Except for the part where you accuse me of saying Wu is a liar. Why are you making up accusations against me? Because everyone else is? You all excited to be part of the not-a-lynch mob? Read what I wrote, and think for your own self for a second. It wouldn’t even make sense if I was suggesting Wu was lying to get attention because she saw how much attention Wu got. Unless you think I’m also implying the existence of a time machine in this conflict somewhere. Someone wise once said that rushing to judgment scant evidence is dangerous. How about imagined evidence?
Don’t forget to also wonder if the credibility of the people so quick to jump on the ‘villain’ bandwagon is also harmed.
I got that it was a quote. However it was inappropriate. You offered implications rather that facts. If you have some facts to offer then please do so. However it seems unlikely, especially since, for the second time, you’ve announced that you’re not going to stick around and defend the accusations you’ve made.
I did read what you read, paying careful attention to a statement which I’ll quote a third time: “Feel free to ignore or berate me now, but don’t say I didn’t caution about it later.”
What, exactly, are you cautioning against? That Wu will have been found to have faked the threats against her? If that’s the “caution” then you’re saying Wu is lying. Maybe you misspoke and meant to say that if Wu is found to be lying you’ll feel vindicated for having implied it. Of course then you’d be back to defending the unnecessary hypothetical. And you might be called upon to explain why you feel it’s so important to cast doubt on someone who has some pretty strong evidence of being a victim.
Note that I’m not basing my view here on “the herd”, but rather your own words. I’m using a quote that’s relevant rather than misapplying one from a movie.
Wonder? why?, Why wonder? Because you said so?
C’mon, thats the same type of argument as saying “What if she faked it?” Surely you can do better than that!
Yo’ve said what you don’t believe in, how about you actually say what you do believe in?
If you don’t actually say what you believe, and instead use passive aggressive comments (Which only you believe can be read as neutral), then We’re only left to wonder “Why does this person comment at all?”
And If you only attempt to describe your position as oposition to hypothetical remarks, then you can gain nothing but scorn by trying to defend a position you also say you don’t hold!
Sorry, but none of your GamerGate little buddies get to complain about people with pitchforks attacking villains, considering that they’re a movement that pretends to be a bunch of gamers rising up in righteous anger about dishonesty in game journalism.
Oh, the [expletive deleted] you’re not casting aspersions on anyone. Yes, hypothetically, some female game writer could have made up death threats for sympathy, and hypothetically all those people who posted #YesAllWomen tweets could have been making them up, except the people that I know personally, who could hypothetically have had their accounts hijacked. And equally hypothetically, monkeys could be flying out of your butt right now. Have some decency or go home.
So I’ve spent the last couple days reading up on gamergate, and would like to offer up some articles about it that I found informative and/or well-written. Call it “Gamergate for Dummies,” FWIW. YMMV.
The future of the culture wars is here, and it’s Gamergate - by Kyle Wagner - Deadspin
A well-written synopsis of the whole affair, which makes many good points. It ends by theorizing that future “culture wars” might take the same form as gamergate. Which seems doubtful, since gamergate is uniquly centered around computer- and Internet-saavy people. But that theory is the least interesting part of the article.
Chat logs show how 4chan users created #GamerGate controversy - by Casey Johnston - ars technica
And after you’ve read that, just go read the chat logs themselves, helpfully posted by one of the gamerhater’s victims, Zoe Quinn, with snarky commentary, on Storify. You enjoy salty language, don’t you?
Intel issues #GamerGate apology, still not advertising at Gamasutra - by Casey Johnston - ars technica
The gamerhaters didn’t like the way they were portrayed in an editorial on a gaming site, so they organized a whining campain that successfully got Intel - Intel! - to stop advertising on the site. Intel later issued a nopology.
Intel pulls ads from site after ‘Gamergate’ boycott - by Nick Wingfield - New York Times
The NYT tries to explain what happened, trying not to take sides. Because, in modern journalism, taking sides just means you’re biased. Or something. So instead of accurately describing gamerhaters as “Group of misogynistic assholes who think women are starting to make inroads into their traditionally white male turf and react by making rape and death threats,” the Times refers to them as “Gamers hostile to criticism.”
(P.S. The responses to gamergate trolls in this thread have been quite enjoyable to read.)
@C11: I notice you’re now banned from BoingBoing. Oh well, its been fun reading your simple minded posts getting eviscerated by other commenters. I especially enjoyed your work on the subject of global warming. Maybe we’ll see you again in 2042?
I suppose it’s a good sign that amongst all the BoingBoing readers who can be bothered to comment on this thread only 2… err 1 person with 2 accounts have the gall to vociferously defend the oh so slimy #GamerGate movement.
What I wonder is if this movement is in fact about ethics in gaming journalism, as recently emerging talking points would have you believe. Why are they only upset now that a few minor indie personalities get a little publicity?
Why not get angry during the years (a solid decade even) of IGN and other major gaming sites giving 8 or more out of 10 to mediocre AAA titles conveniently made by major sponsors?
Gaming journalism has never been particularly unbiased. The fact that these same folks couldn’t be bothered to start a movement before now says something about their collective priorities.
The slightest possibility that a few minor indie voices might have gotten some slightly biased favorable media coverage whips them up into a fervor. But the umpteenth unimaginative Call of Doody or Madden title gets near perfect reviews and no one bats an eye.
Conscious or subconscious this movement is pretty transparently about tribalism. The bullied become the bullies, the cycle continues.
The part that I find strange is that I’ve listened to most if not all of Sarkeesian’s videos and to me, they are kind of a big DUH. I mean, other people noticed that Ms. Pacman is just PacMAN with a bow on his head, right? Right??? They didn’t even both to call her Ms. Pacwoman. That’s so lame that even the densest man must have noticed. Why on earth is she receiving death threats for pointing out stuff like this?
Most of the BoingBoing commenters who would write literally hundreds of posts saying, essentially, “I’m not sexist, but…” on every single sexism-in-gaming post, have apparently been banned.
(Which is nice, cause I all but quit commenting here and gave up on forums in general because usually they’re the ones who win. Maybe I will come back.)
