Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

GamerGate: Part I: Sex, Lies, and Gender Games

A controversy over videogames has become a battle in a larger culture war.

Videogamersjontintinjordan / FoterA controversy over videogames may seem an unlikely candidate for a big story, especially with everything else in the news. Yet an epic Internet drama known as "GamerGate," now in its second month, continues to get media attention and fuel animated debate. (In its latest flare-up, Intel found itself in the crossfire last week when it pulled its ads from Gamasutra, a gaming webzine at the center of the quarrel.) While this saga has everything from sex to alleged corruption, GamerGate has also become a battle in a larger culture war. To the liberal and progressive commentariat, it's part of a reactionary white male backlash against the rise of diversity—in this case, "sexist thugs" out to silence and destroy women who seek equality in the gaming subculture. To conservatives and right-leaning libertarians, it's a welcome pushback against left-wing cultural diktat, particularly in the area of gender politics. Meanwhile, gamergaters themselves—who seem to lean left-libertarian—say that what they want is ethics and transparency in the gaming media. 

As often happens, reality is more complex than any of these narratives. While the gamers' revolt has very legitimate issues, is also true that it has been linked to some very ugly misogynist harassment of feminists. It also seems clear that the overwhelming majority of GamerGate supporters reject such tactics—and that harassment related to this conflict has been a two-way street. For a supposed misogynist "hate mob," GamerGate includes a lot of vocal women—and they have their own complaints of gender-based abuse, such as being called gender traitors or even "male sockpuppets." Finally, the feminism GamerGate rebels against is not simply about equality or  diversity; it is an authoritarian, far-left brand of gender politics that views everything through the lens of patriarchal oppression and tolerates no dissent.

A disclaimer is in order: I am not a gamer, unless you count playing Space Invaders and Millipede at the student center arcade in college and a mild Tetris addiction after I got my first home computer. While I have no experience with role-playing videogames, I have some knowledge of them thanks to several (mainly female) friends who play and one who writes videogame-based fan fiction.

I do have personal experience with the gamers' mortal enemies, the so-called "social justice warriors," to know they can be a highly toxic Internet presence. Those who voice their loathing of "the SJWs" are not simply talking about people sympathetic to socially progressive causes but about cultist zealots who enforce the party line with the fervor of Mao's Red Guards, though luckily without the real-life power. In social-media discussions of art and entertainment, the "warriors" can be found sniffing out and attacking such ideological deviations as liking a heterosexual love interest for a character perceived as gay, liking or disliking a character on the wrong side of race-and-gender identity politics, or (I kid you not) using the "ableist" nickname "derpy" for a klutzy pony on the TV cartoon My Little Pony.  Let them gain enough influence in an online community, and they will poison it for anyone who wants to talk to other fans of their favorite shows, movies, or books—or games—without relentless hectoring about "privilege" and "oppression."

Back to "GamerGate" and its tangled web. (A fairly detailed, straightforward, and balanced chronicle of the events can be read on the Know Your Meme website.) The drama began in mid-August, when Eron Gjoni, a programmer and ex-boyfriend of videogame developer Zoe Quinn, made a massive blogpost accusing her of infidelities and deceptions, with screenshots of their online chats as corroboration. Quinn, a vocal "social justice" Internet activist, had numerous enemies—many of them on the notoriously anarchic, anonymous 4Chan message board. They were quick to seize on the disclosures, portraying this as an ethics issue because some of Quinn's liaisons had possible implications of favoritism. One of her partners was later a judge in an independent videogame festival that had just bestowed an award on Quinn's game, Depression Quest; another was a videogame journalist who had given her a couple of positive mentions. Threads discussing this dust-up, some of them quite nasty, proliferated in a variety of forums.

With the focus on Quinn's sexual conduct and allegations of using sex for professional gain, the "Quinnspiracy"—as it was initially known—was inevitably seen as a sexist attempt to take down a female developer. In late August, the controversy got a boost when actor Adam Baldwin, whose politics lean right, took interest in it and tweeted links to some YouTube videos critical of Quinn—also coining the #GamerGate hashtag. Around the same time, feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian, whose Tropes vs. Women video series critiquing sexist clichés in videogames had made her the gaming community's bête noire, reported that she had left her home as a precaution after a Twitter user sent her a string of rape and death threats which included her address.

For some, the attacks on Quinn and on Sarkeesian became a perfect storm of gaming-culture misogyny. On August 28, Gamasutra ran a blistering attack on "game culture" by feminist cultural critic Leigh Alexander, declaring that "gamers are over" and ridiculing them as socially inept, badly dressed young males addicted to mindless gadget-buying and "getting mad on the Internet." This was followed by a spate of online articles—both on sites devoted to gaming or "geek culture" and in general-interest publications such as Vice and The Daily Beast—attacking gamer culture or announcing its demise. The gamers struck back in the social media, finding supporters in gadfly tech blogger Milo Yiannopoulous of Breitbart London and dissident feminist/critic of feminism Christina Hoff Sommers.

Sorting out the charges and countercharges in this still-ongoing war, with its claims of chat room conspiracies, manipulation of electronic records, hacking, harassment and other malfeasance, would be a gargantuan task. But here are a few facts.

1. The "Quinnspiracy" was not just—and not even primarily—about attacking Zoe Quinn as a woman.

To be sure, discussions of the Quinn drama in free-access, unmoderated chatrooms can be easily mined for crude, hateful, disgusting comments. However, GamerGate blogger J.W. Caine makes a strong case that those chats reveal far more interest in attacking the "social justice warriors" and SJW-friendly tech media than in targeting Quinn herself. Indeed, many discussants warned that personal and sexual attacks on Quinn would undermine the larger effort—a fact conceded even by writer/blogger Jon Stone, a passionate GamerGate opponent.

It is also absurd to suggest that Quinn was disliked simply for being an award-winning female videogame developer. (There have been no hate campaigns against far more prominent women in the field such as Ubisoft executive Jade Raymond, who helped create the hit game Assassin's Creed, or Kim Swift, designer of the highly successful Portal.) For one, long before the latest drama, Quinn had been widely seen in the gaming community as a beneficiary of gaming-media favoritism. The glowing reviews and awards for Depression Quest, a text-only game that has the player make day-to-day choices as a depressed person, rankled gamers who felt that it wasn't even a real videogame but a (dull) interactive fiction. There was a widespread feeling that it was getting praised due to "political correctness"—partly for promoting the socially conscious cause of mental health awareness, partly because of Quinn's earlier, widely publicized claims of harassment by users of a forum for depressed men.

Was the resentment against Quinn at least partly related to her gender? Perhaps—though a male game developer widely seen as receiving undeserved acclaim, Phil Fish, was more or less driven from the field last year by relentless Internet abuse. (Having made a semi-comeback, Fish was recently targeted by hackers after publicly supporting Quinn—an incident that has been cited as proof that men in the gaming world only get ill-treated when they speak up for women. But Fish's troubles with haters long predated the Quinn brouhaha.)

In any event, at least some of the anti-Quinn sentiment stemmed from an incident in which she appears to have engaged in truly appalling behavior—and which had nothing to do with her gender or sex life and everything to do with "social justice" zealotry.

Last February, Quinn learned about a women's videogame contest sponsored by a charity called The Fine Young Capitalists, or TFYC—artists and entrepreneurs who seek to encourage the creation of videos and videogames by women and minorities. Women were invited to submit ideas for videogames; the winner was to work with TFYC's designers and programmers to develop her concept into a game and get a cut from its sales. Quinn was outraged by what she felt was the contestants' "unpaid labor"—but even more so by the rule requiring transgender participants to publicly identify as female prior to the start of the contest. In dozens of angry tweets, Quinn accused TFYC of exploiting women and "policing transwomen's transition points," then gloated over accidentally crashing their website with her Twitter storm. (In August, Quinn claimed that she had only "posted 4 tweets saying I didn't know how I felt about their approach.") In a recent interview, a TFYC spokesman said that Quinn later continued to publicly attack the contest as "exploitative" and "transphobic," resulting in online harassment toward the group, loss of financial backing, and the cancelation of several planned articles about the project. Quinn and her supporters have cited a conciliatory statement TFYC issued in late August as a rebuttal of those accusations; but that statement was a "peace treaty" TFYC withdrew a few days later, saying that Quinn had not held up her end of the bargain.

Of course none of this justifies harassment or threats toward Quinn. But the full story does not make her a very sympathetic figure. All of this complicated history has been almost completely erased from GamerGate coverage in the "progressive" media (gaming and mainstream), which reduced the Quinn saga to prurient revelations about her sexual exploits.

Which brings us to the next point:

2. The media ethics issues raised by GamerGate are valid, not just an excuse for bashing women and their supporters.

The ethics issue is not that Quinn supposedly slept her way to good reviews (she did not). Rather, it's excessive coziness between journalists who cover the videogame industry and certain game developers who have a "progressive" cachet, a problem acknowledged by Kotaku editor Stephen Totilo. Among other things, GamerGate drew attention to the fact that Quinn had received contributions to help finance Depression Quest through the Patreon crowdfunding platform from a Kotaku editor and from a staff writer for another major gaming website, Polygon, who went on to review the game. Due to these concerns, Kotaku banned such contributions by its staff while Polygon adopted a policy requiring reviewers to disclose them. (Incredibly, one leftist commentator, Samantha Allen, took to Twitter to attack these policy changes as motivated by anti-female animus: "These people did not care about journos being friendly w/devs until those devs were women.")  The extremely one-sided coverage of the "Quinnspiracy" certainly supports the charges of cliquishness. Thus, Kotaku reporter Jason Schreier contacted TFYC after their fundraising page was hacked in apparent retaliation against hacker attacks on Quinn and her supporters—but never published anything about their situation or their conflict with Quinn.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • An Innocent Man||

    What?

  • Redmanfms||

    Feminists don't like it that men like slim chicks with big tits.

    SSDD.

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    Makes me want to play Dragon's Crown (NSFW) just to spite them.

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    Pretty sure she'd be a hunchback after a few weeks of having that.... er, mass distribution.

  • np||

    God bless the Japanese. Everything in Dragon's Crown that sent Kotaku, GamaSutra, most US gaming media into a mouth-frothing feminist frenzy condensed into one gif

  • Barr||

  • ARealGamer||

    Thank you for demonstrating the actual behavior & maturity of the typical GamerGater.

  • Redmanfms||

    Thank you for demonstrating the actual behavior & maturity of the typical GamerGater.

    Thank you for proving my point.

  • KPres||

    You mean by cutting right through the mountains of BS and sophistry to get straight to the point?

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    Exactly this. I've read about this numerous times in numerous publications, and still don't understand what's going on. At first I just thought it was another feminist cause-video games tend to cater to the young male crowd. But it's obviously not that cut and dry and to be honest I don't really care enough to try to figure out what's going on.

  • StuartHayashi||

    As I type this, I'm posting the third comment. I wonder how many comments this will end up having. I know Twitter is flooded with debate about this.

  • Illocust||

    Considering how fast people are retweeting my link. This is probably going to get a bunch of posts from new users.

  • ||

    Twitter and progressive SJWs make a good match, considering that most of progressive thought can generally be summed up in less than 140 characters.

    Perhaps the best thing for thinking people to do is not use twitter. It's a communication medium that was invented for 14 year old girls. So it's not surprising that most of the people on it act like 14 year old girls.

  • ARealGamer||

    Thank you for demonstrating the sexism of Gamergate

  • ||

    Lol. I was a 14 year old girl once. So I know what I'm talking about.

  • ARealGamer||

    That you were young once does not excuse your current sexism.

  • ||

    So it's sexist to note that 14 year old girls tend to be petty, cliquish, and mean?

    That would come as a surprise to Rosalind Wiseman, author of Mean Girls.

  • ||

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.....d_Wannabes

    Queen Bees and Wannabes is a 2002 self-help book by Rosalind Wiseman. It focuses on the ways in which girls in high schools form cliques, and on patterns of aggressive teen girl behavior and how to deal with them. The book was, in large part, the basis for the movie Mean Girls (2004).[1]

  • Vulgar Madman||

    Just accept your thoughtcrime conviction, hazel.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    This can't be real.

  • JW||

    It *could* be, which is the real crying shame.

    Tough call here. The single-minded myopia is a classic signal.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I'm going with Tulpa.

  • JW||

    Yeah, it lacks the nuances of a real person. Just a bit too textbook in the responses.

  • PapayaSF||

    Many, many progs aren't big on nuance when dealing with non-progs.

  • SIV||

    The odds are in your favor.

  • Mark22||

    Who cares what names you call us? Progressives have perverted terms like "sexism" and "racism" to the point where they have become meaningless.

  • PapayaSF||

    Ah, but they can now easily use them as weapons against non-progs, you sexist racist.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Nonsense! They have a NEW meaning, which is "This person cconsiders one or more Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressive sacred cows to be so many tons of disease-raddled potroast. Shun him!"

  • ||

    This person cconsiders one or more Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressive sacred cows to be so many tons of disease-raddled potroast

    Non-sense. All of them are disease(of the brain)raddled potroast.

    Also, there are no intellectual progressives. There are 'educated' progressives. All of them are prattling sociopath imbeciles.

  • Rev-Match||

    That you were young once does not excuse your current sexism.

    Do you have any actual arguments to convey or are you more content to just lob adhoms like Obo lobs hellfire missiles at middle-eastern wedding parties?

  • Redmanfms||

    Translation: Wahh, my pussy hurts.

    BTW, HazelMeade is a woman.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    How you doin'?

  • Redmanfms||

    Alright. Had a cold for the last 3 weeks and contracts have been drying up.

    Former employer wants me to go back to Venezuela again. I'm not too sure I'm willing to risk it a third time, despite the slow down in business.

  • ARealGamer||

    And? She's being sexist. So are you. Try looking at the actual ideas, rather than whether or not the person speaking happens to have a vagina.

  • Redmanfms||

    Try looking at the actual ideas

    You and those like you want the world to bend to your fickle desires, the "ideas" are stupid and blatantly fascist whether you have a cunt or not.

  • ARealGamer||

    Thank you for demonstrating the typical level of rhetoric we can expect from GamerGate.

  • Redmanfms||

    Thank you for demonstrating the typical level of rhetoric we can expect from GamerGate.

    Your utter lack of self-awareness is stultifying.

    Also, thank you a third time for proving me right.

  • Mark22||

    And what are you actually accomplishing with your accusations? Do you think you're changing any minds?

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    We are. That's why we're mocking you.

  • Marktaylor||

    Your official position is that a woman is anti-woman. Don't worry, that doesn't make you look fucking retarded.

  • ARealGamer||

    You think women can't be misogynist? Tell me, do you also think the wealthy can't be generous? That African Americans can't be racist?

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Yeah all the #notyourshield people are just self haters with false consciousness. Every. Last. One. Or they wouldn't disagree with you, right?

  • ARealGamer||

    You mean the hashtag a bunch of 4channers made up specifically to shield their own actions?

  • Irish||

    You mean the hashtag a bunch of 4channers made up specifically to shield their own actions?

    Given that a large number of them have posted pictures of themselves with evidence that they're real in order to ward off just this sort of criticism, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

    You know what's really fucking sexist? Assuming that women have to think like you and that any woman who wanders off the Gender Plantation must actually be a dude.

  • Mark22||

    Oh, sure, people frequently aren't what they say they are. Just look at progressives and liberals; just look at yourself.

  • ||

    "ARealGamer|10.12.14 @ 11:28AM|#

    You think women can't be misogynist? Tell me, do you also think the wealthy can't be generous? That African Americans can't be racist?"

    Not according to SJWs and other assorted Democrats.

  • ||

    The "actual idea" in question is the idea that twitter-mobbing people in general is the tactic of a 14-year-old girl.

    I mean one COULD respond to this by arguing that some gamer-gaters are acting like 14 year old girls too. But NOOOOOO... one must jump from the very mention of "14 year old girl" to "sexism".

    This leads me to believe that the gamergaters criticisms of SJWs are 100% accurate.

  • ARealGamer||

    " twitter-mobbing people in general is the tactic of a 14-year-old girl."

    And doubling-down on the sexism here is supposed to prove...what, precisely?

  • ||

    Are you in some obtuse way attempting to argue that teen girls aren't cliquish and manipulative? That that's just a stereotype?

    If so, just make that argument. You must actually argue that a stereotype is false before you make claims of sexism. You can't just assume that everything negative is de facto sexist. (Jesus, get your leftist catecism right, even I can do it better than you!!)

    Secondly, if you want to make that argument, there are more than a few sociologists who would like to have a word with you.

    http://www.opheliaproject.org/girls.html

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    Serious question. Do the words "girl," "boy," "teenager," have any conceptual meaning to you? If they're real, definable, terms, that means you can describe them. If you describe them in a negative sense, that doesn't make you a sexist. Even if it is, why is this a bad thing? Step away from the ad hominems for a second and address her point. Do 14 year old girls often act in the way she's describing? Is this different than 14 year old boys? If yes, why is this sexist? And even if it is sexist, why is her acknowledging a truth a bad thing? I'll take you seriously when you address her argument rather than just attacking her character.

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    My comment was, of course, addressed to "ARealGamer" but I see Hazel responded better than me in every way. Well said Hazel.

  • ||

    Thanks, and by the way, note how "ARealGamer" is reinforcing my point about progressives.

    Instead of substantively engaging my point about how progressive political tactice resemble those of 14 year old girls, he (or she) is acting like a 14 year old girl. He (she) is attempting to use the social power of the term "sexist" to silence the idea, rather than engage it. Imagine this discussion was taking place on (say) Jezebel. This person would have an army of syncophants screaming "sexism" in exactly the same way, just like a high-school queen bee and her followers.

  • ARealGamer||

    Possibly. Here you have an army of sycophants screaming "cunt" and "SJW!" That seems a function of the political space, not the gender.

  • Irish||

    You don't apparently know what the word sycophant means.

    You should learn the definition of words before you use them. Otherwise you look like an idiot.

  • DesigNate||

    It wouldn't help this grievance monger.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Except no on her is a sycophant of HazelMeade. We're just united in our contempt for you.

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    Try looking at the actual ideas, rather than whether or not the person speaking happens to have a vagina.

    If you had followed that rule in your own life, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

  • Rev-Match||

    rather than whether or not the person speaking happens to have a vagina.

    I contend that it is you, not us, that is someone who dwells on irrelevant items such as a persons gender. After all, you simply came here and started calling people sexist because "OMG they questioned the statements of a WOMAN".

  • ARealGamer||

    No, i called them sexist because they are attempting to justify rape threats against people who dare to point out that games have a wider audience than 18-24 year old men.
    At which point i was called a "cunt."

  • Vulgar Madman||

    You should really put some ointment on that thing, *real gamer*.

  • Fluffy||

    Thank you for demonstrating that you have absolutely no rebuttal for any GamerGate point other than to reflexively assert sexism and then sulk and expect your opponents to retreat.

    That's why this debate has been really instructive. Because it has exposed, YET AGAIN, that sulking is all you've got.

  • ||

    This person is a progressive. Having never hard their ideas challenged in the media in any significant way, they are at a loss as to what to do when confronted with serious intellectual criticism. The typical tactic is to flee to charges of racism and sexism, because they can't cope with serious argument.

  • ||

    Arguing with progressives is like teasing a helpless kitten.

    I feel cruel.

  • ARealGamer||

    Feel free to answer the actual criticism any time...
    ...or to go back and edit your original post, in which you explicitly single out girls as incapable of sustained thought.

  • ||

    Your ability to reconstruct what I actually said to suit your own prejudices is amazing. Just like a typical progressive. You're so caught up in your conviction of your own righteousness that you can't recognize or admit what you've gone completely off the rails.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

  • KDN||

    or to go back and edit your original post

    I so love it when the noob trolls reveal themselves as both.

  • ARealGamer||

    Where is the "serious criticism" in declaring that girls, in particular, are incapable of coherent thought longer than a twitter post?

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    You got a good spin on that one.

  • Redmanfms||

    What other response is there to somebody who screams sexism because the opposite sex likes things you don't think they should like?

  • Vulgar Madman||

    How did you become a REAL gamer? Did you go to special school?

  • ||

    Not girls. Progressives. Get it straight. Twitter is the perfect medium for progressives because their mindset is so similar to that of a 14 year old girl. It's all about social acceptance, signalling the correct attitudes and beliefs, ostracizing people who don't, and generally just harassing people into conformity with the party line. Twitter is not a medium for having a serious intellectual discussion. It's a medium for making mean snarky one-liners.

  • ARealGamer||

    "... because their mindset is so similar to that of a 14 year old GIRL."

    Not helping your claim that you aren't sexist.

  • ||

    Oh so you think I should have said "14 year old woman" ?

  • ARealGamer||

    No. "14 year old."
    You see "girl" is a gendered term. Try your first post, or your last, with "14 year old boy" instead. Notice how your rhetoric reinforces the idea that it is girls, particularly, who are incapable of reasonable thought?
    That would be sexism. By definition.

  • JW||

    It's like a Carl Jr's ad of righteous indignation.

  • Redmanfms||

    No. "14 year old."
    You see "girl" is a gendered term. Try your first post, or your last, with "14 year old boy" instead. Notice how your rhetoric reinforces the idea that it is girls, particularly, who are incapable of reasonable thought?
    That would be sexism. By definition.

    Thank you for showing everyone here the sum of the feminist counter-argument in Gamergate.

  • ARealGamer||

    Hardly the sum. That's simply a demonstration of how easily gendered rhetoric slips past people's lips (or keyboards) in ways which reinforce gender stereotypes. For a better summary, simply look at the entire comment thread here. Read particularly the posts of those defending GamerGate. Then imagine leaving them home alone with your loved ones.

  • Redmanfms||

    Then imagine leaving them home alone with your loved ones.

    Snark kills!!!!

  • jdgalt||

    No, snark does not kill. Extreme overdoses of the "poor me" mindset lead stupid people to kill themselves when snarked at, to which I say: Go, lemmings, go!

  • ARealGamer||

    And now encouraging suicide.
    It's interestingly like I don't even have to formulate an actual thesis...i could just let y'all keep burying yourselves.

  • ||

    The fact that female aggression tends to display itself through social manipulation isn't a stereotype, it's a fact. There is literally decades of research on this subject.

    Boys punch each other, girls talk about each other behind their backs. Twitter-mobbing is a GIRL thing.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    That's simply a demonstration of how easily gendered rhetoric slips past people's lips (or keyboards) in ways which reinforce gender stereotypes.

    Stop trying to punish the rest of society for your daddy issues.

  • MJGreen||

    Both 14 year old girls and boys are incapable of reasonable thought, but generally it's only girls who speak in the way Hazel means. A 14 year old boy is limited to, "Duuuuuh. Boobs."

  • Irish||

    Both 14 year old girls and boys are incapable of reasonable thought, but generally it's only girls who speak in the way Hazel means. A 14 year old boy is limited to, "Duuuuuh. Boobs."

    I find this use of gendered words and stereotypes so offensive to men that I'm going to spend the next two hours freaking the fuck out about it on an internet forum.

    Worship my intellect, peons.

  • Brian||

    LOL.

  • ||

    No, "14 year old girl" is correct.

    Twitter-mobbing is not a typical 14-year-old boy reaction to a dispute. It's GIRLS who tend to respond to social disputes by socially ostracizing those they dislike. Boys tend to respond with physical aggression.

  • ARealGamer||

    Really? Let's look at a couple immediate examples. Take this thread, for instance. We have a good deal of mobbing going on, don't we, complete with words like "cunt" and "retard" being tossed around.
    Care to take a stab at summarizing which gender is doing so? And from which political perspective?

  • Irish||

    Really? Let's look at a couple immediate examples. Take this thread, for instance. We have a good deal of mobbing going on, don't we, complete with words like "cunt" and "retard" being tossed around.
    Care to take a stab at summarizing which gender is doing so? And from which political perspective?

    I don't think it's mobbing when you go on a forum you know will disagree with you and then start throwing around moronic accusations of sexism.

    If I went to a feminist forum and said 'Man, all you feminists sure are morons' me getting attacked would not be 'mobbing.' I chose to go to hostile territory and behave like a buffoon in that instance, just like you've done here.

    Incidentally, if I went to a feminist forum and started calling them idiots, I'd get called much worse than 'cunt' or 'retard.' Why don't you go look at all the sexually charged attacks Shikha Dalmia got for her article about the idiotic 'affirmative consent' standard. Feminists started claiming she liked being raped and was some sort of frigid wench who never had sex.

    You're right though. Feminists are noble uberfrau's who are far above things like mob attacks and gendered insults.

  • Trigger Warning||

    words like "cunt" and "retard"

    OH NO, NOT WORDS!

    Care to take a stab at summarizing which gender is doing so?

    You can't, on the Internet, show whether somebody has a penis or a vagina with any certainty. I generally believe somebody when they tell me they are a man or a woman, but if I don't know that person in meatspace, I don't know for sure.

    And from which political perspective?

    You come to a libertarian website and cry "SEXIST!" at one of the first people you interact with. Shit, I dunno, it must be the Whig party.

    I've got to hand it to you: the titanic resolve it takes to absolutely refuse to engage any and all arguments presented to you in like fashion and continue to say "SEXISM!" is impressive. Saying something over and over does not constitute an argument.

  • ARealGamer||

    No. The sexism in the responses I've received here is.

  • Redmanfms||

    No. The sexism in the responses I've received here is.

    You keep proving me right, it's beautiful, thanks!!

  • ||

    Twitter-mobbing is not just a bunch of people disagreeing with one person, it's an orchestrated tactic designed to socially ostracize a person. It's where you actively recruit outsiders to join in. It's relational aggression which is generally primarily associated with the behavior of high school girls, although it exists in other context too. High school girls are known for it though.

  • dred17||

    Isn't that essentially what happened to female gamers who argued that the game industry was, in their opinion, sexist? Logically, that would mean gamergate people argue like 14 year old girls, and that they are therefore progressives.

  • ||

    It is my long held position that this is what leads to a lot of the male on female domestic abuse.

    Little girls grow up learning to fight with their mouths. Little boys roll around on the ground ocassionally throwing a punch.

    Skip to adulthood realtionship disputes where physical solutions are frowned upon. An adept female mouthfighter lands a solid, painful blow on her opponent who, if he is to win the contest, strikes out in the only way he is competent.

    That is in no way an excuse for male on female violence, just an explanation of the whys of it.

  • ||

    I think this also explains a lot of the sexist comments made by GamerGaters too. You've got a bunch of proggie SJW types, maybe disproportionately female, who have a lot of experience with mouth-fighting up against a bunch of male gamers who don't and the male gamers end up lashing out with crude sexual comments instead of taking on, head-on, the tactics the SJWs are using to force their agenda upon an unwilling audience.

  • dred17||

    Are young male gamers a group stereotypically thought of as handling disputes through physical violence? I thought they were mostly basement dwelling losers who only communicated with real live people over an internet connection. Maybe not mouth fighting, but finger fighters, perhaps?

  • jdgalt||

    @OneOut: That's only part of the story. The larger problem is that adult guys no longer have the freedom to "fight with their mouths," as you put it, the way women still do. If we try it, it becomes "sexual harassment" and our careers are destroyed.

    That DOES justify violence.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    It's a cute theory, but recent statistics (which the Feministas are trting hard to ignore) show that domestic violence is as likely to be famale on male as the other way. The men do hit harder.

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    "AREALGAMER" IS AN AGIST JERK!

  • ||

    By definiton you are ATrueIdiot.

    It amazes me that anyone can actually have a thought process like this. If so, it shines a light on the failings of modern education. Please indentify your educational tract so that I may ensure that none of my decendents follow it.

    Please just be Tony trolling. It is beyond my conception that this can be a real adult out in the working world.

  • Rev-Match||

    You see "girl" is a gendered term.

    I agree that it acknowledges a gender. It serves to make a distinction between girls and boys. Such a distinction does actually exist in how the two, generally speaking, behave.

    (P.s. I can't believe this is a real discussion being had on here because "ZOMG, Hazel acknowledged TEH EVUL of GENDER", or something.)

  • DesigNate||

    14 year old boys exhibit "mean girl" tendencies?

  • Mark22||

    Why do you think anybody should care what you call them? You're obviously wrong, so that simply makes you a buffoon.

  • Rhywun||

    It's a medium for making mean snarky one-liners.

    Oh, so it's like another Hit 'n Run.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    I see what you #didthere

  • Trigger Warning||

    zing!

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Hell, they ate at a loss when not treated as a Precious Snowflake, because they never grew up. Their dreams and asperations are as puerile as the "adventures" in Peter Pan's realm, and for exactly the same reason.

    They still believe that Prosgressiveism, Socialism, and Communism are something other than thin veneers for fascism. They still view Che as some kind of Hispanic Tinkerbell, instead of the brutal sadist that he was.

    Why society tolerates them is beyond me.

  • ||

    Why society tolerates them is beyond me.

    Because 'moar free shit', anymore questions?

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Damnit. I was hoping for him (her?) to shout "RACIST!" as well.

    Not for any good reason, mind you. Just because he (she?) is so easily backed into a corner that the progressive approach is the only way to fight back.

  • ||

    I don't know about the rest of you, but when I picture a *real* gamer, its definitely someone spending their weekend tut-tutting strangers on the internet for their perceived bigotry.

    *goes back to playing Forza Horizons 2*

  • Trigger Warning||

    I'm pretty sure that ARealGamer plays only those games pre-approved by the SJW herd. So, mediocre games that hit all the right SJW buttons of collective grievance and get the righteous outrage going.

  • seguin||

    Depression Quest and Depression Quest 2: The Prozackening.

  • PapayaSF||

    LOL

  • ||

    The progressive response is the equivalent of Pavlovian salivation at the sound of a bell.

  • John C. Randolph||

    If you believe that squawking "Sexism" is going to get you anywhere with this crowd, you have no clue what Reason H&R is all about.

    -jcr

  • ARealGamer||

    What I imagined was that it might be useful for someone not already ideologically committed to see that there is another perspective on gamergate, one from an actual gamer rather than, as here, a political shill.
    I was not anticipating being called a "cunt," "retard," "pussy," nor having to explain to people why it might be considered sexist to make rape threats. However, y'all managed that. Way to make gamergate look...well, like precisely what it is.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    I'm a gamer, and your positions still don't make sense to me.

  • John C. Randolph||

    We already know about the SJW "perspective" on this fracas. You are as tedious as you are predictable.

    -jcr

  • ||

    What I imagined was that it might be useful for someone not already ideologically committed to see that there is another perspective on gamergate,

    Because the best way to get someone to see another perspective is to immediately call them a sexist the first time you interact with them.

    I am amazed that SJWs think this is a viable tactic. It is a sad commentary on our society that it actually works on a significant percentage of the population.

  • Zunalter||

    I am assuming all of this hullabaloo is just to get people fired up and get some nicely miscontextualized screenshots where all of the cogent points are drowned out due to a pic of a poorly chosen expletive.

  • Gluesponge||

    You are part of the problem. Sometimes a pickle is just a pickle.

    And games are not real life. If you're a "real" gamer... you'd realize that.

  • Gluesponge||

    That was in response to "RealGamer" btw. :) I forgot to quote.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Good morning, everybody!

    They can pry my big titted video game women from my cold, dead, Playstation 4.

    And I just DO NOT get video game hype, either. Who gives a shit what kind of review a game received? The only metric that matters is the fun you have while playing. If you only played well-advertised games you'd get stuck with Halo, Call of Duty, and Mario Party.

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    With new games often costing $60, many people would be less likely to take a chance on a game that got bad reviews.

    Of course free downloadable demos help with this to some extent. There have been games whose demos were cool enough that I probably would still have bought the full version, even if the reviews weren't so great.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Steam is the answer to that. PCs that can run AAA titles are less expensive these days, and interesting games are more accessible than ever.

    Consoles aren't the only way to play.

  • Otisjay||

    You can get a PC that's on par with today's consoles for about the same price.

  • John C. Randolph||

    These days, if I hear about a game that sounds interesting, I can just look it up on YouTube and watch a walk-through of a couple of minutes of it to decide whether I want to buy it.

    I've been playing computer games since Pong, and the "gaming press" has never played any part in how I choose what to buy.

    As for the behavior of the leftards who work for those sites, it reminds me of something Henry Kissinger is alleged to have said about academic politics: the reason they're so vicious is because the stakes are so small.

    -jcr

  • kevrob||

    The "academic politics" crack wasn't original with Hank K.

    Wikipedia explains Sayre's Law

    Kevin R

  • JW||

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    That had better not link to Barbie Horse Adventures. :C

  • Brendan||

    I like (liked?) HAWP, but have no illusions that any future episodes will be preachy, dull, and chock full of thin skinned reactionary nonsense as the two Burchs take themselves way too seriously.

    They added "trigger warnings" and/or apologies to so many videos that any sense of edginess or wit is drowned out by SJW guilt.

  • ||

    Wait. There were women in Castle Wolfenstein?

    Was it on some secret level?

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    They're the same sprite. You just have to squint really hard and pretend.

  • ||

    That's how forward-thinking Castle Wolfenstein actually was! The females not only don't look sexy, but they are indistinguishable from the males.

  • Loki||

    The females not only don't look sexy, but they are indistinguishable from the males.

    I think that's just because they were German.

    "It's true you don't see many dwarf German women. And in fact, they are so alike in voice and appearance, that they are often mistaken for dwarf German men."

  • ||

    Hahahaha fantastic comment

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    If this wasn't covered in Reason, I would have no idea it happened.

  • JW||

    And now your life is complete.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Here is a basic primer on the subject which I'm sure ARealGamer will be by to rebut point by point any minute now. Or maybe just hurl more insults and misdirect. Yeah, probably option two.

    For a good idea of what the #gamergate people would like to see check out this statement fro The Escapist. Page 5 is actually all you really need to read. It makes clear how very much bullshit the SJWs are peddling over this issue.

  • ARealGamer||

    A reprint of the outrageous BS from RealClearPolitics: still written by a non-gaming right-wing shill who tries to justify the horrific abuse of Gaters.
    No evidence of "corruption." Just sexist crapola from an author who admits her entire ignorance of the genre and issues in the first paragraphs.

  • An Innocent Man||

    What?

  • ||

    How dare someone attempt to present the gamergater's perspective with anything less than shrill condemnation. We have a culture war to fight and this person is clearly a deserter. Execute them!!!

  • Redmanfms||

    the horrific abuse of Gaters.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Translation: "People like things I don't like and get pissed off when I expect them to kiss my ass and change their preferences to my liking!!"

  • ARealGamer||

    Is the implication here that you don't think threatening to rape someone to death and murder their children wualifies as "abuse?"

  • Redmanfms||

    Somebody said something horrific on the internet, horrors.

    What are you, fucking 12?

  • Redmanfms||

    "horrific"

    Forgot the scare quotes.

  • Fluffy||

    The implication here is that if every person or organization who has ever received a threat on Twitter is transformed by that threat into the party who is in the right, then a lot of people and organizations you don't like are in the right.

    Fred Phelps and his church received threats on Twitter. Were they in the right?

    Scott Peterson received threats on Twitter. Was he in the right?

    Van der Sloot received threats on Twitter. Is he in the right?

    ISIS receives threats on Twitter. Are they in the right?

    Let's discuss who is in the right on GamerGate given the underlying facts. Because the presence of threats on Twitter doesn't move the needle on that ONE IOTA.

  • ARealGamer||

    No, then you go to why the threats are being leveled. Why do you think people are attempting to justify the treatment of people like Quinn, or L. Alexander, or Brianna Wu?

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Nobody worth a damn is justifying the rape threats or death threats or any kind of threats made during this debacle.

    People are going out of their way to point out that a shitty game got good reviews for piss poor reasons.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    By this line of argumentation Sarah Palin is possessed of absolutely unimpeachable moral certitude and credibility on politics. Care to weigh in on this idea some more, troll?

  • JW||

    Your caterwauling is SO sexy.

  • ARealGamer||

    Thank you for demonstrating GamerGate's actual face.

  • JW||

    That's hot.

  • Redmanfms||

    Thank you for proving me right a second time.

  • Dumbass||

    Is this the only tool in your toolbox? Make some accusatory strawman statement then fall back on "Thanks for proving ....." If this is the extent of your discussion, then you are a far cry from the usual reason trolls. Hell, Tony would twist himself into a logical pretzel to get people worked up around here

  • seguin||

    I know, he was working entirely too hard.

  • Otisjay||

    I miss Tony, This Troll sucks at her job.

  • DesigNate||

    And Cathy did that where exactly?

    "Right wing shill..." Oh, and congratulations on not knowing a goddamn thing about libertarians.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    You seem like a smart, level headed guy.

  • ||

    You SEXIST Bastard.

    You're not supposed to mention gender.

    ARealIdiot said so.

  • Fluffy||

    Look, ALL YOU"VE GOT is Twitter Godwinning. That's it.

    Twitter has hundreds of millions of users. That means that on any issue, there will be at least one tweeter who tweets something abusive, threatening, and inappropriate.

    Finding that one Twitter user and linking to his or her posts does not constitute an argument.

    Here is the bottom line:

    A woman who developed a flimsy, trivial game that broke no new technical ground and achieved no commercial success was given laudatory press coverage, because the game pushed the right SJW buttons and because she slept with reviewers.

    When that was pointed out, people like you went berserk and tried to accuse everyone who thought this was scurrilous was a sexist. You didn't rebut the accusations - because they're true, you can't. You went right to the only weapon you've got and the only weapon you ever have. And when that weapon didn't immediately work - because its application here is transparently absurd - you didn't back down; you doubled down.

  • ||

    Progressives hate it when their tactics are revealed. I mean, they think they are super-super smart for the way they manipulate the media. They think it isn't super-fucking-obvious to everyone how they operate. The fact that someone noticed this shit is, like, embarrassing. There must be some alternative explanation for it, other than that they are morons who aren't nearly as smart or interesting as they think they are. hence, SEXISM!!!

  • ARealGamer||

    "...was given laudatory press coverage..."
    So your whole complaint is you didn't like the game, and therefore can't understand why someone else would? And this justifies...what, exactly? A demand that journalists continue following the same code of ethics they already have?

  • Redmanfms||

    Your reading comprehension sucks.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    This code of ethics includes sleeping with the game creator in exchange for good reviews?

    If it actually DOES include that, does it fall on the red or black side of the ledger?

  • ARealGamer||

    Again: there is ZERO proof anybody got good reviews for sleeping with anyone.
    But EVEN if there were - and there isn't - it would only violate already extant journalistic rules of conduct...not justify the broader supposed concerns of gamergate which bool down to trying to remove actual social crotique from games.

  • Cytotoxic||

    There are obvious conflicts of interest including but not limited to sleeping with reviews. Actually, that little whore *cheated* with them.

  • ARealGamer||

    "...that little whore..."

    GamerGate, in a nutshell

  • Juice||

    Well, not just that one whore. It seems to be an industry wide problem.

  • ||

    I don't think it's the sleeping with the game creator so much as the idea that this game pushed the right "social justice" buttons and got those laudatory reviews because it was politically correct, not because it was actually fun to play.

  • ARealGamer||

    And you don't think this article - by someone admits she isn't a gamer - was written solely because it was useful for pushing a particular political ideology?

  • Redmanfms||

    If the positive review of a video game is based on something other than what is reported, the review is fraud.

    That you don't understand the difference is telling.

  • ARealGamer||

    But this article isn't actually based on the situation, or the author's knowledge of the genre. She's quite explicit about that when she declares 'I don't know games, but I know them accursed libruhls!'
    It's no different than Milo Yiannopoullis' jumping on a bandwagon he thinks he can manipulate into a political windfall.

  • Irish||

    But this article isn't actually based on the situation, or the author's knowledge of the genre. She's quite explicit about that when she declares 'I don't know games, but I know them accursed libruhls!'

    Hey, you know what's way worse than that? Anita Sarkeesian claiming she plays a lot of video games, but admitting at an earlier date that she was not a gamer.

    Kathy Young is honest that she isn't interested in the subject, whereas Anita Sarkeesian is a known liar. Now tell me who's manipulating this situation into a political windfall - the person who is honest and writes an honest article about their opinions, or the person who raised $160,000 via kickstarter and has made a career by lying about being interested in video games?

  • PapayaSF||

    Um, A RealGamer: it's not unknown, or inappropriate, for journalists to write about things of which they have little first-hand knowledge. They do something called "research" and summarize what they learn for their audience. Cathy and Milo are doing nothing wrong, unless you can show they are getting their facts wrong.

    It's especially amusing for you to accuse them of writing so that they can "manipulate into a political windfall." That, in essence, has been the career plan of Anita Sarkeesian.

  • Mark22||

    People like Sarkeesian also know sh*t about gaming, and are using the whole controversy for political and financial gain, so what's your point?

  • ||

    Reason doesn't try to hide the fact that it's pushing a political agenda.

  • ARealGamer||

    Nor do game critics who think Dragon's Crown should be less grope-tastic. The difference being, those critics actually play games and have an investment in their future. 'Reason' doesn't...it's just making political hay while the sun shines.

  • Redmanfms||

    Nor do game critics who think Dragon's Crown should be less grope-tastic.

    Which isn't actually what Gamergate is about.

    The "video games should present a more realistic body image be cause sexism" shit was added on by feminists and SJWs who've been bitching about slim chicks with big tits in video games for years and only has anything to do with Gamergate because they injected it.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    and only has anything to do with Gamergate because they injected it.

    Like silicone into tits.

  • PapayaSF||

    those critics actually play games

    Anita Sarkeesian has admitted that she doesn't really play games.

  • Cytotoxic||

    "Investment in their future"-their you go with your stupid irrelevant BS again because you're unable to answer criticism.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Nor do game critics who think Dragon's Crown should be less grope-tastic.

    Here's an idea--maybe SJWs should design their own games and let the marketplace determine if they're actually good or not.

    Oh, that's right. That actually happened, and the little SJW queen found that nobody who actually matters--the paying customer--thought it was any good. No wonder you losers are so butthurt about all this; it's because you know that you don't have the talent or the empathy to actually appeal to the people who will provide you with a livelihood, so you resort to the same old lame cultural marxism that "this isn't fair, dammit!". You don't have anything substantive, just more shitlib whinging.

  • ||

    They are so accustomed to having TV and film viewers flock to whatever the (overwhelmingly leftist) film critics tell them is good that they are shocked and upset when they discover that gamers don't actually just automatically like the games that they are told they should like.

  • Irish||

    They are so accustomed to having TV and film viewers flock to whatever the (overwhelmingly leftist) film critics tell them is good that they are shocked and upset when they discover that gamers don't actually just automatically like the games that they are told they should like.

    Except that I don't even think this is true. The TV and film reviewers pimp leftist tripe all the time, but no one bothers watching it. For all the glowing left-wing discussions of Lena Dunham, Girls' highest ever ratings were 1.1 million. The Season 3 finale only had 632,000 viewers.

    Compare that to Duck Dynasty. Duck Dynasty is supposedly in a ratings freefall and they're still pulling in 4.2 million viewers an episode.

    Which of those got more glowing reviews from leftists: Duck Dynasty or Girls? Similarly, Community got great reviews but no one watched it.

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    Duck Dynasty really does suck, though.

  • ARealGamer||

    You seem to be ignoring actually successful games which inject politics, such as the Bioshock series which questioned both libertarianism (1) and uber-patriotic protectionism (infinite).

  • Redmanfms||

    You seem to be ignoring actually successful games which inject politics, such as the Bioshock series which questioned both libertarianism (1) and uber-patriotic protectionism (infinite).

    Probably because those didn't get good reviews because the developers fucked the reviewers...

  • Zunalter||

    Actually, those games were both A: Fun and B: Critically Acclaimed.

  • AlbedoAtoned||

    Hold up. First of all, Bioshock's Ryan Andrew was more of an objectivist, which to be fair is similar to libertarianism. Second of all, he wasn't even a good objectivist. All of rapture's issues were caused when Andrew Ryan turned his back on his values. He became authoritarian, and the city was the furthest thing from objectivism and libertarianism as it could get.

    Third of all, as was said, the game was really fun. The game was fun first and foremost. That determined success much more than whatever message it had. Sort of like how the GTA series is so successful, not due to any one message, but due to how people find them fun. If you want to put out a game with a message, make sure it is actually a fun game, because otherwise it won't go anywhere.

  • Mark22||

    Whatever gamers think the future of games should be they determine with their dollars. Obviously, tits and ass sell, as do guns and gore. If they didn't, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

    What Quinn, Sarkeesian, you, or ThinkProgress think or write isn't relevant to games or the future of games. But you nutcases are relevant to political discussions, which is why we're talking about it here at Reason.

  • DesigNate||

    Thanks for proving this all about politics to you and not about journalistic integrity or ferreting out the truth.

  • Fluffy||

    No.

    My complaint is that when people offered the completely reasonable and understandable statement that her press coverage wasn't justified by the game, and used that coverage as an example of what is wrong with game journalism, people like you IMMEDIATELY asserted that anyone who would voice such a complaint is a misogynist monster.

    People like you actually declared that the fact that gamers don't like corrupted reviews is proof that gamers are generally misogynists and gaming and game development needs to be rebuilt from the ground up and that all gamers require re-education in the proper social justice principles.

    THAT'S my complaint.

  • ARealGamer||

    If you think the rape and death threats leveled against Quinn were completely justified level-headed criticism, own it.

  • Redmanfms||

    If you think the rape and death threats leveled against Quinn were completely justified level-headed criticism, own it.

    Why does Fluffy have to own it when it isn't the crux of his criticism?

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Why does anybody other than the person who made the threats have to own it?

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    I'm embarrassed for you.

  • Fluffy||

    I itemized my concerns.

    Rather than reply to them (since you can't) you instead chose to claim that my concerns were identical to those of the people who issued threats.

    PROVING that you don't have any other argument to make.

    My claim is that any criticism of a female developer and her journalistic allies whatsoever is immediately asserted by social justice warriors to be misogyny indistinguishable from rape threats.

    To rebut my claim, you IMMEDIATELY responded by linking my claim to rape threats.

    Classic. Absolutely classic demonstration of how the modern left works. It's been so long since you actually had to argue (since you generally argue with cowards in the context of a complacent press that supports you at every turn) that even when called on it, you can't shift or pivot or do something else. It's all you've got.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Oddly it's a lot like when someone spends all their gaming time shooting up bots in single player and then gets utterly pwnd the moment they encounter real people in an online competition. If their enemies don't do exactly what they want and expect they are helpless.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    To be fair, it is DAMN HARD to transition from PVE to PVP in almost any game.

    Only one I managed a smooth transition with was Halo. Playing on Legendary Difficulty hardened me up quite a bit.

  • ARealGamer||

    Your points are not "identical" with rape threats. They are supportive of them, however.

  • Redmanfms||

    Your points are not "identical" with rape threats. They are supportive of them, however.

    Bullshit.

  • DesigNate||

    Holy fuck you're stupid.

  • Otisjay||

    "Your points are not "identical" with rape threats. They are supportive of them, however."

    http://www.quickmeme.com/img/7.....3ee3e6.jpg

  • fuck you Belinda Carlisle||

    Why are you so fucking stupid?

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Eat a dick?

    Yes, yes. Eat a dick.

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    who tries to justify the horrific abuse of Gaters.

    "of" or "by"? Did you just slip up and forget which side you're on?

  • John C. Randolph||

    No evidence of "corruption."

    ..except for the little matter of the trollope who was fucking the "reporters" and "judges", who then heaped praise upon her half-assed interactive novel?

    Seriously, even calling "depression quest" a game at all is quite a stretch. It's about like calling "gender studies" an academic discipline.

    -jcr

  • Zunalter||

    Which obviously, the people who you are talking about...DO.

  • Gluesponge||


    No evidence of "corruption."

    It has been debunked about a million times already. Zoe sleeps with people for favorable reviews of her "game". Invents "harassment" to bolster her crumbling credibility. Game journalists don't see the big deal with the incestuous relationship between them and the people they review products.

    Sarkeesian (sp?) claims to be a gamer, and it's been shown that she admits to never playing games. Yet she gets a bunch of beta idiots to follow and fund her bullshit.

    Anyone still believing this is some sort of massive assault on women is either an idiot or part of the deception. Which are you?

  • Copernicus||

    Who the hell is Vathy Young?

  • MJGreen||

    She's the one fuel sparking this conversation.

  • Almanian!||

    That's just Melitha Harrith Parry trying to say "Vassy Young".

    Who Vassy Young is, I have no idea. Probably a gay gamer who hates teh seckesizm.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    She used to date millionaire Teve Torbes.

  • Mock-star||

    To this day, that remains my favorite skit on SNL. "Pightline with Ched Choppel" makes me laugh every damn time.

  • Marktaylor||

    "it has been linked to some very ugly misogynist harassment of feminists."

    Can you prove these internet threats came from men? If not than the only sexism you have uncovered is your own for assuming men make threats and women are innocent delicate flowers who could never do such a thing.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    +1 Catfight.

  • ARealGamer||

    What in the world makes you think only men can be misogynists?

  • An Innocent Man||

    Are you a functional retard or just the regular kind?

  • Vulgar Madman||

    Is it real so rewarding to be a pretend victim?

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    The penis.

  • JW||

    mightier than the sword.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Hi Tulpa! Thanks for educating us! Enjoy your McDonalds.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Again?!

    Dammit, that's the second time this week!

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    3rd. He had a run on Friday that went largely unnoticed.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Does Tulpa really come back to troll so much? Wow.

  • Redmanfms||

    He's here now:

    Gabriel Dunn.

    Doesn't appear to be trolling though.

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    You're a fool and are being fooled, confusing the lions with the babboons again.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    It's the big red asses. Can't seem to get them straight.

  • Almanian!||

    Wow a gamer thread that sucks. Whoda thunk it.

    Let me know what the children are done arguing. Till then, the console stays locked in the closet!

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Hey now, whoa whoa whoa!

    Give that back! Daddy needs his fix.

  • Ken Shultz||

    After they get gamer age guys to stop responding to women as sex objects, what are they going to do next?

    Stop the birds from flying south for the winter?

    Most of this stuff really does come across as misandry.

    It's like they hate men (and boys) for responding to physically attractive women. ...and then they point to all the physically attractive women we respond to as if that were conclusive evidence of our guilt.

    Being physically attracted to women isn't anything to be ashamed of, and making games for people who are physically attracted to women isn't anything to be ashamed of either.

    If sexual attraction works differently in women and men, isn't it misandrist to insist that men conform to a female norm?

  • ARealGamer||

    Except statistically, more games are now played by 30-40 year old women than 18-24 year old men.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Are they playing the same games?

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Farmville and other such facebook style games.

    So, no.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Although my wife loves her some Diablo 3.

  • Marktaylor||

    Even if that were true, which it obviously is only true if you include FB games and such, what is your point.

  • Ken Shultz||

    We may be talking to a misandrist.

    Like I said, if insisting that males conform to female norms isn't misandrist, then I don't know why.

  • GTurlington||

    I so agree with this playing Farmville is in no way the same as playing SKYRIM.

  • Redmanfms||

  • MJGreen||

    ...OK?

  • Gluesponge||

    That has been debunked as well. If you take off Farmville and Candy Crush the statistics are normally distributed and women are a tiny minority of that group.

    You picked the wrong forum to troll, SJW shill.

  • ARealGamer||

    Why would you take off two multi-billion dollar franchises?

  • Gluesponge||

    They aren't games.

  • ||

    They're games, just not serious games.

  • Juice||

    And by "serious" you mean geared toward males, right?

    /just fucking with you

  • Gluesponge||

    Well, let's put it this way, when they're talking about gamers as a demographic, they're really talking about who buys the consoles, the games, the joysticks, the merchandise.

    I haven't noticed many Farmville T-shirts. But then again, I don't hang around hot topic either. :)

    The reality is, even with those casual games, the gaming community isn't made up of a majority of women. Unless women like Call of Duty. Then... well, I stand corrected. :)

  • GTurlington||

    Gluesponge is totally correct.The last Call of Duty game I bought was the collector's edition of GHOSTS which was over a hundred dollars, so who do you think Activision is going to cater to? The person who plays Candy Crush or the one who buys their products on a regular basis, and who generally buys the most expensive versions of that product? In the end it comes down to money, and you are fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

  • Zunalter||

    Well the money depends on how many lives or boosters people are getting from the in-game store.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Ummm...probably because they're not separate purchases?

  • DesigNate||

    You hit the nail on the head Ken. People like this "ARealGamer" are doing exactly what they always accuse heterosexual white males of: namely forcing our cisnormative views on everyone else.

    Stop trying to oppress me Gamer.

  • Illocust||

    Thank you so much for this article Cathy. I love you as a reporter, and it means a lot to have someone like you actually research the gamers' side of the story. So many reporters either choose to ignore the issue, or only ask the journalist being accused of corruption their side of the story.
    Furthermore, thank you Reason for posting this. I think a lot of libertarians can sympathize with having their beliefs defined by their opponents in the main stream media.

  • Marktaylor||

    How does a rape threat work. You say "I will rape you" on the internet? And people believe that they will be raped? They believe the person that said it actually will go find them, and rape them, and that they're just giving their prey and the police a heads up to get ready?

    Remember when the reddit moderators had to step in from all the "rape threats" on the xx forum. They announced that nearly all the threats actually came from female users trying to pretend they were being attacked and create sympathy. Why wouldn't we expect this is the same?

    Any other threats not self generated are simply not serious and only frighten retards. If people were actually scared they wouldn't be flaunting the threats with pride, they would go to the police. People threaten death all the time, we don't have internet controversies over that silliness.

    It's all just a transparent call to sympathy that only the simplest of simpletons finds compelling.

  • JW||

    I like you. That's why I'm going to rape you last.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    That's the way I would do it too. Always rape the men last.

  • JW||

    All this raping...it's exhausting.

  • ||

    Wait. What about the sheep those men road in on? I thought they were last?

    Is there some sort of written list I could refer to?

  • ARealGamer||

    So your position boils down to...rape threats are ok?

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Hi Tulpa.

  • Redmanfms||

    Ehh, maybe.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I'm sure.

  • Redmanfms||

    Ehh, maybe.

    It is hinting at deeper knowledge of the underlying issue of gamergate. Tulpa doesn't usually do this. It's sticking to the "THAT'S SEXIST!!!111!" because that is the only response to gamergate feminists have been able to manage.

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    No. Just, no.

  • Marktaylor||

    How dare you attack me, I'm vulnerable. JW just threatened to rape me, call the police! I guess your okay with rape threats against some people but not others?

  • Ken Shultz||

    When ARealGamer does it, it isn't rape.

    It's "surprise sex".

  • Irish||

    Wow, you're the either the dumbest motherfucker in the history of this website or are a fake account created by a regular to stir shit up.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    The latter.

  • Irish||

    I'm leaning towards fake account because it showed up like 30 minutes after this was posted. I don't think an actual troll who wasn't a regular troll would have found this article and created an account that quickly.

  • ARealGamer||

    New account, but not a regular here. I'm mostly into games, not politics. But rape threats aren't funny.

  • Irish||

    You're right. Which is why no one on this site said they are, you fucking moron, and you're just using the bad actions of random morons on twitter because you're not intelligent enough to make a coherent point.

    I'll believe you care about rape threats when you start attacking all the rape threats and death threats directed towards Shikha Dalmia, Sarah Palin and a whole host of conservative and libertarian women. Until then it's fairly obvious you're a poorly educated liar who is pretending to care about rape threats as a political cudgel. Kind of like Anita Sarkeesian.

  • ARealGamer||

    "You're right. Which is why no one on this site said they are, you fucking moron"

    Really?

    You might want to look again at this thread. Right above you. You can start with "I like you. That's why I'm going to rape you last" and work your way down to here.
    Then tell me again how nobody here is treating rape threats as funny.

  • Redmanfms||

    Then tell me again how nobody here is treating rape threats as funny.

    One dude = everybody.

    Uh, ok.

  • Irish||

    Incidentally, you know what's really not funny?

    Sending fake rape threats to yourself in order to garner sympathy.

    This is actually very common in the feminist movement. Many people have been caught sending fake rape threats to themselves in order to garner sympathy and de-legitimize the opposition. If feminists actually thought random internet rape threats were the major issue they claim, then those same feminists wouldn't dilute the seriousness of rape threats by making fake ones.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Sending fake rape threats to yourself in order to garner sympathy.

    That was so hilarious. It should have been obvious right from the get-go that no one with an ounce of self-worth would want to fuck Meg Lanker-Simmons, much less hate-fuck her.

  • The Original Jason||

    Don't forget how Rantic Media threatened to publish nude Emma Watson photos after her speech to the UN...

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    you're the either the dumbest motherfucker in the history of this website

    That would be an epic contest indeed.

  • Redmanfms||

    I saw a thread a month or so ago that was pretty clearly Tulpa arguing with himself.

    It was interesting.

    I think that since being out for sockpuppetry back in March (IIRC) Tulpa has become progressively more unhinged, an objectivist, "law and order" version of Mary.

  • Irish||

    Yeah, but Tulpa wouldn't come here and claim GamerGate is sexist. It's not Tulpa's MO.

  • Redmanfms||

    Which is why I don't think this is Tulpa.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    That's a lot like watching Bo and Square argue back and forth.

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    Objectivist? Now that's really an insult, to both Tulpa and them. One of Tulpa's main drives has been to destroy systems of morality supposedly rationally argued from "self-evident" principles.

  • Fluffy||

    Hey, I'm kind of an Objectivist. Not a real one, but maybe a post-Objectivist. If someone calls me a Randroid, then I really can't object.

    That's one of the things that is most annoying about this dispute.

    Arealgamer INSISTS that the reason I'm on the side that I'm on is because I oppose ALL social criticism in games.

    But BIOSHOCK is essentially a long-form hate letter saying, "Fluffy, you are fucking scum!" over and over and over. It criticizes me directly much more than any stupid hippie feminist non-competitive cooperation game ever could.

    But I happily concede that BIOSHOCK is a fucking awesome game. It has an awesome plot, immersive gameplay, a combat system that was innovative at the time, and incredible art design and visuals.

    But liking BIOSHOCK doesn't count, I guess. To prove that I'm not an evil gamergater I guess I have to show up and proclaim how much I love games where everybody weaves baskets and shares a lot.

  • Cytotoxic||

    But I happily concede that BIOSHOCK is a fucking awesome game. It has an awesome plot, immersive gameplay, a combat system that was innovative at the time, and incredible art design and visuals.

    You must have played a different (patched?) version of BS than I did, because the version I played had terrible enemy AI, an art direction and graphics that was really grating and aged like a cheap whore, and had a bizarre difficulty curve. Oh, and many of the plasmids sucked. It was at best a clunky corridor shooter. It should have been a movie then I would have been spared a game that is not just the most overrated I have ever played by objectively pretty bad.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    See, that's why I just breezed through Bioshock on easy, to enjoy the story and set people on fire.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Objectivist?!?! Tulpa ain't no Objectivist!

  • Fluffy||

    My position is that since every party to every dispute that is adjudicated on Twitter receives at least one threat, threats on Twitter don't matter to the substance of any dispute and should be ignored.

    And that if someone tries to defend their weak position by pointing to Twitter threats, to them claim, "Obviously my opponents must be evil; evil people are threatening me! Therefore I am right and you all must concede I am right!" that someone is intellectually dishonest and contemptible and deserves scorn and mockery, not sympathy or support.

  • Gluesponge||

    No, but "I'm gonna make you my bitch" isn't a threat, though your kind would call it a rape threat.

    Trash talk is really not registering with you, is it?

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    Remember when the reddit moderators had to step in from all the "rape threats" on the xx forum. They announced that nearly all the threats actually came from female users trying to pretend they were being attacked and create sympathy. Why wouldn't we expect this is the same?

    Rapepuppets? Sockrapists?

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Phonies! Big fat phonies!

  • John C. Randolph||

    Yeah, that's the Meg Lanker-Simmons gambit. It's possible that some of these alleged threats really did come from people unknown to the women in question, but nobody seems to be looking into who's making them.

    I've been on the internet since the mid 1980s, and I've had some rather lurid threats tossed my way, including two that mentioned where I was living or working at the time.

    To date however, despite having been threatened by a whole vaudeville show's worth of Nazis, Scientologits, tree-huggers, vegeterrorists, Rush Limbaugh fans, Bill Clinton worshippers, Obamunists, and several other categories of idiots too insignificant to mention, nobody has shown up to take a shot at me. Hell, nobody's even TP'd my house.

    When all is said and done, a great deal more is said than done. If these women really are in fear for their lives, then they should get some firearms training and learn how defend themselves in an emergency.

    -jcr

  • ||

    So much this.

  • Irish||

    You should stop being a rape apologist, Nicole. Your sisters are being silenced and brutalized by the threats of internet neck beards and you should stand with them in solidarity.

  • Cytotoxic||

    What was the internets like back in 1980?

  • John C. Randolph||

    I wasn't on the net until a few years after that. In 1983, USENET mostly consisted of people involved in the computer industry or academia, and the signal to noise ratio was a whole lot better than it is today.

    It started going to shit when all the AOL lusers showed up.

    -jcr

  • Cytotoxic||

    AOL fucking sucked (and sucks).

  • DK||

    Not as much porn - well, except for ASCII porn.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Zork - Porn Edition

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    That's true. The threats I'd be worried about would be threats to expose my attempted-anonymous comments to my employer, family, neighbors -- something that would be easy, noncoercive, and perfectly legal if someone knew my name and address. And those threats are exceedingly rare.

  • Gluesponge||

    It's been done by the SJW's WAY more than the gamers.

    Doxxing is not new. And it's not the SJW's last line of "defense", it's their first, and several SJW's claimed it was legitimate (Adam Sessler admitted as much in a Q&A forum at one of the big game tradeshows.)

    They (the SWJ's) even got 4Chan to censor itself.

  • Otisjay||

    Yea, Moot is now worse then Hitler in the eyes of many Anons

  • JW||

    For some, the attacks on Quinn and on Sarkeesian became a perfect storm of gaming-culture misogyny. On August 28, Gamasutra ran a blistering attack on "game culture" by feminist cultural critic Leigh Alexander, declaring that "gamers are over" and ridiculing them as socially inept, badly dressed young males addicted to mindless gadget-buying and "getting mad on the Internet." This was followed by a spate of online articles—both on sites devoted to gaming or "geek culture" and in general-interest publications such as Vice and The Daily Beast—attacking gamer culture or announcing its demise.

    So, wait. SJWs, upset with the stereotypical depiction of women in games, respond with a stereotypical depiction of gamers?

    That's some first class game theorymanship there, ladies.

  • Redmanfms||

    So, wait. SJWs, upset with the stereotypical depiction of women in games, respond with a stereotypical depiction of gamers?

    Self-awareness is weak among the jezzies from what I've seen.

  • Irish||

    So, wait. SJWs, upset with the stereotypical depiction of women in games, respond with a stereotypical depiction of gamers?

    Not only that, but the SJW's were actually embodying negative stereotypes of women.

    That's what I find so intriguing about modern feminism. Modern feminists behave so atrociously that they actually become all the negative female stereotypes they're supposedly fighting against.

    What's interesting is that women who don't go in for modern feminist nonsense (Christina Hoff Sommers, Helen Reynolds, Cathy Young, et. al.) don't behave like negative stereotypes. Modern feminists, on the other hand, are angst riddled, catty, mean spirited, highly emotional, clannish, narcissistic, and self-absorbed. You know - the exact sort of attributes that scumbag misogynists attribute to women.

    The vast majority of women don't behave like misogynistic stereotypes, but feminists sure as hell do.

  • Illocust||

    I kind of theorize that being a SJW is attractive to people who are horrible human beings. Especially if you are a woman, being an SJW lets you behave terribly and then be in the moral high ground when someone calls you out on it. If you view the world as despising you for your vagina, then you can dismiss all valid criticism as sexism. Then add in all the atta-boys you get from your fellow clanswomen for your behavior, and it's really not that hard to see why people would be attracted to it.

  • Redmanfms||

    being an SJW lets you behave terribly and then be in the moral high ground when someone calls you out on it.

    This is true of progs in general.

  • PapayaSF||

    To be fair, this is true of dogmatic ideologues in general.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    That is the common wisdom.

  • John C. Randolph||

    I kind of theorize that being a SJW is attractive to people who are horrible human beings.

    Bingo. Just like the bible-thumpers of old.

    -jcr

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Brimstone! Hellfire! Sexism! Racism! Global Warming! Climate Change! Social Contract!

    LISTEN TO ME RIGHT NOW!!!

  • Homple||

    +1 Stephen Potter

  • See Double You||

    Even better, their "criticisms" amount to nothing more than "rain, rain, go away!" whining.

  • Mark22||

    You need to watch "feminism explained":

    youtube.com/watch?v=05ro6fcj6Ek

    Man: "Why isn't feminism more popular?"

    Feminist: "A lot of women are ignorant."

    Man: "It doesn't sound like you have much respect for women."

    Feminist: "If I already respected them, I wouldn't be advocating for change."

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Fuck men! (unless you're a woman)

    Fuck women! (unless you're a man)

  • Marktaylor||

    The funny part is that many "gamers" actually think this is some corruption that has infected the "video game media." Which just proves how wrapped up in games these people are because this sort of progressive leftist bullshit has infected nearly all media and half of Americans. The video gamers discovered reality but still don't believe it.

  • Redmanfms||

    The video gamers discovered reality but still don't believe it.

    No, they discovered reality, believe it, and are fighting it, which is precisely what has the SJWs so apoplectic. SJWs are used to getting their way when they scream sexism or racism and that they aren't this time is infuriating to them.

    What pisses off the SJWs even more is that many of the gamergaters are using the same twitter mob tactics favored by them.

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    The question is, will this wake them up to the radical leftist bias in the political media too?

  • Redmanfms||

    Well shit, speak of the devil.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    No, they discovered reality, believe it, and are fighting it,

    I liked this quip about it I read: The biggest mistake with declaring war on gamers is that they've been training their entire lives to combat evil.

  • John C. Randolph||

    They also don't give up until they win.

    -jcr

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    The biggest mistake with declaring war on gamers is that they've been training their entire lives to combat evil.

    ...in artificial, simplistic environments designed with a solution in mind. AKA nothing like fighting evil in the real world.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Yeah, what the hell would I know about fighting in the real world..

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    Did you learn how to fight in the real world by playing video games?

  • Redmanfms||

    It's Tulpatown dude, he's jonesin' for an argument.

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    Life is so much easier when you can ignore an uncomfortable rational argument because it has the wrong name attached.

  • Redmanfms||

    Tulpa, you don't make rational arguments, this is why everyone hates you so much and you have to change your handle every time you're found out.

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    You guys don't have a history of blocking people who make stupid irrational sequences of statements. Which makes me doubt that blocking Tulpa is due to alleged irrationality of his arguments. No, with him it's different.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    I'm going to need a whole 'nother Reasonable just for Tulpa sockpuppets.

  • John C. Randolph||

    SJW's are pretty simple, though. I've certainly encountered computer opponents in video games who were less predictable.

    -jcr

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    SJWs are minions, not the Big Boss.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    They're called trash mobs, now.

    Get your gaming nomenclature straight.

  • Homple||

    Say what you want about the gamers, they kicked back much harder and faster at the leftist media bullshit when it was dumped on them than the rest of society ever did.

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    Are you kidding me? Every segment strikes back when their hobby or livelihood is attacked by the leftists. The media is usually savvy enough to limit its attacks to conservative-dominated activities.

    Let's see if the gamergaters go after the left wing bias on gun issues reporting.

  • PapayaSF||

    I don't know about that. Science fiction fandom doesn't seem to have struck back to the same degree. Did the atheists stoke back when they had their fight with SJWs?

  • ||

    Not to my knowledge. They either went full prog or, more likely, had already ditched most of the "brights" and just started hanging out with libertarians.

    Dunno what Dawkins is gonna do.

  • John C. Randolph||

    There are atheists like me who just don't believe in gods and don't care much about convincing anyone else to abandon their superstitions, and there are atheists like PZ Myers' fans who apparently derive a certain level of glee from poking anthills with sticks.

    I think the anthill-pokers are a minority of atheists, but I don't know if anyone's taken a poll to find out.

    -jcr

  • Irish||

    I don't know about that. Science fiction fandom doesn't seem to have struck back to the same degree. Did the atheists stoke back when they had their fight with SJWs?

    An awful lot of Sci Fi fans have struck back. John C. Wright and Larry Correia being just two examples of people whose fans haven't taken the SJW nonsense in sci fi lying down.

    Here's a good example of Correia defending a friend of his from some SJW moron at the Guardian.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    An awful lot of Sci Fi fans have struck back.

    I wouldn't say an awful lot. In my experience, yes, you have a vocal subculture of quasi-fascist military sci-fi fans who will eat up the latest iteration of "Kill the Space Muslims!" saga by folks like Ringo or MZW, but they have a long way to go before you could call them the schwerpunkt of the fandom. Indeed, you have legions upon legions of sci-fi fans who say, Brin, has the right idea when it comes to what he considers "democracy" (aka "social"). Remember, he wrote the Postman because he believes that's how libertarianism would actually work out!

  • DesigNate||

    Wait, The Postman was supposed to be about the pitfalls of libertarianism?

  • John C. Randolph||

    Not familiar with Correia's work, but i think I'll check him out.

    -jcr

  • BuSab Agent||

    Correia is a gun nut's gun nut. His Monster Hunter series is mui macho and lots of fun.

  • GTurlington||

    Larry is awesome, you should read some of his columns when he tears apart some moronic twits argument.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Science fiction fandom doesn't seem to have struck back to the same degree.

    *blinks*

    Have you read an issue of Asimov's or Analog in, I don't know, say the past 30 years? The overlap ratio between sci-fi fandom (actual fandom, as in "I read the latest Ken Liu story and then had a great discussion about it with James Patrick Kelly at the hotel bar during FanCon" ... not "I watched BSG on SyFy") and SJW approaches 1:1.

  • Irish||

    Have you read an issue of Asimov's or Analog in, I don't know, say the past 30 years? The overlap ratio between sci-fi fandom (actual fandom, as in "I read the latest Ken Liu story and then had a great discussion about it with James Patrick Kelly at the hotel bar during FanCon" ... not "I watched BSG on SyFy") and SJW approaches 1:1.

    This just isn't true. If it were, why are Larry Correia and Baen Books so popular? Military sci-fi is among the best selling varieties and I hardly think military sci-fi is pro-progressive.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I responded above. Again, who's more popular, Brin or Correia?

  • Irish||

    I responded above. Again, who's more popular, Brin or Correia?

    David Weber is pretty goddamn popular and his books don't appeal to SJW's.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Weber and Drake are two of my favorites. I devoured The Fleet in my younger days, for example. But again, what is he doing outside of the Baen-verse? Again, open a issue of Asimov's or any of the British 'zines. Tell me if you see anything that is even like Weber in there. Who are they giving Hugos and Nebulas too? Not Weber and Drake, or even Eric Flint...but Kij Johnson, "Red" Kim Stanley Robinson, Ken Liu, and fucking Paolo Bacigalupi. Seriously, the acclaim that was heaped upon Bacigalupi for his terrible The Windup Girl just shows how infested the fandom is with SJW. (*I would still recommend a hate-read of The Windup Girl, and then followed by a viewing of "The World of Suzie Wong" so you can see the original story he plagiarized before spewing his post-colonialist, the White man rapes everything on Gaia bullshit over it)

  • John C. Randolph||

    I must take exception to that. I've been going to SF cons for a pretty long time, and met a hell of a lot of fellow libertarians in fandom.

    -jcr

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Ok, I'll concede 1:1 is a bit harsh. Having attended many cons myself, I'll wager that those libertarians were "minted" during the 70's and 80's and/or were Michael Flynn.

  • Homple||

    I doubt if they will, just like the gun issues guys don't get excited about the media's bias toward whooping up environmentalist propaganda.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I've never seen this intensity or rapidity of fightback outside the gun lobby. Tulpa is wrong again.

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    Fightback? They're bickering on Twitter and blogs. Please. No comparison to the gun rights movement, which has actually shitcanned politicians and changed laws.

    Name another case where the SJWs attacked a constituency that didn't already hate them, and that group failed to at least complain.

  • Cytotoxic||

    This 'bickering' is how you fight cultural issues. BTW GamerGate was enough to get Intel to pull advertising from a website critical of GG.

    How about you come up with an example where the SJWs attacked a constituency that didn't already hate them and that group DID complain and as intensively and got the equivalent of Intel to drop advertising. You are the one who should really have the burden of proof.

  • Illocust||

    This is why I wanted Reason to cover GamerGate. The people making up the movement are an actual cross section of Gamers, which means realistically they are a cross section of the population under 35. The libertarians and conservatives in the movement already knew about media bias and how pervasive it is, but the people on the left of the movement are experiencing being demonized by the media for the first time in their lives.

    This is an amazing opportunity to get many of them to question some of their fundamental beliefs about how they gather information in the world. Very few will ever be able to go fully back to dismissing their opponents claims of being misrepresented by mainstream news sources after having experienced it themselves. Reason posting a fair and balanced article while the NYT posts a horribly biased article just goes to further emphasize in the leftist side of the movements minds that there may be something wrong with how they view the world. I'm watching person after person questioning if they've entered the twilight zone, because they have never thought it possible that the people they've been laughing at this whole time might actually be telling the truth. It's a wonderful thing to watch.

  • ARealGamer||

    So you're happy with gamergate because you think it will help you push a political ideology.
    Thanks for the honesty, I guess.

  • Illocust||

    It's raining outside. I say this is great because we've been in a drought and the rain will help the plants. I later say the rain is great because it means I'll get to sleep faster. You then say that the real reason I'm happy its raining is not because I care about the plants but because I want to be able to sleep easier.

    I'm allowed to like something that is occurring for multiple reasons without invalidating any single one of those reasons. In fact, it is human nature to have more than one reason to like or dislike any single thing. We have big brains and they are generally used to evaluate a situation based upon multiple criteria.

  • Irish||

    Actually he's saying that he's happy with gamergate because it showed the fact that your side is loaded with narcissistic liars who manipulate the media through threats of legal action, incestuous relationships with the subjects of articles, and wild claims of sexism.

    Try to keep up.

  • Illocust||

    She, because unfortunately it is relevant to how seriously the anti-gg side will take my arguments.

  • Zunalter||

    Sockpuppet /s

  • Fluffy||

    Yes, of course.

    The argumentative method you have employed on this thread is pretty standard.

    If people see through it in one context, it increases the likelihood that they will see through it in another context.

  • Redmanfms||

    So you're happy with gamergate because you think it will help you push a political ideology.

    Of course, if the social justice crowd had been honest in writing positive reviews of game titles because they pushed the right buttons, the controversy likely wouldn't exist in the first place...

  • PapayaSF||

    ARealGamer, your lack of self-awareness is amusing. All of this happened in the first place because Anita Sarkeesian and co. decided to push a political ideology into gaming.

  • ||

    So you're happy with gamergate because you think it will help you push a political ideology.

    In what way, exactly, is that not precisely what SJWs hope to do via GamerGate?

  • Loki||

    In what way, exactly, is that not precisely what SJWs hope to do via GamerGate?

    It's different when they do it because they have the RIGHT VIEWS.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    So you're happy with gamergate because you think it will help you push a political ideology.

    :said without a hint of self-awareness:

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    So you're happy with gamergate because you think it will help you push a political ideology.

    :said without a hint of self-awareness:

  • Faceheadington||

    You pretty much summed it up man. For years i was a liberal/progressive perhaps even almost becoming a bit of a SJW but i am also a gamer and when this whole thing broke which ive been following since the start and after being attacked called sexist, racist and compared with the KKK etc. The only people that where willing to come into bat for gamers against an onslaught of shit where conservatives and libertarians. After seeing the disgusting SJW world for what it really is its made me question all my beliefs. For the longest time i had a dislike for conservatives and even libertarians without barely even understanding what they where about but now i get it man, i really get it. Now i cant stand seeing even politicians being called sexist and racist for even the most benign shit and this overly PC shit is creeping into almost every part of life and its these SJW types that push it the hardest.

  • Redmanfms||

    Welcome to the party pal.

    /McClane

  • PapayaSF||

    +1

  • PapayaSF||

    Good for you.

  • Fluffy||

    Really? Let's look at a couple immediate examples. Take this thread, for instance. We have a good deal of mobbing going on, don't we, complete with words like "cunt" and "retard" being tossed around.

    I have read the substance of your posts and have concluded that I hate you.

    And here's the thing: it's entirely fair for me to do that. I am living up to Martin Luther King's dream. I am not judging you by the color of your skin, OR by your gender, but by the content of your character (as revealed by statements you voluntarily made in a public forum).

    Although I haven't called you either of these names yet, I might. And when I do, it won't be misogyny. It will be my personal dislike of you expressing itself in an insult. Naturally, since I don't like you, I'll choose an insult you won't like. You've telegraphed for me which insults you like the least, so I will probably use one of those.

    That's the way the world works, retard.

  • ||

    You're killing it today, Fluffy. Go!

  • StalkAndVine||

    Poetry.

  • Loki||

    cultist zealots who enforce the party line with the fervor of Mao's Red Guards, though luckily without the real-life power.

    Make no mistake though, the real power is what these assclowns really want. These are people who view anyone who disagrees with them as backwards sub-human garbage that they would gladly load onto cattle cars by the thousands. All in the name of "tolerance" of course.

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    And how Ms Young can claim they have "no real life power" in view of the Obama administration's treatment of universities is beyond me.

    Put 10 flaming zealots together with 90 indifferent, apathetic people who think they're on the same team, and you've got the equivalent of 100 flaming zealots.

  • Kimern||

    The Fine Young Capitalists is not registered as a non profit. Most of the profits will go to charity but to say that TFYC is a charity is a bit misleading in my opinion.

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    There are some registered nonprofits that make a shitload of money for those in charge of them. Big difference between what a government piece of paper says and what is true in reality.

  • kbolino||

    Charity is in the eye of the beholder, not the tax filing status.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Profanity, obscenity, smut, vulgarity, or words or symbols which have acquired undesirable meanings are forbidden.

    Nudity in any form is prohibited, as is indecent or undue exposure.

    Suggestive and salacious illustration or suggestive posture is unacceptable.

    Females shall be drawn realistically without exaggeration of any physical qualities.

    Illicit sex relations are neither to be hinted at nor portrayed. Rape scenes as well as sexual abnormalities are unacceptable.

    Seduction and rape shall never be shown or suggested.

    Sex perversion or any inference to same is strictly forbidden.

    Nudity with meretricious purpose and salacious postures shall not be permitted in the advertising of any product; clothed figures shall never be presented in such a way as to be offensive or contrary to good taste or morals.

    -- Comics Code, 1954

  • John C. Randolph||

    Holy shit. I had no idea that the Comics Code was written by radfems.

    -jcr

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The Comics Code was a marriage between the 50's-era Progressives that had infested the intellectual-class since the 20's, who, in Wertham's case I believe, really believed they were acting "for the children" and venal, politicians who exploited the cause of political gain.

    Still, Wertham was correct when he observed that Superman was "both un-American and a fascist".

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    *for political gain

  • surlybastard||

    This is pretty weak. As problematic as Quinn's activity in the industry may be, the author goes out of her way to avoid discussing how extensively her sexual relationships were used in the critiques. It's very hard not to see this as a spurned boyfriend and a bunch of sympathetic neckbeards who went after her. Quinn was and still is, small time in the industry. How many millions of units is she pushing? How many people does she have on staff in development, PR, and legal? What's her budget for her next project? She might be a gadfly, but she's not Electronic Arts, Sony, or Nintendo.

    The author also gives zero justification for the attacks on Sarkesian, who's just a cultural critic.

    Finally, even if everything alleged by the 'gaters were true, wouldn't the libertarian response (this is a libertarian website, after all), be to, I don't know, not buy the games or visit the websites you found problematic?

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    OR, and this is just a thought, we could continue poking the troll to see what else might flop out.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    A True Scotsman argument, nice change of tactics, but still very thin gruel.

  • Irish||

    Finally, even if everything alleged by the 'gaters were true, wouldn't the libertarian response (this is a libertarian website, after all), be to, I don't know, not buy the games or visit the websites you found problematic?

    The libertarian response would be to not visit the websites you find problematic while also broadcasting your displeasure using your first amendment rights. Which they're doing.

    Also, Quinn is small time, but the argument is that the websites aren't small time. She's just an examples of a general problem people have with the press itself.

    I also think the attacks on Sarkeesian (with the exception of actual threats which are always inexcusable) are justified because she a) lied about her interest in games b) raised over $100,000 on kickstarter which she used to produce like 5 videos in two years and c) has been attacking gamers based on what amounts to Sarkeesian's fraud.

    Sarkeesian deserves criticism.

  • surlybastard||

    You guys don't seem to get how the press works. I get the impression that you guys think every article and review should be done with scientific precision, followed by a long list of disclaimers about how the author is the second cousin to the game developers roommate. News stories happen because sources and writers socialize and interact in informal ways. They've attended the same schools, go to the same bars, and, yes, sometimes they even date.

    You know, if the attacks on Sarkeesian amounted to leaving comments on her videos that were the equivalent of "You're full of shit", that would be life in the digital age. But they went far beyond that. Also, no one has been able to explain how Sarkeesian's videos are causing anyone harm beyond making them "feel bad." There are lots of cultural critics on the internet, spewing all kinds of shit. Grow a thicker skin.

  • Redmanfms||

    You guys don't seem to get how the press works.

    Really?

    I get the impression that you guys think every article and review should be done with scientific precision, followed by a long list of disclaimers about how the author is the second cousin to the game developers roommate.

    That is what actual journalists do guy.

    This wouldn't be an issue if:

    A. They hadn't been pushing an (as you admit) unknown game developer because she pushed the right SJW buttons and did so by lying about their reviewing method and;

    B. Hadn't also apparently been fucking the developer and conveniently forgot to mention this fact.

    There are lots of cultural critics on the internet, spewing all kinds of shit. Grow a thicker skin.

    Holy shit.

  • surlybastard||

    Really? That's what actual journalists do? Go to the NYT, the WSJ, WaPo, Politico, FoxNews, and any number of other news sources. Look at their political coverage and their opinion pages. Do you see disclaimers? Do you see conflicts of interest listed? Meanwhile, the writers and their subjects all socialize at the same bars and restaurants in Manhattan and Dupont Circle, they all went to Harvard, Yale, and Princeton together, their kids all go to the same prep schools, etc., etc.

  • Irish||

    Really? That's what actual journalists do? Go to the NYT, the WSJ, WaPo, Politico, FoxNews, and any number of other news sources. Look at their political coverage and their opinion pages. Do you see disclaimers? Do you see conflicts of interest listed?

    When any of those entities don't mention conflicts of interest they are behaving unethically.

    Here's the issue: Modern journalism is highly politicized and highly unethical. It is dishonest and wrong for a journalist to write an article on a subject without mentioning any particular conflicts of interest.

    Incidentally, even though there's a great deal of corruption in modern journalism, a lot of media sites DO comment on what could be legitimate and glaring conflicts of interest. Reason mentions their relationship to the Kochs when they write anything related to them. I see journalists say 'In the interests of disclosure...' all the time when they are writing about a person or entity with whom they have a romantic and/or financial relationship.

    That's incredibly common, so I don't know what news sites you read if you don't know they frequently do mention conflicts of interest.

  • Irish||

    Don't take my word for it though! Let's ask the Society of Professional Journalism's ethics code:

    The highest and primary obligation of ethical journalism is to serve the public.

    Journalists should:

    – Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.

    – Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.

    – Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; do not pay for access to news. Identify content provided by outside sources, whether paid or not.

    – Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage.

    – Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.
  • surlybastard||

    Disclosure of a clear financial interest is one thing, and, yes, that is all over the place. But I'm not talking about financial interests. I'm talking about informal interaction.

  • Irish||

    Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.

    Notice that it doesn't just say 'financial conflicts of interest.'

    Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.

    Golly gee, what political activity might these people have engaged in that compromises integrity or impartiality?

  • surlybastard||

    You realize that all of the political press violates this, right?

  • Redmanfms||

    You realize that all of the political press violates this, right?

    Translation: Hey, look over there!!!

  • Irish||

    Then the entire political press is unethical.

    I don't understand why you're having trouble understanding the concept that all of the modern media may be corrupt and that we shouldn't be okay with gaming media corruption just because they're following the corruption of the rest of the press.

    If the media wants to see itself as a noble arbiter of truth, I'm going to hold them to the standards they claim for themselves.

    Stop making excuses for liars and hypocrites.

  • surlybastard||

    Ok, I'm going to make a confession. I think games are kind of dumb. And I think gamers who are getting worked up about this need to get out of the basement and shave their neckbeards off. And the reason I'm so antagonized is that we have much more serious issues in our society when it comes to a corrupt press, and it's disappointing to see that the only thing that gets you all worked up is the possibility that someone might have taken some kind of payola to write a positive review about a shitty game.

  • DesigNate||

    Of course that corrupt press allows the government to get away with all kinds of heinous shit.

    Oh wait, that only happened when Bush was president. Now they TOTALLY speak truth to power.

  • Otisjay||

    "And I think gamers who are getting worked up about this need to get out of the basement and shave their neckbeards off."

    You should take some time and lookup who calls themselves gamers. your insults are quite old and out of date.

    2/10 not even mad, try again later.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    You realize that all of the political press violates this, right?

    You're not exactly making your case here. No one on this site has any love for the mainstream press for precisely this reason. You're really just hawking up a tu quoque argument as if it validates the lack of ethics of the gaming press.

  • Redmanfms||

    Informal relationships garnered by journalists and politicos hanging out in the same bar is not the same thing as writing a positive review for a product created by somebody that you were fucking.

    Look up full disclosure and get back to us.

    Also, I'll give you that genuine relationships (boyfriend/girlfriend, marriages) are problematic, and the writer shouldn't cover the subject. But it's a lot of this more informal contact that I describe that really drives the press.

    Translation: 'gaters have a genuine beef in this case I just don't like it so I'm going to talk about something else that is tangentially related.

  • surlybastard||

    Please give me a link to the positive review. Because the kotaku one doesn't exist. It's fiction, like the moon landing.

  • Fluffy||

    Go to the NYT, the WSJ, WaPo, Politico, FoxNews, and any number of other news sources. Look at their political coverage and their opinion pages. Do you see disclaimers? Do you see conflicts of interest listed?

    Right.

    And we HATE that.

    And we HATE the journalists you're describing.

    I would like nothing better than to see them all professionally and personally destroyed. I would celebrate that ecstatically.

    And what happened in Gamergate is that marginal members of a marginal area of the press got a little too slipshod about covering their tracks, and ended up in a buzzsaw.

    And even though it's not the New York Times or their journalists getting sawed into little pieces, I'm still delighted. Maybe this will catch on. Maybe people will see what gamers have been able to do, and will do it to the Washington Post. That would be fantastic.

    But that can't happen if the gamers lose. If the gamers lose, then the left and the press will prove that if they just stick together and yell SEXIST loud enough, they can defeat any criticism, even when the actions in question should admit of no defense. And so naturally I don't want to see that happen.

  • surlybastard||

    What makes me so antagonized by you folk is that I don't understand why you can't get motivated about something that, you know, matters. Sorry, I just think games are kind of dumb. I put them in the same category as those terrible thriller novels they sell at airport newsstands.

  • Redmanfms||

    You were the one who was telling us how corruption in journalism is so totally not a big deal.

    Odd how your position keeps morphing...

  • surlybastard||

    Complaining about "corruption" in the gaming press is like filing a consumer protection complaint against the kids across the street for watering down the lemonade they sold you.

  • DesigNate||

    Corruption in the gaming press is symptomatic of the entire fucking media proglodyte.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Eat a dick. The Mass Effect trilogy was amazing.

  • KDN||

    Eat a dick. The Mass Effect trilogy was amazing.

    They really let it get away from them at the end. 2 1/2 years later and I'm still pissed at the last 10 minutes of ME3 (which was possibly the greatest game I ever played up to that point). I haven't bothered to play any of them at all ever since, and that was either my favorite or second favorite video game series of all time.

  • DesigNate||

    Hahahahahahaha, you think those shit rags are "actual journalist"?

  • surlybastard||

    Also, I'll give you that genuine relationships (boyfriend/girlfriend, marriages) are problematic, and the writer shouldn't cover the subject. But it's a lot of this more informal contact that I describe that really drives the press.

  • Irish||

    This is idiotic. I don't need to 'grow a thicker skin' because I don't personally care much about Anita Sarkeesian. My point is that the attacks on her are justified, not that I personally give a fuck about taking part in those attacks.

    Secondly, this isn't about 'scientific precision' it's about admitting that you're, for example, sleeping with the person whose game you are reviewing. If someone wrote a pro-Koch brothers article and didn't disclose that they were fucking one of the Koch's daughters, it seems to me that would be a breach of journalistic ethics. There's a reason that whenever they write about the Kochs Reason says 'We are partially funded through the Reason foundation which receives some money from Koch Industries.' This is basic ethics, and it is ethics which are ignored by the game journalists.

    Also, 'sources and writers' may interact, but if you're making an article in which someone IS THE SUBJECT you should explain any conflict of interest. Fucking somebody and then writing a glowing review of a product they created is unethical. How can you not understand this basic fact?

  • Mark22||

    Sarkeesian isn't just making an academic point, she is calling for change to how video games are made, and that is harmful. We know it's harmful because we've had that kind of censorship in the past.

    I want tits and ass in a video game, just like I want sex, violence, guns, fire, hookers, blackjack, muscle, and monsters. It's part of storytelling.

    And what makes Sarkeesian's conduct particularly reprehensible is that it's so self-serving.

  • surlybastard||

    So? People call for lots of things all the time. Given the size of your audience, do you really think they're going to stop making the kinds of games that you like?

  • Mark22||

    The gaming industry isn't going to stop making games people like voluntarily, but they may well be forced to, through rating systems, taxes, and other restrictions. Just look at what Obama has been doing to campuses.

  • SusanM||

    Feminists have been calling for changes about a great many thing for quite some time now. Apart from a few token victories here and there what's changed? Pardon me but I don't see Blizzard coming out with the game The Adventures of Captain Todd Sensitive anytime soon. Nor have rappers stopped talking about "tappin' dat azz", right?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Nor have rappers stopped talking about "tappin' dat azz", right?

    No, but they precede it with verses like "Before I get wit you/This is what imma do/imma gonna get consent/Consent like a motherfucka/I only fuck a motha after obtaining consent!"

  • SusanM||

    Again, a token victory.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I would not call undermining presumption of innocence for those accused of rape in NZ and possibly Australia 'token victories'.

  • Marktaylor||

    Well, if two people perform equally in the military, the man WILL be kicked out for performing below standard because women are more valuable as a gender according to the US government. Texas police were sued by the justice department because equal physical standards in the police are considered sexist. Women receive disproportionate opportunities in education despite making up a higher percentage of college students, getting hired at a higher rate, and working less. Women's cancer receives 15 times the government funding as men's cancer.

    I'd say feminists have been very effective at creating a world that favors them while claiming victim hood.

  • Wandering Texan||

    The gaming press has trotted her out at every possible event and occasion as some kind of holy savior, and use her nasty, sex-negative, anti-violence, anti-escapist views to apply pressure on developers who make games or art they consider "problematic" through unlabeled opinion pieces that are absolutely drenched in ignorance and bile.

    You literally cannot deny that this has happened, or that the people behind/around Sark want to increase their influence.

  • Mark22||

    Well, for one thing, look at the nonsense going on with affirmative consent on campuses.

    Furthermore, you have no idea what didn't get created because people were afraid of this nonsense.

    At the very least, gamers need to speak up and stand up and say that they do want to have the kind of content that feminists disapprove of, and that they are not ashamed to say so.

  • surlybastard||

    Also, it's nice to see someone finally be honest about why they dislike Sarkeesian. It's that you're concerned she'll be taken seriously enough that the kind of games you like won't be made anymore. As opposed to a lot of double talk.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It's that you're concerned she'll be taken seriously enough that the kind of games you like won't be made anymore.

    That and her rank dishonesty. Don't know WTF you're talking about with 'double talk'.

  • Marktaylor||

    Jeez, these pussies get all worked up over censorship.

  • Mark22||

    Also, it's nice to see someone finally be honest about why they dislike Sarkeesian

    I dislike Sarkeesian because she is a liar and because I suspect she is a fraud as well (i.e., I think she is courting controversy for the money and she is faking threats against herself).

    I am concerned about her because her kind of lies and propaganda lure people in and often end up hurting people.

    My concern doesn't validate her position in any way. I am concerned about people advocating eugenics, but that doesn't validate eugenics (eugenics was another favorite of progressives and the American left for a while).

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    (Full Disclosure: I really hate SurlyBastard)

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    wouldn't the libertarian response (this is a libertarian website, after all), be to, I don't know, not buy the games or visit the websites you found problematic?

    The libertarian response would be to express your opinion in whatever way you choose, so long as it doesn't involve the use or threat of force. We don't march in lock step.

  • Redmanfms||

    Finally, even if everything alleged by the 'gaters were true, wouldn't the libertarian response (this is a libertarian website, after all), be to, I don't know, not buy the games or visit the websites you found problematic?

    So what, libertarians can't discuss the matter as well?

    Gee, thanks random guy.

  • Fluffy||

    Actually, the entire problem people had with Quinn was that she was being pushed in the press as a significant and important developer even though she is a nonentity in all of the ways you list.

    So basically you're agreeing with the gamergate argument while trying to use that agreement as a rebuttal...which is kind of weird.

    Also, you seem to be claiming that if the reason people become aware that you slept your way into good press is one of the people you slept with drops a dime on you, everyone should ignore it. And that is kind of an interesting moral theory. So it's not the action we should consider, but how we learn of the action? Hey, you could persuade me of that, since it sounds distantly like a due-process issue.

    But the problem with that defense is that it only works for Quinn. It doesn't work for her allies in the press. If anything, it makes her allies in the gamer press look worse.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I was about to write this out word for word. WeakBastard's post is weak.

  • surlybastard||

    If you read the attacks on Quinn, a lot of them go on about how she was a shitty girlfriend. It may be true, but is kind of none of our business.

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    And God knows no man has ever been critiqued for his relationship issues. It's sexism straight up, yo.

  • surlybastard||

    I'm guessing you're pro-Ray Rice.

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    No way, I'm from Pittsburgh. Big Ben on the other hand...

  • surlybastard||

    But seriously, barring cases when there was violence, real or alleged, and someone was just a really shitty husband/boyfriend, can you think of an instance where that person suffered, professionally? Publicly?

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    You're moving the goalposts there; Quinn's suffering professionally is not due to the tales of being a bad girlfriend.

    There are scads of male public figures who've been embarrassed publicly by the tell-alls of their exes.

  • Irish||

    But seriously, barring cases when there was violence, real or alleged, and someone was just a really shitty husband/boyfriend, can you think of an instance where that person suffered, professionally? Publicly?

    She didn't suffer professionally at all for the stories of her being a bad girlfriend. However, since you asked, why don't we talk about Ted Hughes who was blamed for Sylvia Plath's death until he died in 1988.

    Feminists literally blamed him for murder, even though he had nothing to do with the suicide. On multiple occasions, people have gone to Sylvia Plath's tombstone, which reads 'Sylvia Plath Hughes,' and scraped off the 'Hughes' part out of hatred of Ted.

    So yes, I can think of an instance in which an allegedly shitty husband suffered publicly. Want me to give you more examples?

  • Irish||

    Oh yeah, Ted Hughes was scum. The point is that he suffered for being scum which proves surlybastard wrong on this issue.

  • Remnant Psyche||

    He wrote some great stuff, though.

  • surlybastard||

    Also, you want to know the real reason Quinn got pushed by the press? The same reason that the film press pushes a new "indie darling" every year.

    If you're a gaming journalist, reviewing an incremental improvement over a previous release (Madden 12, Madden 13, etc.), becomes pretty boring. The big companies expect gamers to shell out another $60 for what? So along comes someone with a genuinely different idea, and you get excited, and you push it.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Or you fuck the developer in exchange for a good review. You know, whatever.

  • surlybastard||

    Please link to said positive review.

  • Marktaylor||

    Do you get so excited you push your dick into it? Because that's the issue.

    Somehow you forget to put in your argument that this was about the improper relationship?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Her 'different idea' was not even a game, and it got a lot of positive press it didn't warrant from people who were fucking/contributing to her without disclosing it. Try oh try to keep up.

  • PapayaSF||

    The author also gives zero justification for the attacks on Sarkeesian, who's just a cultural critic.

    There's no justification for the threats of violence (assuming those are real). There's plenty for the attacks on her assumptions and charges. She's basically trying to make a career out of being a neo-Puritan busybody, telling other people what they should and should not do.

  • surlybastard||

    And what does her being a busybody (which she may very well be), have anything to do with the rest of the issues 'gaters raise?

  • Redmanfms||

    You brought her up dude.

  • surlybastard||

    The author mentioned her in the article, and she's been tied to the whole conflict.

  • PapayaSF||

    It matters because people often dislike busybodies telling them what to do, and because busybodies often are self-interested, though they often claim not to be.

  • Fluffy||

    This:

    No one is allowed to criticize her critiques, because since she's a woman doing so is immediately declared by the rest of the gamer press and the feminist Twittersphere to be per se evidence of misogyny.

    She is lumped in with Quinn because she is yet another marginal gaming personality using her gender and political affiliations as a protective shield to malign anyone who disagrees with her by describing them as bigots.

    THAT'S what she has to do with the rest of the issues.

  • Marktaylor||

    It would be weak if you were not describing a straw man. But the controversy is not about gamers vs Quinn as the article clearly states (even in bold). When critiques of this relationship of Quinn to the media turned into an attack by the media, and efforts to censor- the controversy was born. The libertarian response could also be to write an article.

  • Gluesponge||

    When those sexual relationships became the basis for her entire persona (getting good reviews from journalists she slept with, etc.) and her incessant desire to paint everyone as misogynist bastards who disagreed with journalists sleeping with subjects of their journalism.

    Sarkesian claimed to be a gamer and painted herself as a gamer. Then a video comes out that shows her SAYING she never gamed before. She hates the fact that people have found out she's a liar and don't believe anything else she says about a subject she ADMITTED to knowing nothing about.

    There's a list of game websites that were complicit. I and many gamers no longer frequent those sites. And if it were to end there, that'd be fine. But the SWJ's and feminist assholes continue to try and stifle the hobby and whine about depictions of this or that in games.

    It's just a game. SWJ's think it's real life. And they think they can tell me what to play. Wrong answer.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    GamerGate: Part I: Sex, Lies, and Gender Games

    I would play this, if it were a video game.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Wasn't that the premise of Leisure Suit Larry?

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Whelp, now I have to go and play that again.

    Maybe I can make it through without wacking off this time.

  • ||

    My personal favorite take on Gamergate is...yes...at Slate. I promise it's good.

    Slate readers are over, declining—a dead demographic.

    Why on Earth would I start a column with this thesis? There is no faster way to alienate my audience—that is, the people who pay my bills. And yet, this is exactly what writers at not one but half a dozen online gaming publications did to their audiences last week, and it points to a significant shift in the business of gaming. Gamers are not over, but gaming journalism is.

    And then end:

    Gaming journalists are caught between capitalist reality and their own frustrated aspirations to be serious cultural critics. But they cannot solve their problems by preaching about the death of their audience. That audience is dying only in that it is leaving them, a process the journalists have evidently decided to accelerate. Game journalists are rage-quitting their meal ticket.

    (David Auerbach is awesome)

  • PapayaSF||

    Ha, nice. Unexpected wisdom from Slate.

  • dinkster||

    I never heard of any of these people.

    -hardcore gamer

  • Marktaylor||

    The proper libertarian response is to start a public rape threat for higher business. Obviously there is a great need for someone to threaten rape against SJW's o because they keep having to threaten themselves.

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    "I never gave affirmative consent for my hand to do that!"

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    That's Warty's schtick. I'm pretty sure he's patented it.

    He doesn't get many (willing) repeat customers, though, because to him they're not threats, they're promises.

  • Idle Hands||

    I'm pretty sure reading through this thread has given me an ulcer.

  • BuSab Agent||

    ^This^

  • SusanM||

    Good article on Gamers from a few years back by Yahtzee Croshaw

    http://www.escapistmagazine.co.....Word-Gamer

    It is frustrating that this image exists, but it's nothing anyone can help. It's a status quo thing and a mass media thing and those are always hard to shift. But people who completely aren't helping the case at all are the ones who take an almost revolutionary pride in their "gamer" status. "I am gamer", they say, "hear me whine". If you want an example of the kind of person I'm talking about, click on the comments link down below, and there'll probably be a few who fell for the bait in the last paragraph and are now arguing over the correct spelling of whatever that flaky bint's name was. These are the people who hurl abuse at film critics who question the artistic potential of games and send death threats to Jack Thompson - which only proved his point. Whatever happened to that guy, by the way? I guess after he got disbarred he slipped back down to the "strange man yelling from porch" level on The Sims career track for Moral Guardians.

    -and-

    Anyone who calls themselves a girl gamer is basically wearing a sandwich board saying "LOOK AT ME." Then, in smaller letters underneath, "POSSIBLE DADDY ISSUES." Then a semi-colon, then "WAAA" in brackets.
  • Cytotoxic||

    It is no surprise that one of the worstest, douchiest reviewers on the net-if you can even call his 'reviews' reviews-would focus on something as insipid and banal as the internet trolls that inhabit EVERY CORNER OF THE INTERNET as if it were some unique problem for the image of gamers.

  • SusanM||

    "douchiest reviewers on the net-if you can even call his 'reviews' reviews"

    A criticism he's long since answered.

    http://www.escapistmagazine.co.....g-Showdown

  • SusanM||

    Okay, I put my hands up, he has me there. I do point out every little thing that's bad about a game, but then, I'm a critic, it'd be weird if I didn't. If I put people's balls in my mouth for a living, I'd be a prostitute, or possibly a GameSpot employee, but I criticize, so I'm a critic. And I don't believe in scores because I don't believe a complex opinion can be represented numerically.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Ah well that was fast.

    If you want to know why ZeroPunctuation sucks ass, watch this cynical, non-critical critique of Demon's Souls.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQSCKAPqxoo

    You see the problem isn't the picking of nits. It's the picking of things that aren't even nits-because IRONY. Yahtzee (and everyone at The Escapist) = hipster douche.

  • SusanM||

    But, I think, a funny and occasionally insightful one.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHnYFP73MKE

  • SusanM||

    So he’s sent to a big German town
    Where some serious shit’s going down.
    There’s an active resistance
    In need of assistance
    And everything’s gone greyish-brown.

    It soon becomes clear that the city
    Has been invaded by occult committees:
    Mystical preachers
    And slavering creatures
    And gymnasts with stonking great titties.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Can you please give me a transcript or just the gist of this? I don't want to watch this ass bloviate for 4 minutes.

  • Gweskoyen||

    One group, labeled as 'SJWs', critiques games.
    The other group, GamerGate, threatens women with rape and murder.
    Is it really so hard to see which side is better, dear social conservatives masquerading as libertarians?
    If you support Gamergate you are objectively evil.

  • Irish||

    The arguments from the pro-SJW side are so obviously emotional, mindless, and designed to poison the well that it's impossible to take you people seriously.

    Feminists claim any woman who is conservative or libertarian is a frigid bitch or a rape apologist, as they have done with Christina Hoff Sommers, Shikha Dalmia, and Kathy Young. Feminists send false rape threats to themselves in order to make it appear as if any criticism of them is illegitimate. Feminists argue any man accused of rape should be imprisoned, as they did in the Duke Lacrosse case, and then behave as if anyone who has a problem with this is a misogynist and a rape apologist.

    These facts have been well documented. You can point out the incredibly bad behavior of certain members of any group, but that does not inherently delegitimize the legitimate claims being made. The fact that some people are not intelligent enough to understand this doesn't make those of us who aren't morons 'objectively evil.'

  • Gweskoyen||

    You are aware that contributor Elizabeth N. Brown identifies both as feminist *and* libertarian, right?

  • Idle Hands||

    You are aware that that has nothing to do with his post, right?

  • Gweskoyen||

    How so? He condemned all feminists as anti-libertarian, an obvious untruth.

  • Fluffy||

    His first two paragraphs in combination make it clear that he is addressing "feminists from the SJW side".

    I have absolutely no problem with the assertion that all SJW feminists are antilibertarian. In fact, it would seem to be definitional to the point of being a tautology.

  • Irish||

    Yes and she gets called an evil racist woman hater when she writes articles against progressive assaults on free speech. In fact, a male feminist on twitter claimed ENB hates women and gays because ENB told him it's wrong to insult women for being Republicans! Kind of proves my point about the problems with modern feminism, don't you think?

    Also, once again you ignored my points, all of which destroyed your idiotic argument, and argued about something completely tangential.

    I was wrong when I said you have IQ of a stupid newt. You have the IQ of a tree stump.

  • Gweskoyen||

    I bow down before your mighty ad hominems.

  • Redmanfms||

    I bow down before your mighty ad hominems.

    Oh shit, that's rich!

  • Gweskoyen||

    Let me guess: You're saying I used ad hominems? Well, if someone truly and demonstrably did something and gets called out for it, that's not an ad hominem.

  • Irish||

    You're astonishing. I post large amounts of facts and arguments, end the post by calling you an idiot (which you've proven yourself to be) and you claim I'm engaging in ad hominems.

    Once again, you're too dumb to know the definitions of the words you're using. An ad hominem is when someone simply says 'I don't have to listen to you because you're conservative/liberal/stupid.' You know, like you engaged in when you claimed anyone arguing in favor of GamerGaters is 'objectively evil' without providing supporting evidence.

    On the other hand, providing arguments and ending those arguments with an insult is not an ad hominem. It's a rational argument directed towards a moron which ends with the writer correctly identifying him as a moron.

    You know, like I've been doing. You should learn to read and then learn the meaning of the words you try to use. There's nothing more embarrassing than someone incorrectly identifying a logical fallacy and thinking he's made a point.

  • Gweskoyen||

    Go to a female (not even feminist) developer's Twitter account. Look at the replies she gets. There is all the proof you need.

  • Irish||

    You don't understand the arguments being made. The point is that you can't argue an entire group is evil based on some individuals of that group.

    Go to Christina Hoff Sommers page and see the things that are said to her. Go to Dana Loesch's page and see what's said to her. Go to Charles C.W. Cooke's pages and see the hysterical shit sent to him from progressives.

    Attacks on twitter happen to everyone, some of them involving violent threats. The primary difference is that the SJWs appear to be such petulant narcissists that they imagine it only happens to them and only happens because they're women.

    And you bought it. Because you are dumb.

  • Redmanfms||

    Because the responses posted on a Twitter account represent all gamers....

    So, again, by that metric we can safely judge the evil misogyny of all SJWs by what some of them have said about Shikha Dalmia and ENB?

  • Gweskoyen||

    SJW is not a real movement. Nobody calls themselves SJW. Nobody can speak for all SJW because that's a label made by others. Gamergate otoh is a chosen identity.

  • Irish||

    An awful lot of terms that have meaning were originated by the opponents of a group.

    The term capitalism was invented by Karl Marx. Mercantalism was invented by Adam Smith. Both people hated the system which they invented a word to describe.

    SJW isn't a term they adopted themselves, but it's a term which accurately describes them. Grouping them together under such a term is completely reasonable when they believe the same things and act in similar ways.

  • Irish||

    An awful lot of terms that have meaning were originated by the opponents of a group.

    To follow up on this point, a chair did not name itself a chair, yet we call them chairs based on similarities between every chair. SJWs may not have named themselves, but they're similar enough that a catchall pejorative makes sense.

  • Redmanfms||

    SJW is not a real movement. Nobody calls themselves SJW. Nobody can speak for all SJW because that's a label made by others. Gamergate otoh is a chosen identity.

    Keep spinning.

  • Gweskoyen||

    You know, Redmanfms, to repeat 'keep spinning' ad nauseam just makes me think you're a bot. What about that quote is untrue, hm?

  • Redmanfms||

    You know, Redmanfms, to repeat 'keep spinning' ad nauseam just makes me think you're a bot. What about that quote is untrue, hm?

    Stop spinning then.

  • Wandering Texan||

    I dunno, read the other four replies describing exactly why labeling a group of similarly-minded individuals who act and react in a similar fashion forces legitimacy upon the label. You are as much defined by your opponents as you define yourself in the social and political arena.

  • Cytotoxic||

    These are lies and worse, irrelevant lies.

  • Otisjay||

    You see all kinds of SJW's On tumbler calling themselves that name.

  • Rev-Match||

    You have the IQ of a tree stump.

    Hey! Don't insult tree stumps!

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yes. Irish should have been clearer perhaps and made a distinction between real feminists like Brown and mogoloid feminizas Sarkheesian.

  • Fluffy||

    One group, labeled as 'SJWs', critiques games.
    The other group, GamerGate, threatens women with rape and murder.
    Is it really so hard to see which side is better, dear social conservatives masquerading as libertarians?
    If you support Gamergate you are objectively evil.

    No, the other group does not do that.

    If the fact that you can find people on Twitter issuing threats means that the ENTIRE GROUP issued those threats, then anyone who opposed Fred Phelps and his church is responsible for the threats the Westboro Baptist Church received. Did you disagree with the positions of the Westboro Baptist Church? Uh-oh, that means you threatened murder on Twitter, I guess.

    The fact that you fail to understand this simple fact leads me to conclude that you are collectivist scum. Also a fucking retard - but I guess I repeat myself.

    It also makes me fucking laugh that you think I'm a social conservative.

  • Gweskoyen||

    I didn't say anything about you personally, I meant the commenters who complain about feminism despite feminism being a logical consequence of libertarianism.

  • Idle Hands||

    It's probably because we are all socon's, who are pissed because there is a democrat in the office.

  • DesigNate||

    Not just a democrat, but a BLACK one.

    OMG we're all racist!!!

  • Cytotoxic||

    The kind of feminism that labels anyone who doesn't support 'affirmative consent laws' as rape apologists is an enemy of libertarianism, your clumsy attempts to weld them together notwithstanding.

  • Gweskoyen||

    Commenters here NEVER say they're for a specific kind of feminism, they always complain about all feminists, despite libertarian feminism being a thing, so don't start talking about kinds of feminism.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Weak. We're clearly harshing on SJW-feminazism.

  • Marktaylor||

    Libertarianism and feminism have fuck all to do with each other. Libertarians argue human rights, feminists argue pseudo history to advance privileges for women but not men. When feminists give a fuck about selective service I'll believe they're more than a extremist organization when they're not run by extremists pushing a one sided agenda. Which has never happenned.

  • Fluffy||

    The fuck you didn't.

    You just directly said I threaten women with rape and murder. And that I am secretly a social conservative.

    READ YOUR OWN FUCKING POST MOTHERFUCKER.

  • Gweskoyen||

    Uh, I read it, and nowhere did I mention a 'Fluffy'.

  • Irish||

    You said the following dipshit:

    Is it really so hard to see which side is better, dear social conservatives masquerading as libertarians?
    If you support Gamergate you are objectively evil.

    Just because you didn't use his name doesn't mean you weren't personally attacking him. You can't say 'everyone who believes x is an objectively evil social conservative' and then when someone says 'I believe x and am not a social conservative' say 'Well I wasn't talking about you.'

    Let's say I was a racist and said 'All black people are stupid.' Then when a black guy said 'I have a Ph.D in Micro-biology,' I replied 'Well I wasn't personally attacking you.' You can't attack an entire group of people and then say you weren't attacking them individually, you idiot.

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    Irish/Fluffy,

    I think he/she is about to crack. If only you argue with him/her a little more.

    [/sarcasm]

  • Fluffy||

    Gabriel:

    I think I will let you have the last word, because that's so obviously a part of my personality.

    [/sarcasm]

  • Gweskoyen||

    You seem to think I equated Gamergaters with social conservatism. I didn't. I didn't even say commenters here are gamergaters. I attacked commenters here only for their social conservatism.

  • Redmanfms||

    You seem to think I equated Gamergaters with social conservatism. I didn't.

    But you did equate them with rapists and murderers. And objective evil.

    Keep spinning.

  • Fluffy||

    You said there were two sides, one of which was made up of rape and murder threateners, and one of which was made up of social justice warriors.

    Since I know I'm on the side that isn't made up of social justice warriors, what side does that leave me on?

    You posted this one a 300 post thread complaining about exactly the behavior you engaged in.

  • Gweskoyen||

    Your logical fallacy is called False Dilemma.

  • Irish||

    Considering you set up the false dilemma by claiming there are only SJWs and rape threateners, I think it's your logical fallacy, hoss.

    At least this time you correctly identified a logical fallacy so it's slightly less embarrassing than your last go around.

  • Gweskoyen||

    Irish, if you reread my original post perhaps you'll see that I never said there are only SJWs and rape threateners. I just compared 2 groups.
    For comparison: If I compared Israel and Palestine, and then said which state is better, I obviously don't say those are the only nations on Earth.

  • Redmanfms||

    Your logical fallacy is called False Dilemma.

    Nah, that's your logical fallacy.

    Reference your first post in this thread:

    One group, labeled as 'SJWs', critiques games.
    The other group, GamerGate, threatens women with rape and murder.
    Is it really so hard to see which side is better, dear social conservatives masquerading as libertarians?
    If you support Gamergate you are objectively evil.

    Keep spinning.

  • Fluffy||

    Your logical fallacy is called False Dilemma.

    Hey, all you gotta do for me to back down is say,

    "You know, Fluffy, you misread my post if you think I'm saying there's only two groups. Obviously there's a third group, that knows that the SJW group is totally wrong but doesn't engage in threats of rape and murder!"

    Write exactly that, and I will then say,

    "Well, gee, Gweskoyen, I sure am sorry that I flipped out on you and accused you of saying that I was someone who liked to threaten women on the internet. Gosh, what a silly mistake I made!"

  • Gweskoyen||

    Uh, yeah, Fluffy, pretty much. In my original post I only compared 2 groups which are in conflict. Obviously they are not the only ones in existence.

  • Irish||

    Your spin on this issue is laughable. You claimed that ANYONE WHO SUPPORTED Gamergate was an 'objectively evil social conservative.' You said they are 'social conservatives pretending to be libertarians.'

    That is in your initial post. You cannot now pretend you weren't calling us social conservatives when that's the exact argument you made.

  • Gweskoyen||

    Irish, You put words in quotes that were never uttered together.
    I called commenters socially conservative.
    I called Gamergate objectively evil.
    I did not not equate those groups.

  • Irish||

    Yeah, okay.

    The other group, GamerGate, threatens women with rape and murder.
    Is it really so hard to see which side is better, dear social conservatives masquerading as libertarians?
    If you support Gamergate you are objectively evil.

    You did not say Gamergate is objectively evil. You said 'if you SUPPORT' gamergate you're objectively evil. Why don't you reread your own post and realize that I'm arguing against exactly what you said.

    If you wish to backtrack, that's fine. Just admit you were wrong in your initial post. Just don't pretend I'm misinterpreting it when I can literally scroll up and see that I'm not.

  • Gweskoyen||

    ...What the fuck do you think supporting Gamergate means? It means being part of Gamergate.

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    Redefinition of terms, the last refuge of the losing arguer.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I support Kurdish resistance to ISIS. Am I part of the Kurdish resistance to ISIS?

  • Redmanfms||

    ...What the fuck do you think supporting Gamergate means? It means being part of Gamergate.

    Which you fallaciously present as being "objectively evil" and supporters of rape and murder. An ad hominem.

    You then claim the only other choice is the sweetness and light of the SJWs who oppose Gamergate. A false dilemma/dichotomy.

    So far you haven't addressed any of the issues of Gamergate, you've just been furiously spinning what you said in your first post in ever spiraling rhetorical game of chase-the-tail.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Prog-logic depends on forcing their enemies to choose their way or Evil.

  • Irish||

    ...What the fuck do you think supporting Gamergate means? It means being part of Gamergate.

    No it doesn't. I 'support' the Chicago Bears and am not myself a member of the Chicago Bears. I 'support' Hong Kong against the Chinese government, but am not myself a Hong Konger.

    Support means being in favor of, not being a part of. This is a ridiculous and annoying semantic digression, but it wouldn't be necessary if you weren't trying to be dishonest.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    ...What the fuck do you think supporting Gamergate means? It means being part of Gamergate.

    That would be the fallacy known as "guilt by association."

  • Calbeck||

    "We have always been at war with Eurasia."

  • Cytotoxic||

    Okay. You're still a mendacious cunt.

  • Fluffy||

    I called Gamergate objectively evil.

    OK, based on your post above, perhaps we can work this out.

    I define "Gamergate" as "that group of gamers who believes that game reviewing that is rooted in personal relationships or in a desire to advance a particular left-wing feminist critique of gaming is corrupt."

    What is YOUR definition?

  • Illocust||

    Gweskoyen, apologize say you misspoke and that you will not use such logical fallacies in the future. If you aren't just a troll it's the only way you can honestly defend your position in the rest of the thread. People's opinions of your position and intelligence will go way up if your willing to say sorry when you screw up.

  • Wandering Texan||

    Technically, its YOUR goddamn fallacy, as he was was directly talking about the sub-par content of your above post.

  • Illocust||

    Who are you addressing?

  • Wandering Texan||

    Damn Reason and its shitty comment nesting.

    Gweskoyen's original attempt to tag Irish as using the False Dilemma Fallacy.

  • John C. Randolph||

    feminism being a logical consequence of libertarianism.

    You'll have to be very specific about your definition of "feminism" to convince anyone of that claim. How do you get from the non-aggression principle to suing employers if they don't meet "diversity" quotas?

    -jcr

  • ||

    It's called cognitive dissonance, jcr, it's a feature of proglotardia, not a bug.

  • Idle Hands||

    Is it easy going through life living in complete denial and believing that everyone who disagrees with you is "objectively evil"?

  • Almanian!||

    You know it! Easy, easy, easy!

    Therefore, preferred by today's children.

  • Irish||

    Also, I've been threatened with death by anonymous people on the internet when I've disagreed with them. The difference between me and SJWs is that I'm not enough of a delusional nutcase with a martyr complex to believe that a random asshole on the internet seriously has the capacity or the desire to do me harm.

    Stop elevating the delusions and psychoses of people like Anita Sarkeesian to the level of objective fact. It shows that you're objectively gullible and easily manipulated.

  • Gweskoyen||

    "Random assholes on the Internet" are real people you know, and if they threaten to rape someone with the corpse of their husband, as happened with Brianna Wu, why shouldn't people be concerned they realize this threat?

  • Cytotoxic||

    You should consider re-reading Irish's post, with your brain on this time.

  • Redmanfms||

    why shouldn't people be concerned they realize this threat?

    Soooo, "realizing" this threat involves using it to smear an entire group of people who didn't make threats but have views you don't like?

    Fuck. Me.

  • Gweskoyen||

    Is English your first language?
    Realizing this threat means in this case actually rape and murder somebody.

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    That's not the only definition of "realize", your phrasing was ambiguous.

  • Irish||

    Has anyone actually had anyone come anywhere close to raping or murdering them in real life?

    What's that? They haven't? So it's all random internet posturing thrown out by morons on twitter?

    Again, conservatives and libertarians are the victims of rape and death threats just as often as leftists. Yet you don't hear as much whining from them because they realize that's just what happens on the internet so they don't throw hissy fits.

  • Redmanfms||

    Is English your first language?

    Uh, yeah. Is it your's?

  • Mokers||

  • ||

    Is English your first language?
    Realizing this threat means in this case actually rape and murder somebody.

    The question and following comment are what I would consider the pot asking the kettle if it's black, since the comment is as good as example of the butchery of the English language that I've heard in a quite some time.

  • Calbeck||

    Jack Thompson had a better argument to make against games in this regard than you. Because he actually had bodies he could point to and scream, "SEE?! GAMING!"

  • Irish||

    "Random assholes on the Internet" are real people you know, and if they threaten to rape someone with the corpse of their husband, as happened with Brianna Wu, why shouldn't people be concerned they realize this threat?

    And the people who threatened me with death also were real people. And the person who threatened to anally rape conservative blogger Dana Loesch was also a real person.

    The point is that these threats are just internet blustering and are not serious threats. If you reread my post, you will see the point I am making rather than the point your delusional, semi-literate self imagines I was making.

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    I'd be more worried about the people who plan to use force against me without telling me in advance.

  • DesigNate||

    ^THIS^

  • Calbeck||

    Because the rest of the Internet is not paranoid.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The other group, GamerGate Islam, threatens women with rape and murder. ... If you support Gamergate you are objectively evil.

    See how collectivist generalizations work, Mr. "Atheist, Libertarian, male feminist, gay, loner, nerd"? Yet, if someone applied your "logic" to the latter, you'd squeal like a stuck pig. So are you prepared to bite the bullet and concede that your gross mischaracterization of GamerGate supporters was full of shit?

  • Gweskoyen||

    Wow, you sure are creepy.

  • Irish||

    Yeah, it's tremendously creepy to google your screen name and find the other websites on which you've used the same name.

    HM is practically hiding in your bushes right this instant with a rifle and nightvision goggles. You should call him objectively evil for his nefarious googling abilities.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Yeah, it's tremendously creepy to google your screen name and find the other websites on which you've used the same name.

    Especially when the point is about labels and generalizations about individuals based on larger social groupings.

    HM is practically hiding in your bushes right this instant with a rifle and nightvision goggles.

    I'm also trained in gorilla warfare.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Related: are you kidding me you little piece of shit i’ll have you know i graduated top of my politics class and i’ve been involved in privilege checking with over 150 confirmed political demonstrations i’m trained in conflict resolution and i was the most oppressed person in my entire upper middle class high school you are nothing to me but another cultural appropriator i will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which have never been seen on this side of the 49th parallel mark my words you think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the internet think again fucker, as we speak i’m checking with my anarcho-communist analyst brigade for your location so you better be prepared to deal with some molotov cocktails and angry feminists flying through your window yOU’RE FUCKING DEAD CHERRY! i can be anywhere at any time and i can kill you in over seven hundred ways and that’s just with me boring you to death while i talk about privilege not only am i extensively trained in hotline management but i have access to an entire arsenal of sociological articles to prove my point and i will use them to wipe your fucking face off the earth you little shit if only you had known what oppressed retribution your cultural appropriation would unleash then maybe you would have held your fucking tongue but you couldn’t you’re fucking dead kiddo

  • Cytotoxic||

    HM is killing this thread!

  • Calbeck||

    "with over 150 confirmed political demonstrations"

    Wow. Do they make kill-stickers for that, so you can put 'em on your car door and show the world what a political-demonstration badass you are?

    No, seriously, I want a set. -:D

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Wow, you sure are creepy.

    Keep zig-zagging away from my point, motherfucker. Now are you going to admit your collectivist generalization and concede that you were being mendacious or are you, having been called out on your bullshit, just going to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "la, la, la"?

  • Gweskoyen||

    If you want to criticize corruption in journalism, fine. But if you use the GamerGate label, you are associated with wannabe rapists, even if you are not one. It's as if you joined the Nazi Party because of animal rights.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    But if you
    use the GamerGate label
    identify as a Muslim, you are associated with
    wannabe rapists
    ISIS, even if you are not one.

    I have not changed the structure of your enthymeme; therefore you must agree with the logic of it, right? Or are you prepared to admit that your reasoning is fallacious?

  • Fluffy||

    No, douchebag.

    It's actually and emphatically the reverse.

    The hashtag began as a criticism of corruption in journalism.

    Because intellectually dishonest progressive scum wanted to close ranks and defend their allies in the press, people like you decided to scour Twitter and find as many dubious outlandish threats as you could, so you could shut down discussion of these issues by claiming that ALL PERSONS criticizing the gaming press were misogynist rapist murderers.

    It's what you do in literally every other context, so I'm not surprised you attempted to do it here, too. But you can go fuck yourself, because when people try to shout me down I just shout louder.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Because intellectually dishonest progressive scum wanted to close ranks and defend their allies in the press, people like you decided to scour Twitter and find as many dubious outlandish threats as you could, so you could shut down discussion of these issues by claiming that ALL PERSONS criticizing the gaming press were misogynist rapist murderers.


    As usual, there's a Pat Condell for that.

  • Calbeck||

    Godwin'd.

  • Wandering Texan||

    Don't use contiguous identities if you don't want a contiguous identity.

  • Cytotoxic||

    FATALITY. Winner: Heroic Mullato.

  • Redmanfms||

    Yeah, that's all there is to it...

    Fuck off troll.

  • Gweskoyen||

    Sure, because I am not part of the hivemind I'm a troll. Must be nice, this epistemic closure.

  • Irish||

    Hey, you know what's awesome? The way you got obliterated in a series of well argued posts but ignored all those arguments and attacked the person who called you a troll.

    You have a IQ of a very stupid newt.

  • Almanian!||

    ...it didn't get bettah....

  • Gweskoyen||

    Maybe you should've scrolled up before posting this.

  • Redmanfms||

    Maybe you should've scrolled up before posting this.

    To see you double down?

  • Cytotoxic||

    And watch you get more obliterated?

  • Gweskoyen||

    Cytotoxic, the reason why Socrates is a household name and not those of the Sophists is because Socrates didn't care about winning rhetorical games.

  • Cytotoxic||

    ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS

  • Redmanfms||

    Cytotoxic, the reason why Socrates is a household name and not those of the Sophists is because Socrates didn't care about winning rhetorical games.

    Newsflash guy, spinning isn't winning.

  • Irish||

    Cytotoxic, the reason why Socrates is a household name and not those of the Sophists is because Socrates didn't care about winning rhetorical games.

    HAHAHAHAHA. Socrates engaged in rhetorical games constantly. Go read some of Plato's dialogues. Half of them are nothing but rhetorical games.

    Also, I don't know how you can say the Sophists aren't a household name when 'sophistry' is an English word in fairly common use.

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    Having a pupil who happened to be Alexander the Great's tutor surely helped with his notoriety.

    Also if you read the first discourse in The Republic where Socrates argues against the Sophist Thrasymachus about whether justice is a virtue, Socrates deploys all sorts of rhetorical tricks, and "wins" only because Thrasymachus failed to object to one of them that proved to be crucial. (or at least Plato does not document Thrasymachus objecting)

  • Calbeck||

    *facepalm* "Socrates favoured truth as the highest value, proposing that it could be discovered through reason and logic in discussion: ergo, dialectic. Socrates valued rationality (appealing to logic, not emotion) as the proper means for persuasion, the discovery of truth, and the determinant for one's actions. To Socrates, truth, not aretē, was the greater good, and each person should, above all else, seek truth to guide one's life. Therefore, Socrates opposed the Sophists and their teaching of rhetoric as art and as emotional oratory requiring neither logic nor proof."

    YOU are the Sophist here.

    By the by, how do you feel about Jim Sterling twittering that he wanted to rip a woman's Fallopian tubes out with his bare fist "up the cunt"? Bear in mind, before you answer, that he just came out on the side of Leigh Alexander and against GamerGate... he's one of YOURS. twitter.com/JimSterling/status/21946473587412992

  • Gweskoyen||

    Well this has been 'fun'. To sum up:
    Irish is Dunning-Krugering and is forced to call people stupid,
    Fluffy's feelings are easily hurt,
    Redmanfms is a bot that says "Keep spinning!",
    Cytotoxic is a cheerleader.
    I am sure everyone in this 'conversation' (me included) thinks they have 'won', but if we're honest, we have all lost.

  • Redmanfms||

    To sum up:

    Gweskoyen posts an idiotic ad hominem wrapped in a false dilemma, gets his ass handed to him, spends an hour and twenty minutes playing semantic games, keeps getting his ass handed to him, then abandons thread having learned nothing.

  • Gweskoyen||

    Wow, this bot is really almost like a human!

  • Gluesponge||

    The irony... it burns!

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Irish is Dunning-Krugering and is forced to call people stupid

    Someone doesn't appear to know what Dunning-Kruger actually is. Given your apparent lack of familiarity with logical fallacies, perhaps that shouldn't be surprising.

  • Otisjay||

    Repeat after me

    there is no war in ba sing se
    there is no war in ba sing se
    there is no war in ba sing se.

  • Gluesponge||

    SWJ's threaten lawsuits, try to get the name "gamer" associated with the most vile stereotypes in the world... get upset when called on it, fake their "rape threats" and hope the gamers will go away.

    They won't. They've just started learning this, and are trying DESPERATELY to shove this under the rug. It's too late. The gig is up. The fake SWJ's and their cronies are up against a very vocal group of people who don't take kindly to trying to undermine their hobby.

    If you support the SWJ's you are either stupid or objectively evil.

  • Calbeck||

    At first, I thought you were Obvious Troll spouting something knowing it was false but trying to get a rise out of folks.

    Reading further on, it's more apparent that you have actually drunk most if not all of the entire pitcher of Kool-Aid.

    "SJWs" are not a group that "critiques games". In point of fact, specific to this controversy, there's only two people one could point to and honestly describe as both "SWJ" and "games critic"... and both of them engaged in the sort of hyperbole and manufactured outrage that real-world critics usually get shunned and lose sponsors over.

    Nor does anything point to GamerGate endorsing or levying threats of rape and murder... but then again, as a leaderless group with no organization and therefore no WAY to endorse or levy such threats on the group's behalf, that would be impossible. As such, people like yourself constantly assert that the entire group is responsible for the reprehensible behavior of "someone on the Internet" who happens to ALSO dislike GamerGate's opponents.

    Meanwhile, however, people in GamerGate ARE being doxxed, ARE being threatened in exactly the way you argue against, and ARE being cut out of the gaming industry for speaking out against the insanity of you and people like you.

    "Objectively evil"? I don't think you understand what either of those words mean.

  • Almanian!||

    Well, I see this gay-mer thread hasn't gotten better with age.

    Back to good, old-fashioned, American street violence!! AKA NFL football.

  • Almanian!||

    Shorter Gaym Boiz:

    LEAVE BRITTANY ALONE!!!!!11!

  • Fluffy||

    What is your fucking problem?

    The issue here isn't even really games to me.

    The issue here to me is that a really shitty "social justice artist" and her equally shitty press advocates got caught in a fairly outrageous scandal, but that's not enough to flunk them out of their profession because all they have to do is squeal "SEXISTS!" and the entire progressive media world intervenes on their side.

    It's precisely because gaming is a relatively trivial area of life that I'm as outraged by this as I am. If SJW trash can't flunk out of life no matter what they do even in a marginal area like gaming, and even in the face of fairly massive backlash and opposition, then it's clear that the media and entertainment industries are now corrupted from top to bottom and there's damn little hope of progress in any other area.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I am under the impression that GG is expanding its focus to include the good reviews that the mainstream sites hand out like candy to shitty/tepid games that are produced by big game companies or have a big following ("It's shit" 9/10-IGN). Maybe I'm just projecting my hopes but it would be nice. It's so bad that I was shocked when Dishonoured got panned and then when Destiny got the ratings it did (I knew there was no way it could live up to the hype let alone basic expectations, but I thought that wouldn't matter).

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    That's always going to happen when you have reviews supported by advertising. The objectivity-preserving alternative is to have them supported by paid subscriptions, but in the Internet era that requires strict IP controls which Reasonoids also hate.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Your knowledge of the problem is, as usual, limited. How Tulpical.

    The problem goes well beyond advertising. Reviewers get the royal treatment from the companies whose games they review-special transport to a special review room where they get to play the game on sublime equipment while being pampered. Literally getting food served to them. By the company whose product they are supposed to be reviewing. There are YouTube game reviewers who can pan a game and I am pretty sure they get at least a little revenue from YouTube ads for games.

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    Yes, I'm aware of the possibility of bribery happening. My point is, even without that kind of flagrant corruption, the model would be inherently prone to bias.

  • Cytotoxic||

    There's 'prone to bias' and 'totally worthless'. The reviews handed out by major game sites are pretty much totally worthless.

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    Well there are shades of gray. There's definitely a positive feedback loop so I'd expect one to lead to the other.

  • Otisjay||

    This is why i have about 5 people on YouTube I trust for my game info & news.

  • Calbeck||

    That's actually been part of the concern from Day One. Check out "Gone Home" --- a decently-written GMod conversion involving the exploration of an abandoned house to find where your family went.

    Decently-written, poorly designed. I have watched someone playing drunk, and they finished the game in 20 minutes by stumbling up to the attic. The big shocking surprise twist ending? Your sister had an affair and ran off to be a lesbian.

    Polygon gave it 10/10 Game of the Year... NOT KIDDING. And they're totally straight-faced about it, calling it socially-conscious trend-setting. Sorry, but Bioware's put out more complex and involved LGBT stories in its games over the last few years, and none of these wankers gave a cuss because it wasn't from an indie developer who knew people that they knew personally.

  • Cytotoxic||

    That's sounds interesting but sounds less like the problem of big companies and bandwagons getting a pass and more SJW deference.

  • Cytotoxic||

    As well as Indie Worship...fucking hipsters!

  • PapayaSF||

    Polygon gave it 10/10 Game of the Year... NOT KIDDING. And they're totally straight-faced about it, calling it socially-conscious trend-setting.

    Yeah, that's the sort of bullshit that's also infected science fiction in recent years: "Oooh, this story has a Politically Correct lesson! Give it an award!"

  • felixray||

    You seem to have made the mistake of naively taking GamerGate at face value. This is apparently a movement inspired by 4chan, so expect their motivces to be deliberately obscured.

    Having been identified as a Social Justice Warrior, let me assure you, I have a shitload of porn on my hard drive, and if someone was attacking the Gamer's right to play whatever damn male-oriented games they like, I'd be with them. Instead we've had repeated attacks a woman's right to do things like making youtube videos commenting without being subject to harassment and character assasination.

    In my opinion, GamerGate intends nothing less than an ideological purge against feminism in Gamer Media. In other words, censorship. This doesn't necessarily apply to everyone taking part. Like I said, the motives are obscured, but check out this video where GG demands are listed. Notice that "corruption" is brushed over pretty quickly, and much of the video is a long list of editorial concerns, essentially a list of "approved topics" for gaming publications to cover.

    http://youtu.be/4Igh-cxM9mc

  • Irish||

    That video has 941 videos in a month.

    Shouldn't you maybe find a video with over 1000 views before you attempt to make it representative of a large group of people?

  • Cytotoxic||

    In my opinion your inability to think critically and respond to actual arguments put forward by non-SJWs is typical of SJWs. You didn't read or comprehend the article, so we get a bunch of red herrings like '4chan; obscured) and LIES about how GG wants to purge feminists (although that might be necessary to not have the kind of incestuous corruption we clearly see here given the amorality and drive of SJWs). To top it off, you include a video from some a-hole who can only CLAIM to speak for GG.

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    4chan isn't coherent enough to have motives. If that's your conspiracy, ugh.

  • Redmanfms||

  • Marktaylor||

    So the gamer gate agenda is represented by a video with 974 views on YouTube?

    If GG is about censoring women from making YouTube comments and not about you... You know what everyone knows it's about than prove it. Show us how all the GG sites and articles articulating this point.

    Shit, right above you is nearly 500 comments supporting GG. Find one (without making it yourself) calling for censorship.

  • ||

    HOW DARE YOU ADDRESS PEOPLE AS IF THEY ARE ARGUING IN GOOD FAITH?!!??

    THE CORRECT THING FOR AN ENLIGHTENED LIBERAL TO DO IS TO ASSUME THE WORST OF EVERY OPPONENT AND SEARCH FOR THE SECRET HIDDEN RACIST OR SEXIST AGENDA IN EVERYTHING THEY SAY!!

  • Calbeck||

    You seem to have made the mistake of naively taking a random Youtube video with low views as being representative of the leadership of a much, much larger group. Over 90% of whom can't possibly have watched it.

    In my opinion, this is your video, and you're trying to boost its signal by trolling Gamergate-related threads.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    So in essence, "GamerGate" is about the shocking discovery that internet anonymity breeds low-brow comments among a section of juvenile men that like to say things online that they couldn't say in real life.

    And feminists think this is primae facie proof that all gamers have problems with women.

    Sounds like a retard fight.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No, it's about the corruption of journalism and response by SJWs and mainstream media sites to evidence of that corruption. RTFA

  • Redmanfms||

    Here dude.

    It may be of no interest to you, just like gun rights and honesty in gun politics reporting is of little interest to people who don't own guns, but it isn't totally irrelevant.

    Or a retard fight.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    It totally has been.

  • mr lizard||

    400+ comments and no good off topic articles. These Ovarian Avengers have you guys focused today.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Men tend to be laser focused on the vagina whenever possible.

  • mr lizard||

    True, but I think today might involve a different mechanism. Think loathing over lust.

    These particular Clitoral Cage Fighters inspire a different instinctual drive.

  • Fluffy||

    Your points are not "identical" with rape threats. They are supportive of them, however.

    This is an entirely empty assertion that you couldn't support with real content or an actual argument if you tried.

    Go ahead. Explain the specific way that my points are supportive of rape threats.

    You should be able to express this point in words.

    I doubt you'll be able to do so in any way that can't be instantly exploded. Go ahead.

  • ||

    Oddly enough, I just learned about this today when I was looking at a game on kickstarter. I was looking at the game Kingdomcome Deliverance and reading some comments there. Apparently the developer (game looks awesome by the way and has taken in more than 2 million in crowd funding so far) is an evul gamergate type and so he's being attacked by feminists and mindless lefties.

  • ||

    These shreeking harpies have about as much chance of stopping games being developed that males like to play, as they do of stopping the sun from coming up tomorrow morning. IOW, zero. Guys for the most part are just not interested in playing my little pony or farmville. You want to play farmville? Have at it. You want to stop me from playing the games that I like? Pizz the fuck off, it's not going to happen.

  • Loki||

    Question: I'm usually not around on weekends - normally I have better things to do when I'm not at work:).

    So, do weekend threads often get as derp-tastic and infested with idiotic trolls as this one has? Good. Fucking. God. It's like there's retards just coming out of the woodwork around here.

  • ||

    Not so much. Weekend threads are typically pretty quiet. I arrived late for this game, sigh...

  • Illocust||

    Reason just posted on a movement getting 30k tweets a day. It got out, and everyone has to come say their piece. I'm honestly surprised there aren't more people here.

  • ||

    I just found out about this shit, today. Oddly enough, it was only because I was looking at a game on kickstarter that I was thinking of backing. And now because I see the developer has been a target of these twisted fucksticks, I WILL back it.

    I don't think this is a good day for the anti-game screechers. Sociopaths like that love to live under a rock while working behind the scenes to coerce an easily cowed by special interest government into doing their evil bidding. They fear exposure.

    There are millions of avid gamers around the world who love to play the kind of games that these sick control freaks want to ban. We need to expose this evil and get the gaming community as angry as possible about it.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    I'd say that the weekends definitely see their fair share of trolls, but this topic has brought a greater level of activity from regulars than is usual for a Sunday. I haven't seen a 500+ comment thread on a weekend in quite a while.

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    Not since Registration, anyway.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    I think there was one from about a year or so ago that had an idle comment turn into a massive atheism sub thread slap-fight and got about this long, but nothing since then that has approached it.

  • ||

    A troll made the mistake of calling me sexist for mentioning that 14 year old girls like Twitter, and it blew up from there.

  • Otisjay||

    holy hell, i've been reading this thread to long.. i read that over a hour ago.

  • SIV||

    The weekends are Tulpa-time.

  • Insensitive Bastard||

    Thank you Reason for a balanced article with all the facts. I expected no less.

    SJWs, Feminism, and Progressivism are poison and their agenda is toxic.

    https://archive.today/2t93l

    Scroll down to the part where the Anti-GG people state that games shouldn't be about fun but about social justice.

    These poisonous people don't give a shit about games, they care about their social justice agenda.

    All we gamers ever wanted to do was talk about video games (shocking I know). It is the Anti-GG people who wanted to talk about their genitalia and who they like rubbing their genitalia against.

    Ultimately this poisonous agenda will lead to a beige sludge of games that are utterly homogenized and dull. These people do not understand you will not attract Call of Duty players and FarmVille players with the same game. The only way to achieve that goal is to make all games dull via quotas.

    This agenda and the people who support it are a scourge on gaming (I'd go as far to say diversity, sense, logic, and reason as well). GG is ultimately a consumer movement attempting to save their hobby from the homogenizing that social justice wants to force on it. I for one am not willing to budge one inch (or 2.54cm for my non-standard reader) to allow this toxic agenda in.

    We are gamers; we play to win.

    Long Live #GamerGate

  • Loki||

    These poisonous people don't give a shit about games, they care about their social justice agenda.

    The biggest problem with SJW's isn't just that they're joyless moronic harpies, it's that they insist on taking the joy out of everything else just to massage their fragile sensibilities. These people can't even play a fucking video game, something that's supposed to be just mindless entertainment, without getting butthurt about something.

    And that would be bad enough, but they have to go one step further and try to get rid of the kinds of games that make them butthurt, because HOW DARE ANYONE ELSE NOT GET JUST AS BUTTHURT AS THEM!!!111!! IOW, they can't just STFU and enjoy something meant to be harmless entertainment, so they have to make damn sure that no one else can either.

    It's the insistence on politicizing everything and using literally anything as an excuse to push their Social Justice horseshit that makes them obnoxious.

  • ||

    But entertainment is VULGAR!

    People should be EDUCATED! At all times! Video games should educate people about the proper thoughts and feelings they should be having!!!

  • ||

    Scroll down to the part where the Anti-GG people state that games shouldn't be about fun but about social justice.

    I got this growing up in prog-tard Canada.
    The progs are all mad that movies are used for entertainment instead of education.
    Because don't you know that all media human beings consume must be directed towards turning them into being better, more enlightened, more progressive human beings?

    Providing the people with mere entertainment is, like, vulgar, and gross and stuff.

    Constant 24 hour sensitivity training for everyone!!!

  • ||

    We are gamers; we play to win.

    That's right, IB, that's right.

    These fools do not know their chosen enemy, and then they come here to attack libertarians. Luddites and fools, all of them.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Gamer libertarians, to boot. Almost as foolish as a land war in Asia.

  • Covenant Dropship||

    As a 30 year old woman who's been playing video games since I was 4 and consider myself a serious lover of video games....I personally love playing video games aimed mostly at men. Games marketed towards women would probably be super boring and lame. I'll keep my Master Chief and Cortana just the way they are thanks. Feminists can suck my dick (if I had one). Wait was that sexist or something? Also I did not create this account just to comment on this article.

  • Otisjay||

    "Cortana"

    awwww you made me sad...

  • BardMetal||

    Is there anything dumber then trying to troll, and flame a bunch of gamers? We're talking about a group of people that after killing you Halo will then proceed to teabag the ever loving shit out of your corpse, and then record the event in theater mode so they can share it with others, or enjoy it at a later time.

    I don't think the feminists realize what they're fucking with.

  • Illocust||

    You know what's really funny. The gamers are reading your comments to ARealGamer and wondering in their own forums who would be stupid enough to come in here and try to half ass an argument with libertarians.

  • Illocust||

    "your" meaning the regulars on the forum not literally you.

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    Can you link these threads? I'd love to read.

  • Illocust||

    Be aware, I'm not familiar with how to link on Reason, but the mega thread on GamerGate in the Escapist forum has been talking about ya'll on and off. Link below

    http://www.escapistmagazine.co.....s?page=653

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    Hahaha, thanks man. Are you a gamer or someone big in this... er... movement?

  • Illocust||

    I'm just a gamer (also been commenting on Reason for a while, but not often enough to be a regular). I've been trying to disseminate facts to the right people, but no internet superstardom for me.

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    Well cheers! Thanks for the fun :D

  • Covenant Dropship||

    I've played a lot of Halo and there's really not that much tea bagging. That's so 5 years ago. Excessive tea bagging will cause you to become distracted and get you assassinated in the game.

  • BardMetal||

    Yeah but it's worth if the other guy gets pissed off, and I had been drinking a lot.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    +1 ragequit

  • ||

    if they threaten to rape someone with the corpse of their husband, as happened with Brianna Wu, why shouldn't people be concerned they realize this threat?

    Oh I don't know, maybe because the physical implausibility of raping someone with the corpse of their husband makes the threat somewhat less than credible.

  • BardMetal||

    Not to mention the implausibility of a hardcore feminist having a husband.

  • Otisjay||

  • Megafire||

    Man it's nice to see this ideology torn to shreds in a place that isn't tone policed to shit. Signed up here just to say thanks.

    But, while I'm here, I might as well go on a rant of my own.

    These people are an embarrassment. They're an embarrassment to gaming, they're an embarrassment to journalism, but, most of all, they're an embarrassment to good conspiracies everywhere.

    For crying out loud, we're fighting a media war against the media. The fact that we so much as stood a chance is already ridiculous, but the fact that we're winning is downright insane. Why the fuck did we ever listen to these people?

    They're incompetent on a level that's personally offensive to me. Every single thing they've done during this whole mess has been the stupidest thing they could have done, and Jesus Christ their manipulation tactics are downright amateur. Can't wait to see them all gone.

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    Welcome! Stick around, we always love new commenters!

  • Megafire||

    Thank you.

    Full disclosure, two months ago I was practically an SJW. Now I'm here.

    It's been a really weird ride.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    That's quick. Someone hit you over the head with a copy of The Road to Serfdom or something?

  • Megafire||

    Nah, the Social Justice Cult just hadn't convinced me censorship was secretly a good thing yet.

    Big mistake on their part.

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    It's ok I was once a religious socon.

  • mr lizard||

    We are glad to have you. You'll do just fine here as long as you don't mention deep dish pizza. Also I would have gone with Spread Cannon over Megafire, but that is a personal preference. Once again, welcome and stick around.

  • Megafire||

    I considered going for EnormousBlaze, but I figured you guys would call me out for overcompensating.

  • ||

    Gaming journalists are caught between capitalist reality and their own frustrated aspirations to be serious cultural critics.

    This. Basically, there are a bunch of people who went to journalism school and learned a bunch of bullshit critical theory and then got stuck writing video game reviews because (Surprise!) there just aren't that many jobs for film critics or literary critics out there. Writing for PCWorld was the best job they could get in the dying print media.

    The ultimate blame, really, lies with the student loan program. Some retard gave them $40,000 to get a journalism degree and didn't tell them that they would be lucky if they got to be a hack writer who occasionally got to nail a mediocre chick game developer in exchange for a positive review.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    mediocre chick game developer

    Excellent word choice. Mediocre could correctly be placed in front of all three of the words following it. /golfclap

  • ||

    I saw a picture of Zoe Quinn and she is at best a 7.

  • fuck you Belinda Carlisle||

    I would, but she wouldn't go on the wall of fame.

  • patches44||

    That's the sad thing. Outside of Totilo none of them studied Journalism. "Games Journalists" are what you get to be at the far end of the worthless humanities and assorted outrage studies programs. At best they have the occasional neurotic English major (Jenn Frank) but my personal favorite has to be The Megaphone herself. The woman who spits fire and crushes dreams. Leigh Alexander. (Now remember this person was recently published in Time Magazine.) her "journalistic credentials"? A 2 year Drama degree from a local arts school. Yep! The wicked witch of the west coast that declared her employers audience dead is by training and profession an actual drama queen.

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    This article really blew up! Welcome everyone! Stick around, the comments are always this much fun!

  • Insensitive Bastard||

    That is because SJWs have picked the wrong group to fuck with. Gamers are tenacious, tech savvy, and inherently internet-minded.

    YouTube has exploded with #GamerGate, same with Twitter, and Tumblr. It has even spawned a brand new chan (8chan) Now Reason has weighed in and the Internet brawl will now spread here.

    Fortunately Libertarians are veracious and based enough to handle the shit-slinging from progressives, SJWs, and leftist-feminists.

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    See my two comments below. I'm having way too much fun with this, and it's a topic I didn't really know anything about before today.

  • np||

    YouTube has exploded with #GamerGate, same with Twitter, and Tumblr. It has even spawned a brand new chan (8chan) Now Reason has weighed in and the Internet brawl will now spread here.

    About the creation 8chan.co, it's sad to see 4chan become a causality of GamerGate. Something happened. Looking at all the twitter images from him and his recent social life, maybe moot decided to get a girlfriend. Unfortunately all the girls he's meeting seem to be SJWs. Whatever the case, not only was the GG thread in 4chan was permanently closed (due to doxxing) but any mention of it resulted in a ban.

    Moot attended an Anita Sarkeesian panel 3 days before censoring #GamerGate on 4chan. Here's proof

    It got worse though, some of the moderators were purged as I've read from oldfags (the old timers) and people started to get banned left and right.

    Well, no wonder why

  • Insensitive Bastard||

    Those not familiar with 4chan take heed, this post is going to be kind of rough.

    I had suspected Moot was a huge faggot, #GamerGate had removed all doubts. Like you, I was very disappointed in Moot's decision to take it up the ass from these SJW cunts.

    That pisses me off to no end. But from the ashes of 4chan arose a much more open forum for discussion that is specifically designed to drop bombs on their heads.

    Oldfags and newfags alike now flood the pages of 8chan (which came under DDoS attacks from SJWfags).

    Fuck them, we just need to burn the entire estate to the ground.

  • Wandering Texan||

    moot is doing a good enough job of burning it down himself. 2010, he was proudly displaying the free-speech credentials of image board culture and his website. 2014, he has clearly abandoned the idea.

  • Insensitive Bastard||

    Half-ass.

    He's about free speech until that speech is causing him problems.

    Fuck him.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Was 4chan ever really 'good'?

  • Insensitive Bastard||

    "Good" is a perspective. 4chan before #GamerGate was a great platform for grassroots internet-based activism. To that end 4chan was good.

  • ||

    It has even spawned a brand new chan (8chan)

    8chan actually predates GamerGate; it just wasn't popular (I certainly hadn't heard of it, FWIW) prior to the partial exodus from halfchan.

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    THEY LOVE YOU COMMENTERS OVER THERE!

    "I frequent the HnR blogs comments...lessee how this is goin-

    487 posts. New concern trolls in the thread...Reason regulars are tearing them apart.

    Seriously, this is an ideological massacre. Nikki, Fluffy, Papaya, fucking CYTO, with Mulatto adding in that extra-tasty bite."

    "It is pretty hilarious to watch it get torn apart. Seriously, who thinks picking a fight with the libertarians on their home turf is going to end well. These guys have nothing but practice arguing against people that disagree with them."

    "bloody hell.
    the gloves really come off without the 140character limit .
    welcome to the heavy weight class, I guess."

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    "My roommate has been reading the comments out loud for the past 15 minutes now and everyone in the house cannot stop laughing. We've even stopped playing Dota just to continue reading this.

    I must say, the regulars of that forum have an excellent command of the english language that I am envious of. I feel sorry for anyone stubborn enough to continue arguing with this bunch without rational points to back them up."

  • Megafire||

    Yup, we certainly are big fans of you guys. Can't wait to see Part II and all the joys that will bring.

  • ||

    What , I don't even get a mention?

  • Illocust||

    Don't feel too bad. It's a tough crowd.

  • ||

    Tough, but fair!

  • bgarst||

    Misogyny!

  • Wandering Texan||

    My apologies, Hazel, I had only skimmed at that point. I figured Reason would cover it eventually. Didn't expect it to pop up on a Sunday.

    The sheer quality of the posts here, combined with a distinct lack of censorship regarding strong or charged language, has always generated really impressive discussion. I may not post much, but I'm always reading the comments.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    What , I don't even get a mention?

    [insert joke about Black folks not tipping, even hat-tipping]

  • Cytotoxic||

    *Blushes*

  • ||

    I really, really want this fight. Please, bring it on, you foolish luddites. I'm a software engineer for more than 15 years and I'm just now looking to enter the gaming industry. Please, bring it on, it can only mean more money for game developers, and complete disgrace for you anti-gamer luddites.

  • ||

    I think the SJW morons may be starting to realize they kicked a much bigger hornet's nest than they thought. Of course, they're epically stupid so these kind of miscalculations are par for the course for them. Their only tactic is browbeating, but when the people you're trying to browbeat are having none of it and tons of people agree with them, browbeating backfires. Oops! But again, the SJWs are mongoloids so expecting them to realize this is folly.

  • ||

    Well, they wanted a fight, and now the gloves are off.

  • ||

    No, they wanted to bully people (that's what their browbeating is), and then the people they were trying to bully fought back. And we all know about what happens to bullies when people fight back.

  • ||

    This is different. It's a direct attack on free speech. It's past time to stop these people.

  • Wandering Texan||

    They get BTFO, to use a certain lingo.

  • ||

    Why are there no stories about gamergate on HuffPo, that great 'liberal' bastion of all knowledge?

    I just went there and searched, nothing. Am I doing something wrong?

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    I have a feeling that certain outlets are scared off by the "-ist" accusations being hurled by the SJWs and Reason has finally emerged from cover while HuffPo is still in hiding, trying to keep itself convinced that there's nothing to really write about. When freaking Slate is a more prompt advocate for transparency and condemning thuggishness and fraud you need to take a hard look in the mirror.

  • ||

    They should be scared. They overplayed their hand and now they have to stay in the game.

    Maybe it's time I need to look at the more derpastic sites like New Republic, Salon, and Jezebel... yeah, I'm looking for a fight and I welcome it...

  • patches44||

    There was one story there about something tangential. It was noteworthy in that it was fairly neutral if not slightly pro consumer / GG. I can't remember what it was specifically about now. It was like 6 weeks ago.

  • ||

    OK Goddammit. I tried to read the article, I tried to read the comments. I have no idea what this is all about and I just can't seem to make myself care.

    Slowest day ever and this is the thread where everyone is throwing shit? Geez. I was trying to lay off the spirits this weekend but y'all have driven me to the vodka bottle.

  • ||

    Hey, Suthenboy, as someone who thinks of myself as a friend of your's here, I will try to explain.

    Basically, what this is about is free speech. You just have to read the story and back through the posts to see. To some of us, this really strikes home, but it's an important issue for all libertarians.

    /Hyperion

  • ||

    Thank you. I went back over it a bit. It just has that Jr. HS flavor. I guess that is what turns me off. I have no interest in games and I am not part of that culture. Plus I don't see anyone trying to use the force of law to censor, though I am sure that will come.

    Geeky boys playing games that portray women the way geeky boys like. Complaining about that is like complaining about the weather.

  • ||

    Yeah, except for the fact that those of us who like to play the games we like are being attacked by statist control freaks. That make it a libertarian issue.

  • ||

    Agreed. I wasn't complaining that the article was here, only that I am out of touch with the whole gaming culture making it difficult for me to understand what is going on. Its just my getoffmylawnism.

    That is a shame too. If I had come along later than I did I would have been a complete game freak. I grew up watching Star Trek on a 13in black and white TV. In my late teens I got to play games in arcades, games like Astroids, Pac Man etc. The most sophisticated game I ever played was Stargate....if anyone remembers that. I imagined games like the ones played today, but I didn't see them coming along before I lost interest in that sort of thing.

    Then I got caught up in the real shit and by the time that was over I had lost all taste for pretend violence. If not for that I probably would have gotten back into games when they got really good.

  • Fluffy||

    To me the thing that made it a libertarian issue is that they had Quinn and her defenders in the gaming press dead to rights.

    DEAD. TO. RIGHTS.

    They were nailed like Jayson Blair and Mike Barnicle were nailed.

    But they figured out a way to fight their way out.

    They yelled WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH SEXISTS! and the entire progressive and feminist community leaped to their defense.

    That made it a libertarian issue to me - because if their gambit was allowed to succeed, any criticism of any minor left-wing figure forevermore would be treated the same way.

    These fuckers thought they could just run a quick Eric Holder and walk away clean. And that enrages me quite a bit. Their problem is that they tried to play that game without the POTUS and thousands of nuclear warheads to back them up.

  • Fluffy||

    Then of course there's also the fact that when people went to the usual internet haunts where questions like this would be discussed, there were mass thread deletions, bannings, etc. spurred on by SJW rage.

    And yadda yadda yadda SLD about site owners getting to run their sites the way they see fit - but there any many sites that piss me off by claiming to be about internet freedom that routinely lock and ban shit as soon as any poor little feminist stubs her toe. (I'm looking at you, reddit.)

    I hadn't realized that even 4chan had bowed to this nonsense. Fuck. Even the chan? That's like telling me that Snowden bugged my phone.

  • Otisjay||

    Most Anon's from 4chan have moved on to 8Chan.

    and Moot can eat a big old bag of Dicks.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Well I would have suggested that playing with your guns is a nice, relaxing Sunday diversion, but as you have already hit the vodka, probably no longer a good idea.

  • ||

    What? Guns and Vodka. What could go wrong?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Ummm...this?

  • ||

    I was expecting a video of someone drinking, twerking and shooting their foot off. As usual you exceed expectations. Very funny.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I was expecting a video of someone drinking, twerking and shooting their foot off.

    You've been to one of my summer barbeques?

  • np||

    (In its latest flare-up, Intel found itself in the crossfire last week when it pulled its ads from Gamasutra, a gaming webzine at the center of the quarrel.)

    On August 28, Gamasutra ran a blistering attack on "game culture" by feminist cultural critic Leigh Alexander, declaring that "gamers are over" and ridiculing them as socially inept, badly dressed young males addicted to mindless gadget-buying and "getting mad on the Internet."

    And the NY Times covering the Intel pullout still don't get it, nor do any mainstream gaming sites. How dumb do you have to be when even Salon gets it as Nikki pointed out above, about biting the hand that feeds you?

    I'm so glad this is coming to a head because mainstream media, so many western gaming sites, with the exception of a few niche outlets, have long been infected with uber-PC SJW white-knight'ism.

  • ||

    even Salon gets it

    Slate, actually. Don't worry, we all get them confused.

  • Insensitive Bastard||

    It should be noted that #GamerGate is bigger than 4chan, it's bigger than Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, and Facebook.

    Before GG users of those sites would routinely raid each other, fling shit at each other, even outright denigrate each other. #GamerGate is the banner that brought all these different people from these sites and others not named together to put our petty differences aside for the greater purpose. We've made peace with Atheists (Who had their own problems with Atheism+), those sites I listed, right-wing and libertarian, publications and websites. We have a rather impressive conglomerate of allies.

    For all the political positioning leftists have claimed for Millennials, this might just be enough for my generation to see the shit-forest for the shit. Progressivism is a tumor that absolutely must be burnt out of gaming before it grows.

    #GamerGate

  • ||

    OK. Between Hyperion and you I see I am going to have to start back from scratch and figure out what is going on here.

    Too late to start now, Walking dead premier starting in an hour. I have to watch the last episode from last season first.

  • Gabriel Dunn||

    Is that the one where Carol rapes Dale and Shane eats the Chinaman?

  • Insensitive Bastard||

    If it is truth you seek I shall deliver.

    Here are the important voices and videos of #GamerGate:

    http://tinyurl.com/pcnbhyh
    http://tinyurl.com/lx5zyhc

  • Insensitive Bastard||

  • Insensitive Bastard||