[ijk]

No, they're primarily picking fights with individuals and systematically distracting everyone from the actual corruption of monied interests. Every so-called ethics issue that GamerGate has highlighted has been a hugely overblown misinterpretation, while several major ethical issues, such as the attempt to tightly control what YouTubers could and could not say about Shadows of Mordor, were ignored by GamerGate.

Major industry organizations have been forced to step up their efforts to protect innocent developers from GamerGate.

I oppose GameGate because:

* Every issue they've brought up has, without exception, been a minor quibble at best and an outright fabrication on the part of GamerGate at worst

* GamerGate has, as a movement, systematically refused to decry the harassment or take any kind of practical steps to curb it

* GamerGate uses charities as cover for their actions, and then DDOS the charities when the charities refuse to be used like that.

* GamerGate is still, as a movement, entirely obsessed with three specific women

* GamerGate uses anonymity for plausible deniability of its celebration of things like developer's dogs dying (multiple instances), SWATing (multiple instances), bomb threats (multiple instances).

[makomk]

> the attempt to tightly control what YouTubers could and could not say about Shadows of Mordor

That story was broken by TotalBiscuit, a prominent YouTube game reviewer who's generally considered to be part of Gamergate by its opponents and has been under attack by them for supporting it for months. (I believe they're currently trying to get his Steam curator privileges pulled for supporting it.) The gaming press didn't even report on it until over a week after it'd already blown up in Gamergate circles, the PR company behind it had apologized and promised not to do it again, and the Youtubers who took the deal had been scrutinized. Even then, I think TB was the main driving force behind them reporting on it.

The whole narrative about Gamergate ignoring it started a while after the gaming press finally reported on it, so about two weeks after GG got those responsible to apologise and back down from their decision. (By which point there wasn't much new GG discussion of it because they'd won and it was old news.)

[Upgrayeddedd]

You know what's really funny? If it really was about three specific women, as you say, then misogyny is automatically ruled out. What is it? Hate of three "specific" women? Or is it hate of all women? Hahaha, you lot are your own worst enemy. BTW we just disagree with them but apparently that is hate these days.

[ijk]

Um, a narrow focus on three women doesn't exclude the possibility that they're generally misogynistic. (And it's an error to reduce "misogyny" to a conscious hatred of women, that's one definition of the word, but not what the word usually means.)

But you go right on saying that, person who made an account to post this one comment.

[commandar]

>GamerGate has, as a movement, systematically refused to decry the harassment or take any kind of practical steps to curb it

As somebody that has watched GG from the outside out of fascination, I don't think this point is true and I think think it points to a broader problem online that I feel is becoming increasingly troubling - a failure to recognize that trolls are attracted to conflict and not necessarily representative of anyone on either side of an issue.

What practical steps to curb the actions of anonymous internet trolls would you have considered sufficient?

[ijk]

Actually policing the movement and coming up with a coherent manifesto would be a good start. There's a lot more they'd have to do, but they've consistently refused to even consider trying it.

[commandar]

This is kind of what I mean. This seems like shifting goal posts to me. They had the whole harassment patrol thing on Twitter which I found sort of silly, personally, but I don't know how that would be described other than an effort of some sort. I certainly wouldn't call it an abject refusal to even try.

Like I said, I think it's a larger problem of shitty behavior on the internet in general, and I don't think anyone has a real solution at this point. I find it unfortunate that people use that behavior as an excuse to talk past each other.

[Karunamon]

As mentioned in my previous post, with citations, this is plainly untrue.

[MrDom]

Read this article and tell me how this is overblown.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/09/17/exposed-the-secre...

[mafribe]

What concrete evidence have you for GG killing dogs, SWATing and bomb threats?

[ijk]

I specifically said celebrating those things; Brianna Wu's dog died of natural causes. It's immensely hard to tie the events to specific people, and by design GamerGate is too slippery to pin an individual's membership or non-membership. But there is undoubtedly involvement by people who solicit an association with the GamerGate movement.

If your anonymous imageboard thread gets regularly co-opted by trolls, maybe they're the real movement and you're the outsider.

Celebrating dogs dying: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/01/brianna-wu-dog_n_62...

http://www.dogster.com/the-scoop/brianna-wu-dog-dies-gamerga...

SWATing: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/13/gamergate-...

http://gawker.com/8channers-sent-cops-to-wrong-house-in-atte...

https://storify.com/a_man_in_black/baphomet

Bomb and Shooting Threats:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/technology/gamergate-women...

http://www.newsweek.com/feminist-video-game-critic-receives-...

http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/anita-sarkeesian-forced-to...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/15...

http://www.engadget.com/2014/09/17/anita-sarkeesian-gdc14-bo...

http://www.cnet.com/news/anita-sarkeesian-cancels-speech-in-...

https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/521072241673379840

http://www.polygon.com/2015/1/15/7551417/nightline-gamergate

http://zennistrad.tumblr.com/post/100805680213/analyzing-the...

Other GamerGate-related information:

http://ohdeargodbees.tumblr.com/post/107838639074/august-nev...

https://pixietalksgamergate.wordpress.com/gamergates-misconc...

https://storify.com/a_man_in_black/there-s-no-money-in-it

https://storify.com/a_man_in_black/gamergate-condones-harass...

https://storify.com/a_man_in_black/how-gamergate-harasses-vi...

https://storify.com/a_man_in_black/why-i-still-oppose-gamerg...

https://storify.com/a_man_in_black/actually-gamergate-is-abo...

http://blip.tv/foldablehuman/s4e7-gamergate-7071206

http://www.zenofdesign.com/gamergate-hits-rock-bottom-keeps-...

[mafribe]

I note that you have not provided a single bit of evidence for GG killing dogs, SWATing and bomb threats. Instead you like to Guardian, WaPo HuffPo etc, desparate publications that are well-known uncritically to print everything that confirms their readership's prejudices.

Indeed you link to Sarkeesian's (or rather Jonathan Mcintosh) Twitter as evidence ... don't you think even random people might find such a source ... how can I put it delicately ... somewhat partial?

Indeed you admit "It's immensely hard to tie the events to specific people". So if it's hard, why do you do it? Given this methodological misinformation that you've carried out, I wonder if you are somebody who has something to hide, has skeletons in his cubboard and throws shade at anyone who challenges the official, mainstream narrative.

Let me close by challenging you again: please present concreat, actionable evidence, usable in a court of justice, that the alleged threats against Sarkeesian, Chelsea Van Valkenburg (aka Zoe Quinn) and John Walker Flynt (aka Brianna Wu) were carried out by who had a substantial GG affiliation.

[ijk]

What, the New York Times wasn't objective enough for you? [1] You prefer the Washington Post? [2]

See, here's the thing: because of the way that GamerGate works, anyone who says that they're part of GamerGate is a part of GamerGate. To use just one example, the shooting threat in Utah was by someone explicitly claiming a link to GamerGate.

(And I never said that GG killed dogs, I said they celebrated the dogs being killed. Which is obvious if you read 8chan at the time.)

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/technology/gamergate-women...

[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/15...

[mafribe]

Regarding "What, the New York Times wasn't objective enough for you?":

You really don't understand (or pretend you don't understand) how modern newspapers work.

1. Newspapers have ideological bias. In terms of domestic news, it's a liberal newspaper, so would automatically add a sexist anti-male spin.

2. Journalists are under heavy deadline pressure and badly paid. Typically most stories in a newspaper like the NYT are slightly edited press releases from some PR agency. The corrupt games journalists who are trying to cover up their wrong doings know this and produce press releases that smear GG, knowing that mainstream news outlets like the NYT will uncritically print them. You only need to look at the Wikipedia article for Chelsea Van Valkenburg (who currently calls herself Zoe Quinn) to see a prime example of a PR-agency hit-piece. Having worked in PR and journalism, I can smell the PR-style writing from a million miles.

3. Newspapers like the NYT are doing financially very badly and are desparate for page-views. And the damsel-in-distress narrative reliably generates such page-views. That's why the likes of Sarkeesian, Chelsea Van Valkenburg (aka Zoe Quinn) and John Walker Flynt (aka Brianna Wu) use them, and that's why the NYTs of this world print them.

Rest assured that the NYT writer responsible for editing the press release you linked to has done no fact-checking of substance.

As to "because of the way that GamerGate works": I'm afraid it's the other way round. Since there is no organisation, no formal membership, everybody can claim to be GG; moreover, Sarkeesian, Chelsea Van Valkenburg (aka Zoe Quinn) and John Walker Flynt (aka Brianna Wu) et al and their friends have strong financial incentives to run false flag operations, see their Kickstarters and Patreons and media adulation. So the only reasonable default assumption must be that they are running false flags. This default assumption should only be reversed in the presence of concrete, actionable evidence that would work in a court of law. So far none of this has been forthcoming.

I would also like to point out that the police clearly doesn't take these claims seriously, for otherwise we'd probably have seen some people being arrested or charged. After all anonymity on the internet is hard these days, and beyond the abilities of most.

[mafribe]

Some interesting speculation about branding and hoaxing that are pertinent here: http://valleywag.gawker.com/the-shanley-show-was-the-whole-t... .