I have no idea what that says.

That's kind of the point. No sense without parsing, no flags, no room closure.

But for the record, I'm against Sark-whatever-her-name-was, but also against the trolls that ruined the other side's validity.

@Axelrod How you be against someone? You can disagree with them or what they stand for, but you can't be "against" them.

Against them what?

Existing?

Working?

Speaking?

I'm against the existence of people who work the way she did.

@Axelrod Which is?

@DrRDizzle Dishonestly.

@Axelrod I've only seen a handful of her videos, and I've never seen her outright lie.

Using your gender and connections to mess with other people, and then using those connections to silence your opposition regardless of if it's respectful or not is not cool.

@Axelrod Here's the thing though - without the vocal minority that really got mad (and I mean death/rape threats, stalking, abuse etc), she wouldn't be anywhere near as well know now.

And all because she dared to question the precious video games.

SER THERTS MAH PERNT. SH WERS A JERK ERND ERSERD HER CERNERCTERNS TER HERT ERTHER PERPL. WHERT SH GERT ERN RERSPERNS WERS A DERKER SERD ERF DA NERT THERN SHERLD ERXERST, YERT DERTH THRERTS ERVER DA NERT ER RERGHT ERP THER WERTH CERNSERSHERP ERN MAH BERK.

@DrRDizzle She didn't dare to question video games, dude. The reason she was involved was because of someone actively suppressing a charity.

@Axelrod I can't read that.

And then using their connections via someone they slept with to promote themselves.

Not following

I know that's the point

but i'm not following the english bits either

@Axelrod No, the whole Gamergate thing got a name after the stuff with Quinn. The backlash became noticealbe on her original Tropes vs Women videos

@DrRDizzle She was a person on the internet. Backlash happens.

But that wasn't "Gamergate"

@Axelrod That doesn't make it OK.

That was "someone posting on the internet"

@Axelrod It was a lot of the same people, angry for a lot of the same reasons, it just didn't have name yet.

@DrRDizzle It doesn't, but it does make it a completely different matter.

@DrRDizzle I have faith that "Trolls on the internet" isn't a big group relative to the whole.

@Axelrod I don't think so. People created videogames that let you click to beat her up. People sent her death threats, threatened to bomb/shoot up places she was talking, stalked her. She had to flee her home at one point. And then the stuff with Quinn happened, people jumped on that, Baldwin saw a chance to push right-wing politics onto easily swayed morons and named it Gamergate.

The Quinn garbage was the central point. Trying to delegitimize your opposition via obfuscation of their point is a cheap, dishonest tactic.

@Axelrod I've never seen that happen.

@DrRDizzle You've never seen someone try to mix up the perception of what their opposition is saying?

Seriously?

@Axelrod I mean within the context of the people we are talking about.

You'll have to give an example.

@DrRDizzle Calling the trolls the whole of the opposition is obfuscation.

Saying "This is who they are", ignoring the points of the larger portion who aren't in that harassing group at all, is dishonest.

Using that false narrative to then censor everyone who disagrees with you, then, is outright vile.

Tycho was right; regardless of your take on the issues, you have to do what's best for you. And for the people being censored at face value, that meant leaving the forums they had come to trust in.

Which is why this isn't as big an issue as it was then, because nothing got resolved.

@Axelrod But there was nothing to resolve. What is it the people originally took umbrage with? Someone pointing out sexism in video games?

What did people expect to happen?

"None of this is true."

"Well, OK then, I'll shut down."

@DrRDizzle Again, conflating two different things based on the presence of the same trolls.

@Axelrod But before she apparently did that, what were people trying to say to her?

@DrRDizzle Censorship is not ok. Supporting someone who uses their gender as a weapon against others to create an uneven playing field is not ok.

@Axelrod But she never tried to censor anyone.

@DrRDizzle She did once she jumped into the argument.

People were banned -- not for conduct, but for stance.

@Axelrod But the argument started long before that. Quinn was the tipping point which gave it a name, not the start of it.

Anita made a series of videos called Tropes Vs Women in Videogames. They were popular, well-received, but also she received a lot of harrassment and abuse because... something. A while later, the stuff with Quinn happened.

@DrRDizzle A woman using sex as a weapon and purposefully hampering a charity is not the same issue as a woman against the general treatment of women in video games.

One is real life, one is fictional writing.

@Axelrod So when did she hamper a charity?

Presenting them as the same issue is dissonance personified.

It was kind of the whole point of her involvement

So the real version of "Anita censored a charity" is that she said she didn't like the way that it handled trans people?

When disliking something includes actions to hamper it, yes.

@Axelrod What actions? Did she DDoS the site?

Appeal to the Government to ban it?

Plant evidence to lead to the arrest of the chairty employees?

Steal funds?

@DrRDizzle Did they harass her personally?

@Axelrod Who?

Did their leaders personally give her death threats?

The charity.

Did they have her followers banned from discussion?

Did they support the bad apples, or did they decry them?

@Axelrod As far as I know, no. But what does that have to do with anything? Her involvement with the charity started and ended with "I don't like the rules regarding trans people in this competition" according to the link that you provided.

Answer: They decried them. That's not what they were about.

@DrRDizzle A person whose followers do bad acts in their name, who does not speak against the acts, is complicit.

@Axelrod But who did bad acts in Anita's name?

If that person then continues to support such behavior later in -- it's explicit.

@DrRDizzle Hackers, mods, general supporters of censoring the opposition when it came to debate.

@Axelrod When? Mods of where? Which censors? What hacks?

@DrRDizzle >TFYC's Indiegogo account was hacked and the campaign was briefly shut down

@Axelrod Did anyone ever claim responsibility for it?

@DrRDizzle Why would anyone directly lay claim over a criminal act?

@Axelrod Well, cyber criminals do it all the time. Anonymous, lizard squad etc

@DrRDizzle You're likening semi-professionals who attack corporations and the government to someone who attacked an indigogo.

Additionally, you have to remember that all this came after months and months of constant abuse from the people that would become and still are GamerGate supporters. The sudden influx of TFYC support from 4chan, the place where much of the targeted harassment came from, must have seemed more than a little suspect.

@DrRDizzle Not at all; 4chan was one of, if not the largest forum at the time.

And none of this changes the fact that your only real beef with someone seems to be that she wasn't angry enough when a project a group of people that were harrassing her for months supported got temporarily hacked.

@DrRDizzle Again, you're conflating groups.

@Axelrod Because the groups overlap.

@DrRDizzle That means nothing.

@Axelrod Why?

@DrRDizzle Because you have overlap with sex offenders by way of living in the same neighborhood as them.

If most of the harassers from group A are the same as the harassers from Group B, that doesn't make the groups the same.

It means you have a near-identical group of harassers in both groups.

Considering A and B the same because they both have a subset of C is bad logic.

@Axelrod Which still means that your ultimate beef is that you don't think she was quite vocal enough about saying that the IndieGogo hack was a bad thing?

And that thanks to that, you think GamerGate as an ideal is valid?

@DrRDizzle My ultimate beef is that she doesn't stand against the bad.

@Axelrod But the bad in this case is one instance of an Indiegogo campaign being temporarily shut down over a year ago.

Whereas on the other side of things....

Wow.

And no, I think the gamergate ideal is valid because the ideal isn't the harassment. The ideal was the people who were against being censored and journalists being swayed through immoral means.

@CreationEdge See what I mean?

@Axelrod No one is coming to take your games away, and the lie that Quinn used her relationship with Grayson to gain positive reviews has been disproved so many time so long ago that it isn't worth repeating here.

@CreationEdge And that's what happens when you villify a group based on the fringe.

people try to add to many issues into a dumb viral debate that meant nothing

@CreationEdge I believe that at the start, some people may have wrongly believed that GamerGate was a consumer movement. But at this stage, it's clear that it's just a right-wing, anti-progressive movement that seeks to maintain a status quo that suits them.

@DrRDizzle A strawman? Really? Go to WaPo, dude, I don't have time for you if you're not going to speak to me as a person.

@Axelrod Unless you replied to the wrong comment, nothing here is a strawman.

No one ever said it was about taking games away. The time it blew up was when people were getting banned.

Suppression is not ok.

no one even talks about gamergate anymore

@Axelrod The fringe is only a fringe if they are the minority. When the most prominent "leaders" of a group are part of the "fringe", such as Baldwin and Milo and Sargon, it's just the group.

that was so like last year

like most social justice fights

its like a blip

and forgoten

@CreationEdge Again, vilification.

why would i bring up gamergate on twitter that would be stupid

twitter is full of people who are stupid and want to share their stupid opinions

@Himarm I've done it before. It is stupid, and you get to meet lots of stupid people.

its stupid to go to 4chan and ask for help

its stupid to go into the ghetto and scream the n word

well if you do something stupid, an dpeople respond in a stupid way to you

whose fault is it

theirs no good reason to ever hashtag gamer gate

@CreationEdge Agreed. But to badmouth its past based on its present is ridiculous.

@CreationEdge exactly drop the word gamer gate, andmove on

@Axelrod Actually, lots and lots of people seem to think that the end goal of Zoe, Anita etc is to ban certain games.

@CreationEdge Doesn't work in politics, won't work there either. It's easier to defame someone than it is to work up a new banner.

@Axelrod But it started off as a toxic pile of hormones and anti-feminism and it is still a toxic pile of hormones and anti-feminism now. Nothing has changed.

@DrRDizzle Forcing through an agenda by means of filtering out certain types of characterization is the same as banning that characterization, when taken to a logical extreme.

@Axelrod What agenda do you think Anita has?

What types of characterisation do you think she is filtering out?

@DrRDizzle I think she wants to better the characterization of women in games. That's a fine goal. But to do it from the supply end, rather than the demand end, is not good.

@DrRDizzle Take a look at her game reviews and you tell me.

@Axelrod So because she doesn't want to make games, she shouldn't be allowed to criticise them?

@DrRDizzle Because she would rather make games that don't fit her view fail, rather than encourage the creation of games that do, she shouldn't be held up as a paragon.

As far as I know GG started when a female game reviewer was accused of sleeping with a game devand biasing her reporting. People took offence at this, but twisted it to be a 'woman problem' not a 'nepotism' problem

yeah i hate people that purposly review stuff that they personally wont like, then trash it, like no... your heavily biased, you should not review this game....

@AncientSwordRage It was twisted, but not by the original offendees.

@AncientSwordRage thats what wikipedia states too, it was a lovers spat

@Axelrod How can she encourage the creation of games with good versions of what she wants (which she has done, by the way) without also talking about the things that she doesn't like in more culturally prominent games?

@DrRDizzle She doesn't even have to acknowledge other types exist.

@AncientSwordRage Well, it did end up being a woman problem. Despite the fact that if it was true (which it wasn't) it should be the journalist who is seen to be at fault, most of the anger was directed to Zoe, calling her a slut and what not.

@Axelrod Of course you do. A bad example of something makes points that a good example of something cannot. Comparison is the key to criticism.

@DrRDizzle By 'woman problem' I mean people who have problems with all women

@DrRDizzle By your admission, those were mostly the same people who were against Anita's reviews elsewhere.

not a woman

their both at fault if they slept together

hi sex for a good review

okay

@DrRDizzle No, you can't raise yourself by lowering everyone else. Being a negative anus doesn't make your point any higher.

she just sold her body, and he just bought it

both are =

@Himarm That didn't happen. But if it did, why is it the woman developer, not the man actually writing the words, who got all the hate?

@Himarm I don't think anything proved that actually happened though...?

right, afaik its false, but its not fair to say SHE was innocent if it DID happen

the SELLER is almost always dragged into the dirt over the buyer

she sold

he bought

in theory

Incidentally, that's why everyone dissociated from it. Bad apples spoil the bunch, unless you're on Dr Dizzle's side apparently.

its not sexist to target the seller, its what everyone does

@Axelrod What? Dude, comparison is so, so important to criticism. If you have a point that you want to make, the only thing better than a good example is a bad example that can be contrasted against it. "We need more X. X is good in Y, but Z isn't very good at X. Here is how Y and Z do X differently". From that, you can see not just why something is good/bad, but how.

@Himarm What are you saying they sold?

@DrRDizzle Great. Now write about the good more, or you're just complaining. And complaining without furthering a goal is pointless.

@Himarm It is sexist when the abuse is all gendered, coming from people saying sexist things.

rockstar is hereld as one of the worst in its depiction of women in games, like grand theft auto, and femanist groups TRASH rockstare, the seller. but no one trashes me the guy who bought grand theft auto. so if someone used sex, traded sex, sold sex, for a possitive review, they male of female, would be the target of any backlash

@AncientSwordRage He's taking the specifics out.

and the buyer gets a slap on the wrist

naughty you shouldnt have done that

@Axelrod But the criticism is furthering a goal, because it shows game developers that people care when this stuff is handled poorly. By your logic, film reviewers should never write a bad review.

@DrRDizzle A bad review in absence of good reviews makes for a bad reviewer.

@Axelrod Nonsense.

I can pick at you all day, but it won't make you a better Dr Dizzle.

@Axelrod No, bit it will show me where I need to improve.

Constructive criticism.

And with that I hope we're done

we've all aired our opinions

nothing got heated which is good

@CreationEdge Seeya

@Axelrod Isn't always positive. I can say quite happily that Man of Steel's inability to understand that dark moments work best when contrasted with lighter ones results in one of the films biggest weaknesses, which is a constructive criticism without giving a good example. I could compare it to another film which better balances tone, but I don't need to in order to make my point.

Anyway, as the boss (@AncientSwordRage) says we're done.

Fair enough.

I'm off anyway

be good

@AncientSwordRage Never!