Gamergate discussion thread (one and only, KEEP IT HERE)

So how much did you give?

i was right on Shadow of Mordor, they withheld review copies from youtubers

What's that got to do with anything? And your video doesn't work.

I didn't know about this until it was over unfortunately, how much did you give?

none but I'm not trying to take any credit.

Because you didn't take interest to it. GamerGate did. GG tweeted about it and supported it in IRC's, forums, twitter, facebook, etc

Then why did only a small number of gamergate supporters donate?

@toast_burner: Most of GG supported this

Only 3800 people donated. Let be generous and say 50% are Gamergate supporters, that's 1400 people. According to you there are over 150,000 gamergate supporters. So less than 1% of gamergate supported it.

So what does that have to do with it? People from GamerGate freaking donated, you can't expect everyone to donate...

You just said most supported it when the numbers show that less than 1% did. So when only a very very small minority supported it how can you possibly use it as an example of good the group has done?

Those people were clearly acting as individuals, not as part of the gamergate group.

GamerGate wasn't that big back then as it is 5 months later. 70k is a good donation, what's so wrong with this?

It is a good donation but it had nothing to do with gamergate.

@toast_burner: i've given you evidence that it is.

No you haven't. All you did was link to the campaign page which make no mention of GamerGate.

If gamergate supported it why did only a negligible amount donate (assuming any of those donations came from gamergate)?

This is sort of related to the topic at hand (kinda?...maybe?....I dunno, honestly), so here goes:

http://thepunditpress.com/2015/01/31/feminist-game-developer-hopefully-one-day-women-can-vote-and-own-land/

It's pretty depressing people like her were/are leading these movements (pro and anti GG). These people border on fanaticism... :S

The point I think toast_burner is trying to make is:

1. If gamergate is a faceless anonymous consumer revolt whose members cannot be accredited with any negative actions because those people are inherently not a part of gamergate, then why should a small number of anonymous donors be considered a part of the movement?

2. The small number of donations seem to indicate either a.) gamergate is not as large as suggested, especially if the majority donated, or b.) only a small fraction of gamergate donated, and the rest are riding on a self-congratulatory wave for something they did not participate in.

Exactly that.

GamerGate did not donate 70K and you have no proof of such donation. GamerGate is not an organized entity and cannot be credit negatively or positively because it lacks a face/representative like other entities. All you are doing is speculating and making stuff up as you go then claiming it as fact. I can say I am part of GamerGate and there is nothing you can say to approve or disapprove of that statement because no one can verify such a claim. Gamergate just a tag line at the moment with no real substance.

1, you're wrong. You can attribute bad and good to it. Because there has been some bs with people like King of Pol and Internet Aristrocrat. Which set back GamerGate. Because those who were part of GG did donate to it.

2, Wrong, not everyone can donate, and people donated because of GG. It's not a self congratulatory wave. People did something good and people are happy about it. Hell just trying to discredit GG just because they donated to something is telling that you're saying it's not a big deal. Not everyone can donate to these things.

How can you not attribute that, you've been trying to discredit GG in this thread and before by claiming it's just a bunch of cis white males who hate women and harass people online. Which it isn't. I have shown you proof of anti-GG trying to sabotage it and that GG got behind it after they heard of this. You're wrong, i can pick you apart with your posts alone and say you're not part of GG. You don't want what we want and you would get ridiculed. I've given you several opportunities to come on my stream and debate me on this matter. But you haven't. You're not part of GG, and people who have claimed to be part of GG, but who have tried to do the same have been forced out. King of Pol, Internet Aristrocrat, Force Sargeras, etc. All those people fucked up and people didn't want htem there

I love the mental gymnastics of 'we dislike' #GamerGate individuals which can be summarised as above.

a) We say it is X-bad because we feel so - we do not need to provide evidence of this.

b) You can't attribute Y-good because we feel so - we ignore your evidence to the contrary.

Frankly it's little more than easily refuted and ignorable mental and social masturbation.

I think they need to start delivering some evidence of their claims after 5 months of failing to stop the #GamerGate train; while the industry appears to be broadly delivering on the ideas that people who talk about the Scandal most request.

I no longer see any need to participate with any #GamerGate detractors as they have proven to be intellectually dishonest or incapable.

In other news gamers discussing #GamerGate got '#PizzaGate' trending above #Superbowl last night on twitter, simply because it was fun. The fun was joined in by numerous major personalities in the Games industry and also those who have been involved in the scandal to date, like Jimmy Wales.

1) Then why do you keep claiming that GamerGate never harassed or threatened anyone?

2) Can you prove that people donated because of gamergate? It is self congratulatory. You admitted that you did nothing to help the campaign yet you are still trying to ride of it. What have you done? Can you give an example of a single good thing you've done for gaming?

If only a very very small amount of Gamergate (assuming any) donated how can you possibly use it as an example of good gamergate has done?

@Krelian-co said:

@Pedro said:

@invisiblejimbsh said:

Something which has been studied to death I believe. Men an women 'tend' to like different games.

They tend to like "different" things because they are exposed to a cultural bias of what to like and what not to like based on their gender. Thats the core reason for the differences and is why its important to have diversity in gaming so that these learnt differences can be broken down through familiarity.

That is just plain stupid, man and woman have different tastes because, and i hope some day garbage feminist understand this, we are not equal, we are different by biology, woman tend to be more caring and gentle, while men tend to be more aggressive and competitive, that's how the world works, and as such men enjoy more those types of games, garbage feminist will say that is a social construct but is not we are made like that, and as such there will never be "equality" because we are not equal. Stupidity of garbage feminists that want to transform both genders in equals because they have some social complex without understanding this.

It is plain stupid.

But we've seen at this point that the fringe minority opposed to #Gamergate are demagogues at best.

Focus Mr Last_Ride focus. Nowhere in this thread I mentioned anything that relates to the rubbish you stated in your first sentence. You have not shown ANY proof of this 70K donation from GamerGate. None. You have no backing to this claim and you refuse to acknowledge this. I don't care about your stream because GamerGate as an "entity" is non existent. And you obviously missed the point about me being part of GamerGate so let me make it more obvious, provide proof that I am not part of GamerGate. :) BTW we I don't know if you realize that we are on the internet.

You need to educate yourself on the effects of culture and gender roles in society. Then comeback with something of substance cause right now you are speaking from your cultural bias of gender roles.

@Desmonic said:

This is sort of related to the topic at hand (kinda?...maybe?....I dunno, honestly), so here goes:

http://thepunditpress.com/2015/01/31/feminist-game-developer-hopefully-one-day-women-can-vote-and-own-land/

It's pretty depressing people like her were/are leading these movements (pro and anti GG). These people border on fanaticism... :S

What...

Because there is no proof of it.

I am proud that gamers have donated to a good cause within GG. I've sent emails, spread awareness, and currently i am working on an ethics policy on a site.

Because how is it not good?

I don't think this point is particularly relevant. These feminists and sjw's are not stopping certain games from being made or released (regardless of how much they would want to). People are free to criticise (the content of) products.

I'm sorry, but being gentle, caring or competitive has little to do with biology, at least as far as I know. It certainly isn't only biology. Some people just think those characteristics are innate, because they observe trends in society. But there's no proof that all these trends are the result of biological differences between men and women. They're trends and trends can be constructed.

Also, the problem is not that there are differences, the problem lies in the fact that some people see those differences as givens, things that automatically apply to every single individual of a particular gender or race. They see them as the way things should be. Those people will frown upon caring and gentle men and aggressive and competitive women, because that kind of behaviour is seen as not related to their gender. That graph doesn't show any biological connection with a gender's preference for a particular genre. It simply shows a trend, it doesn't show what caused that trend. Yet, people will take that graph and say that men and women have inherently different tastes, which is a severe generalisation that implies you do not follow the 'norm' if you happen to like a genre that isn't connected to your gender.

Well, that's a problem. GG has no leader and its members are anonymous. That's a weakness. If you say a leaderless and anonymous movement can be held responsible for good and bad things, then there's nothing stopping your opponents from accusing you of being behind harassment and threats, even if there's no proof. They can simply point at some individual and say he/she is part of your movement. Whether or not that's true only matters to you, not to your opponents or outsiders. You can dismiss these accusations as not being proven, but you're simply another anonymous user claiming to be part of this movement. Your words mean very little. GG needs some actual organisation to be able to publicly distance itself from these accusations, otherwise it will just be viewed as a group of individuals with a shared hashtag, of which everyone can be a part.

What kind of impression do you think GG makes on people who are uninformed or indifferent, on people who watch this from a distance?

The point is not to discredit GG. The point is that a few people who support GG donated for a good cause. That doesn't mean you can claim that GG as a whole donated for that good cause, only that a few GG supporters did. If you really want to stick to your claim that GG as a whole supported that kickstarter, if you want GG to be seen as a coherent organisation, then you'll have to accept that the amount of money donated in the name of GG was rather small. The point is you can't claim GG as a whole did something good, just because an unknown amount of GG members did something good. That's the problem with being a leaderless and anonymous group. As a coherent organisation you could take credit for (or distance yourself from) an individual's actions. As a group of anonymous individuals you cannot.

"Gamer Gate are people who believe that they are victims"

Wrong...

"This is entire issue has no real effect on gaming and is reminiscent of things you see on the E-channel except this is gaming. So, there is really nothing to discuss mainly due the its overall insignificance to gaming as a whole. Why should anyone care about any of this?"

Wrong...

"Can you point to instances in which this movement has had an affect on the gaming industry and how I and many others play games has been affected by this influence?"

Which i have several times, and you've ignored it

"I have no desire for it to change anything because the core of my point to Last Ride is that if it has no effect on gaming I don't care and the general gaming population also doesn't care."

I've shown you it has had an impact.

"Most of what I have seen read and play out like juvenile squabbles among a loud minority group that has been as annoyingly vocal as their main opponent Anita. I say opponent because she or Quinn is ALWAYS referenced in the bulk of the discussions."

Wrong, nobody cares about Quinn.

There's also another post where i posted evidence and you ignored my evidence again where i showed you an actual picture of Quinn trying to sabotage TFYC

There have also been the other threads where you have gone against GG and tried to discredit it. And it's not a movement...

I already told you, i can show your views don't align with GG pretty fast. You can claim to be part of it, but you're not. Because nothing you've said or done is anything pro-GG. I've shown you anti-GG have tried to sabotage it and i could show you plenty of tweets where GG has come out and supported it

@loafofgame: "

Well, that's a problem. GG has no leader and its members are anonymous. That's a weakness. If you say a leaderless and anonymous movement can be held responsible for good and bad things, then there's nothing stopping your opponents from accusing you of being behind harassment and threats, even if there's no proof. They can simply point at some individual and say he/she is part of your movement. Whether or not that's true only matters to you, not to your opponents or outsiders. You can dismiss these accusations as not being proven, but you're simply another anonymous user claiming to be part of this movement. Your words mean very little. GG needs some actual organisation to be able to publicly distance itself from these accusations, otherwise it will just be viewed as a group of individuals with a shared hashtag, of which everyone can be a part.

What kind of impression do you think GG makes on people who are uninformed or indifferent, on people who watch this from a distance?"

It's not suppose to have a leader. It's not a weakness, it means our enemies can't attack someone. By that logic you can accuse anyone and everyone can believe you because of it. That's the whole "Listen & Believe" mentality. No, they can no just point and say they're part of GG, it's easy to find out. It's not a movement... It's not our responsibility to look good, because all we've gotten from the media are hit pieces and bad journalism. The mainstream media and the gaming media have done absolutely nothing for GamerGate. We are alone

That's why we try to give info to people and they can make up their own minds

@The_Last_Ride: You keep saying there is no proof that gamergate has done anything bad yet you haven't provided a single piece of proof that it's done anything good.

Yes, they can, because it's only easy to find out for people who are already invested. A lot of people are never going to be as invested as you are. They will see an accusation, see some other dude say something nasty and then conclude that 1+1=2. If you are clearly organised people can't attack you for no reason. That's my whole point. People are attacking you constantly because GG lacks any organisation. You're wasting time and energy disproving all these threat and harassment accusations, which would be totally unnecessary if it was actually clear who's part of the group and who's not. You might think it's very clear, but to a lot of people it really isn't and that makes you vulnerable to all kinds of wild speculation.

And that "Listen & Believe" mentality is very naive, in my opinion. Many people aren't prepared to listen (at least not for a long time, which is really necessary in this case) and they will believe whatever they want based on superficial information. If you really think everyone who supports GG is as invested as you are, then I think you'll be disappointed. A lot of people will only support it superficially, to be part of a group or simply because they're angry, not because they can actually be bothered to take action.

That's why it's totally your responsibility to look good. Since you apparently do not have the mainstream media on your side it is very important to be cautious in how you approach things, in order to not make a bad impression. You're basically proving my point with your media argument. The mainstream media can easily paint a negative picture of GG, because GG lacks any organisation and because there are no charismatic people representing it. It's very easy to depict GG as an angry mob. Again, it doesn't matter whether that picture is true or false when people only look at this case superficially, indifferently or hesitantly (which the majority of people will probably do).

Again, GG is only focused on proving its point, not on how it comes across when proving it. Of course, that's no surprise, because everyone is supporting this case on an individual basis. Everybody wants to have their litte say and they don't care if they look questionable while doing it. There are no eloquent and charismatic figures who can speak for them in a calm and collected manner, presenting the case without being blunt or angry about it. A lot of people simply get sucked into this 'us vs them' mentality. Everything is expressed in such extremes that things pretty much turn hostile the moment people start discussing this issue. A lot of people on both sides are way too passionate about this.

Which is exactly why you should invest more in creating a bigger platform for GG and making sure the right people climb on that stage to make your case. There seem to be only a handful of people taking the time to inform other people (on a level that is more elaborate that simply saying 'watch it, this is wrong') and these people do not have a very large reach (also, they seem to be mostly catering to their own crowd). Some of the GG people should take action and see how much support they actually have by trying to create a bigger media platform to get their message across. With the help of the apparently many passionate supporters a decent start should at least be possible. I think by now it's time to create that gaming journalism code of ethics, to create that ethically sound media outlet. If enough people actually care they will support it. GG has been hiding behind its anonimity long enough. GG has been reacting, instead of initiating, long enough. Something structural needs to be done, otherwise this will simply go on forever.

Your rationale is incorrect. What you see in #GamerGate is not a 'lack of organisation', what you see are a very large number of organisations, often with a membership and leadership of 1 individual. There is no heirarchy between these organisations.

The lack of heirarchy makes the body anti-fragile. There is another reason #GamerGate is anti-fragile, but that is slightly more advanced. This is an intended design in response to the attempts to censorship discussion by many forums and websites (including this one...) and also attempts to Jouranlists and supporters to DDOS supporting 'hubs' because they don't want consumers discussing the topic, whether it be TechRaptor or 8chan.

An example of this anti-fragility mentality includes Operation Skynet. This was a spontaneous community response to the attempts of journalists and their supporters abusing the report system and targetting high profile #GamerGate accounts from twitter where supporters connected as many accounts as easily possible in the network with direct follows. The average supporter went from 20-50 followers and follows to about 1,000 allowing messages to travel from one end of the trust network to the other regardless of node damage.

If someone tried to 'lead' #GamerGate at this point I would consider them to be a fool. Indeed a running joke is that #Gamergate supporters call each other 'Leader'.

Oh my god... Do i have to post everything all over again?

• Escapist, Destructoid, IGN, Polygon, etc have all revised their ethics policies because of GamerGate. almost 200k given towards charities or betterment in gaming: Based Gamer, TFYC, PornCharity, etc.
• Gawker lost 7 figures in profit because of GG
• GamerGate have uncovered that Guardian have gone out of their way to not cover GG

Link

• Patricia Hernandez collusion by writing about her roomate and her lover Link
• Ben Kuchera did the same
• Kotaku employees don't get to give money to developers and their patreon.
• GamesJournosPros was discovered where journalists like Patrick Klepek and others blacklisted people.
• Intel pulled their advertisment from Gamasutra after they attacked gamers
• Escapist going neutral with GamerGate
• After being told that there are no minorities or even females in GG, #NotYourShield was born
• New websites like TechRaptor, NicheGamer, Mukyou, etc
• Huffington post interview

• EA tried to hide that 40k people got hacked
• over 3 million tweets
• Christina Hoff Sommers debunked pretty much everything the media have said up until now

and this

i could go on, but you get the picture?

I guess I'm not invested enough to see that, then. But I fear a lot of people's rationale is incorrect in that case. Which was kind of my point. This is not about what I should see, it's about what I see. And I don't see a large group of small organisations. You can argue that that's wrong, but that doesn't really matter if I'm the only one you're reaching. Again, it's not just about proving your point, it's also about how you come across when doing it. Otherwise you're only preaching to the choir.

I don't see how that makes GG anti-fragile. The structure might allow for everybody to speak their mind and communicate about the issue, but it doesn't protect it from other attempts at discrediting GG. It allows for people who can't properly express their point to associate themselves (or be associated) with GG. And those people are targeted by opponents. I just think GG would have a wider reach and a more effective way of getting rid of the (perceived) bad apples if it actually showed some cohesion. Or more cohesion, I guess.

Well, that's a waste, then. I feel GG has more potential than what its currently exhibiting, at least from my perspective. There's a collection of passionate people who seem to yearn for change, but noone seems to be doing anything with it. I'd like to see a little more creativity, instead of just reactions. Isn't it time to create a new code of ethics or maybe even a new gaming website, something that adheres to this supposedly large group of people? Wouldn't it be possible to organise a proper boycott, to make journalists change their ways? We all know it only takes a tweet to rile people up... Edit: just saw The_Last_Ride post some websites that were supposedly a result of GG. We'll see how they work out, then.

Its amazing how many of my posts 'vanish' 5 minutes after they are posted and then re-appear after 2 or 3 hours :) I should keep a running log and thank you to the moderator who puts the post back.

This response is golden. Fact, is that GamerGate is not an entity. Secondly I have read many comments from you and others who are supporters/"members" of GamerGate that has expressed everything that you so concisely stated is wrong invalidating your claim to the contrary. You have not given any reliable evidence that has demonstrated anything that directly relates to GamerGate and all of the so called positive impacts it has made. This is not about ignoring, its about the FACT that you are continously claiming things that are NOT FACTS and is entirely speculative.

This one is the real kicker. You responded to my claim that Quinn is always reference by stating

Wrong, nobody cares about Quinn.

Then you followed this up by stating

There's also another post where i posted evidence and you ignored my evidence again where i showed you an actual picture of Quinn trying to sabotage TFYC

I don't think you realize your own obsession with this chick. You reverted right back to the point I was making that Quinn is always reference in your arguments.

And finally GG does not have a members list, anyone can claim they are part of GG. That is something you have got to accept because its not a real entity. It is a headless,disorganize and confused internet group with no real standing. Obviously you "guys" can change that but, I don't see that happening with the lunatic logic and obsession with Anita and Quinn. First its ethics in the media, then its war against SJW and the feminist, then its freedom of speech. You "guys" are all of the place.

Where is the evidence for any of this? Claiming something is not evidence.

Gawker lost 7 figures in profit because of GG

Again where is the evidence that DIRECTLY links the two.

GamerGate have uncovered that Guardian have gone out of their way to not cover GG

Link

A blog that is obviously bias and has no real evidence is not a great choice of backing. Unbiased articles and respectable entities are your friend.

Patricia Hernandez collusion by writing about her roomate and her lover Link

This is a list of games made by the person Patricia Hernandez gave favorable reviews for

• Afternoon in the House of Secrets^[19]
• And the Robot Horse You Rode In On^[20]
• Calamity Annie^[3][8]
• Chicanery
• Dys4ia^[21]
• Emotica
• Encyclopedia Fuckme And The Case Of The Vanishing Entree
• Gay Cats Go to the Weird Weird Woods^[22]
• The Hunt for the Gay Planet^[23]
• Keep Me Occupied^[24][25]
• Mighty Jill Off^[2][3][26]
• Mind ****
• Octopounce
• Police Bear^[27]
• Pong Vaders (on iTunes)^[9][10]
• Queers in Love at the End of the World
• Redder^[2][3][28]
• Space/Off
• Triad
• A Very Very VERY Scary House
• When Pigs Fly^[29]

I know its not just me but I don't think anyone knows about these games nor care about these games. So why is this even an issue? This games are practically non-existent to the general gaming population. But she is a feminist so that changes everything.

Ben Kuchera did the same

Kotaku employees don't get to give money to developers and their patreon.

GamesJournosPros was discovered where journalists like Patrick Klepek and others blacklisted people.

Intel pulled their advertisment from Gamasutra after they attacked gamers

Escapist going neutral with GamerGate

After being told that there are no minorities or even females in GG, #NotYourShield was born

New websites like TechRaptor, NicheGamer, Mukyou, etc

Huffington post interview

EA tried to hide that 40k people got hacked

over 3 million tweets

Christina Hoff Sommers debunked pretty much everything the media have said up until now

and this

i could go on, but you get the picture?

As for rest, its bunch of stuff that cannot be substantiated mixed with a bunch of random stuff that no one cares about. Whats the point or meaning of any of this? You believe that spamming with random articles, stories and Youtube blasting is the ideal way of making a point when at the end of it all no point is being made and no counter argument can be sifted.

Pedro in the latest edition of 'google, how does it work?'

Hate to tell ya man, but the only place you're gonna get told that is in gender studies classes and various other 'humanities'. Almost no biologists and psychologists would accept that. It's simply not an explanation at all. When you have certain traits that are completely universal and show very little difference across cultures (e.g men are a lot more violent than women), cultural bias simply can't explain it. To claim that's universally down to cultural conditioning raises the question of why has every culture seemed to end up the same on this issue, when they've completely diverged on other issues. To explain that, you need something external to culture. And if you want a good indicator that matches this, look at Chimpanzees. Our closest relatives. Once again, the males are universally more violent. And they don't have anything resembling what we call culture.

Genders just aren't social constructions. The fact that gender studies classes have been allowed to teach that for the last 30 years is a travesty. Sadly, shouting "sexist" at anyone who criticises you is a weirdly successful bullying tactic.

Do i seriously have to link you everything? There's a thing called google... But fine...Link for the first

Link to Gawker loss

Jesus are you serious? I just gave you proof?! It has nothing to do with her being a feminist, it has to do with her corruption... You're excusing it... I linked the Ben Kuchera link in the same link as PAtricia Hernandez... Did you even read any of them?

If i am to give you anymore links, i won't do the effort unless you freaking read them. You can't just dismiss it if you don't even click or at least type it in yourself...

Are you stating that culture does not mold a person of a particular gender into a formal gender role? Are you saying that you weren't introduced to what is OK for boys and girls to participate in at an early age? Are you saying that masculinity and femininity are the same across all cultures and that one cultures? I don't see how you can ignore the strength of cultural brainwashing because it is not limited to gender but many other perceptions that all affect how people behave and interact with each other, spanning religion, races, social classes, language, gender etc. Cultural learning among chimps. Then if you look at something like clothing, men wore skirts, high heels,make up in Western societies,now these things are associated with being feminine. Our perception of masculinity and femininity is learnt behaviour. Kids are taught this and it is not innate to them. Men are naturally stronger then women. Men have more testosterone than women. However, these factors are not the core factors that determine their behaviour, personality, likes and dislikes. As for shouting sexist, I am not sure who you are talking about since the post you were responding to was not making an claim as such.

Yes! If you are making a bold claim you will have to back it up. Its not an unreasonable request. Yes! there is a thing call google and you can also utilize to see many of your unsubstantiated claims which you are currently excelling at.

Your first link has a lot of circumstantial evidence but I will take it. Can't be used as a fact but a strong suggestion can be made.

Your second link is based on the based solely on the following line

The "gamergate" controversy cost Gawker Media "seven figures" in lost advertising revenue, the company's head of advertising Andrew Gorenstein said at an all-hands meeting on Wednesday afternoon, according to two people in attendance at the meeting.

My uncle's friend who knew a guy's brother's sister's aunt heard that Bioware is making Monster Hunter 5. I can't take an article like that seriously. Outside of this how and why do gamers care about Gawker Media?

I read them and thats why I am able to dismiss them. I would not look at any youtube vids on the other hand.

Now are you going to retract your GG 70K claim?

After watching Angry Joe top 10 Controversial, I got to agree that the whole GamerGate is just so stupid but for me, It's like the Tea Party only for Gamers which it is and it's just pathetic. Anita I can respect her cause she's just a Hustler who likes to make money so I can respect a person who's purpose in life is to make lots of money and love to make money.

Well, I think GG supporters should do one of two things: 1) Form an actual solid accountable organization with a leader or 2) Throw away the name GG and start all over fresh because there's simply too much negative imagery associated with it right now. TLR, I must admit, you are tenacious in defending the movement, but honestly, it's a lost cause.

I've already linked you this, several times... Are you kidding me, Gawker themselves told this in a statement...

Link

You're flat out denying simple freaking facts, if you can't acknowledge proof everytime i post them then you're delusional. You keep moving the goal post and strawman. When i give you proof everytime. Yet when i ask you for it you can't give me anything.

No, because i've given your proof and you can't comprehend simple proof. GamerGate supported it and those who could supported it.

You've still not debunked anything i have posted because you don't understand simple evidence i post. Stop it, if you can't read my links or even take them seriously then why do you even bother? Gawker had a serious overhaul because of GG. That was just random?

Dude... AJ has no goddamn clue of what he's talking about. He said you should believe him, yet he based everything of something old and someone who is anti-GG. it's not the Tea party of gamers because it's everyone. She's dishonest as **** and you respect her? WHAT?

The link is based on hearsay, making it invalid. I am not moving the goal post you keep giving non factual evidence as proof. Stop using non factual, bias articles as proof, just stop it. There is nothing to debunk, when you are posting invalid sources, non related sources as evidence. You are making the claim and the sources for the evidence are bogus. That's all you. Right now you are just a sounding like a mad man by continuously posting things as fact based on non factual evidence. That is lunatic behavior. You are currently unable to have reasonable discussion and unable to see things for what they are. Your perspective is so painfully skewed that you are beyond reason. At this moment you view your opinion as fact, other GG bias articles with no evidence as fact. There is no common ground or common logic, making this discussion pretty much futile.

You're complaining about what exactly? I've given you several instances of proof. You're moving the goal post. Why are they non factual and you dismissed my other points the earlier post even though i countered them again. You can't debunk proof mate. Tell me why that is then. Why are they bogus, reputable papers have anonymus sources giving you proof. You tried to disprove that Shadow of Mordor wasn't a thing, and even AJ said it was a thing. The video is now working. My opinion is not fact, you are moving the goal post constantly. You can't even use google. I asked you to provide evidence of GG harassing, you failed to provide it. I challenged you to show me any proof at all, you failed. I've given you proof several times and you try to move the goal post because you don't believe in the evidence. What type of research do you know, because you seem to know awfully a lot about this without showing anything. You've yet to contribute a single shred of proof of your claims and i've managed to debunk the video itself that was in the OP.

Does GG only consist of white cis males? Are we only misogynists? Are gamers only white guys? Why are they attacking TB? They told people he was the leader of GG. Because you're calling me a lunatic, you're moving the goal post when i am challenging. I don't know if you're trolling. You can challenge me on anything, but don't challenge my sanity.

If they cared about feminism so much on Gawker media, why did they have nude pictures of Olivia Munn and Christina Hendricks? Why did they declare bullying is ok to do on gamers. Because we deserve it?

Have you played the games that Anita claims are misogyinistic? Bayonetta? Hitman? Dying Light? Is that all true?