I have not even played a single second of Mass Effect 3's multiplayer, but I got the best ending. It was a bit tight points-wise at the end and grinding some through MP would have helped, but it wasn't necessary.
#GAMERGATE: The Threadening [Read the OP] -- #StopGamerGate2014
- Thread starter besada
- Start date
- Status
I have not even played a single second of Mass Effect 3's multiplayer, but I got the best ending. It was a bit tight points-wise at the end and grinding some through MP would have helped, but it wasn't necessary.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Wishing for her safety
ShockingAlberto
Member
It's not any of your business, but I'm not.
People were at one point claiming that this whole thing (that being gamergate) was all a conspiracy organized by 4chan as cover for a harassment campaign.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Lalalandia
Member
And why would my being a
not so
How do you even get to a point where being a 'young white guy' means you shouldn't be concerned about this?
Gamergate was largely organized on 4chan's /v/ board before the topic was banned. Most of it was public so people weren't really conspiring per se, but the ethics thing was used as cover to go after anything or anyone they perceived as "SJW," and a lot of harassment did result from that even if their official policy was to the contrary.
So yeah, not quite a conspiracy, not 100% about organized harassment, but definitely cover and definitely a major catalyst for people getting harassed.
LUFTRAUSER
Banned
I agree with this sentiment. Based on my observations of these trolls it would seem the main reason they hate these people and the "art games" they produce is because seeing gaming, their main hobby, grow as a medium merely servers to highlight how little they have grown as people. They want gaming to remain as idiosyncratic, juvenile, and repetitive as they are.
They don't want to grow up, and they don't want gaming too, either.
It is SO FUNNY that that was almost the entirety of his post was based around that tidbit of misinformation. "Proof that Journalism is shitty: I can be so very, very misinformed after several years. They're clearly not doing their job right" would have been a better argument.
Mental Atrophy
Banned
No, it was necessary. It was impossible for a very long time before they uploaded the free ending-expansion patch.
You're too quick to believe anything that supports your pre-inclination. It was impossible and it is not misinformation. The materiel requirements were cut by about 20% several months after the internet complained about being misled, for which the video games media painted their consumers as entitled whiners.
Fair. Although I don't particularity like the way that blogpost is written (putting numbers against each other that are not entirely relevant like total followers vs followers gained) it very much did prove my overblown number wrong.
Thanks for all the clarification without any dismisive, belitteling attitude one might have come to expect from here at the worst of times.
Gained some new perspectives today after only ever getting to read extremist opinions from both 'sides' at first glance (especially on twitter, it's almost like one cannot really form a proper formulated opinion on a matter like this in 140 characters, who knew)
Let's hope this'll be more productive than I'd expect it to be, this is the kind of discussion that might be a useful way to sort this clusterfuck out
I'll just go play some videogames now. gnight gaf.
In the movie world, there are two types of reviews: movie reviews, and DVD/Blu-Ray reviews.
Movie reviews focus on the content of the film, with few or no mentions of surface elements like film grain, color balance, frames per second, or movie length.
DVD/Blu-Ray reviews have a lot more in common with what you want to see from games. They discuss transfer quality, aspect ratio, picture sharpness, packaging, and report any errors or glitches. Discussion of the content of the film is rarely longer than a few paragraphs.
Personally, I'd really like to see both types of reviews exist in video games. However, I strongly disagree that DVD/Blu-Ray-style product reviews should be the default, or even the majority. In the movie world, movie reviews outnumber product reviews because the majority of viewers care more about the content than the container.
That doesn't mean the product reviews aren't useful and shouldn't exist. It's just a reflection that people are interested in movies being discussed as an art form rather than a consumer product.
But I completed it in the first week of release. Paragon-path, pretty much perfect run in terms of people surviving,
Geth and Quarians joining forces
Mental Atrophy
Banned
You didn't get the best ending then, because it wasn't possible.
I find your post extremely typical of the #GG people. Alluding to how other people are mean to you. Talking like there are 2 symmetric sides. Suggestion there is something like resolution.
Frankly, people are dismissive because the stakes #GG says are being discussed are nearly 0. Video game journalism means almost nothing. But the their transparent actual goal of making left leaning opinion unacceptable is also a inane goal. The loggical response to #GG is dismissive. There is nothing to it. It's just a group of people who are very angry over nothing.
There also isn't two symmetric sides, there is one extremely anti-social and inexperienced side and there is the rest of the internet who just don't want to hear any more about it, of varying degrees of pushback. #GG is both toxic and pointless so no one wants them around.
There is also no resolution. #GG wants to be outraged and wants others to be outraged but the stuff they care about are meaningless for most other people.
The only resolution is what has happened now, #GG stays outraged in their small insular circles and the rest of the internet tells them to shove it when they wonder out.
BlastProcessing
Member
Sorry that this thread isn't entertaining you. If you want to be amused I suggest you go here, lots of fun activities and stuff.
If you want to stick around and chat, maybe you could clarify your feelings on how the demographics of this thread matter.
Riposte
Member
Notice how the idea of expansion is almost always coupled with the devaluing of what we currently have (typically in a myopic fashion), particularly with descriptors like "juvenile". The mere implication of "art game" introduces a hierarchy that puts the "non-art games", the "pathetic sequels", lower, an unavoidable meaning given the history and value of the "art" brand. Even if the phrase isn't uttered, the notion seems to hang around with the kind of comparisons people make, the obsession with the evils of "AAA" (i.e., focusing (basing status on) where a game comes from rather than what it is). It is all too common for such proclamations to be dripping with condescension for the games and the people who play them - case in point: these recent posts.
The defensiveness in response is sensible, although not always in action. While people saying certain games are not games isn't productive, and there's no reason or hope to stop their creation for whoever would go that far, fighting the against the prospect that their "juvenile" games may be ranked lower than some "new form" of game that fails to meet the standards of their criticism (such as on the basis of meaningful, complex interactivity) is necessary if they don't want to become critically irrelevant. It seems very difficult for individuals to say they want a broader selection of games without also attempting to change values of what is a good game (to an aggressive extent even). There's no reason why one shouldn't disagree if the whole message isn't something they agree with. Saying that some "art games" and mobile/F2P games are inferior to those "idiosyncratic, juvenile, and repetitive" games is vocalizing their ideals, all the more crucial when those are the descriptors being established in midst of an expansion.
Just to chime in I also got the best ending and never once went in to the MP. I just happened to complete literally everything.
The Tofunator
Member
What was the "best" ending, then? Because last I checked at launch there were 3 you can get being maxed out and they were all essentially the same.
Yeah, not to pile on, but me too. It's possible that doing this required a saved game from ME2 with certain conditions satisfied, but it was possible.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you (Mental Atrophy) that the "entitled gamer" stuff was pretty gross, and I personally think you could see the genesis of this whole mess in the way Mass Effect fans were treated by the press. But this particular point doesn't seem to be true
Edit: Ohhhh, wait. I think the best ending was the one where it showed Shepard alive at the end or something? Like a tiny little scene after the ending? Yeah, I think that may have been impossible, nm. Still sort of a minor point in the overall controversy, imho, but fair point.
Mental Atrophy
Banned
This:
It is definitely a very minor difference that didn't really bother me, especially because I enjoyed multiplayer anyway... Mostly the internet was just overly upset with the overall quality of the core endings. It required 10,000 points with the 50% readiness penalty. Doing everything puts you somewhere close to but lower than 9,000 but most people who try to do everything will be closer to 8,000. Having access to the three core endings only required 6,000.
BlastProcessing
Member
You list of examples of corruption reads to me like a list of things that reviews missed. Reviews can't catch everything. Reviewers are fallible. Can you point to any industry where the reviewers don't miss important elements? When a car gets recalled do we criticize reviewers for missing the defects?
The issues with your Mass Effect and Skyrim examples have to do with the fact that market forces dictate that reviews have to come out ASAP. This is caused by reader behavior not by some sort of publisher coercion.
I have no idea what Liana K means. The fact you threw a question mark after her name would suggest you aren't confident about who Liana K is or what they did. My quick Google search shows that she questioned teh Sex politics of The Witcher (which is a far from uncommon occurrence) and was the subject of an article delightfully titled "Shill Queen Liana K Censors Youtube". She seems to be a cosplayer? You're gonna need to help me more on this one.
As to stated Ethics Policies. Many sites have them. Here is Polygons for example. It's funny how Gamersgate, which is all about journalistic ethics, seems to have it in for Polygon when they have such a clear and well expressed ethics policy.
I am pretty sure that games reviewers are not anywhere near violating FTC regulations. If you can find the clauses you think they are violating, I would love to look at them.
As to the nature of reviews, to me a good reviewer is someone who is able to clearly express their experience with a game. I actually want bias, because I sure as hell have bias when I play games and I would prefer to read something from someone I can identify with. Rodger Ebert's film reviews are a great example of this. He weaves his knowledge of cinema, the action of the film, and his experience watching it into something that is far from unbiased. But I love his work and still go back to read his reviews. They have a lasting value because of their quality. And if he says something I don't agree with, it's ok because I know where he is coming from.
The wonderful thing is, if you feel that reviews aren't up to snuff, you can write your own. The thing about the type of perfectly unbiased reviews that you champion is that, by their very nature, you only need one for each game. Gamersgaters have been successful in organizing to pull major advertising off a website, so I don't see why they couldn't organize to support a new site that hews to their ideals.
Funny as hell, their vision of the SWJ game future is just the art games you described, stuff like Gone Home which I dont even like, they cant even see that a few years back theres wasnt a market for games like The Walking Dead, FTL and Pillars of Eternity. They cant even see the benefits of a expanding market even while they play and praise this new viable genres, thats how small their vision is. GamerGate is that friend of you from highschool that still has the same old Fiat Pinto and the same job packing groceries and doesnt want you to go to college.
I do think that, in general, people don't tend to respond well to social criticism, however well-intentioned. And it is social criticism rather particularly, and it has happened before in many movements before this one in which fear was the dominant word of the day. I do think that part of the responsibility lies not only in the hands of the users, but also of those enabling these occurrences. Yet there should (in theory) be safeguards against the juvenile behavior we're seeing, the reality is that in almost every online social space, these abuses play themselves out, with little recourse or action by those who supposedly claim responsibility to assure their users do not feel threatened or attacked.
Social media (and I use that term rather loosely) however has changed the stakes in that threats have a more distinct reality to them while also creating situations of vague responsibility (at least, for the person making the threats). I would say that part of the problem is with Twitter, is with Facebook, and other media middlemen whose inaction is creating an extraordinary and tangible fear amongst millions of people. While there needs to be a stronger stance by videogame media sites as well, the enabling factor here is with these groups. Twitter seems, as Facebook, a de facto space of abuse, whose presence is largely assent to say dangerous and hurtful things.
There are statements in both of these companies' EULAs and these terms are also fairly consistent amongst all companies who provide a public space for posting:
And yet... what is their reaction? Institutional abuse, you would think, would naturally lead to institutional reform. But it hasn't happened, and these hate campaigns are not new. They are as old as the creation of the media and despite their massive growth, nothing has changed. Media also has social responsibility and without it, real problems, real fear and real abuse emerge.
Inspiring thread made on Giantbombs forum: http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/gen...giant-bomb-should-denounce-gamergate-1496897/
Oh, in which case I'm going to avatar-stare myself for being an idiot. I thought you meant the 'Green' ending. I didn't realise the after-'Red' scene required points to achieve.
Completely my mistake, and I apologise.
A lot of it was organized at 4chan, but to say it was organized by 4chan as though it was essentially one of their anon ops (which is what a lot of people were in essence claiming in conjunction with using the word conspiracy and/or orchestrated) was ludicrous, especially given 4chans size and that it actually has more women visiting and participating in it than most other places on the internet. Notyourshield didn't originate as deep cover for harassment, it was started by a black indie dev who didn't want people speaking for him or w/e. The 'topic secret IRC where they planned the harassment campaigns' was on open public IRC channel where anyone could join and talk, and the dumped all the logs to specifically show that there was no conspiracy, even in the singled out we hunt the mammoth log quotes there were people saying 'this is about journalism ethics' or 'that's messed up' or 'this isn't about you know who, drop it'. In fact the 'smoking gun' of some of them saying 'does anyone know any black hats?' and nothing coming of it kind of shows that most of the people visiting that channel were probably not those breaking the law.
I have zero problem with someone saying 'there are people that used and are using gamergate as cover for harassment' (and those fucks should go to jail) but both sides have shown the tendency to go a little crazy (not asserting a false equivalency here) in claims of there being something much grander at work than is the case in reality. That screencap that claimed Zoes ex was 'coaching them on how to harass indies', were it you read the logs or the screencap, had him actually saying that he wasn't going to give them information because it would only take one person misusing it and causing harm and that would paint everyone in a bad light. I swear no one actually read those screen-caps. It was much easier to take them at such a face value that it apparently hardly involved actually reading the logs in the screenshot.
Inaccuracies just give both sides ammo and prolongs stupidity (and continues to provide cover for assholes) by pushing people into echo chamber camps where they feel that the other side is absolutely the perpetrators of all mistrusts. It breaks down moderates and radicalizes.
If you guys want to 'win' appeal to moderates within gamer-gate to denounce harassment. Demonizing everyone and shutting down communication is a big reason why this got so ugly to begin with. Appeal to universal issues (anti harassment, journalism ethics) that have broad support. Help them help themselves decouple from the toxic elements by encouraging them to take a stand against them, and show that you are willing to listen to the moderates and willing to propagate that not everyone involved with it is some misogynist asshole or a sock puppet. That ha a higher chance of enacting transformative change than blanket statements.
tonysidaway
Member
I don't see it that way. They're not winning. Sarkeesian is away from her home, for instance, but she isn't hiding and she's attending functions. She's at GeekGirlCon 2014 this weekend. One overlooked fact here is that the victims are not alone. They speak out and reasonable people come to support them. The campaign to shut feminists up is a failure. It would have succeeded if everybody threatened kept quiet and went into hiding, but that is precisely what these particular women did not do.
Why the "Both sides" argument is fallacious http://inurashii.tumblr.com/post/99751399160/gamergate-and-the-golden-mean-fallacy
tonysidaway
Member
Heck if you do post it from high heaven, one of the primary problems with this thing has been a lack of clear communication giving rise to half truths and two competing monologues as oppose to one dialogue.
MHWilliams
Member
Hi.
My answers to these in order:
GamerGate is a disparate hydra. The lack of clear organization or leadership means that anyone who does something under the hashtag is just as representative of the movement as anyone else. This is the same problem Occupy had.
Now there is a big problem with a number of named influencers - IA for example - have views that are considered hate and these influencers are pushed to the top of the movement. But to cut them out would require an organized group. And the current form of GamerGate relies on aiming all those various voices - some of whom are quite incendiary and hateful - in one direction.
There is no other side. Let me illustrate.
#GG is an actual banner that people have placed themselves under. It is a thing. Outside of #GG, there's everyone else. People who for whatever reason, have not placed themselves under the #GG banner. Now outside of the movement, there are people who intensely dislike GG, represented by the more colorful side of the gradient, but they (currently) aren't an actual organized group.
Have some who stand against #GG become as bad as those they oppose in tone and action? Certainly. But they are, as of now, not "the other side".
Of course not. And someone saying they don't like the games you play for various reason doesn't make you or them a bad person either.
I can see this, but past history has taught me that many just don't want it said at all.
Even looking into these bad things, most of the accusations either don't check out or are wildly exaggerated. Certainly, they've done far, far less than the huge outrage in return.
With #GamerGate not having clear organizational goals, I'm not sure of what the middle ground is. Ethics in journalism? Okay, as I've said before, we can always have that talk. Objectivity and removal of "agendas" from the writing? I've written about that before. Twice.
About #GamerGate? Uh, sure? As, Damion Schubert pointed out, a consumer group is a good idea. #GamerGate just isn't it right now. They would have to cut some people.
Most of those can be found on the press release, meaning you don't really need a review. A game runs at 1080p and 60fps is an objective fact. "This game looks good" is a subjective opinion.
A review is one person's comprehensive word on their experience with a product.
Ah, corruption in journalism. Okay, let's dig in.
I assume you're talking Destruction with 4000+ EMS? You get 10 seconds of extra footage, and that's before we even get inot the idea that Synthesis was probably the "best outcome" overall.
But again, we run into the issue of treating the games media as a single entity.
http://www.pcgamer.com/mass-effect-3-review/
http://www.rpgamer.com/games/masseffect/masseffect3/reviews/masseffect3strev1.html
http://www.gamesradar.com/mass-effect-3-review/
I've always found this one interesting because I certainly believe feedback is a big part of the development process. But some people need to pick one. Either the developer's vision is completely sacrosanct (meaning the Mass Effect 3 ending should've stayed) or the players and press should provide feedback and criticism to developers (meaning changes are possible).
As far as I can tell, no major outlet played the game on PS3. You wish for them to review a game they didn't play?
So don't read GamingExcellence? (A site I hadn't heard of until now.) What does Liana K have to do with me, or Jim Sterling, or Kirk Hamilton, or whoever else reviews games? Again, part of the problem many seem to have is trying to extrapolate more insidious and widespread actions out of very little. Liana K openly decides to change her review scores, so that's everyone's issues? I don't like the idea - the game is the game for me - but you could simply not read her reviews.
Disclosure is awesome. Certainly have no issues with that.
What is placed in front of a court? Again, we're veering off here.
The same thing that's happening with journalism everywhere.
I'm not even sure where you're going here.
First use was indeed from Ninouh on 2nd of September 21.15PM.
https://twitter.com/Ninouh90/status/507019008009195520
But then a few hours after, this surfaced.
Whoops....this person is gone but I'll say that I am not white or a guy. I'm an African American female, and a very sentimental, nostalgic adult gamer. I have been haunting this thread a lot. D: (I think I'm the 2nd most active, though I wish I didn't care so much as I do)
I can't help but be drawn in, simply because I am genuinely afraid that people target people like me for liking games. And I don't want them to target people like me. It's okay if you think misogyny and racism don't exist...but it's not okay if you want to silence or hurt people who want to bring it up.
First use was indeed from Ninouh on 2nd of September 21.15PM.
https://twitter.com/Ninouh90/status/507019008009195520
But then a few hours after, this surfaced.
We know who started not your shield, I can link you to him if you want, he is not a 4channer. He used it, it caught on, and then someone posted it on 4chan. He even talked about how he spent forever arguing with people who didn't believe him (or that he existed).
I think it's great that you care and I wish others cared as much.
It's more important now than ever to care about what's happening, given that where this goes will have knock-on effects. Given Intel's reaction, I would say it already has. Though sadly, not the one we might have hoped for. Still, the awareness has created some real ethics policy reforms and that's great!
You don't need to link here it is:
http://topsy.com/s?q=#notyourshield&window=a&sort=-date
Technically the first use was even 2 years ago but not related to gamergate.
The first to use it associated with gamergate was Ninouh as I posted.
Besides, notyourshield is a performative self-contradiction - it is literally using marginalized minorities to shield Gamergate from criticism.
It doesn't matter if you're a member of an oppressed group and you agree with a certain movement aiming to further oppress that particular group. That doesn't validate or excuse the group's actions, nor does it take away from all the other members of oppressed groups who have justified criticisms of said oppressive movement.
It doesn't matter if you're a member of an oppressed group and you agree with a certain movement aiming to further oppress that particular group. That doesn't validate or excuse the group's actions, nor does it take away from all the other members of oppressed groups who have justified criticisms of said oppressive movement.
MHWilliams
Member
Let's drop this all out here.
#GamerGate is hashtag started by Adam Baldwin when he tweeted about a Zoe Quinn video by Internet Aristocrat. Actions related to the hashtag have been discussed in 4Chan thread (which later moved to 8chan), IRC, and the KotakuInAction Reddit page. The movement at some point moved onto ethics in journalism, but many of those original influencers - IA and Baldwin, for example - still remain a part of #GamerGate.
#NotYourShield was started by Ninouh, who creates videos under the name of Anime Editorial. Once, again proponents on 4chan/v/ decided to use the hashtag for certain stated actions. Because of that, the full extent of real uses to fake ones of the #NotYourShield hashtag are in question, but we'll assume they're all real.
To say that 4chan/v/, 8chan's GamerGate board, IRC, and KotakuInAction haven't had a been a part or had a decent amount of influence on the direction of both hashtags is disingenuous at best. Partially because, again: if you say you're #Gamergate then you are #Gamergate, because there's no clear organization. Tis a movement with many different voices, some of which are incendiary and hateful.
#GamerGate is hashtag started by Adam Baldwin when he tweeted about a Zoe Quinn video by Internet Aristocrat. Actions related to the hashtag have been discussed in 4Chan thread (which later moved to 8chan), IRC, and the KotakuInAction Reddit page. The movement at some point moved onto ethics in journalism, but many of those original influencers - IA and Baldwin, for example - still remain a part of #GamerGate.
#NotYourShield was started by Ninouh, who creates videos under the name of Anime Editorial. Once, again proponents on 4chan/v/ decided to use the hashtag for certain stated actions. Because of that, the full extent of real uses to fake ones of the #NotYourShield hashtag are in question, but we'll assume they're all real.
To say that 4chan/v/, 8chan's GamerGate board, IRC, and KotakuInAction haven't had a been a part or had a decent amount of influence on the direction of both hashtags is disingenuous at best. Partially because, again: if you say you're #Gamergate then you are #Gamergate, because there's no clear organization. Tis a movement with many different voices, some of which are incendiary and hateful.
Well put.
I can dig up his statement on the matter if you want. We're on a tangent of a tangent here. My understanding is that he browsed like a lot of people, (I like and have visited 4 chan, I would not call myself a 4channer even though I was involved with operation whatever against scientology).
I can dig up his statement on the matter if you want. We're on a tangent of a tangent here. My understanding is that he browsed like a lot of people, (I like and have visited 4 chan, I would not call myself a 4channer even though I was involved with operation whatever against scientology).
I had thought that a lot of #notyourshield supporters were just confused like the Anita hate mob. Lashing out as a reaction to claim that was never actually made. That 4chan thing makes it look like genuine propaganda instead.
I meant outside of this thread. These are recurring pro-Gamergate arguments inside this thread. I'm sure that they're being used in other places and eaten up. If Gamergate justifies and defends itself with these arguments, attention should be on dispelling them.
Lime just posted an blog post on the "two sides" excuse; I think that's a good one.
I meant outside of this thread. These are recurring pro-Gamergate arguments inside this thread. I'm sure that they're being used in other places and eaten up. If Gamergate justifies and defends itself with these arguments, attention should be on dispelling them.
Lime just posted an blog post on the "two sides" excuse; I think that's a good one.
Pretty sure #GamerGate was a thing before Adam Baldwin got involved. He just took its visibility to the next level.
This is true...
But let's be fair here. If someone or something doesn't fit someone's perceptions, then they are quite frankly invisible. Feminists have a tendency to pretend that men aren't victims of rape, and that women aren't sometimes abusers of power. That's simply the result of feminists being ignorant to their own perceptions of reality. If you look at the facts, there's a different story, but their minds don't accept those points or those points are dismissed/downplayed. Male rape victims are often invisible.
Likewise there are "gamers" who actually believe that women don't play core games. Which is completely untrue since about 22% of hardcore gamers are women. People like me are completely invisible to the hardcore's perception of reality. By invisible I mean, non-existent, the exception, an anomaly, or "doesn't count."
As stupid as this sounds, if someone doesn't believe in something, then that thing doesn't exist. If someone says gays don't exist...then gays don't exist for that person.
Things would be a lot simpler and easier, if everyone just took things as they were. There are going to be women who don't want to talk about SJ. A lot, in fact. There are also going to be a lot of women who don't care about the topic at all. And there are going to be a lot of women who are curious or really interested in the topic. Women make up 50% of the population. We very rarely agree on anything, and that's the way it ought to be. =\
I find it odd that people would consider women a group in the first place. Do we consider all men to be a group? Sometimes...but when we do, aren't we always smacked in the face for overgeneralizing? lol.
This is where things shut down, though: A lot of GG people are living in a different world when it comes to those topics.
The general GG populace still believes in some shadowy "SJW" cabal that's manipulating numerous media outlets and wields enough power to silence all critics. They also have a large contingent of people who believe that any harassment is a fabrication or a smear campaign against them. They literally believe this is some kind of war between them and "cultural marxists." What do you say to that? It's only a few steps removed from folks who rant about lizard people and the Illuminati. Even if not all of them are like that, those voices speak loudly enough that it's nigh impossible to communicate with any large portion of GamerGate in a reasonable way. You can't talk someone down and have a civil conversation when they believe they're being persecuted by evil forces with unlimited power.
I'm going to keep bringing up the conspiracy theorist angle, because that's exactly what this is. You can't have a reasoned discussion with people who are on an ideological crusade. They don't play by the rules.
He actually did launch the hashtag as a part of ongoing Quinnspiracy garbage.
MHWilliams
Member
Nope. Baldwin was the first use, according to analytics at the time. There may have been random uses otherwise, but all this? Baldwin's first tweet kicked it off.
Well, I think it's good that it's being discussed, and I think it's good that people are here to discuss it. It's clear at this point that there is a lot of effort from Gamergate's supporters to make a lot of people miserable. They and their supporters are not going to magically go away. There is probably no goal they could achieve that would have them say "okay, this is enough."
There isn't anything we can do directly to deal with this. Or, considering the doxxing and threats that have defined this situation, perhaps it's better to say that there's nothing we should do. But by talking about it, maybe we can convince someone - maybe a lurker who decides to check on this thread - that this isn't something they want to involve themselves with.
A big problem in our society is that people view males as the default and women as 'others'. :\ I would speculate that this has something to do with us guys being (unfortunately) the gatekeepers of society for basically all time in conjunction with the well known issue that men say they have in understanding women, but it's also just easier to 'not understand' people's whom your group never even saw as people for a long time.
tonysidaway
Member
- Status