is when you said #notyourshield was not fighting for equality and belittled their harassment.

#notyourshield was harassed every day for the last month. People were doxxed. yet that doesn't stop you from belittling their fight.

The entire hashtag is about equality and how the journalists fight against it, and how they use fake equality to shield themselves from real criticism.

How you got "Jux belittles minorities" out of "Jux doesn't think gamergate fights for equality" makes zero sense. Seriously, come back when you can put together a cogent argument, because I don't see the point in arguing with someone that is going to make up motivations about me based on completely unrelated stuff. #notyourshield is not a person, it is a hashtag. I'm still waiting on a single quote where I belittle minorities.

Want another example of a true threat?

Spoiler: image

These journalists use their power to brow beat people into submission in any way possible. Threats, name and shaming, and their fans who will attack whoever the journalists attack. People have circled the wagons around Leigh and her threats as well as any toxic journalist. When you said gamergate had no merit and it was only a few rotten eggs is when you defended them. These people defended these toxic tweets.

First, you still aren't providing any sources on where journalists set their fans on anyone, or where I defended such a thing. I'm going to keep bringing this up over and over until you actually source this, or admit you lied. I don't take kindly to defamatory statements about myself. Second, I haven't defended anything. And your insistence at this red team/blue team thinking doesn't make it true.

Its not just a few toxic eggs if people endorse it by defending these people.

These journalists pick out people and use their power to brow beat them. Its naming and shaming and letting their fans know who to attack. They dog piled on Sommers and j miller. They insulted them and put them on the spot in front of their fans.

The hero worship in gaming is very real, and both J miller and Sommers were a victim of it. Especially when websites started writing articles to slander her and trying to goad fans into taking arms against her by saying he is a republican.

Still waiting on those sources.

"When I see industry wide trends, I will be. But so far, nothing shown even remotely suggests to me 'industry wide problem', and until then I'll simply call out the individuals when I see it." - your PM to me. I still have it in my inbox.

I can do a screencap right now.

You refused to believe in anything that might suggest that gaming journalism is toxic and entitled even with blatant evidence. You talk about how gamergate and notyourshield have no merit and aren't fighting for equality.

even when I sourced the transcript to DIGRA you refused to even read it.

You've been trumpeting the same thing over and over and now you're pissed that I put it all together.

Nevermind that she did this in her own time independent from any think tank. Not to mention they failed to mention she isn't even a registered republican. Nothing but hit pieces because she didn't back up journalists.

The evidence is blatant. So drop the neutrality act because Its not fooling anyone anymore. You refuse to see anything until kotaku itself admits it. Every single piece of evidence is just you going "nuh uh!"

When the anti GGs from other gaming journalism sites started a hate campaign against intel for pulling support on gamasutra, Leigh Alexander's website, it became obvious there was circling off the wagons. It was plastered on every website when it happened.

Uhhh, you know that video is literally hosted on said think tank's youtube page and has said think tank water mark on the video right?

Like it's part of her AEI work. Hardly "independent"

 

[laraem]

Like it's part of her AEI work. Hardly "independent"

Or perhaps it's just "company policy" to put AEI's branding on any video in AEI's channel. How do you know it's not independent?

Because it's part of a series of videos that are all done as part of the AEI youtube channel? And the thing is promoted through the AEI website, and Hoff Sommers doesn't even have her own channel.

But I mean was that a serious question?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

How naive can you be? They're going to attack people under one label or another. Do you not know what spawned gamergate? A coordinated barrage of articles directly attacking gamers. Gamers. They had no "gamergate" to attack but they still had a name for us, didn't they? They still had a group of people to slander and deride and shame into submission. Unfortunately for them they only managed to piss people off in record numbers.

You know what? No. You bring up the "Gamers are Dead" articles, we get to talk about what spawned the "Gamers are Dead" articles. They didn't spring up full form from the head of Zeus, they were written in response to yet more horribleness that had come to define "gamer" these past years. Like the month long "Burgers and Fries" witch hunt. Like the response Sarkeesian gets for doing literally anything. Like the bomb threat on the SOE president. Like the death threats sent to the Gamespot reviewer who dared give GTA 5 a mere 9/10.

I'm not surprised games journalists got sick of this loud, toxic minority that tries to pretend they're the only gamers that matter, I'm just surprised it took them this long to snap.

 

[laraem]

Because it's part of a series of videos that are all done as part of the AEI youtube channel?

What does that even mean? It's a series of videos how? What relates one video to the next in this "series"? In that all the videos are in the same channel? Yeah, we already knew that.

The only thing I see is that it's part of a playlist of "Factual Feminist" videos. Is that the "series" it's in?

If the only evidence you have that it wasn't "independent" is that "It's part of the AEI channel", then that's not enough to prove your claim.

And the thing is promoted through the AEI website

How do you know they don't promote all the videos hosted on their channel?

, and Hoff Sommers doesn't even have her own channel.

Which would be why it was posted on AEI's channel.

Yes it's part of the "Factual Feminist" series which is hosted and promoted through AEI. It is is not cross posted by AEI it is hosted by AEI. AEI is all over that series of videos.

http://www.aei.org/issue/society-and-culture/race-and-gender/factual-feminist/

The Factual Feminist appears weekly on Monday and can be shared via social media and email. Feel free to post it on websites; blog or tweet about it; or leave comments via Facebook or YouTube. The Factual Feminist team will try to respond when we can! If you think we get something wrong, please let us know. We are always open to criticism. Fact-based feminism can be a powerful force for good!

Notice all the we statements.

At this point is up to you to prove that it is somehow independent.

 

[Jux]

Okay:

So 2 journalists make racist statements, one of them has been confirmed to use her position to threaten other people and the other wants Jews to die. One tried to defend her statements by changing it to poor people.

Neither of which I think is ok, assuming it's as straightforward as you're saying. I hate to say it, but as much as you've misrepresented me here, I'm having a hard time taking anything you say at face value at this point.

The rest of the industry doesn't condemn their intolerance, and actively defends them.

Ok, this is where we're definitely going to need sources.

And you say there is no problem? if this was any other industry, racism and antisemitism would get you fired. In gaming Journalism, it gets you fans and other journalists to use as attack dogs when the sponsors find out about it. As they did with intel and sommers.

I'm saying it isn't an industry wide problem. If people all across the industry were engaging in this sort of toxic shit, then I would agree that it's not isolated incidents. Sadly, you're wrong about any other industry not tolerating this. I've complained about people in my own company making sexist comments, and sadly, they're still here. People love to talk about inclusivity, but hate rocking the boat.

Silence is an endorsement. The entire industry has refused to call out hate because they knew the person.

When you say that racism and antisemitism doesn't exist, you are belittling it. #notyourshield is a protest specifically for Gamasutra at this point. You say it doesn't matter and there is nothing to be angry about. I don't need you to admit that, your attitude already made that abundantly clear.

You're flat out lying if you're claiming I said racism and antisemitism don't exist. That's straight up libel dude. Where is the source that journalists set their fans on anyone, and that I defended it?

When journalists run to the defense of hate, its an endorsement. They should have just let Gamasutra and its hate end up without sponsors, but they didn't. They kicked and screamed for companies to sponsor hateful people.

This shit shouldn't and can't fly. No one should turn a blind eye to this.

So when you said there is no problem and shit like Sommer's and Intel's harassment are front page gaming news on most popular websites, shows you endorse what they are doing.

More lies. I've said many times previously I condemn harassment.

I have told you this before, but you refuse to see the glaring problem in this industry. You refuse to see any evidence at all and all you do is ignore and run off. Just like the last 3 little arguments we had.

I refuse to be lied to, docdumped on and led around by the nose. I'm not stupid, regardless of how you insist on treating me as such.

Intel got harassment, copy pasted emails pretending to be industry big wigs to coerce them into submission, and journalists slandering the company for pulling support over controversy. it did not come out in support of gamergate, but that didn't stop people from harassing intel employees and causing them to release a press release.

It didn't stop people like you justifying the hate mail and harassment of intel employees.

When did I justify hate mail and harassment? More lies.

Sommers got harassment too. As well as J miller, and many other people who got death threats then insulted by journalists and put on the spot for more doxxing.

You don't see it because you liken it to a crusade to defend journalism at its worst.

Well you got one thing right, gg is a crusade.

But the fact of the matter is you refused to see any evidence and then ignore the glaring problems in the industry and therefore belittling the harassment minorities get.

Nope, sorry, but that doesn't logically follow. I haven't belitted anyone, and if you're going to insist I did, I'm going to keep asking for a sourced quote.

Anything else is confirmation bias, which you have blatantly shown in this thread.

I am going to put this into tumblr terms for you: You don't see the problem because you didn't check your privilege.

Hilarious, but a complete non sequitur. Twinkie, I'm going to ask that you either come up with sources for your claims, or drop your libelous smears against me. Lying about people isn't cool.

 

[laraem]

Yes it's part of the "Factual Feminist" series

Well everybody already knew that, and that didn't stop people from claiming it was "independent", so repeating it won't help.

At this point is up to you to prove that it is somehow independent.

Why? I didn't make the claim. You're the one who made the claim that it wasn't independent, so you have a burden of proof to fulfill.

Of course the actual person who made the claim that it was independent has a much greater burden, but you didn't ask him to prove his claim, you made another claim contradicting his.

Given that I showed that it;s hosted on AEI, has the AEI mark, promoted and hosted exclusively on AEI (CHS has no personal website or channel) and that the series has an FF team. Hell the damn videos all ask people to like us (as in AEI) on facebook and twitter and link back to AEI. This is an AEI series of videos.

I'd say my burden of proof has been met.

And you're right the onus isn't on you. It's on the other guy. Have a nice day

 

[Jake Martinez]

Tell me again where the proof is that this 'positive press' wasn't the result of sexual favors?

The burden of proof rests on those making the accusations. Reasonable people do not assume guilt.

You conveniently bypassed the salient point of MerlinCross's post. It's not about sex, no one who is criticizing the press is an outraged sexual puritan, it's about bias and friendship.

You want a clear-cut example:

Look at the work done by Patricia Hernandez at Kotaku. She makes repeated references and does reviews and hype pieces for the work of two very middling talent developers by the names of Anna Anthropy and Christine Love. Two people she is (now) known to have either had sex with or lived with.

The point being here: If you are an indie developer, being best mates with a journalist despite your talent level is a great way to get positive press. It also likely influences your chances of getting awards and recognition at independent games festivals (which we've seen with the Indiecade fiasco).

 

[Jux]

Okay fine:

There are no news stories covering Gamasutra's hate speech. In fact, the stories covering intel pulling out are how misogynists are attacking the website.

No mention of minorities who are pissed at Gamasutra. No mention of anything of Gamergate except the old "meanines" defense.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/2/6886747/intel-buckles-to-anti-feminist-campaign-by-pulling-ads-from-gaming
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/10/02/gamergate_strikes_again_pressures_intel_into_pulling_its_ads_from_gamasutra.html
http://venturebeat.com/2014/10/03/intel-pulls-ads-from-gamasutra-then-apologizes-for-it/
http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/4/6906909/intel-gamergate-advertising-gamasutra

The list goes on. It talks about how Gamasutra is the victim of a crusade of angry manchildren when in reality it pissed off the whole hive.

You justified the harsssment by saying it wasn't harassment. For both Sommers, and Intel.

Please quote me where I said 'harassment isn't harassment', or justified harassment of any sort. Just one quote.

When these journalists glossed over the racial bit that Gamasutra and its friends kicked up, they say it doesn't exist. Notyourshield is a protest of them being glossed over and being used as a shield.

I told you this before.

So when you glossed over the journalists glossing over minorities you are enabling the journalists and endorsing them. This industry cannot remain silent on these kinds of issues.

When did I gloss over anything? I've said it multiple times, even in this thread, that I condemn harassment of any sort.

And you want to know the kicker? Leigh Alexander is a writer for multiple publications. She writes for Kotaku, Gamasutra, Vice, the Guardian, The Escapist, and Time. So its no coincidence that she get defended for something she wrote.

So are you enabling her because she writes for the escapist?

Workers are one thing, but when mouth pieces are used for hate it ends quickly. It happened for Donald Sterling, the guy from sienfield, and Paula Dean.

We shouldn't tolerate hate from them because they have cultural influence. These aren't cashiers at Walmart or people working in an office. These are people with reach and can use their reputation to justify whatever horrible thing they want.

And I'm still waiting for a quote where I have defended abuse or harassment. I am waiting on a quote where I have belittled minorities, as you've claimed many times now. And I'm waiting on a source that journalists set their fans on people, and that I defended that. Your list of accusations is getting pretty long. Are you going to start quoting where I said any of this stuff, or are you going to keep soap boxing?

Lying about people isn't cool? Well neither is glossing over hate in the media. Neither is defending hateful people because they are your friend.

Which hateful people have I defended? Leigh Alexander isn't my friend, I don't know the person.

Ignoring the hate isn't going to make it go away. I told you this before.

I haven't ignored anything. If I don't speak out specifically against it, it's most likely because I've already made the blanket statement that I condemn harassment. And I'll be happy to repeat that ad nauseum.

Gaming journalism hasn't learned that friends don't let friends be hateful. Until it does Gamergate and notyourshield will always be around.

Don't ignore gaming's problems and the very real pain it brings to minorities or saying its not as big as it is.

As it is, J miller may not be able to work in this industry ever again for creating #notyourshield. A black man got punished for saying he is black and doesn't agree with the way Game Journalism covers him. Neither will Tom Sawyer or any other dev who decided to join the protest.

There is a reason this has gone on for 2 months. There is a reason people are pissed. When we heard that J Miller got punished for being black is the moment we knew we were in it for the long haul.

Keep on soap boxing. All of this is fluff, it has nothing to do with the claims you've made about me. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for the things you claim I've said. It should be easy enough to source if it happened, as it's all here in text. I'm still waiting.

 

[Plunkies]

How naive can you be? They're going to attack people under one label or another. Do you not know what spawned gamergate? A coordinated barrage of articles directly attacking gamers. Gamers. They had no "gamergate" to attack but they still had a name for us, didn't they? They still had a group of people to slander and deride and shame into submission. Unfortunately for them they only managed to piss people off in record numbers.

You know what? No. You bring up the "Gamers are Dead" articles, we get to talk about what spawned the "Gamers are Dead" articles. They didn't spring up full form from the head of Zeus, they were written in response to yet more horribleness that had come to define "gamer" these past years. Like the month long "Burgers and Fries" witch hunt. Like the response Sarkeesian gets for doing literally anything. Like the bomb threat on the SOE president. Like the death threats sent to the Gamespot reviewer who dared give GTA 5 a mere 9/10.

I'm not surprised games journalists got sick of this loud, toxic minority that tries to pretend they're the only gamers that matter, I'm just surprised it took them this long to snap.

Really? You want to play this game?

And what about Leigh Alexanders hateful and racist tirades? Her repeated doxxing of critics? The constant stream of articles over the last several years calling gamers misogynists and how games promote rape? The syringe sent to Milo? A writer at the verge threatening to punch gamergate supporters at comic-con? TB still receiving harassment while recovering from surgery? Indie devs like Jason Miller losing their jobs due to harassment? Gearbox claiming a bomb threat near their office was from gamergate when, as it turned out, had absolutely nothing to do with them? The DDOSing of this very forum? The censorship of multiple sites? The refusal to report on the Zoe Quinn scandal after smearing Max Temkin with no evidence on a bogus rape claim?

I can go on all day.

Zoe Quinn's attacks on TFYC. IndieCade's completely corrupt judges. Phil Phish's racketeering scheme. Brianna Wu harassing GamerGate supporters with a sock account while still trying to claim victimhood, baseless attacks on Intel calling them sexist, gaymerx harassed for mere neutrality, the polygon writer harassed for neutrality, Matt Lees calling Christina Sommers scum, Alex Lifschitz saying gamers should have their backs broken on racks among other crazy things, the bullying that went on in the gamejournopro group, George Reese comparing gamergate supporters to ISIS, Ian Miles Chong falsely accusing a gamergate supporter of being a rapist, the doxxing of Kingofpol and internetaristocrat, the dmca claims on thunderfoot....

I'm choosing to stop but it goes on and on and on....http://i.imgur.com/4JWl6sF.jpg

Not to mention every person, just like you, who blames every individual event on gamers as a whole, even though if you replaced "gamers" with a race, gender, religion, lifestyle, country, political leaning, etc. you'd sound absolutely ridiculous.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Really? You want to play this game?
-snipped horribleness-

Sucks when they're on the receiving end of the stuff they dish out, isn't it? Of course, the hyperbole tends not to match the reality, but hey, whatever makes a better story. Of course, most of the examples you bring up are people being shitty on Twitter, but hey, it's not like GamerGate has trolled hashtags that didn't have anything to do with them before right? Pure as the driven snow, I tell ya.

And I'd be more sympathetic to Milo if he didn't say that death threats weren't a real thing if the victim tweeted about them. Well that and if he wasn't a sexist, transphobic asshole trying to turn GG into a right-wing culture war.

When that "constant stream of articles" amount to what, 0.5% of gaming articles I makes me think of confirmation bias.

And ffs, "censorship" doesn't mean "got kicked off of private message boards." Get some perspective.

But fine. The other side was naughty too, therefore GG wins. Or whatever you want me to say.