Gamergate, Feminisim, and Journalistic Ethics

[Gravlen]

It's because the tag is tainted with the progenitors of the movement. Which is obviously true. They went around making threats to women and men who disagreed with them.

Are you sure?

I'm very dubious that most of the purported threats:

(A) Are, in fact, credible threats; see here. Sarkeesian et al have a long history of representing things that aren't even threats at all (like "I hope you kill yourself") as if they are credible threats.
... and I also doubt that...
(B) The relatively few exceptions are, in fact, from the people who started the use of the #gamergate tag.
... This is because ...
(C) They are probably from trolls, feminists, pro-feminists, or feminist/pro-feminist trolls. Much like the Emma Watson nude photo leak threat.

EDIT: Now, I do have something rather more important to add as a response to this argument.

This is an argument by association (i.e., a form of ad hominem). Guess what? There are horrible people associated with your side of this loud public argument.. With, for that matter, feminism in general, with feminism as a movement not really doing much to dissociate itself from misandrist nutjobs. (Unlike, say, Zoe Quinn's ex, who has vocally disapproved of some of the more vociferous reactions that could be described as being in "support" of him.) It's very easy to point out that the "wizardchan" community got blasted with threats and harassment in support of Zoe Quinn, as a very pointed example.

Be careful with where you're leading your arguments; argument by association is a very broad brush, and one that could very easily splatter you.

I love the rant about guilt by association, in the same post where you say you complain that Sarkeesian lacks credibility because someone else have made stuff up.

That said, there's no doubt that the threats Sarkeesian has recieved are serious and credible. Both state and federal agencies are taking it very seriously.

[Gravlen]

You'll have to ask the so-called GamerGaters about that. They are the ones claiming it's got nothing to do with either one.

You're the one claiming that GamerGate was orchestrated and organized by a group of key leaders.

Am I? Where?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Are you sure?

I'm very dubious that most of the purported threats:

(A) Are, in fact, credible threats; see here. Sarkeesian et al have a long history of representing things that aren't even threats at all (like "I hope you kill yourself") as if they are credible threats.
... and I also doubt that...
(B) The relatively few exceptions are, in fact, from the people who started the use of the #gamergate tag.
... This is because ...
(C) They are probably from trolls, feminists, pro-feminists, or feminist/pro-feminist trolls. Much like the Emma Watson nude photo leak threat.

EDIT: Now, I do have something rather more important to add as a response to this argument.

This is an argument by association (i.e., a form of ad hominem). Guess what? There are horrible people associated with your side of this loud public argument.. With, for that matter, feminism in general, with feminism as a movement not really doing much to dissociate itself from misandrist nutjobs. (Unlike, say, Zoe Quinn's ex, who has vocally disapproved of some of the more vociferous reactions that could be described as being in "support" of him.) It's very easy to point out that the "wizardchan" community got blasted with threats and harassment in support of Zoe Quinn, as a very pointed example.

Be careful with where you're leading your arguments; argument by association is a very broad brush, and one that could very easily splatter you.

I love the rant about guilt by association, in the same post where you say you complain that Sarkeesian lacks credibility because someone else have made stuff up.

That said, there's no doubt that the threats Sarkeesian has recieved are serious and credible. Both state and federal agencies are taking it very seriously.

Also, it's like they're not reading my posts.

I never said they're guilty by association, but the tag itself and the movement originated from a bad thing and trolls on the internet. I'm not on the side of the big review sites as I think this scandal reveals issues within the gaming review business independently of Quinn, but I'm also making my own voice. I don't need to hide in a group of naive, inexperienced followers to make my voice heard.

[Tahar Joblis]

Good thing I'm not making this a feminist issue now am I?

My point is: the GamerGate tag is tainted with a bad reputation and this isn't so much about a gender issue as much as it is a business issue.

Why is this "tainted with a bad reputation?" Because feminists reflexively group up to defend women under public attack, even if they're not very good people, and because GamerGate is perceived as an attack on Zoe Quinn and other "feminist" figures of the larger gaming scene.

My original point is: if you're going to make this a gender issue go ahead. If you're going to use stupid and controversial labels, go ahead. But don't expect me to look at you with any decorum if you do.

I didn't make this a gender issue.

Zoe Quinn and her defenders worked very hard to make this a gender issue. So did those talking about why Zoe Quinn and the story about her mattered. This is quite visible in the timeline of events. Here's the basic summary.

1. TheZoePost was posted. (8/16).
2. People concerned with indie gaming spread the story, pointing out that who she slept with was related to good press that Depression Quest got in an "incestuous" gaming industry + press.
3. Zoe Quinn & allies actively work to censor this, leading to the term "Quinnspiracy." Those digging back into Quinn's history find a pattern of Quinn using feminism as a shield (which will soon be used to link her to Sarkeesian). This is already (by 8/18 or so) visible as being "about" gender equality in gaming to some degree. E.g., see this chat log. 8-20 article.
4. Once it becomes clear that censorship isn't working, certainly by 8-21 or so, the counter-attack by ZQ & allies describing all of her critics as misogynists is underway.
5. About a week later, we have the entry of Anita Sarkeesian into the fray by announcing herself having been threatened (8-26), followed by the invention of the #GamerGate hashtag (8-27), and a torrent of more mainstream articles, many of which explicitly link the two.

This was a gender issue before it hit NSG.

[Xomic]

That said, there's no doubt that the threats Sarkeesian has recieved are serious and credible. Both state and federal agencies are taking it very seriously.

Isn't it kind of their job to treat these threats, regardless of the their source or validity, as legitimate, serious threats? I mean, the FBI was once caught using a tracking device on a car of a guy due to a blog post his friend made about 'bombs and malls'. They're not exactly trained to be discriminating with their suspicions, or worry too heavily about only pursuing actual threats.

I don't doubt that they're taking it serious, but given the nature of the modern FBI and similar institutes, I'm skeptical if their interest in this matter is proof that it's a legitimate threat in the way you or I might use the term.

[Tahar Joblis]

Are you sure?

I'm very dubious that most of the purported threats:

(A) Are, in fact, credible threats; see here. Sarkeesian et al have a long history of representing things that aren't even threats at all (like "I hope you kill yourself") as if they are credible threats.
... and I also doubt that...
(B) The relatively few exceptions are, in fact, from the people who started the use of the #gamergate tag.
... This is because ...
(C) They are probably from trolls, feminists, pro-feminists, or feminist/pro-feminist trolls. Much like the Emma Watson nude photo leak threat.

EDIT: Now, I do have something rather more important to add as a response to this argument.

This is an argument by association (i.e., a form of ad hominem). Guess what? There are horrible people associated with your side of this loud public argument.. With, for that matter, feminism in general, with feminism as a movement not really doing much to dissociate itself from misandrist nutjobs. (Unlike, say, Zoe Quinn's ex, who has vocally disapproved of some of the more vociferous reactions that could be described as being in "support" of him.) It's very easy to point out that the "wizardchan" community got blasted with threats and harassment in support of Zoe Quinn, as a very pointed example.

Be careful with where you're leading your arguments; argument by association is a very broad brush, and one that could very easily splatter you.

I love the rant about guilt by association, in the same post where you say you complain that Sarkeesian lacks credibility because someone else have made stuff up.

That said, there's no doubt that the threats Sarkeesian has recieved are serious and credible. Both state and federal agencies are taking it very seriously.

There are, to my knowledge, two episodes of threats that law enforcement are interested in.

This is very different from the (A) hundreds of things that Sarkeesian has labeled threat; so far most of the critics have not endorsed those two credible threats (B) but instead, more often, denounced them, in the case of one MRA website all the way to the point of raising a $5,000 bounty for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the perpetrator; and law enforcement has not traced down these threats to discover whether they actually originate from who you're claiming they originate from and not (C) [pro-]feminists / trolls, as has been widely suggested.

Sarkeesian has a long history (A) of claiming that things as threats that are not threats. Sarkeesian has a very real business motive for portraying herself as threatened. I do not feel any particular reason to freight her claims to being threatened with a particularly high level of credibility unless they are independently confirmed (Twitter threat episode, USU threat episode), and with the clear benefit of a false flag operation, I see no reason to believe that the actual sources of the few credible-seeming threats are, in fact, the people she claims are the sources of those credible-seeming threats.

[Tahar Joblis]

That said, there's no doubt that the threats Sarkeesian has recieved are serious and credible. Both state and federal agencies are taking it very seriously.

Isn't it kind of their job to treat these threats, regardless of the their source or validity, as legitimate, serious threats? I mean, the FBI was once caught using a tracking device on a car of a guy due to a blog post his friend made about 'bombs and malls'. They're not exactly trained to be discriminating with their suspicions, or worry too heavily about only pursuing actual threats.

I don't doubt that they're taking it serious, but given the nature of the modern FBI and similar institutes, I'm skeptical if their interest in this matter is proof that it's a legitimate threat in the way you or I might use the term.

Whoever sent a letter to USU faculty threatening to shoot up the place caused, at a minimum, a measure of public distress deserving of some attention.

That doesn't mean the person actually had the means, motive, and opportunity to commit a shooting spree, but it does, IMO, merit attention from law enforcement. And people actively opposed to Anita Sarkeesian actually agree with me on that count.

[Xomic]

Isn't it kind of their job to treat these threats, regardless of the their source or validity, as legitimate, serious threats? I mean, the FBI was once caught using a tracking device on a car of a guy due to a blog post his friend made about 'bombs and malls'. They're not exactly trained to be discriminating with their suspicions, or worry too heavily about only pursuing actual threats.

I don't doubt that they're taking it serious, but given the nature of the modern FBI and similar institutes, I'm skeptical if their interest in this matter is proof that it's a legitimate threat in the way you or I might use the term.

Whoever sent a letter to USU faculty threatening to shoot up the place caused, at a minimum, a measure of public distress deserving of some attention.

That doesn't mean the person actually had the means, motive, and opportunity to commit a shooting spree, but it does, IMO, merit attention from law enforcement. And people actively opposed to Anita Sarkeesian actually agree with me on that count.

Oh, I'm not trying to imply that it somehow doesn't. Death threats should always be taken seriously, which is to say that in this case the FBI and whatever other authorities investigating them in this case (or any other case) are doing their job as their job is meant to be done. My point was more that Gravien appears to be drawing a connection between the authorities treating the threat seriously, and the idea that the threat is genuinely serious. If you receive a death threat, and (I'd assume) you're a moderately public figure, and you report it, the authorities are going to treat it as legitimate and real.

And that's the proper response.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

[redacted]

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Good thing I'm not making this a feminist issue now am I?

My point is: the GamerGate tag is tainted with a bad reputation and this isn't so much about a gender issue as much as it is a business issue.

Why is this "tainted with a bad reputation?" Because feminists reflexively group up to defend women under public attack, even if they're not very good people, and because GamerGate is perceived as an attack on Zoe Quinn and other "feminist" figures of the larger gaming scene.

My original point is: if you're going to make this a gender issue go ahead. If you're going to use stupid and controversial labels, go ahead. But don't expect me to look at you with any decorum if you do.

I didn't make this a gender issue.

Zoe Quinn and her defenders worked very hard to make this a gender issue. So did those talking about why Zoe Quinn and the story about her mattered. This is quite visible in the timeline of events. Here's the basic summary.

1. TheZoePost was posted. (8/16).
2. People concerned with indie gaming spread the story, pointing out that who she slept with was related to good press that Depression Quest got in an "incestuous" gaming industry + press.
3. Zoe Quinn & allies actively work to censor this, leading to the term "Quinnspiracy." Those digging back into Quinn's history find a pattern of Quinn using feminism as a shield (which will soon be used to link her to Sarkeesian). This is already (by 8/18 or so) visible as being "about" gender equality in gaming to some degree. E.g., see this chat log. 8-20 article.
4. Once it becomes clear that censorship isn't working, certainly by 8-21 or so, the counter-attack by ZQ & allies describing all of her critics as misogynists is underway.
5. About a week later, we have the entry of Anita Sarkeesian into the fray by announcing herself having been threatened (8-26), followed by the invention of the #GamerGate hashtag (8-27), and a torrent of more mainstream articles, many of which explicitly link the two.

This was a gender issue before it hit NSG.

Right. And my point is why is everyone drowning into a fucking teacup.

I get gaming reviews need better journalistic standards. The problem seems to be neither of the two sides can't shut up about Quinn. Like I said on a previous post, I'm not for Quinn. If she did what she did or not is irrelevant at this point in time, yet people bring it up as if it earns them any points against feminists, and feminists are right I'm saying that a tag that garners the attention of the authorities isn't worth paying attention to, to which mostly they are right.

Also, you know what the problem is? Your side and their side are both going at it and causing chaos and most o f2f us outside the loop are not paying attention because of all the bullshit being thrown which makes both sides look bad, and those of us who have nothing to do with it are deciding we have better things to worry about than the equivalent of a schoolyard fight.

[Gravlen]

That said, there's no doubt that the threats Sarkeesian has recieved are serious and credible. Both state and federal agencies are taking it very seriously.

Isn't it kind of their job to treat these threats, regardless of the their source or validity, as legitimate, serious threats? I mean, the FBI was once caught using a tracking device on a car of a guy due to a blog post his friend made about 'bombs and malls'. They're not exactly trained to be discriminating with their suspicions, or worry too heavily about only pursuing actual threats.

I don't doubt that they're taking it serious, but given the nature of the modern FBI and similar institutes, I'm skeptical if their interest in this matter is proof that it's a legitimate threat in the way you or I might use the term.

It's the job of the FBI to investigate threats. TJ is saying that Sarkeesian has a tendency to overreact to things that "aren't even threats at all". The FBI thinks this incident qualifies as a threat, and treats it as credible. That's my point. This cannot be ignored as something concocted in the mind of a hysterical feminist.

I don't know if it's a legitimate threat, as in, whether the likelihood of it being carried out was high or not. But that doesn't matter.

[Gravlen]

I love the rant about guilt by association, in the same post where you say you complain that Sarkeesian lacks credibility because someone else have made stuff up.

That said, there's no doubt that the threats Sarkeesian has recieved are serious and credible. Both state and federal agencies are taking it very seriously.

There are, to my knowledge, two episodes of threats that law enforcement are interested in.

This is very different from the (A) hundreds of things that Sarkeesian has labeled threat; so far most of the critics have not endorsed those two credible threats (B) but instead, more often, denounced them, in the case of one MRA website all the way to the point of raising a $5,000 bounty for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the perpetrator; and law enforcement has not traced down these threats to discover whether they actually originate from who you're claiming they originate from and not (C) [pro-]feminists / trolls, as has been widely suggested.

Sarkeesian has a long history (A) of claiming that things as threats that are not threats. Sarkeesian has a very real business motive for portraying herself as threatened. I do not feel any particular reason to freight her claims to being threatened with a particularly high level of credibility unless they are independently confirmed (Twitter threat episode, USU threat episode), and with the clear benefit of a false flag operation, I see no reason to believe that the actual sources of the few credible-seeming threats are, in fact, the people she claims are the sources of those credible-seeming threats.

To be frank, I don't see any reason to waste my time on conspiracy theorists who're blaming the victim and accusing her of criminal acts without a shred of evidence and a whole trainload of assumptions.

[Gravlen]

Why is this "tainted with a bad reputation?" Because feminists reflexively group up to defend women under public attack, even if they're not very good people, and because GamerGate is perceived as an attack on Zoe Quinn and other "feminist" figures of the larger gaming scene.

I didn't make this a gender issue.

Zoe Quinn and her defenders worked very hard to make this a gender issue. So did those talking about why Zoe Quinn and the story about her mattered. This is quite visible in the timeline of events. Here's the basic summary.

1. TheZoePost was posted. (8/16).
2. People concerned with indie gaming spread the story, pointing out that who she slept with was related to good press that Depression Quest got in an "incestuous" gaming industry + press.
3. Zoe Quinn & allies actively work to censor this, leading to the term "Quinnspiracy." Those digging back into Quinn's history find a pattern of Quinn using feminism as a shield (which will soon be used to link her to Sarkeesian). This is already (by 8/18 or so) visible as being "about" gender equality in gaming to some degree. E.g., see this chat log. 8-20 article.
4. Once it becomes clear that censorship isn't working, certainly by 8-21 or so, the counter-attack by ZQ & allies describing all of her critics as misogynists is underway.
5. About a week later, we have the entry of Anita Sarkeesian into the fray by announcing herself having been threatened (8-26), followed by the invention of the #GamerGate hashtag (8-27), and a torrent of more mainstream articles, many of which explicitly link the two.

This was a gender issue before it hit NSG.

Right. And my point is why is everyone drowning into a fucking teacup.

I get gaming reviews need better journalistic standards. The problem seems to be neither of the two sides can't shut up about Quinn. Like I said on a previous post, I'm not for Quinn. If she did what she did or not is irrelevant at this point in time, yet people bring it up as if it earns them any points against feminists, and feminists are right I'm saying that a tag that garners the attention of the authorities isn't worth paying attention to, to which mostly they are right.

Also, you know what the problem is? Your side and their side are both going at it and causing chaos and most o f2f us outside the loop are not paying attention because of all the bullshit being thrown which makes both sides look bad, and those of us who have nothing to do with it are deciding we have better things to worry about than the equivalent of a schoolyard fight.

I mostly agree with you, but the thing is, I feel like I have to pay attention, and not just because we should all care about and stand up against threats, harassment and abuse no matter who the targets of it are. (Unlike TJ, I don't think threats and harassment is justifiable because I think a person is morally bad.) But it's also because the teacup spilling over. It's not just Quinn, Sarkeesian, and Wu, who've been threatened. It's not just limited to them and Jenn Frank, Mattie Brice, and Leigh Aleksander either (I could also mention Adria Richards and Kathy Sierra in the same breath). Other people are being targeted.

A friend of mine works in academia. She's worried, because a friend of hers recieved death threats due to her (of course she was a woman) association with DiGRA. She had written a paper which examined some aspects of gender roles in computer games. That was enough to make her a target.

This doesn't have anything to do with ethics in journalism. If it did, the "movement" would probably have been less unethical and it wouldn't have lashed out against percieved feminists and people arguing for social justice based on those two traits alone. (Not that I think they understand ethics in the first place.) It's more about... well, let me offer a few links I think say it well:

It’s the “War on Christmas,” essentially. (There’s an excellent piece in Deadspin drawing out the parallels between the political and the entertainment-industry culture wars.) It’s the grievance of an identity group, already superserved by the larger culture, outraged that its service has become slightly less super. Their thing used to be the main thing, the default thing, the assumption. And now, if you point out that it is no longer the only thing–as is the case, both in American society and in entertainment–why, you’re persecuting them.

http://time.com/3512896/gamergate-misogyny-men-anita-sarkeesian/

This is a particularly good article:

Reactionaries know they can’t win. Their anger stems from their desperation. Read the #GamerGate tag for a while and realize the obsessive fixation on the “corrupt agenda in the gaming press” is, underneath the anger, fear. For all the damage they do, for all the people they hurt, they’re going to lose. Indeed, to react as they have is to prove that they’ve already lost.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/16/of-gamers-gates-and-disco-demolition-the-roots-of-reactionary-rage.html

For these reasons, and possibly also due to certain right wing elements joining the fray, I think we have to pay attention. And for the sake of ourselves and civil discourse, we should speak out against threatening behaviour when we can. Harassment is not debate. Harassment ends debates. Ever said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? If so, it's time to live up to those words.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I mostly agree with you, but the thing is, I feel like I have to pay attention, and not just because we should all care about and stand up against threats, harassment and abuse no matter who the targets of it are. (Unlike TJ, I don't think threats and harassment is justifiable because I think a person is morally bad.) But it's also because the teacup spilling over. It's not just Quinn, Sarkeesian, and Wu, who've been threatened. It's not just limited to them and Jenn Frank, Mattie Brice, and Leigh Aleksander either (I could also mention Adria Richards and Kathy Sierra in the same breath). Other people are being targeted.

A friend of mine works in academia. She's worried, because a friend of hers recieved death threats due to her (of course she was a woman) association with DiGRA. She had written a paper which examined some aspects of gender roles in computer games. That was enough to make her a target.

This doesn't have anything to do with ethics in journalism. If it did, the "movement" would probably have been less unethical and it wouldn't have lashed out against percieved feminists and people arguing for social justice based on those two traits alone. (Not that I think they understand ethics in the first place.) It's more about... well, let me offer a few links I think say it well:

It’s the “War on Christmas,” essentially. (There’s an excellent piece in Deadspin drawing out the parallels between the political and the entertainment-industry culture wars.) It’s the grievance of an identity group, already superserved by the larger culture, outraged that its service has become slightly less super. Their thing used to be the main thing, the default thing, the assumption. And now, if you point out that it is no longer the only thing–as is the case, both in American society and in entertainment–why, you’re persecuting them.

http://time.com/3512896/gamergate-misogyny-men-anita-sarkeesian/

This is a particularly good article:

Reactionaries know they can’t win. Their anger stems from their desperation. Read the #GamerGate tag for a while and realize the obsessive fixation on the “corrupt agenda in the gaming press” is, underneath the anger, fear. For all the damage they do, for all the people they hurt, they’re going to lose. Indeed, to react as they have is to prove that they’ve already lost.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/16/of-gamers-gates-and-disco-demolition-the-roots-of-reactionary-rage.html

For these reasons, and possibly also due to certain right wing elements joining the fray, I think we have to pay attention. And for the sake of ourselves and civil discourse, we should speak out against threatening behaviour when we can. Harassment is not debate. Harassment ends debates. Ever said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? If so, it's time to live up to those words.

Right, and I agree nobody, and I mean nobody should be subject to threats.

I was subject to threats while I was rallying for immigration reform for daring to paint a picture different from what the public was thinking about illegal immigrants. So I do understand the predicament of threats, perceived or not.

The problematic situation of the people behind the "gamergate" tag is a main issue. Mostly because these people have done threats from the conception of the tag it seems. People who ride on the coattails of it are nothing but sheeple, to me. Now, I am sorry if I am offending anyone present who is part of the movement, but you are doing a disservice to your voices by coming in support for a stupid, useless tag that you don't need to begin with.

Gamergate has proven itself to be a failed movement, and it's about time people in the movement and who are neutral realize that this isn't helping their opinion that there should be better standards for gaming journalism make a case but rather making them look bad and being taken less credibly.

I disagree with TJ in that people deserve threats because they are bad people. If we want to prove we have the moral ground we have to focus on the bigger issue and not be petty criminals by sending threats to people who disagree with us. There is no reason why we should stoop down to someone else's level if we think they're bad, that just makes us as bad as our perceived evil. I'm the first one to say that a display of force and using force are two entirely different things, and displaying force doesn't mean sending out threats. That just reeks of weakness. Threats don't make you have bigger balls (metaphorically) all of a sudden, that just makes you pathetic.

The problem with gamergaters is not that they're not perceiving the big picture, I know some are, but the fact that their group has a bunch of people with the intellectual capacity of five year olds (and I'm not entirely sure, but I think that's an insult to all 5 year olds) is making them look bad. They need to divorce themselves from the tag and the people who are threatening others in order for those of us who are not into any of this to take them seriously. I cannot stress that enough.

I know feminists and other people behind Quinn and supporting her are trying to say that this is a problem, but not a problem to persecute women, and I think this is what deters the gamergaters and the feminists behind this as well, that both are focusing on Quinn, and the focus shouldn't be on Quinn. As long as the focus is on her, this is going to keep attracting misogynistic characters; because who else would capitalize out of making female reviewers and female gamers and game developers look bad than misogynists themselves?

[Gauthier]

Isn't it kind of their job to treat these threats, regardless of the their source or validity, as legitimate, serious threats? I mean, the FBI was once caught using a tracking device on a car of a guy due to a blog post his friend made about 'bombs and malls'. They're not exactly trained to be discriminating with their suspicions, or worry too heavily about only pursuing actual threats.

I don't doubt that they're taking it serious, but given the nature of the modern FBI and similar institutes, I'm skeptical if their interest in this matter is proof that it's a legitimate threat in the way you or I might use the term.

It's the job of the FBI to investigate threats. TJ is saying that Sarkeesian has a tendency to overreact to things that "aren't even threats at all". The FBI thinks this incident qualifies as a threat, and treats it as credible. That's my point. This cannot be ignored as something concocted in the mind of a hysterical feminist.

Like I've said, RapeHerGate is basically Quinn's ex bitching about her online, and then 4chan latching on nursing butthurt grudges because Quinn happened to torpedo their pet Fine Young Capitalists.

I don't know if it's a legitimate threat, as in, whether the likelihood of it being carried out was high or not. But that doesn't matter.

It's obvious the FBI has been infiltrated by penis-hating SJWs. *nod nod*

And as I pointed out so many times despite what the MRAs like to think, the only notable events pertaining to RapeHerGate were threats made to three women and their relatives. No new revelation of journalistic nepotism, just more "bitches ruining gaming" being threatened with rape and/or murder.

[Beta Test]

.

[Gauthier]

How is Gamergate a failure? It's still going strong after two months and it's making progress. It's done much better than #StopGamergate2014, whose popularity was largely inflated by ISIS bots.

Any significant revelations other than Bitching Ruining Gaming threatened with rape and/or murder?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

How is Gamergate a failure? It's still going strong after two months and it's making progress. It's done much better than #StopGamergate2014, whose popularity was largely inflated by ISIS bots.

Certain gamergaters issuing threats, or being put in the spotlight for allegations of threats, don't help their credibility; it rather damages them.

I'm sorry for being so skeptical, but I cannot take seriously people who issue threats to people they are against or put themselves in that sort of vulnerable position. If you want to be seen as people aiming towards something positive you have to weed out the negative and not defend it, it is perhaps the only way people are going to take you seriously.

[Beta Test]

How is Gamergate a failure? It's still going strong after two months and it's making progress. It's done much better than #StopGamergate2014, whose popularity was largely inflated by ISIS bots.

Any significant revelations other than Bitching Ruining Gaming threatened with rape and/or murder?

Mercedes Benz recently pulled out from advertising on Gawker Media because one of their reporters endorsed the bullying of nerds.

[Tahar Joblis]

There are, to my knowledge, two episodes of threats that law enforcement are interested in.

This is very different from the (A) hundreds of things that Sarkeesian has labeled threat; so far most of the critics have not endorsed those two credible threats (B) but instead, more often, denounced them, in the case of one MRA website all the way to the point of raising a $5,000 bounty for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the perpetrator; and law enforcement has not traced down these threats to discover whether they actually originate from who you're claiming they originate from and not (C) [pro-]feminists / trolls, as has been widely suggested.

Sarkeesian has a long history (A) of claiming that things as threats that are not threats. Sarkeesian has a very real business motive for portraying herself as threatened. I do not feel any particular reason to freight her claims to being threatened with a particularly high level of credibility unless they are independently confirmed (Twitter threat episode, USU threat episode), and with the clear benefit of a false flag operation, I see no reason to believe that the actual sources of the few credible-seeming threats are, in fact, the people she claims are the sources of those credible-seeming threats.

To be frank, I don't see any reason to waste my time on conspiracy theorists who're blaming the victim and accusing her of criminal acts without a shred of evidence and a whole trainload of assumptions.

You are posting to support people who believe that there is a conspiracy to silence feminist critics of misogyny, gaming, and misogyny in gaming. Some of whom are holding a victim of domestic abuse at fault for the backlash against his abuser. Many of whom wanted to silence him, and silence anyone else talking about their abusive relationship. You are posting in support of people who participated in a cyberbullying campaign aimed at a community of adult male virgins, and who - after being confronted with the conspicuous lack of any supporting evidence that any member of Wizardchan had ever done anything to Zoe Quinn - still justified doing so based on the theory that Wizardchan deserves any shit that comes their way.

The #1 narrative among people who casually follow this is that it's all Eron's fault for "airing dirty laundry" on a blog. Never mind that he was a victim of abuse, and the "dirty laundry" in question was the litany of personal wrongs done to him by Zoe Quinn.

Or, in other words, you have already been "wasting your time on conspiracy theorists who're blaming victims without a shred of evidence and a whole trainload of assumptions." Wasting your time defending them, that is.

I am not positing that there are massive conspiracies afoot or large numbers of people conspiring secretly to manipulate public opinion. When feminist trolls issued a threat to release Emma Watson nudes, as a false flag, it neither required nor involved large-scale coordination of any kind. Anita Sarkeesian receiving threats that ultimately originate from trolls and/or feminist false flaggers does not require a conspiracy, and only a very small conspiracy would likely be involved. (Anita conspiring with a single confederate, for example.)

The leading... well, out of what you're calling "conspiracy theories" among those who think it's not from one of Anita's opponents think that Anita herself authored it. As I've pointed out, it doesn't even have to be someone working with Anita, or Anita herself, in order for it to be a false flag operation. It just requires a troll with a shitty sense of humor or an insightful, if somewhat evil, feminist.

[Beta Test]

How is Gamergate a failure? It's still going strong after two months and it's making progress. It's done much better than #StopGamergate2014, whose popularity was largely inflated by ISIS bots.

Certain gamergaters issuing threats, or being put in the spotlight for allegations of threats, don't help their credibility; it rather damages them.

I'm sorry for being so skeptical, but I cannot take seriously people who issue threats to people they are against or put themselves in that sort of vulnerable position. If you want to be seen as people aiming towards something positive you have to weed out the negative and not defend it, it is perhaps the only way people are going to take you seriously.

And that's exactly what's happening. 99% of gamergate supporters are horrified by these threats. But the media narrative is that they support it and encourage it.

[Gauthier]

Any significant revelations other than Bitching Ruining Gaming threatened with rape and/or murder?

Mercedes Benz recently pulled out from advertising on Gawker Media because one of their reporters endorsed the bullying of nerds.

And this pertains to gaming journalistic corruption... how?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Certain gamergaters issuing threats, or being put in the spotlight for allegations of threats, don't help their credibility; it rather damages them.

I'm sorry for being so skeptical, but I cannot take seriously people who issue threats to people they are against or put themselves in that sort of vulnerable position. If you want to be seen as people aiming towards something positive you have to weed out the negative and not defend it, it is perhaps the only way people are going to take you seriously.

And that's exactly what's happening. 99% of gamergate supporters are horrified by these threats. But the media narrative is that they support it and encourage it.

Then why are we not hearing any of this?

If gamergaters would come out in public and issue a public apology for certain of their members doing this perhaps people would have more faith in you.

[Beta Test]

Mercedes Benz recently pulled out from advertising on Gawker Media because one of their reporters endorsed the bullying of nerds.

And this pertains to gaming journalistic corruption... how?

It pertains to one of Gamergate's biggest goals; getting advertisers to not involve themselves with the corrupt sites.

[Gravlen]

I mostly agree with you, but the thing is, I feel like I have to pay attention, and not just because we should all care about and stand up against threats, harassment and abuse no matter who the targets of it are. (Unlike TJ, I don't think threats and harassment is justifiable because I think a person is morally bad.) But it's also because the teacup spilling over. It's not just Quinn, Sarkeesian, and Wu, who've been threatened. It's not just limited to them and Jenn Frank, Mattie Brice, and Leigh Aleksander either (I could also mention Adria Richards and Kathy Sierra in the same breath). Other people are being targeted.

A friend of mine works in academia. She's worried, because a friend of hers recieved death threats due to her (of course she was a woman) association with DiGRA. She had written a paper which examined some aspects of gender roles in computer games. That was enough to make her a target.

This doesn't have anything to do with ethics in journalism. If it did, the "movement" would probably have been less unethical and it wouldn't have lashed out against percieved feminists and people arguing for social justice based on those two traits alone. (Not that I think they understand ethics in the first place.) It's more about... well, let me offer a few links I think say it well:

It’s the “War on Christmas,” essentially. (There’s an excellent piece in Deadspin drawing out the parallels between the political and the entertainment-industry culture wars.) It’s the grievance of an identity group, already superserved by the larger culture, outraged that its service has become slightly less super. Their thing used to be the main thing, the default thing, the assumption. And now, if you point out that it is no longer the only thing–as is the case, both in American society and in entertainment–why, you’re persecuting them.

http://time.com/3512896/gamergate-misogyny-men-anita-sarkeesian/

This is a particularly good article:

Reactionaries know they can’t win. Their anger stems from their desperation. Read the #GamerGate tag for a while and realize the obsessive fixation on the “corrupt agenda in the gaming press” is, underneath the anger, fear. For all the damage they do, for all the people they hurt, they’re going to lose. Indeed, to react as they have is to prove that they’ve already lost.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/16/of-gamers-gates-and-disco-demolition-the-roots-of-reactionary-rage.html

For these reasons, and possibly also due to certain right wing elements joining the fray, I think we have to pay attention. And for the sake of ourselves and civil discourse, we should speak out against threatening behaviour when we can. Harassment is not debate. Harassment ends debates. Ever said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? If so, it's time to live up to those words.

Right, and I agree nobody, and I mean nobody should be subject to threats.

I was subject to threats while I was rallying for immigration reform for daring to paint a picture different from what the public was thinking about illegal immigrants. So I do understand the predicament of threats, perceived or not.

The problematic situation of the people behind the "gamergate" tag is a main issue. Mostly because these people have done threats from the conception of the tag it seems. People who ride on the coattails of it are nothing but sheeple, to me. Now, I am sorry if I am offending anyone present who is part of the movement, but you are doing a disservice to your voices by coming in support for a stupid, useless tag that you don't need to begin with.

Gamergate has proven itself to be a failed movement, and it's about time people in the movement and who are neutral realize that this isn't helping their opinion that there should be better standards for gaming journalism make a case but rather making them look bad and being taken less credibly.

I disagree with TJ in that people deserve threats because they are bad people. If we want to prove we have the moral ground we have to focus on the bigger issue and not be petty criminals by sending threats to people who disagree with us. There is no reason why we should stoop down to someone else's level if we think they're bad, that just makes us as bad as our perceived evil. I'm the first one to say that a display of force and using force are two entirely different things, and displaying force doesn't mean sending out threats. That just reeks of weakness. Threats don't make you have bigger balls (metaphorically) all of a sudden, that just makes you pathetic.

The problem with gamergaters is not that they're not perceiving the big picture, I know some are, but the fact that their group has a bunch of people with the intellectual capacity of five year olds (and I'm not entirely sure, but I think that's an insult to all 5 year olds) is making them look bad. They need to divorce themselves from the tag and the people who are threatening others in order for those of us who are not into any of this to take them seriously. I cannot stress that enough.

I know feminists and other people behind Quinn and supporting her are trying to say that this is a problem, but not a problem to persecute women, and I think this is what deters the gamergaters and the feminists behind this as well, that both are focusing on Quinn, and the focus shouldn't be on Quinn. As long as the focus is on her, this is going to keep attracting misogynistic characters; because who else would capitalize out of making female reviewers and female gamers and game developers look bad than misogynists themselves?

I, for one, wish to subscribe to your newsletter.