| Off Topic > Off Topic |
| Can someone explain gamergate to me in the simplest way possible |
| << < (4/7) > >> |
| -Jetz-:
--- Quote from: Kringleberg on November 21, 2017, 09:38:27 AM ---Can someone explain to me what the forget is a gamerghazi --- End quote --- https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/ Was originally the anti-GamerGate subreddit. Now it's more general in focus. This pinned thread from the shared mod account summarizes the place pretty well. --- Quote from: Conan on November 21, 2017, 12:26:40 PM ---is there any comprehensive rebuttal anywhere? there's a lot of sources pointing to evidence that the thing was more about harassment than actual gaming journalism ethics. --- End quote --- Don't know of anything specifically against the Wikipedia article, but KiA is the general hub for pro-GamerGate stuff nowadays. They keep a bunch of articles here. Obviously their collection is a bit biased too but if you want the other side, there it is. |
| Conan:
--- Quote from: beachbum111111 on November 21, 2017, 12:32:55 PM ---Yeah all those sources are the same sites that were being accused of corruption. Really makes you think. --- End quote --- reminds me of the current political landscape.... '-_- i'd think that evidence that there was a significantly larger amount of harassment compared to actual ethics discussion is indisputable though. and thats a lot of news outlets that would have to be corrupted for this whole thing to happen. but fair enough i guess. --- Quote from: -Jetz- on November 21, 2017, 12:57:33 PM ---https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/ Was originally the anti-GamerGate subreddit. Now it's more general in focus. This pinned thread from the shared mod account summarizes the place pretty well. Don't know of anything specifically against the Wikipedia article, but KiA is the general hub for pro-GamerGate stuff nowadays. They keep a bunch of articles here. Obviously their collection is a bit biased too but if you want the other side, there it is. --- End quote --- 1) lol, not gonna get much productive conversation out of accusing all white people for being tribal. looks like it devolved to general sjw stuff as you said 2) thanks. seems like badspots post is probably the most unbiased response that covers both sides of the issue that you can get, given from a cursory reading of the stuff on the page. could have mentioned the harassment campaign though. |
| Badspot:
The harassment campaign is largely fictional and just used to try and gain points. There was a literal FBI investigation into gamergate and they found no actionable evidence of threats or harassment. Here's an example of what we're dealing with here: August 27th 2014, Anita Sarkeesian tweets a picture of some alleged harassment she received from an egg account. Note the absence of the gamergate hashtag and the obsession with blood drinking - this is probably a response to Anita's recent (at the time) criticisms of twilight. October 30th, 2017, NBC News uses these tweets in their insane propaganda video How Gamers Are Facilitating The Rise Of The Alt-Right - except they photoshopped #gamergate onto them. The tweets were made before the hashtag was even coined. Straight up fabricated evidence from a national news network. This is just the most recent example and we're lucky that there is clear evidence here. There's an avalanche of false attacks that are given main stream attention. Hell even in this example, look at the quasi flattering tone of some of the tweets - even odds that it's a false flag. The thing is if you run a news story about a real person and accuse them of doing stuff they didn't do, they can sue you. But if it's not a real person, there's no legal danger. So if you see a news story where there's no use of the word "allegedly" or "according to soandso" and they're just reciting a story as fact, it's probably fake. |
| St. Francis Xavier:
--- Quote from: Badspot on November 21, 2017, 05:11:19 PM ---The harassment campaign is largely fictional and just used to try and gain points. There was a literal FBI investigation into gamergate and they found no actionable evidence of threats or harassment. Here's an example of what we're dealing with here: August 27th 2014, Anita Sarkeesian tweets a picture of some alleged harassment she received from an egg account. Note the absence of the gamergate hashtag and the obsession with blood drinking - this is probably a response to Anita's recent (at the time) criticisms of twilight. October 30th, 2017, NBC News uses these tweets in their insane propaganda video How Gamers Are Facilitating The Rise Of The Alt-Right - except they photoshop #gamergate onto them. The tweets were made before the hashtag was even coined. Straight up fabricated evidence from a national news network. This is just the most recent example and we're lucky that there is clear evidence here. There's an avalanche of false attacks that are given main stream attention. Hell even in this example, look at the quasi flattering tone of some of the tweets - even odds that it's a false flag. The thing is if you run a news story about a real person and accuse them of doing stuff they didn't do, they can sue you. But if it's not a real person, there's no legal danger. So if you see a news story where there's no use of the word "allegedly" or "according to soandso" and they're just reciting a story as fact, it's probably fake. --- End quote --- Anita Sarkeesian is even more demon-possessed than Hillary Clinton |
| Conan:
thanks for the clarification |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |