HOME | DD
World-Hero21 — Pro-Gamergate
#gamergate #notyourshield
Published: 2015-05-31 23:34:19 +0000 UTC; Views: 2692; Favourites: 79; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Why yes, as a female gamer myself, I do support good ethical gaming journalism and moral standards in gaming, and that the gaming culture isn't dead, as long as there are gamers.You could say I'm a "Chaotic Neutral" on controversial subjects...I'm kinda-sort neutral on this, and kinda-sorta not.
EDIT: Since some people are a bit confused by what it is (don't worry, it's still a bit fuzzy for me too), these were the best explanations I got on it. knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/…
www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/…
Stamp template © zilla774.deviantart.com/art/St…
Related content
Comments: 122
I don't care about it, but every anti I encountered is crazier than squirrel shit. I still see it brought up all the time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm like...In between, but more pro.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Same. But then I stop caring and just play Bioshock or something.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm certainly not on the side of the sjws, but I don't think I'm ready to join gamergate. Afterall, it is all full package, you buy the name, you buy the stigma.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Sorry, what stigma? If you're talking about the whole "They're all straight white guys, and the women and black people and gay people on their side are secretly illusionary sockpuppets! They CAN'T be real, because if they are, that means I'm wrong! UNACCEPTABAAAAL!" stuff, don't worry, that's something the feminists say.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
True, it does have a dark unpleasant side to it. But you know, everything does these days. Regardless of any label or title you choose to use, there's going to be a negative stigma attached to it. :T
Examples: I identify as asexual, and there's always a negative stigma attached to that. But that's unfortunately what I am. And there are hundreds of people who go by the label "feminist" and, well...I'm sure you're also aware of the dark, unpleasant side and negative stigma with feminism.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
the act of being edgy is basically teenage kids that think theyre cool. hardcore kids seem to think theyre the fucking edgyest things everr.
"why are you wearing that bandanna out of your pocket," says 9th grade homeroom teacher.
"because i'm effin edgy biotch," says asshole.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Could you make a stamp about Not Your Shield too?
sorry if you don't do requests or if you already did... :c
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, that's fine! I always take stamp-requests.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
^^ Oh awesome! 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Dang it you should have went with a green/purple background for this stamp.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I tried to do that. But that gradient was closest I could get with greenish/purplish colors. :T
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I support ethical gaming journalism and moral standards, but the Gamergate movement and name are just too wrapped up in arguments they should never have been involved in. Besides which, the ones I've interacted with, apart from one or two personal friends, have largely been people I find obnoxious (either defensive to the point of over-sensitivity or the kind of people who claim you're a feminazi "censoring" them if you block them from a YouTube comment box (after a warning, no less). Censorship doesn't mean disagreeing with someone on the Internet or blocking them when they won't effing drop it.
I think it's perfectly possible to support those things without using GamerGate as a movement name, and I'd rather not associate with a movement that has such a dubious (at best) reputation, and which attracts such a crappy crowd. And now that I've said that I'm half expecting someone to jump down my throat about it. I don't know why that idea is such a sore spot for some people.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't really because so far all the gamergate people I have seen are people defending hacking/doxxing people and accusing anyone who doesn't agree with them being a feminazi plus harassing people online in the name of '' ethical gaming journalism''
However I respect your opinion and everyone else
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Funny, the only people I have seen defending doxxing were Anti-Gamergate (at least, those who openly defended it all were). You know, "it's the right thing to do!" and "it is justified in this case!"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have seen that too and ""what goes around comes around"" but I have also seen GG supporters saying the same thing or saying that its their own fault for using their real name
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well the internet is a public space, so i'm not sure that i know what you are getting at with that "real name" part.
Anyway, you are invited to report any doxxing to the #Gamergate harrassment patrol.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What I meant as, a few family members including young relatives of Anita, Quin Wu and such were also online harassed trough facebook and twitter and I have seen Gamergate supporters make comments on reddit that it's the ladies own fault for getting their family members harassed because it was easy to trace/find out trough their last names and Social Media.
and I sure will I keep my eye open for recent events
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm having a hard time believing two things in that case:
1. that the harrassment these supposed victims reported was legitimate. In fact, to my knoledge, there is evidence that a majority of the supposed harrassment was forged by the supposed victims.
2. that the people you say you saw in support of doxxing/etc these people (assuming it actually happened) were actual supporters of Gamergate (meaning that, in reality, they were trolls, if you will - i do believe there is evidence for that, from a neutral/anti-GG leaning institute even. i would have to dig it back up first, admittedly).
Note that spreading publicly available information is not doxxing. I'm sorry but it's just not. Social media is contained in that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I didn't call it doxxing? I called it online harassment.
Well thats the thing if you refuse that Gamergate has any bad apples then that's kind of problematic on your part. 
There is no reason why people should spread online information about Anita's or Quin's family members online even if it's publicly. What's the point? These people have nothing to do with it and it does raise my eye brow when they somehow have to let people know how one can contact with family and friends of Anita or Quin.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well first of all i don't think that it's either doxxing or harrassment if the information is publicly available. particularly more important things like the financial report of FemFreq, just for example.
Second, i'm not refusing the existence of bad apples - it's just that i'm neither responsible nor do i care for them, and me pointing out to my fellow GGs when they are being shitty is really just common courtesy when it happens. That said, every Pro-GG person i personally interacted with was reasonable and civil. so please don't scold me for being lucky.
Also, i almost literally said "iirc there IS proof of third party trolls, i just don't have it at hand right now." youare right to say that this isn't the same as providing evidence, however that wasn't my intention at that particular point - my intention being presenting my perspective. And from my perspective, it's mostly if not only third parties doing any ACTUAL harrassing and/or doxxing (the last one in particular being a very touchy subject in GG that everyone is wary of). There ARE third parties. one of them would be the /baphomet/ board, if you are looking for an example.
And regarding the last paragraph: if these people are actually being harrassed then, they CAN bring in the police. From what i heard, they are actually quite effective at dealing with, you know, actual threats.
Note that this doesn't mean I endorse spreading that kind of information, as it is, like you said, quite useless.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not sure what your point is at your first comment. I do agree with you that information is public but my point was the lack of empathy for strangers among them young preteens being harassed online because they are related in some way to Anita or Quinn. That is what irritated me.
-
Second, i'm not refusing the existence of bad apples - it's just that i'm neither responsible nor do i care for them, and me pointing out to my fellow GGs when they are being shitty is really just common courtesy when it happens. That said, every Pro-GG person i personally interacted with was reasonable and civil. so please don't scold me for being lucky.
-
No I won't scold you for that I think that's good point I understand because I am a feminist and most feminist I interacted with were reasonable and civil too. Well I saw a few very bad ones but they were all very famous and I can't really ''interact'' with them or claim I know then. However I won't claim that there aren't bad apples when I talk to people who have bad experience online with feminist users.
However in the case of the whole gamergate thing I have seen both bad apples from either sides. The thing is I feel a very aggressive tone when it comes to GG supporters often when I debate with them there is no room for empathy, understanding, no compromise, or anything. It's often ''I am right and you are a bad person!!''
However my experience is my experience and not yours so I understand you don't feel that at that way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Let me first say that i have never heard anything about relatives of Sarkeesian or van Falkenburg being harrassed. Maybe you could show me your sources on this?
Anyway, I don't engage with people terribly often on the internet, so most of what i think about modern feminists isn't first hand experience. However, what i have accrued from other people regarding modern feminists is that they have a tendency to behave exactly as you described GG supporters here (but a lot more extreme).
I'm thinking that your experience may be influenced by the fact that you are coming to this happening with a noticable bias towards feminism (That's not an accusation, just stating a fact). Arguably, GG has been better at convincing neutrals on the fence than they have fence-sitting feminists.
I think we are at a misunderstanding. I'm not here to "win" a debate, as quite frankly, that would be a rather vacous way to think of debates, like some kind of game that has to be "won". I may be using a harsh tone, but that is how i would debate anyone i disagree with. (and frankly i prefer my counterdebatant to not sugarcoat their arguments either.)
There IS room for empathy from GG. But ultimately it will be for reasons an oppositor might not like; for instance, them being uninformed and/or "blindly" trusting what feminists have said on the matter even though these feminists might have ulterior motives, such as Sarkeesian (i am mentioning because what i'm taking away from their actions is that Feminist Frequency actually EXPLOITS feminists).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's been months since I read about it but I will try to find the sources trough this weekend I be away the whole time so I can't promise but I do my best.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm thinking that your experience may be influenced by the fact that you are coming to this happening with a noticable bias towards feminism (That's not an accusation, just stating a fact). Arguably, GG has been better at convincing neutrals on the fence than they have fence-sitting feminists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But You are (obvious) biased on the opposite side. 
--------
There IS room for empathy from GG. But ultimately it will be for reasons an oppositor might not like; for instance, them being uninformed and/or "blindly" trusting what feminists have said on the matter even though these feminists might have ulterior motives, such as Sarkeesian (i am mentioning because what i'm taking away from their actions is that Feminist Frequency actually EXPLOITS feminists).
-------------------
Actually I have mentioned this a few times on this stamp already but I am anti-Sarkeesian, Anti Quin and anti Wu whatever her name is. I don't agree with their motivates or stances. I do not believe the feminist movement should be ''tooo'' involved in judging games unless there is a really big problem. Which frankly isn't.
I don't agree with them on a LOT of things manly because unlike Anita I DO play video games.
Despite the fact I have mentioned this to a GG supporter that I don't support Anita at all and I am a feminist I still got a '' You are still a feminazi cunt bitch'' comment.
How lovely but I am the biased one? 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"You are still a feminazi cunt bitch" I hope you are not talking about me here?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Omg No! You have been quite respectable so far. This was back around January.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I honestly feel like some of that is faked to make GG look bad. Not trying to point fingers, but I've seen a lot of the evidence already, and most of the harassment and doxxing actually seems to be coming from the anti-GGs. Christina H Sommers was harassed and doxxed for supporting GG and so were a lot of other people. Some were even sent threats, and one guy was actually sent a knife in the mail to kill himself. Anita Saarkeesian faked getting threats, and so did Brianna Wu...There's plenty of evidence about that. But as for GG being the harassers...? I've hardly seen anything actually legit evidence against them on that.
But yeah, whatever floats your boat...I'm not a diehard of a supporter anyway. I'm just a casual gamer who just believes in ethical gaming journalism and standards. That's all I'm saying on my part.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Oh yeah sure the things I have seen from gamergate people themselves are all made up reddit and twitter accoutns right
sure.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Let me reword my last comment, as I think I said it the wrong way:
I'm not saying that one side is guilty and one side is innocent. There does seem to be threats coming from both sides, but I admit that I've seen most of them coming from anti-GGs. Even game developers are claiming they were sent death threats from anti-GGs.
worldhero.tumblr.com/post/1198…
worldhero.tumblr.com/post/1200…
And some threats against Anita were debunked to be hoaxed by either Anita herself or a friend of hers:
41.media.tumblr.com/f87868a6f4…
41.media.tumblr.com/363251b40d…
Some harassment against Brianna Wu was discovered to have been faked by Wu herself:
40.media.tumblr.com/bc0013b28e…
twitter.com/0r0t0r0/status/523…
She lied about leaving home: www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuoQL3…
Anti-GGs being so terrified of being discovered as to lying, they're sending DCMA requests to anybody showcasing evidence against them: supersudden.tumblr.com/post/10…
Do you have any sources for that claim about a guy being arrested? Wikipedia states that no arrests in this whole mess have been made as of May. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergat…
Yeah, threats and harassment probably came from both sides...It's hard to tell who's more accurate with the evidence, and what rumors are actually true, but considering all of that supposed evidence, and several sane-feminists like Sommers backing GamerGate...I'm sticking with them for now.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Too be fair when you go around being condescending towards people who are not on either sides and going around ''Well I care about video game ethics that is why I support gamergate'' is no different then a feminist denying that the feminist movement has any radical feminazi and say ''i am a feminist because I care about women's rights
but I am sure that is all fabricated to
My other issue is that Gamergate seems to focus really really focusing on ''the feminist''' but not on any other issue. Despite the video game journalism has more issues then Wu or Anita right now.
Which ones received death threats? two of the blogs you posted on Tumblr seems to be pictures ABOUT anti GG and linking several people who support gamergate but I don't see all of them claiming they got death threats you need to be more specific.
As for the screenshots involving fake ANITA harassment, Im sort of confused I just need more proof then ''This is fake because this account is a sockpuppet and it has good English spelling. 
I don't support Wu, she has received and recorded a death threat (you can easily Google it I believe I am not sure if it's okay under DA standards. ) but I believe she is using all of this to give her ill-fated project more attention.
Dan Slott claimed his account has been messed with ever since he criticized Gamergate
twitter.com/danslott/status/56…
Felica Day being doxxed and her information being spread within a day after she posted about Gamergate
time.com/3535619/felicia-day-w…
www.rollingstone.com/culture/f…
www.theguardian.com/technology…
Wasn't Anita threatened with a death threat and there was proof of the shooter being associated with Gamergate as he wanted to publicly kill Anita which caused her to cancel her Utah (this is an older article: news.hjnews.com/allaccess/usu-… ) but the shooter claimed he wanted to repeat the same infamous the Polytechique massacure 1989 mass shooting motivated by anti-feminism. Wasn't the shooter arrested? The wikipedia is referring to the online harassment only because: (The policing of cyber-crimes like the harassment within the Gamergate controversy are considered low priority by authorities and unlikely to yield usable results, according to Tim Ryan, a former FBI supervisory special agent for cybercrimes.) Which makes sense I think the person who made the public shooting threat should be arrested but we all know 90 percent of all death threats online are just barks and nothing more.
According to Wiki the accusations of her sleeping for good reviews were declared to be false and according to Allum Bokhari a trolling group was "working to provoke both sides against each other. So Now I'm starting to believe both sides might have falling into a trap. 0_0
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
"Too be fair when you go around being condescending towards people"
And by condescending is what you actually mean "civilly disagreeing"?
"Dan Slott claimed his account has been messed with ever since he criticized Gamergate "
An I claim that you have sex with hamsters..... Claiming something doesn't make it true, it's simply a claim & anyone can claim anything at any time.
"Wasn't Anita threatened with a death threat and there was proof of the shooter being associated with Gamergate "
Nope, didn't happen: A threat was made anonymously, a threat the police said was not a credible threat.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It do not think were going to agree with each other and just argue back and forth. So let's agree to disagree,
I think this comment sums up my feelings about the whole thing and this user said it way better then I did:
comments.deviantart.com/1/5366…
I support ethical gaming journalism and moral standards, but the Gamergate movement and name are just too wrapped up in arguments they should never have been involved in. Besides which, the ones I've interacted with, apart from one or two personal friends, have largely been people I find obnoxious (either defensive to the point of over-sensitivity or the kind of people who claim you're a feminazi "censoring" them if you block them from a YouTube comment box (after a warning, no less). Censorship doesn't mean disagreeing with someone on the Internet or blocking them when they won't effing drop it.
I think it's perfectly possible to support those things without using GamerGate as a movement name, and I'd rather not associate with a movement that has such a dubious (at best) reputation, and which attracts such a crappy crowd. And now that I've said that I'm half expecting someone to jump down my throat about it. I don't know why that idea is such a sore spot for some people.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"and I'd rather not associate with a movement that has such a dubious (at best) reputation, and which attracts such a crappy crowd."
It doesn't have a dubious reputation, its reputation is just fine: It's the fact that the antis such as yourself have been trying very hard to play at identity politics to tar & feather its reputation. The fact is that Gamergate has already won: They've already forced the gaming press to adopt ethics guidelines for their publications, they've donated thousands to programs that combat bullying, they've run game jams for women, they've done all sorts of good things.
Only one side in this has dubious motives & attracts shitty people: That would be the side who thinks the ends justify the means, the side that will lie it's arse off for a profit & tried to destroy the livelihoods of individuals. That would be your side, just incase that wasn't clear.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you are unable to respectfully agree to disagree then I have to remind you again that I do not want to discuss this further with you.
Also I am on neither side which I stated several times. But you did prove that one argument that some supporters are so sensitive that they just blindly accuse people of being on the other side.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"If you are unable to respectfully agree to disagree"
Sorry but no, you just happen to be respectfully wrong: Objectively so even. You don't get to suddenly bail out of the conversation the second someone with facts show up to correct you: That's not how a RESPECTFUL discussion goes.
I'm not even going to bother to address the red herrings you made because they refute themselves.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Lol, typical SJW sympathizer behaviour: once cornered, tries to create an illusion of neutrality and non-confrontationality and weasel out.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You seem to be really angry or taken this a bit to step to far.
One more reminder it is my wish and choice not to further this discussion with you, tbh someone who I will not name noted me really fast after you left a reply and had nothing but bad things to say about you and warned me that you have a tendency to stalk users in discussions and that you have a reputation of insulting users. I told that person I can't take his or hers word for it and I do not wish to judge someone I hardly know based on someone else his/hers warning. However I am giving you the heads up that you have a hater or two that like to note users who interact with you.
Despite this all trough, I am allowed to choose not to discuss this issue further with you. If I commented on your stamp/devation that would be a different topic. But since I was discussing this topic with the OP I am not obligated to continue every discussion a person comments on. If you can't respect that that you just show disrespect.
One more reminder: I am on neither sides. I think both sides are wrong. But if you keep assuming and saying I am on the wrong side despite the fact I made it clear I am not then you choose to be in the wrong.
I wish you a good day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"You seem to be really angry"
Nope, try again, that's another red herring attempt known as an appeal to motive.
"One more reminder it is my wish and choice not to further this discussion with you,"
No you do want to continue, you simply want me not to be as knowledgeable on the topic as I actually am. If you didn't want to continue the conversation, you simply would not have replied.
"tbh someone who I will not name noted me really fast after you left a reply and had nothing but bad things to say about you and warned me that you have a tendency to stalk users in discussions and that you have a reputation of insulting users."
Nope, that's another appeal to motive, try again.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This will be my last comment and you are free to reply to it if you want but I simply won't read it and click it away as soon as I see your name pop up. Then again I don't think that will stop you because I get the feeling you have the urge to have the last word so you can ''believe'' that you have won a discussion despite the fact there is none going on. I do have to admit maybe the the Noter did have a point because you refuse acknowledge that I said various times I am not on either sides. It almost feels like you are discussing with yourself then me at the moment. You can go ahead and call it '' redhearingappealing'' because you want to avoid reading any sort of criticism that holds some truth on your part and that makes me unable to further talk to you.
Have a nice day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
LOL more red herrings.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
But I'm not being condescending...Or at least I'm not trying to. If I am, that's unintentional. I'm somewhat in between on this whole thing myself, but leaning more towards the pro side because I've seen that it's done more good than harm. It does have some extremism in it (but not as much as what I've seen from modern-feminism), but overall, I'm in between because both sides are guilty of slinging mud everywhere. So kinda like how I feel about feminism, I support the concept of good gaming ethics in journalism, but I try to stay out of either sides of the debate.
Well, the ones that got sent a syringe and a knife in the mail...And there were links to more evidence of threats, but those links were coincidentally broken/deleted.
I did see more proof of the Anita-threat hoax...But that's buried under months of posts now. I could dig it up, but I don't even know how far back I need to go in my posts to find it.
Most likely...It's why I don't support her, Quinn, or Anita. Anita because she said herself that she doesn't even play videogames or like them, yet is advocating and exposing any game she finds sexist anyway and misused her Kickstarter funding; Wu because I'm sorry, but she's a spoiled idiot with not a lot of talent in design and is just an attention-seeker; Quinn because I don't care how many people she sleeps with, but sleeping with guys as a way to exploit their positions and to further her own career is really not great gaming/journalism ethics at all. That's literally the same as sleeping with your boss just to get that promotion. And nobody appreciates that stuff going on.
As for Anita getting a death threat about a school shooting...I haven't heard much at all about that, except for her canceling her university lecture because of it. But that was back in December. I'll say that it is possible that some nutcases have gone to the extremes like that, but at the same time, Anita has been rumored to have possibly faked that stuff before for attention whenever she's not getting enough support. Because, like Wu, she's also a bit of an attention-seeking idiot of a feminist. So I don't know whether that story has any credibility in it at this point, unless there's any newer articles on it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't disagree with your thoughts about Anita or Wu. I don't really care about Quin.
However you do know most of the stuff about Quin has been proven false? Wikipedia has citted several sources and it has been proven that she didn't ''slept'' for good reviews.
The death threat shooting however was a serious threat because the actual police became involved.
Don't you think it's a bit to easy to just wash away these threats as facades by ALL of them? Sure maybe Wu is lying BUT all 3?
Be a little more realistic, open your eyes and realize that there are figures in the Gamergate movement that can be this radical.
However as a gamer I never heard about either of these women untill the Gamergate conseverty became a big deal and the there are a lot of problems in the gaming journal ethics world it's just odd that much of the focus is on 3 feminist don't you think? :/
Because these women don't have much impact or influence on the gaming world as you think they are, yes they get praised but feminist like me who play games and know better just laugh it off and keep on playing and the Japanese gaming world could really care less and they are big players in the Gaming business. So what I am saying this all of this negative attention and focusing on each and every move and post these women make is quite odd and just feels like a sort of witch hunt then really giving a shit about gaming journal ethics and if you take a good look at all those pro gamergate videos that talk about Anita, Wu or Quin then take a good look at the majority of the comments who like the video I don't really see much talk about video games all I see is how much of a whore and slut Quin, how much of a liar Anita and that she looks like a man, or how ugly Wu is and how much of a feminazi she is that must be shut away from playing games.
I just fail to see much talk and discussing involving video game journal ethics.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"However you do know most of the stuff about Quin has been proven false?"
No it hasn't. It's actually been proven true, by her own account. She did in fact cheat on her then boyfriend with five people, some of whom were in fact people who supported her programs & wrote about them without disclosing the fact that they were in a sexual relationship with Quinn.
"The death threat shooting however was a serious threat because the actual police became involved."
They only got involved enough to say "this is not a credible threat."
"Don't you think it's a bit to easy to just wash away these threats as facades by ALL of them?"
To borrow a line from Hitchens: That which can be claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. So to answer your question, yes: Until you provide evidence that these things are:
A. Objectively happening
B Objectively being caused by people associated with Gamergate
C. Objectively occurring BECAUSE of Gamergate & not by association
Then yes, they can in fact be dismissed without having to be refuted, because you've yet to reach your minimum burden of proof that what you are saying is happening has in fact occurred at all.
"Sure maybe Wu is lying BUT all 3"
Hmmm I wonder what motive they could all have for playing the victim, I mean it's not like they are being given money for being a self confessed victim, it's not like one could turn that into a job in which one is paid thousands yearly to speak about ones own victimhood. Ohhhhh wait, that's exactly what's happening. Hmmmmm, I wonder how I would comport myself if I was getting free money for appearing to be a victim? Maybe I would continue to find new and interesting ways to fake being a victim so the money train would keep on bringing me free money.
"I just fail to see much talk and discussing involving video game journal ethics"
Really? Because you are discussing it right now.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>