The reason is probably because they're outside of the United States perspective, since they understand a lot of this whining is a strictly American issue. The ma soggy knees whining anyways.

I admit, I have noticed that, and worse I have noticed that a lot of the issue in that regard is putting certain cultural views against others and saying that people need to follow their beliefs...it's a lot like religion in that regard.

Just curious, when you say artistry, do you mean craftsmanship, or aesthetics, or a mix of both?

http://gamergate.me/2014/12/struggle-of-the-pen/ I think this guy would be VERY interested in having a discussion about that with you.

The thing htown, is that GG 'alQaeda' is explicitly denying ownership of the harassment, whereas actual ISIS is pretty darn proud to have the flags seen, videos distributed, etc...

Now consider that back some years, there were (and I guess still) lots of protests that going after such Islamic groups was disproportionate, unjust, etc... yet the available evidence was much, much stronger (as were the reactions) than the correlation that it must be GG doing all those bad things we dislike.

Do you see the tolerance double standard? Your hypothetical situation, by the way, is not hypothetical. From the IRA, to Palestinian groups, radical splinter factions are very common. Intelligence agencies consider them separately, as they objectively are. A 'war' declaration, democratically obtained is the formality that legitimizes action against a broader group, including collateral damage. This democratic process some people would call mob rule though... depending on what actions you are going to war about and how emotional that reaction is.

Are all ecologists bombing antennas or breaking into research facilities? Should all pro life supporters be treated as if they shoot abortion clinics? You know the answer. Are all Jews greedy moneylenders? You know where these politics end up... If you don't, come visit and I'll show you around. Own up and don't be an hypocrite about GG please.

Lastly, you are aware the GG to ISIS comparisons are a thing, and so you should know this is loaded rhetoric, maybe even intended to inflame (not your usual approach though). I think you see very well you are trying to make your guilt by association argument stronger by 'dehumanizing' your enemies. How consciously u did it I'm unsure.

Me, I'm a firm believer in tit for tat game theory: nice, retaliatory and forgiving.

Obviously my opinion means nothing. I merely meant to show that GG has received a great deal of coverage for better or worse and started a real conversation to the point where even the anti-GG acknowledge problems in journalism, whereas I'd wager that most people haven't heard of this guy. It seems disingenuous for him to claim a better way when his method seem to be so ineffective. Why should we strive to accomplish as little as he has?

You can't reasonably compare people's reactions toward beheading to their reactions toward internet threats. Moreover, ISIS doesn't go around donating money or doing any of the positive things GG has done. That's not even mentioning the fact that the threats didn't use the Gamergate tag. They were automatically attributed to us by the media anyway, but there's zero actual proof of our complicity, and these people have been harassed before, so it's completely different than than videotaped beheadings. Seriously; there's no similarity whatsoever, so any analogy is fundamentally flawed and designed solely to appeal to emotion by invoking something people are no doubt passionate about.

But sure, in a bizarre alternate universe where ISIS is outwardly pro-charity and pro-ethics and anti-violence and some people commit violence in its name anyway, it'd be ridiculous to hold the whole group responsible for those few crazies. Especially if there's an opposition willing to take things out of context and distort dates like in the case of the Brad Wardell comic thing (and GameOverGate, and talking about Gamergate being obsessed with "sex for positive reviews" even though that was dropped before August was even over, and so many similar instances of dishonesty), making any of the actual sleights pointed out questionable thanks to the overwhelmingly dishonest sources pointing out said sleights.

Hezbollah ;) but since 'they' like Hezbolah and Hamas, don't expect them to use that comparison, which is much better fitting.

Maybe my analogy was a poor one. I'll try again. You ask "should all pro life supporters be treated as if they shoot abortion clinics?". My answer would be that my analogy was intended to demonstrate exactly that they should not, as opposed to 227's analogy comparing Muslim's to #gg'ers.

Lets try an analogy with pro-lifers.

Lets say a group of pro-lifers form an organisation called "#prolifegate". Its super popular. Many people join. Some prolifegaters murder doctors. They do it in the name of #prolifegate. There are other members of #prolifegate who say, "well I don't support the murdering of doctors, but I am still a member of #prolifegate because I am pro-life". Of course there are other people who are pro-life, who denounce the murders, but never were members of #prolifegate or alternatively left #prolifegate after the murders, recognising that the #prolifegate group was tainted and formed #somebodythinkofthechildren. Nobody who was a member of #somebodythinkofthechildren ever murdered a doctor.

Now, I would agree it is unfair to label all pro-lifers (including #somebodythinkofthechildren'ers) as supporters of doctor murdering. My point is, however, that those people who choose to remain members of #prolifegate, even though they claim to be against the murdering of doctors, open themselves up to criticism of being pro doctor murderers.
I wasn't trying to compare beheading to internet threats or ISIS to GG. My analogy was intended to demonstrate that if you choose to be part of a group, and that group does bad things, even if you are against those things, you open yourself up to criticism of supporting those bad things.

Now, arguments can be had about whether #gg has done anything bad at all, but that is a separate issue.

See I would completely disagree with this. If you are part of an organisation that does good things and bad things, if notwithstanding people in that organisation continue to do bad things, you stay in that organisation, you take ownership of those bad things (as well as the good). If you want to be against the bad things, you leave and start up a new organisation that only does good things.

Now, again, the analogy isn't perfect because I wouldn't call #gg "an organisation", but the point is, it makes it very easy for outsiders to paint all members of #gg with the same brush.

Do you want a shovel? Because that makes even less sense and makes you look like you're declaring every GG'er to be extremists.

I would honestly treat the extremists for what they are, extremists. If they're denounced, which gamergate does denounce harassment and death threats, then honestly you learn to figure out who you're dealing with. There are always going to be extremists, in politics and religion, but they don't taint what they are.

Here, let me put up an example. The Westboro Baptist Church are those that picket funerals around the US saying that those people died because God hates Gays. Most (I should say all, even the state their in is looking for an excuse to get rid of them) people hate them, and their a very extreme Christian group. Does that taint all Christians? Or just the fact that assholes are assholes.

Also, let's do this, where's the hard proof? I keep hearing about this, but I never actually see proof, no one can show me tweets, or archives of tweets, or what. No one does it, no one has proof.

Hell, Gamergate is the reason that the FTC is going to be redoing it's guidelines involving advertisements. http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/12/gamergate-ftc-info-updates-will-address-affiliate-links-native-ads/ But no, we don't get credit, what we get is the fact that someone called us a bunch of harassers, and instead of providing proof or evidence, we're just supposed to take that at face value.

And you know what? This isn't the first time, hell even for you this is a pattern. This is giving me the mindset that I'm back in highschool...where I was accused of wanting to bomb the school or shoot it up. Seriously, this is fucked up shit, I'm getting tired of it, fuck I'm getting tired of gaming because of this shit because I claim gamer as part of my identity, because of this shit I can't even say that because people will look at me like I'm poison. But that's ok, because as a white male, I'm not a person, I'm the Devil to people because I have 'privilege', this magical Sin that I had at birth because of my ancestors. Fuck, at least Christianity forgives Original Sin.

Great analogy!!!

Lets say some members of the Westboro Baptist Church say, I personally don't think God hates Gays, I don't think picketing funerals is right, but I am still a member of the WBC because I love God. Should these members of the WBC be held to account, in any way, for still being members of the Westboro Baptist Church?

I would say they should, because they continue to be associated with it, but even if I felt that they shouldn't, I would say that they are opening themselves up to criticism, by continuing to associate with the WBC.

That's the only point I am trying to make with these analogies. Thoughts?

http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2o8k8g/i_thought_i_had_isolated_myself_from_thisguess_i/ And then there's this, to complete tonight's version of fucked up shit. I find it fucking amazing how many times I've seen similar posts, or how many times I've seen posts from people that act like women in GG are basically puppets, or they just don't know any better, or they've been fooled. It's ridiculous, it's so mind blowingly stupid, and it doesn't end.
They wouldn't be associated with the Westboro Baptists Church because the WBC would throw their asses out into a fucking Tiger Pit. They are THAT hateful. I found literally the worst example of human beings I could find.

Sorry to upset you. I wasn't trying to compare #gg to terrorists, I was simply drawing an analogy between a hypothetical group had good and bad elements and #gg. I expressly said in my first post that I am not trying to suggest #gg'ers are anything like ISIS.

All I am trying to say is that if you are part of a group that does good and bad, you should take ownership of both the good and the bad, because regardless of whether you do or not, others will put that ownership on you.

In my view, this is what the writer of the article I linked was saying when he wrote "One basic tenet of our legal system is “in for a penny, in for a pound”. Its quite an old saying.

I was just responding to the comment from 227 that he was tired of the "guilt by association" thing. I was just explaining that I didn't think the writer was writing about "guilt by association" necessarily but was explaining why, and again I'll quote directly from the article "Conversely, it allows opponents to paint you as the opposite. It also creates an environment in which a lot of people are riled up and members who are loosely associated can do things that reflect poorly on everyone else"


But bearing in mind these are all hypothetical analogies, what if? What do you think then?

I'm pitifully uninformed about all of that stuff, sadly. I was under the impression they were an antisemitic terrorist group, but then again, the media pushing that angle hasn't exactly proven to be trustworthy lately.

And that goes back to my original point. Should we just accept this as "the way things are"? Is engaging in meaningless gestures like renaming ourselves every time someone does something stupid that might reflect poorly on the rest of us really the right thing to do? That hypothetical #somebodythinkofthechildren is ridiculous. Generalizations are ridiculous. I refuse to play by the rules of the "feeling police" who believe terms can become tainted and those too lazy to inform themselves about a topic.

By the way, the tag was originally #Quinnspiracy, but moved to #Gamergate. The two are conflated ("Gamergate started with a blog post by a jilted ex-lover" and other things I've read a million times) despite moving to a new tag and a flood of new people, so it's hardly like moving to a new tag again would mean disassociating ourselves from "toxic elements." History suggests otherwise.

The immediate thought coming to mind is "You are an idiot."

The WBC officially condones and in fact promotes those behaviors.

GamerGate does not condone harassment or threats and in fact denounces both.

Clear enough?