Well, I would rather be taken for racist that being asociated with the likes of ISIS. I guess Randi prefers siding with ISIS though, I mean, she thinks she is doing something benefical to them. AGG sinks a new low.

New update on SPJ:Airplay

aGG are going to send their most trustworthy and kind people, that is to say no one. Yep, aGG bailed. After numerous claims we never want to talk, they turned down the offer to. What they seem to ignore, is that the neutrals did not bail. Which means the debate will have: #gamergate and SPJ members. They are making this a free win for #gamergate.

funny, antis claimed we never talked, Milo offered 10000$ to charity of anita debated him at E3: no response
offered to talk at Airplay: they outright said they didn't wanna or demanded ABSURD sums of dosh (AMiB aksed 30000$!!!) to come, showing again what their stake in this matter is.

Also, the 4 speakers that requested travel funding (a thing the antis were offered as well) have been funded in the blink of an eye.

Yes, people say aGG just wants to have a conversation about diversity. What they want is $$$$$$ AND moral highground. Doing anything where they are not given privilege they just can't tolerate.

This is not fair for them. I expected a fair match. I expected #GamerGate supporters o win the debate through witts, not absence of opponents, by refusing to talk aGG has insulted us and shown they are the wants who refuse to have a conversation. In fact when Wu had a conversation with someone not leaning to aGG he/she/it was attacked by aGG.

I wonder how many antis did not want to go of the fear of getting stabbed. Not by the rapiers facing and challenging them, but by the daggers behind them.


(metaphorical stabs naturally)

Apparently some person related to Agg is willing to come but only if gamergate pays the bill (lol). https://archive.is/7jU9k

Also interesting what a female engineer from china thinks about (american) women in tech: https://twitter.com/RIP_Adamant/status/617997517687361536/photo/1

She requests too many conditions to be met, and at least one of them can't be met under any circumstance.

I have a sinking feeling that it's only so much piss in the wind at this point, but in case I'm wrong, here's a free tip: calling a trans person 'it' is really not ok, even more so than referring to them by whatever sex organs they were born with.

I care little about what "trans persons" have to say. If you were born male, sorry but you are a male, you can't change your chromosomes, and if that offends people then people have lost all scientific reasoning.

[Edit]
Wait, if calling wu an it is even more offensive to wu than calling it him, then I guess I should do so more often, I am not fond of that parody of a woman (If he nailed the femenine looks I would at least admit that, but he still looks and sounds like a dude), I am not sorry for calling a biologically male trans a he, specially if he is still looking manly in the outside, and I am even less sorry for calling a dipstick trans an it.

If you are putting effort and desire into it, i can refer to you as the gender you want.

But pls don't bring stuff like "gender is only a social construct" "gender has no biological meaning" "check my pronouns shitlord" "there exists no link between gender and sex" (this specific statement, which basically denies the effort of all trans people who undergo hormone therapy and surgery, is brought to you by srhbutts, who i actually saw saying this)

I like your views. But I still stick to the scientific concept of adressing males as males and females as females regardless of how they feel or what they look. At least when adressing to someone I am not fond of.

How about you learn to use Google?

Even Polygon revised their ethics policy. The Escapist did.. Other magazines added disclaimers for conflict of interest after the fact. Including Patricia Hernandez and her 4 reviews of her friend and former roommate's games, all now with disclaimers.

You can claim what you think is the problem with indie games, but there are many cases where some of them have received glowing, near perfect reviews which inexplicably "forgot" to mention serious game flaws. I'd say that indie games have the problem that many gamers will not and cannot trust the integrity of those game reviews. As such, it doesn't matter if they get covered, many people will believe the praise is due to corruption. Because corruption in certain indie game circles has been rampant.

Just take the game Sunset. It did get reviewed by IGN, Gamespot, the Washington Post, PC Gamer, Game Informer. and Gamasutra It was promoted by Leigh Alexander's PR firm (former editor of Gamasutra). The developer even claimed to have bribed Anita Saarkesian $40,000 for a positive word. Yet, the game only sold 4,000 copies after release. Probably because it called itself a narrative game, but maybe also word of mouth about how buggy the game is, the boring gameplay of just doing chores, the poor optimization which makes it run poorly even on high end machines...

That was only a couple pages ago...

Come on TStael I linked (lunked?, lunk?) this before.
Corrupt journos db : http://deepfreeze.it/journo.php
Outlets db: http://deepfreeze.it/outlet.php
Achievements : https://wiki.gamergate.me/index.php?title=GamerGate_Achievements

You know what has hurt indie game press the most the past years? Things like rigged Indiecades, Putting complete hacks and frauds like Fish, Anita and a whole slew of "journalists" on pedestals and making them arbiters of what is morally acceptable in gaming, making what social circle your game was born in matter more than its actual quality.

Gamergate is what indie games need, they don't have to be made in san francisco or bribe the newest head honcho on tumblr or something to actually get fairly promoted.