And I know they went with it to the UN, full knowing of its content. It was only removed afterwards because how obviously embarrassing it was. No they werent, watch the video, lopeta nyt hyvä mies se valehtelu. She went to the UN to say Youtube should regulate itself? Why did she need to go to address UN about it? How stupid do you think I am? Online anonymity for her, less online anonymity for her "harassers". Thats censorship. Says the guy who has been repeatedly lying about the entire incident this entire thread. I'm here to discuss it, you're here to fling shit around. Unless you have something to actually contribute here, you can keep quiet. If its circlejerking and masturbation you're looking for, you can go back to whatever SJW safe space you came from.

"Turned"?

The direct prelude to the gamergate explosion was the outraged harassment Sarkeesian received on the original Kickstarter video and the first "Tropes vs. women" video, thousands (yes thousands, I've seen it) of insulting, misogynist, threatening (and anti-semitic, which is extra odd) comments. A huge, huge unhinged fuzz over pretty standard, 200 years old feminist stereotype criticism.

The founding event was unhinged outrage over the 9000 word revenge manifesto of a psychological and physical abuser, which alleged a whole lot of things hardly even connected to gaming. The gamergate activists took that manifesto, believed every word and made up nonsense on top of it, even invented out of the blue favorable reviews that had supposedly been written for sexual favors (the domestic abuser never alleged that). Just so they could make a huge fuzz.

And finally, when the press eventually found their balls in a plastic bag and told the whining man-kids (and yes, that means the gamergate activists, not "all gamers") that no, they're not OK with harassment from gamers, and rightly concluded that game culture is in a really, really fucked up place unparalleled in other fandoms, gamergate activists "constantly made a huge fuss" that you can now find in the dictionary under "huge fuzz over nothing".

So yeah, gamergate only EXISTED because a lot of very stupid people got outraged over nothing.

The movement never changed course. They've been harassing critics because they didn't like the criticism, were unable and unwilling to understand it, for many years before some right-wing shithead handed out the gamergate hashtag while knowing jack shit about gaming.

They didn't turn to anything. Maybe their own rhetorical vomit, in order to regurgitate.

And no, the people you name do not call for censorship.

It seems to me you have only a very rudimentary grasp on the actual proceedings and the actual standpoints of the people you love to smear. But you will have to find someone else to educate you on all those very, very basic things, because I am done saying the same things over and over and over to a raging mob that couldn't identify the truth if you smacked them in the dong with it real hard.

And yeah. You're making up shit yet again for lack of the facts. I'm not turning to insults like you do, but it would be really nice if you stopped with that. Seriously, "Online anonymity for her, less online anonymity for her "harassers"" is one of the most silly things I've heard a gamergate supporter say, and this thread is a treasure trove already. Educate yourself, man. Educate yourself via non-reactionary sources.

By flinging the fascist enemy concept of the alt-right around like you could kill someone with it, and by parroting the countless lies of the gamergate mob and especially its alt-right ideologues?

My apologies, but no, you're most definitely not discussing anything.

False, the prelude was the ME3 controversy. Quit lying. That was called Five Guys, GG started when people noticed one of those guys was Nathan Grayson of Kotaku. And ironically proved GG right by colluding with each other to send a narrative and blackmailing those in the journolist who disagreed with them. Oh that much is true, its an internet outrage with clickbait ragtag media sites as the centerpiece. When corrupt journos does it, its "criticism", when GG critisizes them, its "harassment", convenient. Please pinpoint where in this site you can see harassment: deepfreeze.it Your word is meaningless, provide evidence or shut up. I'm not interested in your opinion if it has no weight in it. You made the claim that Anita was defending freedom of speech in the UN, now prove it. If your next post does not contain any links or even quotes, I'm going to ignore it and you from there on. I don't waste time with worthless people who do not contribute to the discussion in any way.

c'mon man,was this really necessary?

It wasn't. But you got to admit that V had already got on everyone's nerves by spitting his vitriol and throwing around accusations without any proof except for his personal beliefs and beliefs of leftist media.

Oh, that's a new angle, I never read that. Where's ethics in journalism enter there?

Oh oh oh I know, the crazy "SJW" forced BioWare to make new endings because they didn't like the manly original ending. THAT was clearly CENSORSHIP!! All that newfangled academic artsy stuff they wrote about why the original endings weren't satisfying, duuuuuuude, we don't need that in OUR games reporting! They clearly should have stuck with frame rates and shit, that's all games are about anyway.

WHY DON'T WE LET DEVELOPERS MAKE THE GAME THEY WANT AND LET THE MARKET DECIDE?!? Unhinged SJW criticising how BioWare handles their own story! It's for us pre-gamergate suppies to eat, not pour salt in!

And the lying press that criticised the original ending, fuck these "SJW", thinking they can make a better ending, trying to shove their politics in! Wasn't even worth it, the new cut is as shit as the old one!

...yeah no. You're not making any sense whatsoever.

You could have gone with the Mountain Dew / Dorito controversy (an actual ethical fuckup) or at least the Shadow of Mordor controversy (a huge ethical breach; yet gamergate supporters don't usually shit on youtube Let's Players who support them). Both would have been incorrectly identified as gamergate precursors, both controversies saw game journalists justly criticise game journalists for their behaviour (collusion, yeah sure), but at least we'd have something of a discussion that has something to do with journalist ethics.

Ohhhh I love a good blackmail conspiracy theory, the more unhinged, the better. Who blackmailed whom with what? What incriminating info was there about the "journolist"? Did they abduct his girlfriend and threatened to kill her? What was the "narrative" they got everyone to push, was it "can we at least stop threatening people with rape"?

And you understand this thread recreates the same outrage over the summer slump feeling of "being insulted"?

deepfreeze.it came into being by pouring 150 people, mostly freelancers and non-journalists, into a mccarthyist smearing list. The names had previously been revealed at Breitbart by a neo-nazi that now sells snake oil on infowars. He (or rather his ghostwriter) concocted some sort of Bilderberger theory about game journalists because he caught them red-handed ... discussing the ethics of their reporting.

Yeah, the whole deepfreeze website is despicable harassment. If I made up some lunatic conspiracy theory about you pissing standing up at your work's restrooms, then illustrated the whole thing with a picture I found of you online, I guess you'd see it a similar way.

And their dishonesty is instrumental in achieving the effect they want to. To this day, their favorite target is called a liar for denying being on a mailing list of the "gaming journalism elite that decide the fate of the world" (verbatim quote of the accusation). I'm not shitting you here. That's their journalistic standards, seriously. Not the greatest position to make demands to journalistic standards I guess, and whenever gamergate supporters point to that fragile house of cards as their great outlet of collecting "solid proof" of collusion, I sigh. They gamify the gamergate-style "digging" and reward making up crazy conspiracy theories. It's an harassment site. It is stochastic terrorism.

It's basically this, but with a much more clear cut malicious intent aimed at much, much less powerful and infinitely less wealthy people:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Em_KXNNYKjo

You originally made some horribly false claims – burden of proof is all yours! What I said about Sarkeesian is a slightly different thing than what you write above. But on the whole, the motherfucking video of both Sarkeesian's and Quinn's statements at UN is pretty fucking great proof for what I actually said, mister.

I could link to that, but then your inevitable reply wouldn't be as funny any more.

Neat little game for when you do finally watch that (complete) video: Find a timestamp for where Quinn or Sarkeesian say negative things about game culture specifically, name a harasser of theirs specifically, or mention the gamergate movement at all. On the whole, have fun! You may be entering the all-new world of actual research.

I think that would be against your religion.

Until then, it's game blouses.

It wasn't "on a whim", it just asked for better quality, and I made very clear what I meant by "better quality"- links to links and images of posts definitely don't count.

My question wasn't rhetorical. No one can ever talk about how some piece of media is harmful, because then it is censorship?
Or perhaps it IS rhetorical, and I was just pointing out that your position is a bit absurd.

Saying "rap music is harmful" is in no way or sense at all, by any stretch of the imagination, "censorship". It may possibly be a WRONG statement, but it isn't censorship. And I dunno if you've not learnt this about the internet yet, but for reference, anything you read online, feel free to add a "In my opinion" to the start of it. Being an opinion vs being a fact does not turn something from not censorship to censorship. If you said "Rap music is harmful, and it should be banned", then THAT would be advocating censorship. Not the first part, it's irrelevant to if something is censorship whether it is harmful or not, but the second part.

And the part just before that which you skipped that says "Think their concerns are misguided? Absolutely. Believe that the concerns are the result of broad moral panic? Worried that their success could set some sort of precedent? Sure."? And the parts elsewhere that calls the decision hypocritical? In no sense could someone come away from that article saying "Kotaku supports the censorship of games!". Kotaku's points were basically:
- It's wrong that games are treated differently than other media
- GTAV has some problematic elements
- This doesn't mean you shouldn't play GTAV, or that its worthless
- The removal from shelves at Target is wrong and hypocritical, but you can't blame them, because it understandable.
- However, it doesn't come under censorship, because Target is a private entity, and the game is still available elsewhere
- The people behind the petition that started it may be misguided, but you can't blame them either, because their concerns are sincere, so harassing them is wrong.
- We should fight against the mainstream belief that games are for kids.

Nothing in the article anywhere supports or advocates censorship (in fact, it is the opposite, with the author hoping that the creation of a new rating level, the censorship of games in Australia would be reduced), or even that Target did the correct thing.

So, if something is harmful, it should be promoted and freely distributed regardless?

Wow, it's now 3 separate people I'm asking variations of the same question now...

Are you telling me just cannot describe some media as harmful, because then it becomes censorship?

No, we are not saying that you can not describe media as harmful. We are asking if you believe that you describing some media as harmful doesn't lead to any negative consequence for that media.

Also, I personally still wait for your answer if I am free to mock and abuse certain user with nickname starting on V, because of his toxic views or should I tolerate him.

Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't. I wouldn't know, I'm sure it is certainly possible.

What I do know for certainty is that it doesn't count as censorship or even advocating censorship to say that something is harmful.
Not in any sense at all.

What? You're free to do whatever you want. Or at least nothing is under my control. Live with the consequences.

But if you admit that you don't know what consequence of your claim that media is harmful, then how you can insist that consequences wouldn't be censorship?

See? You have answered your question yourself! So don't complain about GamerGaters or alt-right or whatever people harassing you and people with leftist views - they are consequences of your own devices.

I didn't insist the consequences won't be censorship, I said the claim itself is not advocating censorship, nor supporting censorship in any way. Just because the consequences of something might lead to censorship doesn't mean the cause is censorship. If the queen stubbed her toe on a copy of Alien Isolation and then banned all copies of the game, does that mean that toes advocate censorship?

Which question?

Why toes blame Alien Isolation in particular and not physical copies of games in general for their pain?


About intolerance towards people who excercise toxic views.