Why the personal attacks here?
Reason and facts are great, but name calling usually indicates you’ve abandoned both.
Comparing the poster to a jaded creep is really working in your favor. Just invoke Godwin’s Law and get it over with already.
2 Likes
This is the problem I have with the media on gamergate. The media consistently portrays this being about an angry ex boyfriend – which it isn’t any more really. Yes it started there, but it’s about much more now – kind of like how WWI was about much more than the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. The media is using excuses to avoid serious discussion on the topic.
I feel that making this about the trollies/doxxers/4chans is a huge cop out and underscores the nature of problems raised by the gamergate supporters. There are over a million tweets in #gamergate – this is no fringe issue we are talking about here.
Even?
It’s exactly the new wave of indie game developers and indie game journalists who are trying to break out of the corrupt big media system of game publishing that are being attacked.
2 Likes
There’s a huge difference between a popular topic, and a topic with content value.
Just because people are talking about something doesn’t mean they’re talking seriously or in a way that will get anything done.
For example, in just the last day, there were 2,968,931 tweets using #belieber.
Try telling me the majority of that had any serious content. Just try.
The topic #gamergate is seriously corrupted as a topic by people like the poster who was on this very thread with personal issues and a need to associate those issues with a different (or every) female. He really didn’t care about journalism at all. Go back and read his posts - they don’t discuss that topic at all. Because #gamergate is unclean, you can’t just say “we have a lot of posts” - a lot of them are like the ones posted here, where a jilted boyfriend wanted to stand up for another jilted boyfriend.
If you want to discuss gaming journalism: I suggest you open a new, clean topic with some good information in it - don’t even mention #gamergate - and direct people there.
6 Likes
It was always about Zoe Quinn. Gamergate was always intended as a decoy to provide an excuse for misogynist attacks. It’s there in the logs, for goodness’ sake. There’s been no scandal uncovered, despite all the noise, and nothing’s going to change because of Gamergate.
And nothing that could have been uncovered by Gamergate could have approached the seriousness of driving a woman from her home with threats of rape and murder. Get a sense of proportion. What good could come from such a crappy beginning? What would make it worth it? And why do some people keep eliding the actual harm of malicious threats in favour of, at worst, a bit of mutual back-scratching?
It’s not as though it’s an either/or situation; it is perfectly possible to have a campaign for journalistic integrity without the victimisation of women. Try it some time.
12 Likes
It doesn’t matter how righteous your cause is, we can’t tell the true believers apart from the griefer trolls and the malicious misogynists. There’s more than a little overlap between those groups, and being a true believer doesn’t necessarily mean your arguments are worth squat. Shouting repeatedly and persistently doesn’t make up for the weaknesses in your justifications in attacking Quinn, it just made you extremely annoying to listen to. No wonder admins just hit the nuke button on sight. Ditch the gamer gate tag and start over if you really care about getting your case heard.
6 Likes
I’m pretty sure that account was suspended because it was a drive-by “imma gonna shit on the rug” style account.
It was not set up for the purpose of discussion or contribution, and the account creator knew it would get them in trouble - hence the “I know this will get me deleted, but …” BS in the post.
The post hasn’t been deleted, so there’s no censorship (not that it matters - Boing Boing can do what they like on their own website), but the mods have decided that they don’t want this person shitting on the rug again.
Mods can correct me if I’m wrong.
(It was a sock puppet, wasn’t it?!? 
)
4 Likes
You claim that the well is poisoned and the tag should die, but what you’re doing here is exactly why it’s not going to. The whole point is the broad strokes of “misogynist” being misused to label any dissenting opinion (or in the above case “shitting on the rug”, whatever the fuck that means… I guess it means anything that you want it to. creating an account to respond to an article? disgraceful!) The point is that the abuse is two way, but only one side is getting press representation.
“corruption” doesn’t just mean abuse of position for good reviews, it means the corruption that allows reasoned discussion to be silenced, because a clique disapproves. You can control the narrative here, but not everywhere.
Enjoy these echos, as you become more and more disassociated from the community around you
2 Likes
10 Likes
if you’re speaking of the community of people who drove zoe quinn from her home in fear of her life then i will gladly dissassociate myself from them. what surprises me is that you or anyone else would so enthusiastically want to be associated with them.
2 Likes
I find irony in the similarity of IP addresses associated with the accounts that support dontdoxmebro…
12 Likes
Eating sock puppets makes me thirsty
2 Likes
Don’t you drink their bitter tears?
4 Likes
If you actually care about corruption in gaming media, you need to find another word to talk about it, because “Gamergate” is irretrievably toxic. It was never about actual corruption; the trollies deliberately set out to trick people into thinking it was, to drum up support for their smear campaign. I’m not hypothesizing here, there are chat logs of them discussing this. At this point, using #gamergate to seriously discuss gaming media reform is as good an idea as using #unabomber to discuss the rising cost of college tuition.
If you genuinely care about corruption–and you should–you ought to stop and consider that the gamers worldwide who shrugged their shoulders at case after case of genuine, undeniable, open corruption, year after year, chose this as the unbearable affront that set off the righteous revolution. What does that say about the people you’re aligning yourself with? Is that the message you want others to hear?
7 Likes
What was done to Zoe Quinn was misogyny, from her ex’s posts to the harassment carried out in Gamergate’s name. If you lie down with misogynists, you will get up covered in misogyny.
6 Likes
Those tears are salty.
2 Likes
Just add some lemon and sugar, and you’ll have an electrolyte beverage fit for a dragon. (Much stronger than Gatorade, I’m sure.)
4 Likes
Generally - “headlines that are more hyperbolic than they need to be” is a good definition. Cory’s headline here is perfectly fine (which is nice, actually, as Cory tends towards clickbaitiness sometimes as well) - it tells you exactly what you need to know. It doesn’t need to talk about how “humanity is doomed” to lure people into reading the article. I understand the point you’re trying to make as well, that the point of a headline is to get people to read it, but clickbait takes that extra step, usually going over the top in some way. See also: headlines that say “You won’t believe what happened next” or something along those lines - actually, headline writer friend, I very much WILL believe what happened next because it’s exactly what I expected would happen, 100% of the time. 
1 Like
#Gaterade
3 Likes
I’m really just adding to what @WearySky said, but I think “clickbait” is definitely negative and it isn’t just what everything is trying to do.
Our high minded concept of how businesses work is that they create a product we want and then succeed or fail based on whether we actually want that product. For media, the product is content, not headlines. So if BoingBoing consistently puts up articles I like to read then I will keep coming back to BoingBoing.
The idea of clickbait is that the underlying article isn’t the important thing. Sites get paid by advertisers who pay for pageviews. So, somewhat crassly, sites substitute the idea of making a good article with the idea of making a headline people will click on. That gives them their pageview without actually giving anything valuable to the reader. It’s putting the short term ahead of the long term and putting the monetization scheme ahead of the content.
For me, “clickbait” means a headline that is actually trying to trick me into clicking on it - one that doesn’t inform me about the content of the article. It’s a pretty odious practice. I can see how the term is also used for any headline that uses well known psychological tricks to try to generate more clicks - “You won’t believe” and numbers are the two you see all the time. But really, to me as long as the headline serves to inform me about what I can expect from the article I’m okay with it. I can see how other people get annoyed by headlines like “7 reasons why…” even if they are accurate. And personally, I basically just don’t click such stories anymore at all - in this case I made an exception because it was curated for me.
6 Likes
