Politics On gender politics

Here's a rundown of #gamergate from an organization with paid fact checkers:
Zoe Quinn’s Depression Quest - The New Yorker

 

Given the heaping pile of shit that the Internet tends to breed, I am more likely trust the New Yorker than the myriad of tales coming from other members of this board.

See also the level of attack on Feminist Frequency.

 

Yes. Especially when the member's links are evidence only of confirmation bias.

 

That member isn't incorrect that there are many people who are angry with the harassment. Many who have used some ludicrous posts to rant. Of the handful I sampled, they were general rants rather than very specific attack. This is a difference between shouting into the wind (Gamergate people are like ISIS) and sending a direct message (You deserve to be raped).

My point is, there are many misguided rants that fall anywhere on the spectrum. It appears that the only direct threats are happening to people such as Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian.

I'm not surprised it's happening, just that it is happening with such defensive ferocity.

 

Correction, here's a patently and demonstrably false smear piece by someone with direct financial ties to a corrupt journalist who was directly proven to be taking bribes from Zoe Quinn's PR agent. For example right in the first paragraph he quotes alleged threats made against Zoe Quinn. In reality that one post had sixteen direct replies telling that person to fuck off and suggesting that it was likely a false-flag post. The next paragraph talks about doxxing. You know, that thing Zoe has repeatedly done to other people including a 14 year old transgender child.

Amazing how direct evidence from screenshots, timestamps, and hearing straight from the organizations involved (up to and including a police department) are all "evidence only of confirmation bias" but an article by someone with financial incentive to lie about this, an article which is proven to be false by hard evidence, is perfectly legitimate.

That's beyond pathetic as a rationalization, and should be embarassing to you twice over. Once because that very image includes a direct message, and another because many of those are direct attacks. Like for example the SJW calling black developers house niggers and multiple black developers being specifically targeted for sustained harassment and abuse. These are the people you're defending. People who doxx and threaten a 14 year old transgender child, scream racial slurs at minorities that disagree with them, and defraud multiple charities even going so far as to doxx and DDOS a radical feminist charity to fund female game developers.

Let me repeat that last one for you: You, oh great champions of feminism, are siding with racist transphobic misogynists who tried to shut down a feminist charity. And to back this up you're ignoring actual direct firsthand evidence in favor of a completely uncited and demonstrably false story from someone with direct financial and political ties to one of the involved parties.

I've spent three 10+ page threads arguing against feminism and yet I'm siding with a group of radfems. You on the other hand have such an absolutely blind need to oppose me that you will betray the very feminists you defend so strongly, siding with people that scream racial slurs at minorities and threaten children, just for the sake of telling me I'm wrong.

If you want confirmation bias look at yourselves. You're so blind to anything that contradicts your prejudices that you just backstabbed feminists so you could continue insisting I'm wrong.

 

Nobody gives enough if a shit about gaming for the conspiracy necessary to drive gamergate to actually exist. Really. Gamergate is practically some Watergate level shit. It strains credulity. There's a lot of heat, but very little light.

In terms of evidence,
I'll take the work of actual journalists over the work of kinds of folks who repeatedly misidentified innocent people as being the Boston marathon bombers.

 

In other words you flat out admit that your confirmation bias is so strong that you will refuse direct firsthand evidence purely because it doesn't agree with your prejudices, even though it means you are now directly opposing feminists and siding with people who threaten children and sling racial slurs at minorities that disagree with them.

Right because we can trust "actual journalists" to report honestly on the fact that their own corruption. It's not like they haven't already been proven by objective evidence to be flat out lying about basically everything.

 

So you think The New Yorker is a corrupt organization?

 

I think that by definition the act of writing proven lies in order to defend people he has financial ties to makes the author a corrupt journalist.

 

So The New Yorker has a financial incentive to lie about this? I'm pretty sure they employ fact checkers. How many fact checkers are employed by the anonymous people whose insinuations you link to?

 

Let's count the dishonest and disengenuous tactics you're using:

1. You keep saying "The New Yorker", deliberately misrepresenting what I said and ignoring that I'm discussing a specific employee OF the New Yorker.
2. You keep saying "fact checkers". The entire point is that journalists are ignoring the facts, and I have already provided proof this very article is one of them.
3. You keep ignoring or misrepresenting the direct firsthand proof I've provided as "insinuations".

And just to remind everyone watching of the irony a reminder that I'm currently standing side by side with RadFems right now and you're standing side by side with racists who threaten children.

 

You are mischaracterizing.

 

Zoe Quinn retweeting offers to pay people in demo codes if they'll post false-flag racism and threats to her under the #gamergate tag.

 

You're not very good at hipster, irony are you?
If you read the posts and the follow the threads the whole point of it was she was making fun of the idea that she would be doing such a thing.
Of course, I guess that kind of back fires on her because now people have something to use to prove that she did even if it was after the supposed point ...

I think Jim Sterling has a good take on journalism side of this.

On Game Journalism Corruption | Jimquisition Video Gallery | The Escapist

 

^^^^^ This is the type of context that gamergate sweeps aside in favor of self righteous rage.

 

The "context" of passing off retweeting a serious offer that many people took up by having someone else completely make up the excuse that it's "being ironic"? The sheer absurdity of this boggles my mind. Redravin literally just made that up and you're claiming somehow that's proof that #gamergate is "sweeping aside" context? I mean shit if that's how this works I can end this entire thread right now and claim that everything you're doing is "irony" and you all secretly agree with me. Boom. See how easy that was?

This false narrative is, again, exactly why thousands upon thousands of women and minorities took it upon themselves to tweet they were #notyourshield to journalists. So on the one hand we have predominately white male SJW journalists writing hit-pieces proven to be full of lies about #gamergate, and on the other hand we have thousands upon thousands of women and minorities telling those journalists to stop using them as a shield against criticism.

Yknow I'm gonna side with the people that raised $65,000 for a feminist charity instead of the people calling the first group "house ni**ers", doxxing and threatening children, and paying people to tweet racial slurs and astroturfed "threats".