Felicia Day And Gamergate: This Is What Happens Now

Felicia Day And Gamergate: This Is What Happens Now

Earlier this week, Felicia Day wrote a blog post. In it, the well-known actor eloquently expressed something that a great number of people in the video game scene have been feeling lately: She said she was afraid.

Shortly after publishing, some people posting in her comments section, one under the name "Gaimerg8", doxxed her, sharing what they claimed was her home address. In the space of an hour, video gaming's current culture of fear presented itself in microcosm.

"I have been terrified of inviting a deluge of abusive and condescending tweets into my timeline," Day wrote, citing the one instance where she replied supportively to a harassment victim on Twitter only to get a flood of harassment in response. She worried that in being critical of the tactics employed by Gamergate supporters, she would draw their attention and see those tactics employed on herself.

That Day's fears were so swiftly proven right is the most obvious story here, and the headline writes itself: "Felicia Day Says She's Afraid of Gamergate, Immediately Gets Doxxed." But the fears themselves are noteworthy for reasons other than the dispiriting, seemingly inevitable attack that came in the wake of their expression.

Day's post left me feeling incredibly sad. It resonated with me on a couple of different levels: That we increasingly think of fellow gamers as people to suspect and fear. That the art form that brought us together now feels like something that divides us. That we no longer feel safe online. And most of all, that we are afraid, and that we can be so hard on ourselves for being afraid.

When talking about how she hadn't addressed Gamergate up to this point, Day wrote the following:

I have had stalkers and restraining orders issued in the past, I have had people show up on my doorstep when my personal information was HARD to get. To have my location revealed to the world would give a entry point for a few mentally ill people who have fixated on me, and allow them to show up and make good on the kind of threats I've received that make me paranoid to walk around a convention alone. I haven't been able to stomach the risk of being afraid to get out of my car in my own driveway because I've expressed an opinion that someone on the internet didn't agree with.


I have allowed a handful of anonymous people censor me. They have forced me, out of fear, into seeing myself a potential victim.

And that makes me loathe not THEM, but MYSELF.

I know that fear, and the self-loathing that comes with it. That probably sounds silly, since I get basically no flak from anyone about Gamergate. There's a reason for that, however: The main reason I don't catch shit about Gamergate is that I rarely say anything about it in public.

I keep quiet for a number of reasons, but it's primarily out of fear. Fear of uttering an opinion only to be sea lioned into circular debates that feel engineered more to exhaust than to enlighten. Fear that the fact that I briefly backed Zoe Quinn's Patreon for a total of $US10 might be used as an excuse to make me into the movement's next punching bag. Fear of being targeted, or of my family being targeted. And so I keep quiet.

You can't talk about Gamergate. That's the first rule of Gamergate. If you talk about it, particularly if you're critical of it, you better watch your back. You will be attacked. It remains to be seen how intense the attack will be, or what form it will take, but rest assured, it will happen. I'll be attacked for publishing this article.

It will be worse if you're a woman. That's the second rule of Gamergate. If you are a woman and you talk about Gamergate, particularly if you're critical of it, you better really watch your back. I'll be attacked for publishing this article, but I won't get it half as bad as I would if I were a woman.

"We are harassed too!" Gamergaters say. I have no doubt that's the case, and that sucks too. But while I happily echo my boss Stephen's repeated calls for across-the-board de-escalation, I must also acknowledge the truth that's apparent to anyone paying attention: This is not an equal thing. This is not a case of saying "both sides have it rough" and walking away, shaking our heads. As former NFL punter Chris Kluwe demonstrated this week with his scathing attack on Gamergate and subsequent total lack of doxxing, when a prominent man speaks critically about Gamergate, he can do so without worrying for his safety, despite calling the movement's followers "slackjawed pickletits." But when a prominent woman speaks about Gamergate with even a fraction of Kluwe's fire, the response is immediate and overwhelming: She is threatened, insulted, and attacked by dozens if not hundreds of different voices, on every platform available. Even a post as measured and personal as Day's is the target of immediate hostility. That it feels somehow risky to state what is so plainly obvious to any casual observer is surely one of Gamergate's most noteworthy aspects.

It makes sense that doxxing — sharing someone's address and other personal information against their will — is one of the primary instruments wielded in this battle. Doxxers use identity as a weapon, and so much of this conflict is, at its core, about identity. There's the stated claim that the gamer identity is under attack, and also the pervading sense that this "war" is less about journalistic ethics and more about the murk of entrenched identity politics. Video games have hugely informed our generation's cultural identity, and so cultural criticism of games feels somehow personal, like we're the ones being criticised. I get it. I do.

I also hear the arguments of more reasonable Gamergate supporters, and I take them seriously. Some of the movement's supporters have valid complaints, like the not-incorrect notion that some video game publications don't always seem to be looking out for their readers, or the sense that some developers in the indie game scene are too buddy-buddy with the reporters who cover them. But again and again, I come back to the fear. The fear is inescapable.

People are terrified of Gamergate. It's what made that Onion article from earlier this week so funny: "Look this whole thing over and tell us if there's anything we should change," they implored Gamergate supporters at the end of the article. "Email all of your demands to [email protected] We'll get on it right away. Please don't hurt us."

Of course people are terrified. They have read the forums, where hateful sexist and transphobic slurs are tossed around like it's nothing, where women targets are given code names and insane conspiracy theories and militaristic jargon sit side by side with voices impotently urging for calm. They have seen the Twitter reply-feeds of the women (and men) who speak out against Gamergate.

They see all that and are frightened, as well they should be. Gamergate has become defined by fear, and that fear is not going away, because no one has the power to make it go away. Gamergate may have a logo and a mascot, but it has no leader, and as a result its many supporters can remain unaccountable for any actions they deem the work of fringe extremists. The movement's moderates can repeatedly disavow harassment — as some did in the aftermath of Day's doxxing — and chide those who go too far for hurting the cause. Yet it is difficult to submerge oneself in the anger and hate-speech coursing through so many GG forums and online discussions without feeling like it is an unseverable element of the movement.

There is more fear in video games today than there was yesterday, and unless something changes, there will be more next week than there was today. If another woman receives death threats tomorrow, there will be more headlines, more disavowal from outspoken Gamergate supporters, more inarguable claims that this goes both ways. We have arrived at a plateau of awfulness, and it sure doesn't feel like things are going to relax anytime soon.

Can there be any denying that one fundamental truth? That women like Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Leigh Alexander, Brianna Wu, and countless less-visible others are living in fear while bearing an immense amount of harassment? That dissent's swift, terrifying reprisal has become an inevitability, that we now exist under a perpetual fog of paranoia and fear? One has only to look at what happened to Felicia Day to know that no, there cannot.

This week, a prominent woman in games talked about Gamergate. She said she wished things weren't the way they are, that she was afraid and didn't want to be. The attack that followed said it plain as day: You should be afraid. This is what happens now. This is what happens when you speak up.

And it is. It really, really is.


    I'm sick of hearing about this, these people making threats and posting personal information need to Fuck right off and stop ruining these peoples lives and the reputation of gamers.

      Can we start harassing the harassers? Is that not a potential response? They act all high and mighty and think they're the shit, maybe it's time to put these little bastards under the same harassment they threaten others with and watch the pricks squirm.

        The DOXXing thing would appear to be a powerful tool. I wouldn't advocate harassment as tempting as it is, or leaking credit card details and especially sensitive data, but taking away the anonymity of these troglodytes would likely send many of them packing.

        Last edited 27/10/14 12:22 pm

          Honestly, I think these Doxxers themselves being Doxxed then arrested for sending death threats and invasion of privacy, might shut these jerks up. At the moment they are anonymous and free from consequences.

          These people harassing Felicia Day wouldn't have the balls to try and do it in person at PAX or Comicon because they'd have to face security guards and hundreds of angry fans.

            But then what about when someone disagrees with you doxxing the doxxers and doxxes you in a sense of self righteous justice? Do they then get doxxed too equally?

            CHRIST the word doxxed is frakkin ridiculous.


        I am pro-gamergate, i agree whole-heartedly with you that these people are tasteless and crude. However, a more effecient way to do about it is flag and report. Get the user banned, hell get the fbi involved, and school these pricks on the lesson of consequences. But i must point out that it has been proven that such threats are generated by 3rd party trolls such as GNAA and such, just fanning the flames and making it impossible for rational conversations.

      WTF even is Gamergate...? I seemed to miss the memo, now all I hear is "don't talk about it" and it's some massive issue but I don't even know what the issue is.

        Some people claim Gamergate is about Ethics in Game Journalism.

        I'm yet to see any attempts at this, it seems to be mostly about unethical treatment of people who they identify as enemies of gaming most of who appear to be women who don't review games.

        We are told that these unethical Trolls are the minority of Gamergate but they are the vocal minority of crackpots, freaks and weirdos who make any sane member or associate of this movement look bad.

      Indeed, and quite frankly, Felicia Day, and all she has accomplished for gaming, is worth the entire odious pile of vomit comprising these self delusional, immature and sexist little mouse farts...

    I still don't understand what on earth gamergate is about.

    I thought it was about how all these gaming websites and journalists are in collusion with Devs. Now it's some violent anti-woman thing?

    Then there's the whole, where is this happening? I keep seeing it mentioned but no idea if this really is a thing, except maybe for a tiny small amount of people who think their circle on the internet is the whole internet.

    Last edited 25/10/14 2:41 pm

      Agreed, I thought this was just about collusion and making sure that reviews were truthful. Making sure that the best product was reviewed and marketed and that gamers got a fair run.
      I didn't know it was about harassing individuals with a bloody opinion. Is that where we are now? A thought police-type, fear-inducing social subset that uses information as power to silence those who speak up? It's bloody pathetic.

      Don't try and minimise this. This happens constantly, all over the internet. I mean it's even a problem on Kotaku, since articles like this usually garner about 50 percent dumbass sexist remarks. Then there's the people like you, who think because something hasn't directly affected them, it doesn't really affect anyone. Well guess what? This is a thing that is happening. It doesn't matter if any of these women has made a video that people disagree with, it doesn't matter if any of these women questioned the ideals of the gamergate movement. What matters is that the gamergate movement appears to be wholly dedicated to harassing and victimising women. So screw them, and screw anyone dumb enough to suggest that Sarkeesian or Day had anything at all to do with the harrasment they have recieved.

        Being this hostile towards someone who isn't opposing you isn't helpful. He's just asking how it got from where it started to where it is. He's asking why it seems like we're being told this is everywhere, the streets of gaming are apparently running thick with blood, yet a lot of us never come into contact with it. It's a pretty valid question if you don't use the relevant social media websites. I've never run into Gamergate while playing games, so why should I expect every gamer to know about it and weigh in on the right side?

          Gamergate is (as the suffix suggests) a political scandal in the gaming world. It was revealed that some 'well known' game journalists were sleeping with Indie Game Award officials. Further analysis revealed collusion between these people and notable game journalist sites and companies.

          This has caused a 4-chan esqe. backlash from the gaming community who feel violated by supposedly trustworthy representatives; the natural outlet for this anger fell on the journalists and companies involved. Unfortunately for the journalist the corporations have the power to spin their involvement away by shifting attention towards women bashing; neatly dodging the original scandal of corruption and collusion within digital media.

            Except the whole point of Gamergate leaders is to dismiss any game made by a woman that gets good reviews, saying that they must have slept with the reviewer, cos clearly a woman couldn't make a good game.
            The whole point of Gamergate is to assume that every article by a woman gaming journalist must be bad.
            The whole point of Gamergate is to dismiss any request for respect and equality for women as man-hating militant femenism.
            If you are for Gamergate, then you are against equality and respect for women, because this is what the message of Gamergate is.

        This sort of sickening hostility over alternating viewpoints is at the meat of the whole debacle. It's obviously displayed more on one side than the other but it doesn't change the fact that anyone can act like an ass.


        There's a problem but I don't like how people are trying to maximise it.

      if you want to catch up on whats been happening then hee is a 13 min video that includes all sources https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEMdf8D0lfw

        I wish everyone would see this, get their facts straight then the media just stop floggin it. I only want the media to stop in the hope that this new group of thugs just loose interest and women caught up in it can start being a voice again.

        That may have been the intention, at some point Storm, but this is more descriptive of what is actually happening...


        Last edited 25/10/14 3:29 pm

        Thankyou for linking this as I've been trying to find a video like this going through the events of Gamergate, yet I would just find things that went on and on about Zoe Quinn.


        Might want to check out that link. If refutes an awful lot of stuff that video claims (and the quote from the guy in the video that "corruption is near impossible in a free market" is incredibly naive).

        For a movement that claims to be about ethics in journalism, it doesn't seem to be paying much attention to the big players in the industry. The movement hasn't scrutinized EA, Activision, Ubisoft or any of the other big publishers who spend millions on advertising on game websites (I personally remember Call of Duty winning Gametrailer's GoTY award while the site was plastered with CoD advertising), but instead focused on an indie dev who made a free game. And, by way of MASSIVE coincidence, just so happened to be a feminist.

        It's also claimed that GamerGate stands for "free and open discourse", yet they've tried to punish websites for writing articles that they don't agree with. It's not free and open discourse when you try to punish someone for having a different opinion to yours.

          One of the mantras I'm seeing Gaters use on social media is "do some research", particularly on FB and Twitter in response to their opponents before posting a link to some crappy "all you need to know about G-G8 in 60 seconds" or "this is all you need to understand gamergate" videos. These are usually links to some crank's opinion/conspiracy theories, full of conjecture, already debunked claims and almost never provides actual verifiable data.

          This link neogaf link @Scruffy has posted actually cuts through pretty much all the Gater claims that have been using to distract their opponents and debunks the BS around the terrible behaviour of Gaters using actual, verifiable data from credible sources! Note when I say credible, it's not based on my opinion (ie, that I agree with them, or something), but because the sources use reasoned analysis that can be verified, unlike the usual Gater sources that peddle the same already debunked or single source (ie, personal opinion pieces) examples, like, say that of a jilted ex, who's credibility is clearly compromised.

          This Neogaf link is kryptonite to the Gater faithful!

          ps, Make no mistake, Lionel Hutz may have said "hearsay and conjecture are kinds of evidence", but they're not, and have no place in any reasoned debate.

            All the negative aspects of gamergate are easily explained:


        I am now caught in the biggest internet rabbit hole ever. Cheers :P

        I cannot make up my mind at the best of times, and I could empathize with the proverbial devil, so at the moment, my brain is in overdrive. Thanks @stormageddon - @scruffy - @mikeockertz

        I'm about to lose my entire morning :)

      At face value it's meant to be about how games journalism is extremely corrupt, however the incident that it mostly stems from/caused it to grow huge regards a female game developer having sex with male reporters who later down the track reviewed her game (I think a link between the two events has been proven false). For that reason it's a magnet for people who essentially hate women in games because they see them as vile seductresses sleeping their way to the top.
      It has a lot of support from people who aren't assholes too. Afterall it's quite valid to say that reviews in the gaming media are rendered almost useless due to how much power publishers have over the review process. It's a sham, but frankly everybody knows that already. Publishers and fanboys are the only people who still care about review scores.
      Also given how often women are presented to gamers as a pair of boobs that will make us desperate, pathetic losers buy whatever is being sold it's only natural there's some resentment towards the idea that someone got ahead by sleeping with people because it means there's a little truth to it. It's not actually far removed from the anti-booth babe attitude popularised by PAX.

      However that said it's like joining the Klan because it used to also be about good values and community. If you consider yourself pro-Gamergate you're either a jerk or Gamergate doesn't mean what you want it to. If you really want to stick with the idea behind what you believe Gamergate is create a new thing that actually describes itself rather than just using the laziest scandal name ever (anything-gate).

      Last edited 25/10/14 2:30 pm

        Yeah, those claims about about Zoe Quinn have all been demonstrably proven false.

        It's all right here:

          Wow that conveniently leaves out the Fine Young Capitalists incident......

            Down voted because that didn't happen or because its an inconvenient truth?

          The information in there is handy but it's delivery is very slanted for a 'just the facts' rebutal. To the point where it actually starts to impact it's credibility. It links to plenty of sources but the entire thing is written in a way that I wouldn't be shocked to discover it left out key pieces of information the author deemed distracting. According to this nobody in Gamergate ever got even a single thing right. That's a bit strange considering we all know that there is quite an unhealthy relationship between publishers and the gaming media.
          It's written in a way that will never change the mind of someone identifying as part of Gamergate. It seems more interested in telling me I'm right for being on it's side than educating people. That's a real shame because this situation needs more reliable hard facts from trustworthy sources.

          It also does that thing people dealing with Anon do where it treats Gamergate as one single hive mind, with a strict command structure, a well organised group of followers, a master plan and speaking only in pre-approved press releases.
          As a result the author really seems to think they've caught Gamergate out by saying it's mainly attacking women who aren't even journalists. Of course the main targets of Gamergates abuse are Anita and Zoe. People like @stormageddon up there aren't resorting to that sort of verbal abuse and harrassment. The worst they're doing is calling out individual people for things that may be as accurate as they think. The only people jumping to extremely abusive behaviour are the ones who signed up to Gamergate because they saw it as a platform they could launch abuse at women from (a lot of them signed up specifically to continue existing campaigns against Anita).



          What people are doing right here is the heart of the issue on both sides.

          They're claiming 'proof' supports their point of view and 'linky to some website SEE THIS MEANS IT IS TRUE'.

          Here's some truth. Zoe Quinn is not a particularly *nice* person. A scan of her social media activities in recent years shows this. That is a fact, recorded and open viewing. It's pretty obvious that her self-admitted mental illnesses cause her to act in ways damaging to herself and others. This is not exactly surprising.

          Does that mean she should suffer any abuse whatsoever? Hell no.

          But people trying to martyr her on one side and crucify her on the other are the crux of the matter, conflating ideological arguments with factual evidence.

          Zoe Quinn is a disturbed person who should be spending her time getting therapy not being used as a figurehead for an internet 'crusade'. The people using her to advance their views are hurting her, but they just don't get it.

          She suffers significant mental illness. She was catapulted into the spotlight unpleasantly. Not healthy.

          Keeping it going on and on and on and on is just doing her - and people like her - more damage.

          When this is all over, and the hardcore neckbeards bugger off back to their basements, the hardcore internet 'feminists' find a new cause to exercise their insecurities through, and games 'journalists' go back to recycling content for clicks without a care in the world, Zoe Quinn will be paying the price for it.

          This farce has exposed real issues that need to be dealt with, starting with vile misogyny at the top of the list.

          But people need to be more responsible and mature about how they want to try and tackle these problems.

            I don't understand how Zoe Quinn can be held up as all that is wrong in gaming?

            She made a game about having Depression, which for people dealing with Depression or people dealing with people who have Depression can play to gain insight into Depression and she gives the thing away for free.

            The game is not for everyone. It's for a very small group of people trying to cope with a suffocating problem like Depression.

              I assume you are not replying to me as your post has nothing to do with what I said.

              But I will field it anyway.

              She is not an example of all that is wrong. She provides a target for a lot of what is wrong, certainly, so in that sense she has helped shine a light on the cockroaches.

              As my post says, the most important thing about Zoe Quinn is a discussion about how poorly our society handles people with mental illness, alongside the misogyny issues.

                I think I was replying to somebody else to be honest but it's been one of those days where I have to get up every minute and solve some other problem... And I'm not at work! Perhaps I meant to reply to somebody talking about Zoe Quinn, got up looked for the post found yours and went aha.

          What about Grayson being in the Thank You notes for Depresion quest since Feb2013?


      I think the gaming journalism sites wanted it to be something else so they have spinned it as best they can.

      Time to set myself as a target, through an attempted explanation that uses humour:

      John was sad and drunk, telling the bar why he was so sad...
      I wrote three best-selling novels. Do they call me John the writer? No.
      I won three Olympic gold medals. Do they call me John the athlete? No.
      BUT - I fucked ONE GOAT, and what do they call me...?

      There may be dozens of Gamergate people with a valid point, and a proper attitude to women. BUT you only need ONE "Gaimerg8" and the whole mob are permanently tainted. You could make a similar comparison to mainstream conservative Muslims, tainted by the terrorist acts of an extreme minority.

      How do you target the extreme minority, without also impacting the larger community? if the FBI could identify the identity of gaimerg8 I would expect charges of committing a terrorist act would hold up, but leaking private information should allow computer hacking / privacy invasion charges to stand.

        And the SJW doxxers? charges for them? Like in this rather amusing example:


      I think that's one of the big issues with gamergate, that no one really knows what it's about

    I've never actually figured out what Felica actually does in the industry.

      She has an enormous youtube channel that covers videogames, tabletop games, TCG, literature, and other massive swathes of geek culture. She's actually fairly relevant.


      Last edited 25/10/14 5:43 pm

        Oh. So nothing that actually has to do with the industry then.

          She also does voicework. And if you're implying that she can't have an opinion about all this because she has "nothing that actually has to do with the industry", then by that same logic, about 99% of the people constantly going on about this Gamergate bullshit should just shut up about it too.

    Great article, Kirk. I feel this fear too. I haven't spoken up because I don't want to be a target and I'm just a guy with no high profile or any thing to lose. I think folks like us who are staying quiet and are feeling this fear are the key. We need to speak up. We need to tell them it's not okay. People who don't look like their 'enemy'. Everyone needs to speak up.

    This whole thing is ridiculous. What should have been a questioning of games journalism ethics has devolved into this..

      As pointed out by the Neogaf thread, the whole journalism ethics angle is a thinly veiled cover for misogyny. This quote sums it up nicely:

      "The main target of #GamerGate is not a journalist. She’s a video game developer. Holding her accountable for “ethics in journalism” is like telling your accountant that it’s his job to negotiate peace treaties in the Middle East."

        The main target of #GamerGate is not a journalist. She’s a video game developer.

        I think that was exactly what @croze was saying.

        Edit: I'm not saying the sexist stuff doesn't happen. It does and it is news worthy. BUT, I believe they are two separate issues (equality in video games and integrity in gaming journalism) and if we don't treat them as such then we don't do EITHER issue justice.

        Last edited 26/10/14 4:01 pm

        Yeah, Neogaf... they are the reason advertisers are pulling out of Gawker media constantly.


    Can't we just ignore them?

    Let me just put a disclaimer here: I haven't read much into gamergate, I know the gist but that's about it

    But can't we just ignore them? If all who are opposed to gamergate just ignored everything, no articles posted, no nothing, would that not cause them to be like 'Oh, I guess we don't have a voice, no one cares about us'

    I dunno, it's what I do when I face internet trolls, you just ignore them and they have no argument because you give them no input, they just talk to a wall

      I think, despite beginning to think that way too, the issue with that is that... people who still want to work towards making the community a more understanding and open environment will go on becoming victims of death and rape threats, having personal information shared, all of that. Obviously that kind of threat is not something that can just be ignored. So then, the only way for these people to avoid that kind of harrassment is to not talk at all, which is just what gamergate is after. As I see it, the stand against gamergate with articles such as this is to defend their right to speak without becoming victims.

        Ah, that makes sense. Didn't think of it that way. Well said

        My instinct has been exactly the same as @messatsu: Why is everyone giving these vile little trolls so much attention? Why is this flame getting so much oxygen? They THRIVE on this bullshit. 'Speaking out' is supposed to be some noble thing. But in this instance it's also fighting fire with fire. And fire loves that shit.

        I mean, speaking out against.... Death threats and violations of privacy? Well there's the biggest no freakin' duh on the face of the planet, or so you would have thought. Bloody obvious. But we have to yell it? OK. Let's all get together and go yell these obvious things into the giant, gaping abyss that is these fuckers' collective lack of conscience, that this isn't fair and isn't right.

        But the abyss... it already knows that.
        Make all the stand you want; the abyss doesn't care.

        The noise, the speaking out... It's not affecting the violators. Because they're anonymous. The little fuckers can just roll up a new twitter account and be on their merry way. Hell, in the only circles they probably care about, their 'exposure' is probably a victory. You can't 'name and shame' to destroy their reputations when being fucking pricks is the reputation they're after.

        It isn't working. All it does is make people temporarily feel vindicated, but apparently, terrified at the same time. This does not seem like a winning strategy.

        The only people who are listening to the torrent of "this is unacceptable" articles and pithy retweets are sane people who don't make death threats. And there's something to be said for that... the thousands of favourites, Likes, and comments of support hopefully help. Hopefully. But is that all we've got?

        The only thing I can think of that will work is either ignoring the trolls and quietly reporting them to the police, and/or... the abolition of anonymity in the hands of authorities, so that doing that actually has some teeth. You break the law with a death threat (and it IS illegal pretty much everywhere in the world), you lose your anonymity in the eyes of the law, so it can find you and hold you responsible.

        That's one hell of a right to give up, online... anonymity. Even if it's not TOTAL abandonment of its protection, entrusting it to the hands of the law and judges just the way we trust our meatspace privacy, not just every lookie-lou online.

        But what is becoming disturbingly obvious is that this 'speaking up' stand is utterly futile, as useful and effective as joining 'causes' on Facebook that don't ever actually raise any funds, wristbands and pins showing off our moderately-priced objection to inequality.
        As effective as thinking you'll ever change someone's mind by yelling at them with just enough self-righteous indignation. I mean, that always works. It'd work on you, right? Or snark: yeah, people really open their minds and are receptive to changing their opinions when someone insults them cleverly enough. Let's all keep doing that, just because it hasn't worked yet doesn't mean we're not on the verge of wearing them down!
        [/sarcasm] [/irony]

        I want something to HAPPEN. I want someone to do something, and by 'something' I don't mean a fucking blog post on the Internet. I want to see arrests. Arrests and prosecutions.
        I wan to see Justice.

        Maybe that opens a floodgate that brings things we don't want... I don't care. Giving up pirating game of thrones or whatever the fuck we're afraid of getting caught at seems like a small price to pay.

        Last edited 25/10/14 2:53 pm

          Because ignoring it isn't working. They continue to drive women from their homes and make threats of mass violence, you can't ignore that. It will escalate until someone gets killed.

          And that's what we should ALL be concerned about.

            Ignoring isn't working? Well talking is making it WORSE. So which do you pick? There needs to be a third option.

              The logical third option would be a mature discussion about how feminism isn't ruining video games, sexism in the industry is rampant and damaging and that the "ethical problems" that everyone is screaming about are problems in ALL journalism, not specific to video games.

              However, this is about video games and thus everyone will carry on like a headless chook the moment anyone tries to even THINK about changing the things that are destroying the hobby.

              I've dedicated my education and my adult career to reviewing games, but the way that this industry is going is horrific and toxic. It's enough to make you want to quit. That's my third option.

                Right, so you chose... pointless ineffectuality as your third option. But... but we already picked that for options 1 and 2.
                And THAT is why we have a problem.

                The problem is you think you're dealing with people who can be reasoned with. You don't understand. You're not dealing with people. You're dealing with psychopaths. Options 1 and 2 while bland, do still tend to work on People. Sane people.

                Option 3 needs to deal with the kind of individuals who make death threats about feminism in video games. "Mature discussion," is about as relevant a solution to that problem as just wishing really hard.

                  Maybe the fact that you don't see people with (somewhat vile) opposing opinions as equals. If you treat someone like garbage, they'll fling it back. Your solution is to judge and villify and fan flames of opposition. Should we just murder anyone who exhibits prejudice just to confirm our moral positions. Garbage. Never worked in history, it won't work now.


                  Actually it HAS worked in history, it's called the criminal justice system. It doesn't change minds, it doesn't always change behaviour, but what it DOES do is keep criminals the fuck away from the rest of us. And while your proposed murder is a stupid extreme that the system does decide is worthwhile in some places, for the most part what it does is put those people in a cage.

                  I'm not talking about 'murdering people with opposing opinions'. There is only one option to deal with those who prove (as these trolls have) that they cannot be reasoned with. And that is to ignore them. Until they do something that can't be ignored, such as death threats, then you lock them the fuck up.

                  Ignore idiots, lock up dangerous ones.
                  Why is that so hard for people to grasp?

                  What fucking idiotic impulse is it that people have to think that there is some option out there where they're able to 'win', and provide some kind of enlightenment? It's not going to happen. This is not some 'perfect opportunity' to do something about the underlying problems of misogyny and other hate. It might be the cause, but it's a separate problem, with a different solution, and should be treated as such. When people say, "This has got to stop," I have yet to see one possible solution. ANYTHING that will work.
                  "We all just have to start being reasonable." Christ almighty. Sooo... never, then?

                  Last edited 26/10/14 3:15 pm

                  I get the feeling the final aim isn't really so much as "ignoring" but basically "policing".

                  People always bitch about a moderated forum because it "takes away my freedom of speech" and yet a majority of the time it's these well moderated outlets that have so much more contributions in regards to rational and respectful discussions.

                  The problem from this nebulous negative mob really isn't "freedom of speech" it's that flaunting that freedom actually has real repercussions (ie. bans) like in "real life" when you enter a moderated environment where such venom cannot spread.

                  The problem of course is where do you draw the line of acceptable and unacceptable? It's this little islands of gray where you start having problems.

            Ignoring? Every day I see articles about a new individual who's received death threats and/or been doxxed. Every single time it's because they have done something to provoke the scumbags doing this. If we ignore them they'll lose the satisfaction they gain from all this crap.

              No, they won't. They will escalate because they're not getting the attention they "deserve". Ignorance has resulted in these neck beard mouth breathers to threaten to shoot up schools and the rest of the bullsh*t that's going on.

                Out of interest how many females working in the gaming industry had received death threats and been publicly doxxed until recently? Furthermore out of the individuals that have unfortunately become victims of this trend not publicly posted something relative to #gamergate?

                None? I thought so.

                The whole 'gaming culture needs to change' is bs. The neck beards (fitting use of this term) making these threats are not representative of gaming culture as a whole. They represent that small subset of loners on the internet who are psychopaths.

                I wish there was a way we could actively fight this however there's not. As activity against these individuals and their actions increases so does the threats and abuse.

          This is exactly how this is. To be honest the gaming media has been consistently fueling the fire in relation to this. As have a variety of people trying to be the 'white knights' of the gamergate fiasco, which has caused nothing but further damage.

          It's bleedingly obvious that we're simply dealing with trolling on a revolting level. Since when was it ever a good idea to feed the trolls? The more the media and individuals within gaming protest the threats and doxxing the more it's going to occur. When these people make these death threats they want attention, I'm unsure of why we're giving them exactly what they want.

            But isn't it fuckin obvious - reporting this shite makes them money. I'll be the first to admit when it comes to this stuff Im a massive cynic. You can find a few bad eggs in any demographic or culture all you have to do is look. Media will twist and turn stories, get celebs on board with "their" experiences and just try and bury the original intent (in this case poor fuckin gaming jorunalism with HUGE conflicts of interest). They'll report on anything that supports thier agenda and ignore the rest. This isn't anything new - it's happened b4 and will happen again.

              Yeah, this is an unfortunate trend. To be honest the only mainstream gaming site I can see that hasn't been trying to cash in on gamergate is IGN. I can't really say I'm a massive fan of theirs but between Polygon and Kotaku I'm getting mighty sick of these articles, fundamentally because they're doing nothing but fueling the fire.

            It's a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

            Call them out? Get harassed. Stay silent? Get harassed. Call them out? You're an attention whore. Stay silent? There obviously wasn't really a problem. Call them out? It's your fault that their behaviour escalates. But stay silent and some will still escalate anyway, just to try to provoke a reaction.

            At least if you call them out, there's a chance that other victims will see it and realise that they're not alone. Don't underestimate the power of solidarity, or of seeing that someone else can go through a heap of shit and survive it. And the more people that see it and talk about it and get upset by the shitty behavior, ultimately the more community pressure there is to stop it. The more community pressure there is, the more likely that it will get treated as an actual, serious offense rather than just 'oh, that kind of thing happens on the internet'.

        It really is not.... It's not about silencing anyone....

          It is for some...


            That's an unnamed and unsourced image posted by a pretty hardcore anti-gamergate person.... I can write a letter too saying "I am the leader of ISIS" and put Obama's name at the bottom as well doesn't make it true....

              That's true. I could tell you that I've also snagged this from a closed GG on FB, but I'm only a single, as yet, unverified source. But then again, the Gater movement has rarely worried about that in the past. I mean look at the origin of the claims about Zoe Quinn and how those have been proven demonstrably false, yet still form the core of some Gater's stance...

                So she didn't form a group to attack and sabotage Fine Young Capitalists then?

          Yes, it really is.
          A few websites write some articles. Said articles upsets GamerGaters. GamerGaters try to punish those websites, by harassing advertisers and PR agencies that support those websites. They try to teach those websites a lesson for what they perceive to be an insult against their identity. That IS EXACTLY about silencing those that they don't agree with!

          Then they go on to write:
          "We believe that critique and analysis is important
          But we also believe in a healthy dialogue"
          Saying something like that, while trying to punish others for having an opinion is MASSIVELY hypocritical. And if they believed in critique, analysis and healthy dialogue, why did they go after Anita Sarkeesian? All she did was make a few youtube videos. They could have just disagreed with her opinion, and moved on. I mean, a few youtube videos are hardly stuff that's going to change the world.

            Hang on I thought it was about silencing women and yet none of that mentions it at all... I wish you'd make your mind up.

              That post was specifically about Operation Disrespectful Nod, GamerGater's attempt to attack gaming websites that they didn't agree with.


              Now, THIS post clearly shows the true GamerGate attitude. Not only does it bring up the false claim about Nathan Grayson, it even completely dismisses the death threats sent to women!

              "We're all used to feeling a niggling suspicion that "death threats" sent to female agitators aren't all they're cracked up to be. And indeed there is no evidence that any violent threat against a prominent female figure in the media or technology industry has ever been credible – that is to say, that any feminist campaigner on the receiving end of internet trolling has ever been in any real danger."

              They are literally saying "Hey, those DEATH THREATS, where people are THREATENING TO RAPE AND KILL YOU are probably nothing. You just should ignore them, even though they've doxxed you and know where you live and everything." If someone told you they would kill you, or someone you cared about, and proved that they knew your address, would you just ignore it?

                You continue to link to images and actions by individuals who are not representative of the GamerGate movement and claim their actions represent GamerGate. You need to stop doing that and understand that there are many people involved in the movement, most of whom are not at all like what you try to portray them as.

                Your behaviour is illogical and prejudiced. Your attacks on GamerGate as a whole (instead of on the individuals that create and perpetuate the awful things you link to) are worse than what the majority of people in GamerGate have done to anyone else. It's normal to be angry at prejudice, it's not normal to become prejudiced yourself in the process.

                  My behaviour is perfectly logical and unprejudiced. I have refuted many of the false claims pushed by the GamerGate movement, many of the hypocracies, using actual facts and quotes. Yet no matter how many examples I show, you still try to claim that it's just a few bad eggs. Just let me know how many more examples you need, and I will provide them.
                  Remember, if YOU stand for a cause, then YOU represent that cause. Saying that someone doesn't truly represent your cause just because they make you look bad is an incredibly weak argument.

                  All muslims are terrorists, all catholics are paedophiles, all black men are criminals, all white male gamers are misogynists.... So say anti-#gamergaters... Don't dare disagree with their hypocrisy... It is sacred.

                  @scruffy Just like misandrists who fly under the banner of feminism represent that cause, right? Your argument is stated as follows:

                  P1: GamerGate is a movement.
                  P2: Some people who identify as GamerGaters harass women.
                  Q: GamerGate is a movement that harasses women.

                  I don't think you know what logic is, because this flow is neither valid nor sound.

                  It's a shame that all of the righteousness you think your stance carries is washed away by hypocrisy. It's sad that you can't see just how bad you've become.

                  @mypetmonkey and @zombiejesus

                  It's pretty sad that, when all your arguments have been proven wrong, you resort to the absolutely despicable and desperate act of comparing someone to a racist. I've never claimed all Muslims are terrorists. Or that all Catholics are pedophiles. Or that all black men are criminals. Or that all white male gamers are misogynists. Which would be a strange thing for a white male (such as myself) who spends countless hours playing video games (such as i do) to say.

                  And as Zombiejesus said, GamerGate is a movement. It is not a race. It is not a religion. Comparing your claimed discrimination to that faced by Muslims is pretty insulting to Muslims.
                  You cannot be racist against a movement. It's like claiming people are racist against Occupy Wall Street, or The Tea Party.

                  GamerGaters need to understand that their identity IS NOT UNDER ATTACK. A few articles from nasty journalists are not going to change anything. A video series about tropes against women in games is not going to change anything. Nobody's coming to take your games away. Nobody's going to censor your games. The GamerGate movement isn't about ethical journalism; EVERYBODY is for ethical journalism. I know I am. But GamerGate will never achieve that. They're not even going after the review sites, or the big publishers who have the most power and influence over the gaming media.

                  I fully support ethical journalism; (my favourite show is actually MediaWatch, because i do enjoy seeing the media held to account) but GamerGate isn't about achieving that. It's a vendetta operation. It's revenge to the people who wrote nasty articles, or claimed their games were sexist. And that's why I won't ever support it.

                  @scruffy It is absolutely not... If it was proven wrong then it would have died. So far I have seen nothing but bluffing. Articles telling you they are evil human beings.

                  Was it just coincidence that every gaming outlet came out with a "Gamers are Dead" article at the same time? That's group think, that's telling us what we should think. That's really not on.

                  Focus on the abuse of Zoe Quinn all you like but gloss over the fact that she dishonestly car crashed the Fine Young Capitalists (which she did) and censored via youtube criticism of her actions (not her sex). Did her relationship issues bring her into the spotlight? Yes. Was that required public knowledge? No. Is she a poor human being for some of her (non-relationship) actions? Absolutely. Is she a protected species because she's a woman? No that's what happens with equality.

                  No one is saying you believe that all Muslims are terrorists, but you are using the same approach to this argument. You admit it's a movement with no fixed agenda but are determined to say it has a fixed agenda to remove women from gaming (which isn't true). It's a hashtag that has millions of tweets, 99% of them gender neutral, but you continue to paint this picture of misogyny. But that's the easiest way to kill something, call it sexist/racist/bigotted and then force the other side to defend itself.

                  The gamers identity IS UNDER ATTACK by Kotaku US and other gaming sites because they continue to use a spray gun to paint a tooth pick. Gamers are angry because they aren't misogynists, because they are multi-national and multi-racial, they aren't gender specific. But Kotaku US continue to push it that we're all white, male, single, misogynist nerds based on what? A handful of tweets amongst millions from actual gamers?

                  Most are going after the websites, they are the supposed to be the intermediaries between the publisher/developer and the consumer and they aren't at the moment. Every one-eyed article like this does the industry damage by painting the white, male, single, misogynist nerd stereotype.

                  Gaming is popular in pretty much every country on the planet, played by many races, all sexes, differing religions. But now we are under attack and slandered by those public voices that are supposed to represent us (all of us).

                  Accept this rubbish and accept the stereotype.

                  Every doxxing gets dumped on by the masses on #gamergate but you can't stop morons. Report and force a suspension on twitter but the damage has been done.
                  Why do they do it? Because they can.
                  Why do they ddos a server? Because they can, that's how they get their shits and giggles.

                  And guess what! Getting a response in the form of an article blaming everyone possibly else except the individual keeps them giggling even harder.

                  (Seriously getting sick of being put on the "being moderated" list for not accepting the group think......)

                  Last edited 27/10/14 8:41 am

                  @scruffy More deflection and invalid logic. Nobody said you were racist, I said you're prejudiced, which you are. I said your logic is invalid, which it is. You've done nothing to show that either of these assertions are false, and every post you make reinforces what I said. You purposely avoid addressing evidence and logic that doesn't support your stance.

                  You seem to believe yourself to be so righteous that you are blind to the basic foundations of logic, reason and rationality. You're prejudiced, so much so that you can't see any reality but the one you've fabricated for yourself. You are worse than the majority of GamerGate supporters you condemn. Thankfully, the rest of society is working to shut down prejudice in all its forms, including yours. Your attitude has no place in the equal society we strive for.

                  I have tried to maintain polite discourse with you throughout my replies, limiting my criticism to the content of your arguments rather than the character of your person. I rarely say this to anyone because I believe everyone can be reached by logic and reason, but you seem to be an exception. When you want to let go of your prejudice and embrace rationality, let me know. Until then, you're a waste of time. Please do feel free to try to get the last word in like last time though, but I won't be reading it.

                  "If it was proven wrong then it would have died"
                  Incorrect. Things don't die just because they are proven wrong; look at conspiracy theories.

                  "But that's the easiest way to kill something, call it sexist/racist/bigotted and then force the other side to defend itself."
                  That's exactly the same tactic zombiejesus is trying to use on me, using the word "prejudiced".

                  "That's group think, that's telling us what we should think"
                  No, all a writer does is tell you what THEY think. No one is being forced to agree with a writer's opinion. Are you suggesting that people are incapable of thinking for themselves, and making up their own minds?

                  "The gamers identity IS UNDER ATTACK"
                  That's called paranoia. No one's identity is under attack. A few journalists wrote some opinion pieces. That's it. Are you really that frightened by another person's opinion? Does it honestly scare you THAT much?

                  "Most are going after the websites, they are the supposed to be the intermediaries between the publisher/developer and the consumer and they aren't at the moment"
                  So why aren't they going after the review sites such as Gametrailers and Gamespot? Remember Gametrailers giving CoD GoTY while the site was plastered with CoD advertising? Or Jeff from Gamespot being fired after he gave Kane and Lynch a poor review score? Or Gametrailers, again, with the Halo/Doritos/Mountain Dew farce? If GamerGate was about ethical game journalism, Gametrailers should be enemy number one. However, they've gone by untouched. Doesn't that seem odd to you?

                  Disagreeing with someone does not make them prejudiced. I've put forward the facts, backed up by evidence. And when you've failed to prove me wrong, you've resorted to attacking me personally. And as for.....

                  "You purposely avoid addressing evidence and logic that doesn't support your stance"
                  You still haven't explained to me why GamerGate has placed zero scrutiny on the big players in the industry.

      You can't really ignore people who are threatening your personal safety. But the thing that's bugging me is that this is real life harassment; why can't they dox the harassers and take them down through the police and court system? Send the arseholes to jail for a very real crime.

      I felt that way for a long time with all MRA's. The problem is, people DID ignore it at first. Women got mild threats, they rolled their eyes, and went back to their business. Now, the threats have gotten too abundant and specific (posting a woman's name, address, phone number, license plate, pictures of her house, all that same info about her friends and family) that it cannot be ignored. Like a machine gun wielding toddler, they can't stand to be ignored while having a temper tantrum so they use potentially actionable threats violence for attention.

    Chris Kluwe makes a large blog basically tearing GamerGate a new asshole.
    "Eh, let's just agree to disagree".
    Felicia Day says she's afraid.

    But it's totally about ethics in game journalism.

      One thing that really confuses me. There's people that claim to be genuinely concerned about ethics (not sure exactly what, most "evidence" they produce is a stretch at best) and condemn the attacks. Which is fair enough. I get that. But I don't understand why they are so desperate to hold on to a name synonymous with that kind of behaviour and was coined by a nut job that admits he doesn't play games but hates "SJW's".

      If you want to be taken seriously on your views of the state of retail warranty procedures you don't join the anti-vaxers crusade.

      What I don't understand, and what has never been explained to be, is that if it's about "journalistic integrity," shouldn't the JOURNALISTS be the target? but, you know, the journalists in question have penises so.....solidarity, bro.

    I miss the days when the biggest argument to split gamers in twain was Nintendo or Sega. And the biggest repercussion of that was I got to play different games at a mates house.

    Really, really miss those days.

      I think the verbal arguements turned into to physical violence with Pokemon red and blue.

      "Blue version is better!"

      "No, red is!"

      "That's it, I'm gonna kick your arse!"

      *Pulls out game link cable*

    If the pro gamergate first world problem saga side ever had a point the second one of them started attacking women they lost the argument, credibility and personally I think some of them should lose their freedom to not share a cell with a 7 foot tattooed bikie called Bubba for 5 years.

    Am I the only one who thinks that calling it gamergate was maybe the most wholly unenlightening name it could have been given?

      Didn't the term come from Adam Baldwin? It would make a lot of sense if it did come from him. He's batshit crazy.

        It's a scary thought when Jayne Cobb would appear to be more enlightened than the actor playing him...

          That's why I never kiss em on the mouth

      Oh man. I agree so much. It's just lazily insisting that your scandal is super important. It almost never provides any actual information on what it's about. Gamergate could be literally anything. Gabe Newell makes a racist remark. Gamergate. A game has DLC. Gamergate. Mark loses his house keys. Gamergate (admittedly that one would be saracastic).
      Unless it's actually comperable to Watergate just don't use it. Even then, if Sony bugged Nintendo HQ I'm sure the gaming media could come up with something a better suited than Gamergate.

        MARK LOST HIS KEYS????

        SERRRRRRELLLLLLLLS!!!!!!!! #kotakuserrelskeyslostgate

      No, you're not. Turd flavored, recycled vomit and stray pubes scraped into a can is what it should be called.

    Chris Kluwe reams Gamergate, gets a bit of abuse. Felicia Day speaks about why she's worried about broaching it, doxxed within something like 2 mins of posting the article.

    It couldn't more perfectly sum up the current state of the Gamergate saga.

      How about the more alternative reason:
      *edit* I'll change 'believable' to 'alternative' since that's more in the spirit of my original message.

      That NFL guy wasn't doxxed because anybody who was greatly interested in Video Games likely didn't give a crap about what some 'nobody-they-ever-heard-of' NFL guy and his opinion. Meanwhile Day was doxxed because those same gamers actually recognised her as a notably celebrity in games and related media.

      I don't think gender has any relevance beyond the spin in this very article.

      Last edited 27/10/14 1:22 pm

        I'm sorry but you couldn't make a more ignorant statement if you tried. There are plenty of women that "nobody ever heard of" that gave opinions and were still threatened....like, every random woman on twitter, for example. The names they recognize of course get MORE harassment but to day gender has no bearing on it is just plain bullshit. Something tells me you're a harassment sympathizer who is trying to look like you're not a total shitbag....and you're not fooling anyone.

          like, every random woman on twitter, for example
          Whoa, more hyperbole dude.

          On the note of abuse and threats, have you even seen what some people have said to those whose opinions seemed to even remotely be aligned with GG but was still devoid of comments about gender et. al. , even more importantly, before hashtag was coined? Pretty harsh if you ask me.

          Speaking of... do you even read your posts? Articles like these and comments agreeing with them are meant to be all about civil discourse, being nice to each other and not presupposing and making shit up about each other, and yet, straight up, just because I have an opinion you don't like, you're given a free pass to be abusive and slanderous?

        The only believable thing is that statement is just an ignorant smattering of opinion that has no grounding in reality.

        There is a strong correlation between gender and who gets abused as evidenced over and over and while correlation doesn't imply causality, if its a hot day you bet your ass i'm more likely to buy an ice cream.

        It doesn't matter what gamergate started as, it has become a vehicle of hatred. Don't be an apologist because that makes you just as bad as the people perpetrating the acts.

        Also unless you are one of the people doing the Doxxing you have no way of knowing what their reasoning is beyond using the empirical evidence at hand.

          I've seen poor opinions on both 'sides' so like all opinions, nobody is really right. I never said I was right, but I do think it's pretty dumb to jump to conclusions just because of some correlations - y'know stuff like:

          "That guy just bought an ice cream. That must mean it's hot out, like totally, that's the only possibility ever, no questions asked." Or even worse "Hey that guy just bought an ice cream. He must think it's hot out there! Dude it's not hot! What an idiot..."

          I'm not remotely apologising for the whackjobs who made threats. Nobody should. But to dismiss the original issues sparking the whole debate just because somebody did something stupid while twisting a groups' agenda to their own? That such shallow debate. Not to mention bloody anybody could do that, any issue, cause, group, political group, social group could be lost to some flagwaver. But hey, we're smart people, and typically look past that; having no reason to tar everyone with the same brush. No sir I'm not as bad as some criminal just for having my own opinions, cause then we'd all be in jail.

          Also unless you are one of the people doing the Doxxing you have no way of knowing what their reasoning is beyond using the empirical evidence at hand.

          Yeah I know, and neither does anybody else by the seems of it.

          Last edited 27/10/14 1:29 am

            Interdadesting. Settle down guys. Seriously.

            Last edited 27/10/14 9:06 am

            The "original issues sparking the whole debate" in this case are allegations that developer Zoe Quinn slept with journalist Nathan Grayson in order to secure favourable reviews for her game Depression Quest. The only source supporting these allegations is an honours thesis-length blog post from some guy that Quinn briefly dated (because crazy ex-boyfriends are totally reliable sources now). Any kind of relationship between Quinn and Grayson has been extensively denied by everyone involved. But even if there had been some kind of relationship, neither Grayson nor anyone else at Kotaku or Rock Paper Shotgun has ever reviewed the game in question, a game which, I might add, is available for free.

            A narrative about 'journalistic integrity' was laid over the top of this to provide a more palatable position from which to continue to attack Quinn. The 'whackjobs' didn't twist a group's agenda to their own end, they created the group to astroturf their own efforts.

              The issues are still important to talk about though right? I mean we're not interested in censoring debate are we? Regardless of if the original allegations are true, the widespread censorship and backlash was definitely concerning.

              The evidence was definitely unreliable, but that spark has now totally evolved to cover a range of topics, issues and incidents. The ZQ stuff is now a much smaller piece of the puzzle. That said, we're all at liberty to interpret evidence when it's testimony. I find the ex-boyfriend's information to be within reasonable doubt, I mean no matter how mad he is - who in their right mind would call such a storm down upon themselves as he now has, if what he wanted to the tell wasn't important. Then the only counter evidence is from those who have invested interests in denying it.

              Who's right and who's wrong? Who knows. However I do think most journalism sites could have avoided this whole mess by just offering recuse and then simply not mentioning it again.

                But even if you do believe that part of the story, neither Grayson nor anyone else at Kotaku or RPS reviewed Quinn's game. Personal relationships that journalists may or may not have become issues of journalistic ethics only if - and only to the extent that - they impact upon the journalist's work. And there's no impact. Quinn cannot possibly have bartered sex for coverage because there was no coverage.

    When will this saga end, i mean, when will the pro gamergaters realise what they are doing is causing a halt in more women taking up positions in the game industry & might actually cause a plummet in females having an opinion of this industry because of their sexist attitudes

      For a lot of them, that's the entire damn point.

    For those wanting unbiased, untainted by cronyism reading on GamerGate - check this before it gets removed. https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2k4j2q/gamejournospro_the_noob_links_behind_the_scenes/

      Yes, Breitbart is what you want when you are after unbiased news *headdesk*

        Breitbart was 1/4 of the links contained - there are 8 links there. To combat bias you absorb information from multiple sources and extrapolate a common theme, a "mean" argument if you will.

        "It doesn't meet what I want this to be about therefore it is wrong" *headdesk*

        What we say is right 100%.... You need to fold to our way, we won't do it...."

          Yeah, that pretty much sums up the Gater attitude whenever they're proven wrong on since debunked claims they've made publicly.

      You know, I read a LOT of sites, blog posts and rants from all sorts of conspiracy theorists from anti-vaxers, chem trails, genocidal British monarchy, lizard people and such out of curiosity. The mindset behind it all fascinates me, wondering what compels people to fall into these things.

      The language, arguments and tactics used by those people are identical to the GamerGate posts like what you've linked there and indeed your own post.

      Last edited 25/10/14 4:42 pm

        You read not a single one of them. Why are you participating in something you don't want to completely understand? In order to completely understand, you need to acquire all sources and choose for yourself. Or you can swallow the narrative being force fed to you, and remain ignorant.

        The one commonality that seems all conspiracy theorists have (and by the way, I do know some people who believe really wacky conspiracy theories but are actually quite lovely people...albeit a little out of touch with reality) is that people who feel out of control of their real lives find some need to justify that lack of control, so they give credit to some kind of boogeyman who is impossible to really pin down. That's what gives the boogeyman its power to these people. It's impossible to prove it's NOT there....so it must be there! This is why no level of rational explanation works with these people. You can show them every fact related to 9/11 that blows their conspiracy theories out of he water. What will their reply be? "Well, whoever wrote that was bought off by the state to say that." It could be God, it could be the Illuminati, it could be feminists, it could be Lizard people, it could be the Jews, it could be Disney, it could be the rich, it could be the poor, it could be George Bush, it could be Obama.....people turn to any number of scapegoats when the world doesn't work the way they want. The cold, hard fact is that most of them can't deal with their own failures, so some uncontrollable, undefeatable, dark force MUST be responsible.

        There is another, unfortunate component that fear was once crucial to our survival and critical thinking was not....at all! If you're an early hominid eating some berries in a bush and you hear a rustling in the bush, you don't KNOW it's a deadly snake, but it could be. If you just believe that it is and run away, your chances of survival are high. If it turns out, it was just a little birdie, well, you still didn't get hurt, but you don't know that...so as far as you know, your fear preserved your life. If you stop to investigate and go, "Hmmm...well, there is no evidence that this is indeed a snake. Lots of animals live in bushes. Let me see," then it turns out it was a snake and it bites you in the eye and kills you, well then you don't get to go on living and breathing, let alone passing on your DNA.

        ...of course as any RATIONAL, THINKING person will tell you, evo-psych does not justify ANY behavior in modern society.

        I looked up a lot of those having heard them for the first time... I now feel like I'm living in the Dark Ages again. Some of these are as absurd as the witch scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

      There is no such thing as unbiased reporting. There never was, and their never will be. Trying to pursue that as a goal is ultimately a waste of time as everyone has a viewpoint and everyone has vested interests to some extent in anything they care enough to write about.

      Ultimately it's down to the audience to judge whether any information is of merit to them, and whether it has any perspectives that have come to obstruct a fair report. This is why it's so important to read multiple news sources, they all have valuable information (obviously to varying degrees), but all have perspectives.

      Typically people only read the source that confirms their own bias however, and thus people delude themselves into thinking that their opinion, or those held by anyone else, is inherently "right" or "unbiased".

    It only takes one person - one mentally sick person who needs a visit from a SWAT team or something - to doxx someone. To say the whole group is behind or supports doxxing would be like saying all Christians hate gays or all Muslims are terrorists.

      It's nice to reminded in all of this that there's still such a stigma attached to mental illness, ironically something Zoe Quinn would strongly fight against.
      Someone got doxxed, best assume they're mentally ill and not just an ass!

      This is true, to a point. Christians and Muslim's don't get to change the name of their cause after it's taken over by arseholes though. I think it's pretty telling that GamerGate supporters have chosen to continue to rally around the banner after all the nasty, nasty things done in their name, and indeed *before most of them rallied to the banner*.

      Last edited 25/10/14 5:52 pm