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

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

It's not meant to be an equivocation so much as a pointing out of similarity. In these two scenarios, I see two people (Alexander/ Macarthur) attacking me based on my identifying adjectives. It's not the same level on wrongness, but it is still a betrayal.

I think I understand what you're trying to say, but I feel that someone condemning someone for their sexuality, which for most people isn't a choice (I'll stop short of saying all simply because I've seen people claim they choose to be gay), something they have no control over, versus condemning people (though not to eternal damnation) on the perceived attitude of toxic behavior, which as far as I can tell is always a choice, is apples and oranges.

Now, I just got home, and it's almost 5 am, so I'll be going to bed. Have a good one.

Hey, you too. It's always good to engage with those you disagree with =)

The use of the adjective Gamer, in all honesty. If Leigh Alexander had said "harassers need to fuck off" then I'd have gone about my day. But she described me as a "obtuse shitslinger" and a "wailing hyperconsumer", and I don't particularly appreciate that.

I personally understood it to refer to a particular subset of gamers, but if you don't see the distinction, then there's nothing more I can really say on the subject other than we interpret that very differently.

Speaking as someone who has to deal with shit like this:

http://www.gty.org/resources/Articles/A170/Gods-Plan-for-the-Gay-Agenda

I don't want my... well, I don't like the term 'safe space'... my area of equality and meritocracy to be invaded by nutters.

I'm not quite sure going on a tirade against what one perceives to be toxic gamers (imo a subset, in you opinion the whole) is comparable to the condemnation homosexuality, the latter of which I find unequivocally abhorrent.

I took it to be directed at those harassing as well considering how large a problem this is in gaming. I would only feel that was directed at me if I were guilty of participating in it. I am not seeing gamergate spokepersons and supporters coming out agreeing that women and girls need to have more input in gaming, in fact I am overwhelmingly seeing the opposite happen. It is hard to separate the promoting of sexism against women in gaming when they are actively repeatedly promoting exactly that.

Well, let me be the first:

I believe that ALL adjectives should have an equally important voice, whether it be men/women, straight/gay, white/black/asian/latin, etc. I believe that is the majority view in GamerGae, as most of us are liberals.

That being said, I do feel that the "Gamers Are DEad" articles were aimed at me, and I am angry about it.

I wish that were the majority opinion of gamergaters, but I am afraid it is not, due to how I and others have been treated when trying to have a discussion about it. It has been made overwhelmingly clear to me, as a female hardcore gamer that I should not have a voice in the games I play or the community because I am not their " target demographic" and should be excluded from the discussion.

My opinion of the "gamers are dead" nonsense is if they didn't want to promote leigh, they would have ignored it and moved on, instead they made her famous over it. Every time someone brings it up they are helping her. Getting any response positive or negative for a no name journalist is exactly what they need to succeed. By letting it make you angry, by starting gamergate over it, you are ensuring her success. No one knew her before but you guys made her a " buzz word" and everyone from tabloids to shock news sites will be scrambling to pay her more to write for them. By letting her make you angry, you let her get what she wanted is how I see it.

I apologize, but I must dissent. I've been very active on the GG thread here and on /gg/ at 8chan. I can say with certainty that the vast majority of GamerGate supports gender equality as a concept, and the vocal presence of women in the community. Twatter is terrible for communication; if you want to talk to us, you should make a post on the GG thread here:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.860762-GamerGate-Discussion-Debate-and-Resources?page=643#21495210

Regarding Leigh Alexander- she's a major journalist who's work has apparently been widely read by prominent industry voices (Ohai, Jim Sterling). When this is over, she'll be known as a racist who destroyed her career and her website; if any websites snatch her up, then I'll throw a pig off of the Empire State Building, since it'll be able to fly.

I have NOT been active, I bailed after the first week due to the overwhelming response on 4chan and here ( before it was banned from 4 chan). I see what happens after that as insignificant honestly. This is what it was about from the beginning, and what it was about from those bring it to us, so it is what it is regardless of those that jump on the bandwagon later think it is. I saw the ZOE BS before it blew up, I saw this from the get go, and it was blatantly obvious from the go what this was about. People cannot just walk into the room half way through a conversation and claim the direction of the conversation is what they like to think it is. That is what I have seen happen here.

I have nothing to say at this point to the GG mob, and no, I do not use or read twitter. I already did that when this started, and heard plenty from those who got the ball rolling in the first place. " shes a major journalist." that the majority of gamers did not know or give two shits about before gamer gate. You seriously believe that will happen?? I'm sorry, but even journalists who have actually written articles promoting the death of infants and forced sterilization still find work. No such thing will happen, and if you actually think that will happen, you will be sadly disappointed. No, Leigh will still write, will probably get paid more for doing so, many people will read her articles and life goes on because that is the reality of the world we live in. If you expect her journalist career to be doomed because a mob wants to harass her, that is not facing the reality of how these things work.

Oh... Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. Have a pleasant day =(

"The gamergate mob" as in the massive gamer gate thread where they are not even talking about gamer gate to keep it bumped, which unknowing to most of those posting in it is against this sites off topic policies and they can be warned/banned for doing so, but I feel the only reason they are not doing so on that thread is because they do not want to feed the mob more than it has already been fed. Having a thread that long and off topic is ignorant and pointless to participate in.

*Raised eyebrows*

That's.... not true. What are we talking about right now:

- The reactions on Twitter to the newest Dev articles
- Conspiracy Hypothesi
- Shills, trolls, and idiots on 8chan
- Allegations that a Brazilian click-baiter was responsible for some of Sarkeesian's harassment

All of those are, to my knowledge, on topic. We aren't inflating numbers, we're having a conversation.

"I" am talking about What has been said on this site and 4chan. where this started, none of the other mediums.

Look through the gamergate thread, much has nothing to do with gamer gate at all. From my understanding, Anita has nothing to do with gamer gate, so why are they discussing her too?

" having a conversation about gamergate" is staying on topic, talking about other subjects is not. People get warned all the time on this site for going off topic.. except on that thread due to " fear the angry mob wrath" nonsense.

 

[Akjosch]

You are not the majority, you are NOT the majority. You don't want to read those sites great don't read em but there are plenty who do and continue to do so (no site has really been hurt by your movement). It is an appalling goal to destroy those site that don't adhere to your viewpoint.

And as a supporter of the #GamerGate movement, I'll say: That's a good idea. You keep on supporting them, we keep on boycotting them, and we'll let market forces decide.

If, as you seem to think, we'll lose, so be it. Tough cookies.

 

[Silvanus]

The problem is that the above reason was shoddy at best, I am not a regular channer, just popped in there whenever I was bored in order to bathe in the idiocy, since you know, 4chan.

However the posts about GamerGate in /v/ were 99,9% of the time either shitposting (4chan is 4chan) or honest discussion/outrage about GG stuff, the calls for raids and harassment were the fringe minority and were always shouted down and reported by the regular GG supporters. It was later emerged that the said calls for raid and harassment were always done by Goons from SomethingAwful who just wanted to troll everyone.

Yes Moot has the right to moderate his boards as he saw fit but he banned the discussion outright for things that 4channers denounced and reported anyway.

There's really no way to know if they were regularly reported, or whether it was all done by said goons. Those can only be assumptions.

Either way, though, it doesn't truly matter-- this is in keeping with their style. Every word posted across an entire board will be randomly replaced. People will be banned for preferring regular milk to chocolate milk. If a certain topic kept causing a headache for the moderators, whatever it was, I wouldn't expect them to be particularly light-handed.

I am going to have to disagree with you here, it is censorship because discussion of a topic is not against the rules of any public forum that respects itself. If certain posters break the forum rules they should be banned, no question about that but why is the entire discussion banned and why would the posters who voice Pro-GG opinion be banned from a Gaming forum?

Now I was never a part of NeoGAF but some of GG supporters at the Reddit and elsewhere have been posting screen grabs about their bans:

http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2ij1g0/neogaf_user_criticizes_the_site_for_their/
http://i.imgur.com/9bybhJU.png

Then there are these little gems:

http://gamergate.giz.moe/2014/09/twitterneogaf-neogaf-deletes-fine-young-capitalists-account-time-gets-funding/
http://gamergate.giz.moe/2014/09/twitter-neogafs-worst-posts-quits-after-gamergate-pushes-neogafs-staff-off-the-edge/

"Censorship" is a very dramatic term. It usually refers to the actions of oppressive states, or public institutions that threaten legal consequences. Using it for a scenario in which an Internet forum won't let you talk about something, so people must go to one of the thousands of other Internet forums where they may freely talk about the same stuff.... that makes it difficult to take seriously. It devalues the word.

I saw the stuff on Reddit already. Of course, it's far from conclusive.

We agree then that it was a call for censorship. Greg pretty much said this: He disagrees with the discussion but he will not put a stop to it just because of that. He later said that the discussion raised some good points and that it was within the forum rules and saw no reason to stop it.

Yet Ben Kuchera and co still tried to make him stop it.

The way I see it, it was a call for censorship.

We do not agree it was a call for censorship. That is devaluing a tremendously important word, in my view. People still have plenty of avenues to discuss the same thing. Discussion is perfectly possible.

That was not the first anti-GG article, Zoe Quinn wrote an article and when people tried to counter the argument there was a massive delete spree and defacing of posts at the cracked forum. Then the mods started publicly laughing at the people who complained about it on Facebook and elsewhere.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.860762-GamerGate-Discussion-Debate-and-Resources?page=35
http://www.funnyjunk.com/Gamergate+mods+of+crackedcom/funny-pictures/5296583/

In the second link, the person repeats several unsubstantiated accusations. I'm quite okay with banning accounts for slander.

Thunderf00t wasn't banned for any legitimate reason as far as I know, there was a mass reporting of his account by a lot of people and Twitter took it down as a result. The funny thing is that he was working the days that it happened (nuclear engineering stuff) and when he returned was outraged.

His video response:

http://gamergate.giz.moe/2014/09/youtubetwitter-thunderf00t-suspended-from-twitter-sarkeesian-strike-back-gamergate/

Thunderf00t's videos and tweets were criticism of AS's Tropes vs Women videos, I am not sure if some of his language was inflammatory in his tweets (I am a Twitter noob and not a follower) but from what I have seen of him he tries to stay clear of stuff that would ban him.

Twitter later reinstated his account as well, meaning that the reports they received didn't have any basis.

I did see that video. He comes across as rather pretentious, but not abusive.

If his account was reinstated, I'm not sure what the problem here is. Those kinds of things happen all the time.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

1. You should be. It's simple pattern recognition to realize it doesn't go all that smoothly for someone who gets involved on either side of the debate (not just against the movement).

2. It's simply not worth the effort to be targeted and harassed over something as trivial as video games.

 

[laraem]

You are not the majority, you are NOT the majority. You don't want to read those sites great don't read em but there are plenty who do and continue to do so (no site has really been hurt by your movement). It is an appalling goal to destroy those site that don't adhere to your viewpoint.

And as a supporter of the #GamerGate movement, I'll say: That's a good idea. You keep on supporting them, we keep on boycotting them, and we'll let market forces decide.

If, as you seem to think, we'll lose, so be it. Tough cookies.

I really think that's the best way, find the outlets that serve your needs and I'll find mine and let the chips fall where they may vis a vis clicks or visits or whatever.

We (and by this I mean specifically you and I) may both end up benefiting.

 

[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.

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.

Who determines credibility? That's an individual thing. And from what I'm seeing, individuals who don't support gamergate have decided it doesn't have a lot of credibility. This thread is a perfect example of that.

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.

I just wrote a paragraph on the way I saw gamergate unfold, and then I erased it because that's not what I'm here to talk about. Gamergate has a PR problem. It isn't the games media, most of what I've seen about gamergate has come from forum threads like these. Threads where anyone who disagrees is told they are naive, misinformed, or taking part in some great media conspiracy. It's an infinite spiral--people don't like gamergate because the people who started it are hostile and full of hate and accusation, people express these grievances get hated and accused of being naive or taking part in some great media conspiracy, and thus people's suspicions about gamergate not being a reasonable or well-substantiated "movement" are legitimized.

I had this exact same argument with people during the Occupy protests. I came across people who had legitimate complaints and good plans as to how to approach them. But, they absolutely refused to divorce themselves from the Occupy movement. The thing that held the Occupy movement down was the general perception that all they did was "occupy" places--often illegally--and never propose or pursue any solutions. I saw with my own eyes plenty of people who didn't do that, but because they continued to lump themselves in the same group with people who DID do that, they never got anywhere.

Stop pretending everybody who isn't your ally is your enemy. Stop pretending everybody who just wants to ignore the whole thing is some active participant in a conspiracy. It is not in any way helpful to make enemies of everybody who wants to remain neutral, because if you weren't outnumbered before, you certainly will be if you don't even allow people to sit in the middle and observe what happens.

 

[Silvanus]

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.

It was the shifting of the burden of proof that I was addressing. I wasn't interested in getting involved in the rest.

How is it convenient?

 

[CitizenLame]

Am I the only one far more worried about saying anything positive about GamerGate than negative? I'm not talking about here on forums where you can be more or less anonymous, I mean on Facebook or Twitter, where people know you.

Everyone I know both personally and professionally is either staying silent on the subject or is vocally 100% against GG. People will jump at any chance to pour the shit on GG, but nobody says a word when somebody compares GG to ISIS or any of the other myriad of stupid and horrible things anti-GGers have said.

I know I for one am terrified of publicly supporting GG, and I'm sure a lot of other people whose professions might suffer because of it feel the same way. I know firm anti-GGers who are afraid to even privately criticize people on their own side who are acting like jackasses.

This whole thing is a mess.

 

[dragoongfa]

There's really no way to know if they were regularly reported, or whether it was all done by said goons. Those can only be assumptions.

Either way, though, it doesn't truly matter-- this is in keeping with their style. Every word posted across an entire board will be randomly replaced. People will be banned for preferring regular milk to chocolate milk. If a certain topic kept causing a headache for the moderators, whatever it was, I wouldn't expect them to be particularly light-handed.

So in essence the mods didn't like the discussion and banned it. That certainly didn't portray 4chan as a free discussion board does it? May be unrelated to GG but with the rest that is going on I find it troubling to say the least.

"Censorship" is a very dramatic term. It usually refers to the actions of oppressive states, or public institutions that threaten legal consequences. Using it for a scenario in which an Internet forum won't let you talk about something, so people must go to one of the thousands of other Internet forums where they may freely talk about the same stuff.... that makes it difficult to take seriously. It devalues the word.

I saw the stuff on Reddit already. Of course, it's far from conclusive.


We do not agree it was a call for censorship. That is devaluing a tremendously important word, in my view. People still have plenty of avenues to discuss the same thing. Discussion is perfectly possible.

But there is a big difference in regards to various forums is there?

Some of these forums are far reaching with tens of thousands of visitors each day, if all of these forums banned discussion of a certain topic, then that means that the discussion will not be seen by the visitors in question.

Banning the discussion from the most visible forums greatly limits the visibility of the discussion in question, this is an active suppression of the discussion.

Isn't this the very definition of censorship?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

In the second link, the person repeats several unsubstantiated accusations. I'm quite okay with banning accounts for slander.

I agree that some of what he posted was unsubstantiated but the rest were valid concerns. It is my philosophy that it is not fair to dismiss everything because some of it is bad.

I did see that video. He comes across as rather pretentious, but not abusive.

If his account was reinstated, I'm not sure what the problem here is. Those kinds of things happen all the time.

He did end up losing a lot of his followers as a result and it was a failed attempt to suppress his voice.

 

[Carrington666]

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.

So then, everything that everyone already knew? The same information that didn't stop them from making the claim of independence in the first place?

If people know the points Iarem brought up and still claim that the video is independent from AEI than they are not acting intellectually honest. And since they have proven that they will ignore facts that go contrary to what they belive and will twist things until they fit their narrative, everything they say on this topic should be viewed with suspicion.

After all, if they lie on this aspect of the topic, why should people belive when they claim something else?

 

[Silvanus]

So in essence the mods didn't like the discussion and banned it. That certainly didn't portray 4chan as a free discussion board does it? May be unrelated to GG but with the rest that is going on I find it troubling to say the least.

4chan is "free" in the sense that discussion goes on about a million different things, there. It is not free in that moderators may do what they want (as is true of many forums), if something is causing them a headache. They banned discussion of Boxxy, for a while, because it was getting old and repetitive. It's the same kind of thing here. It should never have been used as a go-to place for discussions on this movement in the first place.

But there is a big difference in regards to various forums is there?

Some of these forums are far reaching with tens of thousands of visitors each day, if all of these forums banned discussion of a certain topic, then that means that the discussion will not be seen by the visitors in question.

Banning the discussion from the most visible forums greatly limits the visibility of the discussion in question, this is an active suppression of the discussion.

Isn't this the very definition of censorship?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

All such forums haven't banned discussion. A few have, which is their prerogative. There are still countless other outlets, so I would argue that speech has not been "suppressed" in any meaningful way (to quote that article).

Do you not see the hyperbole in using that term? It's like referring to the removal of gamergate threads as oppression. These terms refer to situations far more dire and repressive than the one we find ourselves in.

I agree that some of what he posted was unsubstantiated but the rest were valid concerns. It is my philosophy that it is not fair to dismiss everything because some of it is bad.

If somebody takes part in slander, it does not excuse it that they also said some things which were not slander.

He did end up losing a lot of his followers as a result and it was a failed attempt to suppress his voice.

Some people reported it because they didn't like it, or perhaps thought it constituted breaking the rules-- which happens all the time. Twitter un-banned him. There's really no issue here.

 

[Kingjackl]

I'm finding it harder and harder to agree with the sentiment expressed in the title of this thread. Whether or not you believe GamerGate represents a vocal minority, even a vocal minority can have a harmful effect. In terms of career safety, I get the feeling that anyone wanting to hold onto a career in the games industry would be better off speaking out against GG, or better yet, staying quiet altogether.

The problem is, there have been too many reports of figures in the industry receiving harassment, attempts at censorship and even death threats. While I personally don't believe online death threats are worth much unless they demonstrate provable capacity to harm (eg displaying knowledge of your home address, friends and relatives, that sort of thing), they can have a harmful effect on a person's psyche and they are in no way justifiable as discourse. If I were someone with a reputation in this industry, I think I would be concerned about speaking out, whether I was praising or condemning.

 

[dragoongfa]

All such forums haven't banned discussion. A few have, which is their prerogative. There are still countless other outlets, so I would argue that speech has not been "suppressed" in any meaningful way (to quote that article).

Do you not see the hyperbole in using that term? It's like referring to the removal of gamergate threads as oppression. These terms refer to situations far more dire and repressive than the one we find ourselves in.

I don't disagree that they have the freedom to ban discussion of the topic in their forums.

But they shouldn't cry foul when we point out that they banned the discussion and that they also tried to ban the discussion from this forum here as well.

As for the use of censorship I am sorry but the very definition of the word includes the suppression and the attempted suppression of discussion:

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other such entities.

They deemed the discussion politically incorrect and inconvenient for themselves and they banned it from wherever they could reach.

That is censorship.

If somebody takes part in slander, it does not excuse it that they also said some things which were not slander.

From of my personal experience of dealing with political extremists I will have to disagree. Denying everything because of something rotten is a fallacy

That poster's case was the most confrontational example but you didn't say what you thought the defacement of the posts of other people and the mass deletes of comments from the first anti-gg article.

Some people reported it because they didn't like it, or perhaps thought it constituted breaking the rules-- which happens all the time. Twitter un-banned him. There's really no issue here.

Again isn't this the very definition of censorship?

EDIT: Typos.

 

[Silvanus]

I don't disagree that they have the freedom to ban discussion of the topic in their forums.

But they shouldn't cry foul when we point out that they banned the discussion and that they also tried to ban the discussion from this forum here as well.

As for the use of censorship I am sorry but the very definition of the word includes the suppression and the attempted suppression of discussion:

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other such entities.

They deemed the discussion politically incorrect and inconvenient for themselves and they banned it from wherever they could reach.

That is censorship.

Firstly, it has not been demonstrated that they did this because it was "politically incorrect or inconvenient". That is not the reason given, and I'm not convinced either.

Secondly, I do not believe removal of topics from an Internet forum-- when there are countless others-- constitutes "suppression".

So, for those reasons, i do not believe it is "censorship".

From of my personal experience of dealing with political extremists I will have to disagree. Denying everything because of something rotten is a fallacy

That poster's case was the most confrontational example but you didn't say what you thought the defacement of the posts of other people and the mass deletes of comments from the first anti-gg article.

Banning somebody for an infraction is not 'denying' everything they say. Look here on the Escapist. If somebody breaks the rules, they may be banned. This is not 'denying' everything they have ever written on the forum. They were banned for the infraction.

I've had a look around, but can only find unsubstantiated claims from Reddit (and a few rather unsavoury blogs) on the mass-deleting thing. If comments were deleted merely for disagreeing, that's one thing, but there seem to be a number of people who act aggressively or slanderously and then, when suspended or banned, claim that it's just because they spoke out.

Again isn't this the very definition of censorship?

No, because it doesn't constitute "suppression" in any meaningful way, and because in these cases it has not been demonstrated to be because they were "politically incorrect or inconvenient".

I would encourage people to drop hyperbolic, loaded terms like that. It makes it far more difficult for those in the middle to take it seriously. The use of such phrases damages the cause.

 

[Calbeck]

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

>implying anyone is afraid of taking a public stance because "GamerGate is worse than ISIS"

Protip: extreme hyperbole only makes the people you oppose look better to those still on the fence.

 

[Pinkamena]

It's no that I'm afraid, I just really, really don't give a shit.

 

[Carrington666]

If people know the points Iarem brought up and still claim that the video is independent from AEI than they are not acting intellectually honest. And since they have proven that they will ignore facts that go contrary to what they belive and will twist things until they fit their narrative, everything they say on this topic should be viewed with suspicion.

After all, if they lie on this aspect of the topic, why should people belive when they claim something else?

Just because it is hosted on a particular channel and branded by a particular channel does not mean that it wasn't "independent" in the sense that the channel didn't tell her to say these things.

Let's take Yatzee for an example. Yatzee started on Youtube and then Escapist bought him up. He no longer publishes ZP videos to his Youtube channel anymore because it's probably in his contract not to compete with The Escapist regarding this series.

The Escapist endorses him on their site, just like AEI endorses the Factual Feminist.
The Escapist is in the credits of ZP, just like AEI is in the credits of the Factual Feminist.
ZP is branded by The Escapist, just like FF is branded by AEI
ZP is hosted exclusively on The Escapist, just like FF is hosted exclusively on AEI's channel.

Nobody is claiming that Yatzee's ZP videos aren't independent of The Escapist Magazine, are they?

Nobody is claiming that ZP is the product of some Escapist "think tank", or that The Escapist tells him what to say or how to say it to enforce some narrative, do they? No. Nobody says that.

So no, I don't think it follows that endorsement, branding, and exclusivity means that the work isn't intellectually independent, because nobody is accusing ZP that it's not, even though it checks all the same boxes that the Factual Feminist does in with it's relationship with AEI.

And by "intellectually independent", I mean: "A product of the content producer's own mind as opposed to a script or a list of talking points handed down by the employer."

Maybe nobody claims that ZP is not the product of an Escapist "think tank" because the Escapist is not a "think tank"?
AEI on the other hand is, to quote Wikipedia, "a private, conservative, not-for-profit organisation (a "think tank")"

Since she is working for this conservative "think tank" and said conservative "think tank" publishes her videos it is fair to argue that a "Conservative Critic Argues That Game Culture Is For Guys" (Bottom right article from Ultratwinkie's picture).

Can you argue that she represents the whole "think tank", like the rest of the articles do?
It depends on if this site produced an article or video that contradicts her views. If they did, than it is only her view and you cannot claim that it is the view of the site.
If they didn't, than yes, I believe it is fair to argue that that piece represents the opinion of the whole group.

 

[Calbeck]

Firstly, it has not been demonstrated that they did this because it was "politically incorrect or inconvenient". That is not the reason given

Actually, the reason given is that discussion of GamerGate amounts to harassment. That is, indeed, the rationale which was used to try and shut down similar discussion here on The Escapist, a rationale which Greg Tito (hardly a fan of the movement) eschewed.

You appear to be misinformed.

Secondly, I do not believe removal of topics from an Internet forum-- when there are countless others-- constitutes "suppression".

sup·press
transitive verb \sə-ˈpres\

1: to put down by authority or force : subdue

2b: to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of

Again, you appear to be misinformed. You would be more correct to admit the suppression, but to assert (as the suppressors have done) that the act was legal and not an infringement upon First Amendment rights.

 

[dragoongfa]

snipped

Sorry for cutting the quote, it's just that I am a little tired and I want to condense my argument as tightly as possible.

I want to point out that GamerGate is a Gaming related movement and us thus it belongs mainly in mainstream forums and media.

The fact is that of all the mainstream gaming sites only the Escapist has allowed open discussion of it and judging by how Ben Kuchera and co tried to 'convince' Greg Tito to stop the discussion here as well then I am certain that a small clique of people actively tried to suppress the discussion and limit the exposure of their audience to it.

I see this as censoring.

Yes the Internet is infinite but the places where the discussion has merit in are few and in most of them the discussion has been disallowed. The audience for this discussion are gamers and as I said already only the Escapist has allowed this discussion to go unabated.

Yes the evidence is tentative at best but I doubt that we could ever offer something as solid as the police cracking down on dissenters since everything is happening on the Internet and not in real life.

 

[Calbeck]

Since she is working for this conservative "think tank" and said conservative "think tank" publishes her videos it is fair to argue that a "Conservative Critic Argues That Game Culture Is For Guys" (Bottom right article from Ultratwinkie's picture).

So you agree that feminism is neither a "conservative" nor a "liberal" issue, since we're talking about videos created by a feminist which argue against the extremists of her own movement?

Also, you dodged the issue of conflating the critic's personal political stance with that of the think tank as a whole... by once again conflating the critic's personal political stance with that of the think tank as a whole.

It's the same error as claiming all liberals are Democrats.