So says the King of Idiots! You deserve your downrep, quit crying.

Gamergate has long since moved on from Zoe Quinn, it's always the Anti-GGers who keep bringing her back. WTF is wrong with you people?

Here is the reality: she did something wrong and was exposed fro it. That's all just and right. But she was just the straw that broke the camel's back, it could have been anything else really, the whole thing has been brewing for years. Aside from being the last spark to ignite the fire she is in no way special and people have bigger issues to look after.

you do realise that it is exactly this behavior which gives GG supporters bad rep?

Women according to you: Clearly you must be drowning in pussy if you understand women that well. I would have thought that they don't need to get encouragement from the internet first, that they'll just do what they like and find fun. But I guess that's why you are the one drowning in pussy and I'm a 40-year old angry neckbeard white male virgin living in my parents' basement.

You do realize that someone continuously jumping into threads, calling everyone who disagrees with him an idiot, and then complaining about getting derepped deserves it, right? This has nothing to do with Gamergate, but hey, make it out how you choose to...

This has already been discussed in other threads where he was shown, with examples, many people with differing opinions who did not get derepped. But here he goes again, blaming it on Gamergate, not his own actions.

Has it, though?

Someone else started a thread, which while admittedly had "Gamergate" in the title, it was "I can't believe it is not gamergate". The author invited everyone to talk about corruption and other problematic aspects of game journalism without the drama or connections to sexism that gamergate has. I participated in it myself, with specifically not mentioning anything about either Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian, but others just could not help it. I believe it took less than 2 pages before we had posts about how Zoe Quinn is evil and Anita is the anti-christ of gaming (a personality that has nothing at all to do with game journalism at all) and so on.

I tried clarifying the whole thing and distilling it back to the root cause, which seemed to bring up "We don't like the lack of objectivity in game reviews", which may possibly have been an interesting discussion, but then even that went down further to "We don't like it when game journalism talks about sexism and supports feminism".

My sisters aren't really "gamers" in the same way I am, but they grew up playing games, and if when I meet one of them and they see me playing some adventure game that looks interesting to them, they'll ask to try it and so on, and my usual experiment of "Name me a prominent female game developer" fails totally with them, being as probably the only game developer they know by name is female (Roberta Williams).
Still, it was my sister who about a month ago sent me a simple email with the subject line "Sad" and the only content being this link:
www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/technology/gamergate-women-video-game-threats-anita-sarkeesian.html

How, in your (not you, HPhish, but the general gog-mind or whatever) opinion, should I have replied to that? Should I have attempted to dodge the very real noxious environment for female gamers and critics that the article talks about? Should I have pretended "It isn't as bad as they make it out to be!"? Should I have made the excuse "The other side is getting threatened too!", should I have done the childish "Why don't they keep their feminism out of my games?"?

Oh, but I have nothing against getting downrepped - on the contrary, I see it as a great honor to earn downreps from a bunch of assholes!

you do realise it is this behavior which gives the anti-GG supporters bad rep?

Zoe Quinn is barely being mentioned, mostly because there is really nothing to say that hasn't already been said. Anita on the other hand is a totally different issue, and part of the problem: the press is never criticising her content, and any valid criticism is immediately brushed off as harassment. What's going on here, who is really paying the bills? That's the sort of transparency we want. We have first-hand proof that lobby groups are demanding the press to abandon neutrality in their favour. So what is going on here?

About your second point, here is something of note: when Dennis Ritchie (creator of the C programming language and co-author of Unix) died some people wanted to feel real smug about shaming everyone how they didn't care about Ritchie but talked all the time about when Steve Jobs died, even though Ritchie did more for the future of computers. But the big difference is that Ritchie never marketed himself to the general public, while Jobs did.

It's the same thing with game developers. You can't blame people for not knowing about someone who is comfortable with staying in the background. Most game developers, men and women, stay in the background because it's easier. People like Miyamoto are paraded around by Nintendo for marketing purposes mainly.

It's easier to stay in the background, and if some people want to remain there that's fine, it's their choice. It takes a strong character to be willing to be paraded around like a mascot in public, because aside from the fame you will also be the target for all the infamy. You can't blame people for not knowing about women game developers if they don't want to be known.

Why would the press criticise her content? They'd at most mention that she's doing it. Heck, the main newsworthy point involving Anita Sarkeesian wasn't that she's doing a web-series about women in games (nobody really cares about that), but that she received such a backlash because of it.
Those specific segments of gaming journalism (or I suppose more accurate to call them game bloggers?) that gamers would be more in-the-know about, who do talk about it certainly don't shy away from criticising her work. Those who aren't gamers and don't care about gaming in that way, why would they care about it (or even about the content of Anita's videos)? To them, the main story IS the harassment she received (and still receives).

I think you misread, or I miscommunicated what I meant in my "second point". I wasn't saying anything about the visibility or non-visibility of female game developers, I was only describing my sisters and their relation to games and gaming to set the stage for my actual point (or question, more accurately).

You can empathize with those harassed with death threats while expressing doubt that the gaming environment is truly as noxious for female gamers and critics as outsiders are constantly claiming. I mean, are the GOG forums a hive of misogyny? Are other gaming forums? Are we to discount the experiences of women whose experiences don't fit this narrative in favor of those whose experiences do?

You are entitled to your opinions, not your facts.

TStael here, OP of this thread, is antiGG though admittedly he or she is kind of idiosyncratic. If I recall TStael has at least twice went into the original ZQ thread and turned it back onto ZQ, whereas it was actually a broader discussion by the time he/she jumped in.

The thread you refered:
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/gaming_journalism_discusion_or_i_cant_believe_its_not_gamergate

Just went through it and found no mention of Zoe at all.

First mention of Sarkeesian is by Rwarehall on post 28, this came about after he mentioned Bayonetta 2 review, and you replied to him. You continously try to say the "issue" is not an issue, and then are surprised that others disagree?

I mean, if people are saying there are problems, and some of those are connected to feminist ideology, but you say, there are problems but none of them are connected to feminist ideology, the disagreement is about feminist ideology. Do you expect both sides to just sit and sing kumbayah over agreeing there are problems? If so, sit and be happy, because you have repeatedly been told by many of us that we agree with some of the problems you see. Why not let us discuss other problems you don't care about among ourselves?

So that discussion continued around feminism, and yet the next mention of Zoe or Anita comes on post 42, again by RWarehall. Now to me her videos are perfect examples of feminist videos. Maybe you don't agree.

Then on post 54, I mention her, attacking her methodology as non objective. The thread went more and more into objectivity from there on.

And I think that's it, this is the thread where I went and did 3 separate synopsys of a review that you chose, to try and show you the difference between a review focused on facts, and a review focused on opinions. You didn't reply...

Again, no one mentioned Zoe. But here you are with religiously loaded language around anti-christ and evil. Could you be more obviously non objective?

I think you're right so far that the word "asshole" is crappy writing. I think I should rather have written:

Oh, but I have nothing against getting downrepped - on the contrary, I see it as a great honor to earn downreps from a movement in which I see no redeeming qualities.

I remembered having gleefully refreshed a page to see if I have earned new downreps. With that in mind, I though it was fun that people said I complained about downreps. So my post was mostly a "reaction", which may be counterproductive.

Dude, you mean well. But you are so into a specific context it's tragicomic.

Pop Quiz: which of the below sentences are offensive and why?
Men: STFU
Women: STFU
Gamergate: STFU
SJWs: STFU

;) You're so transparent...