The comics industry is finally, belatedly facing up to Comicsgate - Sensationalist Headlines

Kiwifarmswiki actually has very good articles on the mainstays of GG. They are well-sourced from primary sources, and don't really go on speculative trails. Zoe Quinn

Providing refuge implies GG invited and welcomed those people. Bad people flooded it implies they forced their way in, welcome or not.

do you think this is an apt comparison? a better one would be asking me if im mad when the media reports that ANTIFA rioted and destroyed property.

Not reporting that they rioted and destroyed property, ONLY reporting that they riot and destroy property. As in what they actually stand for isn't mentioned or acknowledged ever. As in every article about ANTIFA would be about the guy with the bike lock, and he's the face of the movement forever.

If you think Gamergate was about ethics then please try and find some issues of journalistic ethics that it actually raised and addressed.

DeepFreeze | Journalism corruption reference It was even posted in the thread already. Here's another https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2016/09/ftc-used-gamergate-and-kotaku-in-action-operations-for-gawker-investigation/11497/

ARe you absolutely shitting me? We all know you're gonna disregard it and keep diverting attention from the discussion.

I mean, people did that for you in the period of 2014-2016 and you're still on this like nobody ever did. So you can claim victory after people are done dealing with your bullshit. Man no wonder Tudd got the way he did with users like you around

Side note: That's not a hypothetical. It was (and still is) one of the main ways that movement was and is being discredited.

So you can ignore it or go on some spiel about how it doesn't count? Yeah, that sure sounds productive.

Bigger, hotter take. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LljkYiwTB1s The Law & Order: SVU episode that depicts the anti side as the ones in the right served as a catalyst for the Paul's rise to fame, which would eventually lead to the heious shit he's done in the name of the all mighty view.

They're also pretty long iirc. It's probably interesting if you want to really dive deep into the issue (You probably don't want to. Trust me on this.), but otherwise it's like linking to a 1:20h YT video without a timestamp and saying "the proof's in there". It's technically true in this case, but things like that are usually a(n intentional) waste of time and I wouldn't blame anyone for disregarding them.

Congratulations, it is now fair-game to call you brain-damaged, because it is the only explanation as to why you are so adamant about being wrong. Tudd was easier to talk to than you. And that episode was so bad, that even aGG people didn't like it. It is however, and absolute goldmine and work of art. I mean they did ask for evidence, and the initial leak did have some highlights included that were pulled from the massive dump. Sometimes it's hard work, but not everything is going to be simple, especially in a clusterfuck that this was.

Yeah, I'll be honest, a lot this is not written in good faith. When its copy+pastes of transcripts instead of screen shots I'm not going to put much weight on it. Same with screenshots where they just add text saying "This is totally this person". I cant take anything ED or Kiwifarms say seriously when I see them trying to amateur psychoanalyze the major players or flat out state that everyone prominent who was anti is a "professional victim". I guess my point is, for something that was supposed to be about ethics in games journalism and reviews for using on quantitative elements there is a lot of appeals to emotion and whataboutism going on.

How about the one that started it? How about the 100s of cases since then? What rock are you under?

One easy way to recognise the legitimate sources is that they are archive links (usually archive.is) pasted in. All of the screenshots linked from DeepFreeze.it should have them, for example. It became very clear early on that no-one would give us the benefit of the doubt in this matter, so almost everyone started to use automated archives since we can't control what goes in there beyond that it goes in there. (This also works wonders if you want to combat trolls/other malicious users who post fake info or want to deny some outlet its ad revenue while still talking about what they produced.)

this has to be the 7th time I've seen you pull this card, and ironically, it's very Tudd-esque in style.

I'll troll through it after work, but this is kinda the main reason I take all this stuff with a lot of salt. There doesnt seem to be any attempts at archiving and contextualizing this stuff in a way that's both simple to access and written in a more objective way.

they were previously permabanned on oldpunch for threadshitting when defending a very real pedophile (encrypted hard drives, comparing their cousin or maybe it was sister to loli anime waifus, bragging about rubbing their boner on them when babysitting etc.) just because that pedophile was anti-gg

Stop vocally having opinions on topics that you clearly don't know a single thing about.

It's literally the first mark of a loud, obnoxious and stupid person.

Dude, you’re a straight up dishonest person. We we have done this song and dance twenty or thirty times. You don’t listen, you don’t care, you disregard facts and reality for your own ideology. When this is pointed out you get all pissy and fucking run away

I think it's a little disingenuous to say that GG didn't factor into the rise of the alt-right at all, but at the same time I think the scale of its influence is overblown. Where the principal disjoint of understanding occurs in retrospective views of GG (both pro and anti) is in trying to interpret that influence and largely has to do with your own subjective expediences with the movement and its effects. I think more disorienting is the fact that GG did have rational, grounded criticisms that were eventually appropriated and sensationalized. For instance, I think that the contemporary SJW boogeyman often employed as an antagonistic zeitgeist by the alt-right was born of GG. However, to imply that the "SJW" portrayed in both good-faith pro-GG opinion and the "SJW" portrayed in bad-faith alt-right fear-mongering are the same is a folly. While one might have been the catalyst for the others existence, you can't really hold the former accountable for the latter. It's important to recognize where these disconnects in understanding and perspective come from because more often than not, both sides are arguing in good faith and have nothing but the best of intentions, but have differences in what formed their perspective. Thus, both parties are right - but also misconstrue certain aspects of the issue, leading to misunderstanding and animosity.

All of this. THis is not what we're seeing from any of the gamesjournospros articles. it's not what we see from Brianna, Sarkeesian or quinn. It's not what we see from asparkle and lambeth... so i dunno.

It's pretty clear that they're at most 16 by this point.

I still remember what crapt wrote in one of the last couple bans that really hits it on the head "Would rather cause a shitstorm than backup claim"

Ok I'm getting this feeling that ASparkle is actually a Tudd alt. That would be a very Tudd thing to do.

TBH I don't blame a lot of people for their perspective of the whole clusterfuck when shitty youtubers and reactionary figureheads and their fanbases got involved, and how the media presented it. What I found most bizarre about the whole thing though was the obsession of the "antiGG" side and how invested some people got, to the point they still invoke it to this day or get all over it at any mention, like it was their Vietnam or something.

Sure it's more complicated than that, any sociopolitical issue as complex as GG is bound to be. The problem is that with it's depth and complexity, it's hard to expect people to have a full and objective perspective of the issue. It doesn't help, as you mentioned, that there are bad-faith actors in the mix obfuscating the issue either. I think at the end of the day, though, the fundamental principle remains the same. All disagreements are founded upon on a disjoint in perspective. Everyone who is arguing in favor/against something really does believe in what they're saying. Unless they're trolling, of course, but you'd be surprised at how rare completely impartial trolling is outside of certain contexts. This is what I've really noticed with GG as an issue in particular, and is something I've experienced myself as I've flowed in my own opinion of the matter. I'm sure there are a soul or two on here that remember my very anti opinions on GG. Those existed because, well, as far as I was concerned, I had first-hand viewed and experienced how GG became fuel for the parasitic disease of the alt-right. Animosity towards truly overblown and toxic socjus and SJWs were good fuel for animosity towards more rational and benign socjus. Disillusioned gamers who hated those like Anita and Quinn (whos hate was often deserved) became budding ideological recruits for the alt-right, and turned that hate onto undeserving parties who lacked the more sinister aspects of Anita and Quinn, but shared some aspects of ideology. Now, as I've demonstrated, I still view these phenomenon as true, but what's changed is my perspective in how both this and a truth about GG being good can exist. It doesn't have to be one or the other. GG can have fundamentally and logically sound views on seriously negative phenomena in the medium of games journalism while *still* being unwitting fuel for ideological rallying. Anyone who saw folks like Milo and Sargon latch onto its fertile bosom can attest to that. IMO, the fact that the two sides of pro and anti-GG are constantly pitted against each-other is indicative of the main issue with how we view GG. Pro and anti-GG shouldn't really exist. GG should not and should have never been an ideological warzone for two opposing sides to hurl bile at each other. GG should have just been a phenomenon for people to observe and draw their own impartial conclusions. Many people's perspectives of GG and, indeed, of literally anything are founded in truth. However, no single human can be privy to the full truth of a complex sociological phenomenon like GG. Thus, everyone invested typically has partial pluralities of the truth, and thus multiple (sometimes conflicting) truths exist. I think if more people were willing to try to acknowledge this idea of multiple truths, we could do less fighting and bickering; and more earnestly and productively discussing the issues we face.

@ASparkle can you explain why you never respond to the fact that Zoe Quinn drove someone to suicide?