Unrelated to GG or videogames, but another spelling of her Armenian surname is shared by none other than Cher:
Compulsive people are prone to conflict, long running power struggles, convoluted moral justifications, and always want the last word. A priori, gamers are compulsive based on their compulsive game play. How they bicker confirms that they are compulsive, but that in itself doesn’t prove anything about games since the identical conflict could be had with non-gamers. Conflating these tangentially related issues is shrewd publicity but probably a logical fallacy.
The comments on that article (over at Time.com) are totally surprising, he said, lying through his teeth.
What does it prove?
It proves that you shouldn’t read the comments.
…he said, in the comments section
The funny thing is, without all the GamerGate nonsense, Anita would be working in (relative) obscurity. Now she’s hugely famous.
This group of dudes is so dumb that they end up achieving the extreme opposite of what they set out to do.
AKA: The Streisand Effect for Jerks.
Red herring. I’m asking what people think it proves. Heck, leave your own opinions out of it and say what it’s generally reckoned to be proving.
Dammit. Beat me to it.
Yay, famous.
Boo, death threats.
From what I’ve read, GG’s targets certainly don’t consider it a net positive for them.
Does not matter, net positive for the cause she’s championing. Big one.
Whether or not she has had more influence than almost anyone alive, I like the idea that Time put her name on the list specifically to troll GGers.
I think this fits perfectly, with the gamers supplying the requisite “stupid.”
be laughing all the way to the bank (informal)
If someone is “laughing all the way to the bank,” they have made a lot of money very easily, often because someone else has been stupid If we don’t take this opportunity, you can be sure our competitors will and they’ll be laughing all the way to the bank.
Wil Wheaton is a smart guy. I wonder if he is using hysterical in an ironic way to refer to the mostly male critics of Anita Sarkeesian. It is a loaded term that shares the same root as uterus, and was historically used against women in some cruel and unusual ways. To turn it around here is well, kind of delicious.
It wasn’t just GamerGate (though I wish that they focus on Indie Game collusion now that they reach their "Journalistic Ethic Goals); it’s mostly the group of paranoid guys who afraid of the “Nanny State” getting rid of violence in entertainment (it’s the same with any Hashtag movements).
Once again, I’m don’t condemn GamersGate as a hate group, but I’m not defending their hateful actions as well (once again, It’s possible to remain neutral on the subject). As a Video Game Enthusiast, I sympathized with them, but at the same time, I felt that Social Injustice trumps all concerns about entertainments.
You want to know his opinion on what people’s opinions are, so long as his opinion isn’t included? And then you’re going to serve up as misleading fish dinner?
The GGers do get a bit emotional, don’t they.
I haven’t said a single nice thing about the gamers. Why can’t you just say what you (or the crowd) think is being proved? This is remarkably like trying to figure out what Hillary’s critics think has been “proved” about Benghazi - apparently it’s pretty startling, but it can’t be put into words.
