Just because I can't not say this:

-Gamergate is crap?!? Seriously? Someone getting death and **** threats just for being a woman in gaming is crap? Arrrgghhhhh-.

Gamergate has extremists who use it as a veil to advance their own agenda. You calling it crap is about as agreeable as me calling feminism crap.

Oooh, sensitive subject.

Gamergate was -literally- a harassment campaign. I'm not sure how anyone can say it's on the same level as feminism.. but..

/shrug

It started that way but by the end it was about ethics in journalism and it had a positive change on several review sites.

Gamergate started when an abusive woman was called out on social media by her ex-boyfriend.

But that was not all that gamer gate was about. A lot of people who did identify with gamer gate do not identify with that kind of harassment. You have are a decent amount of gamers who are simply angry at the gaming press and eat **** fed to them. There are concerns about the quality of gaming journalism, the fear that writers trying to manipulate them, bought reviews not only with sex, but hard cash from big publishers, etc

It surprisingly easy to get people to do ****** up things when you relay them behind some fictive or otherwise just cause. And honestly, I rather not google that sickening mess further, because it is sick enough to follow from a distance. These day the gamer gate guys are classified as a hate group iirc.

So that's how gamergate started, and then it "evolved" into a discussion of corruption of media in gaming and buying reviews and what not. I get that. But that was a "secondary" goal admitted by the starters of it to ruining Quinn. Some people who joined joined with 100% good intentions - but there is an underlying layer of not good things to all of it.

Having read the Zoepost, and followed the drama, I think that woman was a horribly abusive person, whom the media leapt to defend out of cronyism and groupthink.

But that was not all that gamer gate was about. A lot of people who did identify with gamer gate do not identify with that kind of harassment. You have are a decent amount of gamers who are simply angry at the gaming press and eat **** fed to them. There are concerns about the quality of gaming journalism, the fear that writers trying to manipulate them, bought reviews not only with sex, but hard cash from big publishers, etc

It surprisingly easy to get people to do ****** up things when you relay them behind some fictive or otherwise just cause. And honestly, I rather not google that sickening mess further, because it is sick enough to follow from a distance. These day the gamer gate guys are classified as a hate group iirc.

So that's how gamergate started, and then it "evolved" into a discussion of corruption of media in gaming and buying reviews and what not. I get that. But that was a "secondary" goal admitted by the starters of it to ruining Quinn. Some people who joined joined with 100% good intentions - but there is an underlying layer of not good things to all of it.

That's true. The "ethics" discussion, yes, was basically there to increase support for the harassment campaign and to give it a veneer of respectability. There has been a lot of space all over the web devoted to debunking the 'it was originally about journalism' canard.

... I'm 100% unwilling to get involved in this particular argument, and will be leaving this thread. Along with the Tims Hortons, Bodypaint and mankini.

But that was not all that gamer gate was about. A lot of people who did identify with gamer gate do not identify with that kind of harassment. You have are a decent amount of gamers who are simply angry at the gaming press and eat **** fed to them. There are concerns about the quality of gaming journalism, the fear that writers trying to manipulate them, bought reviews not only with sex, but hard cash from big publishers, etc

It surprisingly easy to get people to do ****** up things when you relay them behind some fictive or otherwise just cause. And honestly, I rather not google that sickening mess further, because it is sick enough to follow from a distance. These day the gamer gate guys are classified as a hate group iirc.

So that's how gamergate started, and then it "evolved" into a discussion of corruption of media in gaming and buying reviews and what not. I get that. But that was a "secondary" goal admitted by the starters of it to ruining Quinn. Some people who joined joined with 100% good intentions - but there is an underlying layer of not good things to all of it.

That's true. The "ethics" discussion, yes, was basically there to increase support for the harassment campaign and to give it a veneer of respectability. There has been a lot of space all over the web devoted to debunking the 'it was originally about journalism' canard.

And a lot of internet space debunking the assertation that it was about harassment of women.

... I'm 100% unwilling to get involved in this particular argument, and will be leaving this thread. Along with the Tims Hortons, Bodypaint and mankini.

Not getting involved into this either, the last thing I want to discuss is the dirty laundry of a couple, online harassment and stuff were I am clearly not qualified to judge. Time to look for new List ideas.

But that was not all that gamer gate was about. A lot of people who did identify with gamer gate do not identify with that kind of harassment. You have are a decent amount of gamers who are simply angry at the gaming press and eat **** fed to them. There are concerns about the quality of gaming journalism, the fear that writers trying to manipulate them, bought reviews not only with sex, but hard cash from big publishers, etc

It surprisingly easy to get people to do ****** up things when you relay them behind some fictive or otherwise just cause. And honestly, I rather not google that sickening mess further, because it is sick enough to follow from a distance. These day the gamer gate guys are classified as a hate group iirc.

So that's how gamergate started, and then it "evolved" into a discussion of corruption of media in gaming and buying reviews and what not. I get that. But that was a "secondary" goal admitted by the starters of it to ruining Quinn. Some people who joined joined with 100% good intentions - but there is an underlying layer of not good things to all of it.

That's true. The "ethics" discussion, yes, was basically there to increase support for the harassment campaign and to give it a veneer of respectability. There has been a lot of space all over the web devoted to debunking the 'it was originally about journalism' canard.

And a lot of internet space debunking the assertation that it was about harassment of women.

And, somehow, a lot of documented harassment of women.

... I'm 100% unwilling to get involved in this particular argument, and will be leaving this thread. Along with the Tims Hortons, Bodypaint and mankini.

Cheers

Baaa

Drop it. GamerGate is a terrible topic to discuss because both sides got extremely sh*tty towards each other but the people on each side who were being reasonable were only exposed to the nastiness of their opponents. Thats why all discussions about it devolve in to rants about how terrible the other side was, because /everyone/ was awful.

guys perhaps the body paint is just an example of something that should change. I'm not sure but if a random girl entered this thread this moment thinking to start playing x-wing, what would they think about all the mention of body paint? does it look sexist or not? I'm not sure. I understand it's a joke but it also sounds like a real thing covered by "I'm just joking".

I love body paint on hot girls but please also understand that it is popularized in the context that it is acceptable to pay hot girls to dance in body paint with male attendants of a convention where they'll take pictures, look as if surrounded by wild girls and hope to get laid.

this is not a criticism, I'm just wondering out loud.

... I'm 100% unwilling to get involved in this particular argument, and will be leaving this thread. Along with the Tims Hortons, Bodypaint and mankini.

You aren't a real Canadian you don't get to take Timmies with you.

I mean, you can take a double double or whatever. I'm not a monster. You just take the Timmies itself. That will stay here with me for the time being.

I do want to mention that I was interested in the "ethics in gaming journalism" thing because I have my doubts about the fairness of most reviews, but there was a lot of open misogyny even at the beginning and that drove me away. I'm not saying Zoe is necessarily a good person (what little evidence I saw suggests that she very much isn't) but let's not deny that there was some serious woman-hating happening and a lot of people jumped in because it gave them an opportunity to spew misogynistic bile at a "deserving" target.

Thanks a bunch, now I have the image of Borat in my head...in a mankini, painting himself with poutine whilst waving a Canadian flag around. (Shudder)

Thanks a bunch, now I have the image of Borat in my head...in a mankini, painting himself with poutine whilst waving a Canadian flag around. (Shudder)

Well, I think we all learned something important here today.....

Just going to go in and add my two cents before bowing out.

I was and am, and always will be on the side of Gamergate. I remember why it started, and I know **** well that there were villains on our side too. But there were a lot of bad guys on the other side as well.

In the end it exposed a lot of bad s*it about a lot of people in charge of games journalism that had every single conceivable reason to be outed.

Anita Sarkeesan can eat a fist, by the way. What a pain.

Just going to go in and add my two cents before bowing out.

I was and am, and always will be on the side of Gamergate. I remember why it started, and I know **** well that there were villains on our side too. But there were a lot of bad guys on the other side as well.

In the end it exposed a lot of bad s*it about a lot of people in charge of games journalism that had every single conceivable reason to be outed.

Anita Sarkeesan can eat a fist, by the way. What a pain.

This. This right here is where the thread will derail if we let it. People who issue death threats and **** threats are wrong. Period, full stop. You no longer have any moral standing to argue about "ethics in video game journalism" (and as an aside, as a former freelance journalist, that entire thing is absurd. They aren't journalists, they are an independent advertising agency, same with most movie reviews. You want an honest review, go to the NYT).

There's no longer any reasonable debate that can be had about "bad people on both sides."

Very visible threats were made against women.

Death was threatened.

**** was threatened.

Personal information was published.

All about "the integrity of video game journalism."

Heck, you JUST threatened physical violence against a woman because you disagree with her.

If you don't understand how deeply that is part of the problem, well then I'm gonna sign out of this thread.

Just going to go in and add my two cents before bowing out.

I was and am, and always will be on the side of Gamergate. I remember why it started, and I know **** well that there were villains on our side too. But there were a lot of bad guys on the other side as well.

In the end it exposed a lot of bad s*it about a lot of people in charge of games journalism that had every single conceivable reason to be outed.

Anita Sarkeesan can eat a fist, by the way. What a pain.

This. This right here is where the thread will derail if we let it. People who issue death threats and **** threats are wrong. Period, full stop. You no longer have any moral standing to argue about "ethics in video game journalism" (and as an aside, as a former freelance journalist, that entire thing is absurd. They aren't journalists, they are an independent advertising agency, same with most movie reviews. You want an honest review, go to the NYT).

There's no longer any reasonable debate that can be had about "bad people on both sides."

Very visible threats were made against women.

Death was threatened.

**** was threatened.

Personal information was published.

All about "the integrity of video game journalism."

Heck, you JUST threatened physical violence against a woman because you disagree with her.

If you don't understand how deeply that is part of the problem, well then I'm gonna sign out of this thread.

So those select few who did those things instantly disqualify any actual merit that a movement has? Should we have not listened to MLK because the Black Panthers existed? Both sides performed these acts. Maybe Captain was wrong to say that about Anita, she's only a sock puppet after all so I'll say the same about Brian McIntosh. That guy deserves to eat a fist.

Did this thread derail onto GamerGate? Really?

I struggle to understand why anyone would want to be associated with that name, what it's come to mean and the disturbed people that use it as a banner. It's become a byword for everything wrong with so called "nerd culture".

If you geniunely wanted to improve journalistic ethics, why would you shackle yourself with that association?

Warning... subject matter is strong and may cause a reaction... it did in me...

I was actually having a good weekend, enjoying the Hoth Open, all of the fun with the podcast switcheroos, and being on Twitter during all of it. At the same time, I have been backstage on our local theatre's production of Steel Magnolias. And then I came across James D'Amato's (One Shot / Campaign Podcast... for those of you that follow any of the Star Wars RPG people) post:

James D'Amato

@OneShotRPG

I want gaming to be safe and open, but we need to work to make that happen. Everyone in my audience should read this http://latining.tumblr.com/post/141567276944/tabletop-gaming-has-a-white-male-terrorism-problem …

I will warn you, there is strong language in here... and it is about Male White Gamers. I'm sure not everyone on the forums here is one of the people causing the problem. In fact, I don't know that anyone is, but the following questions/thoughts immediately occurred to me:

1) Star Wars in general started off on the wrong foot on this. Over the years, disparity has been addressed some, but it was obviously white guy centric at the start and through the metal bikini...

2) I've watched a lot of games and listened to a lot of podcasts within X-Wing. Aside from one match with Kris Sherrif's canadian store, I don't recall seeing or hearing another woman on a show. Perhaps I have missed them and they are more populous than I have had the opportunity to see, but I'm not currently convinced of that.

3) I've followed several large events in whatever media was available. I've seen a lot of white guys. I know there are others that play, if you want to involve other nationalities, but I really do not know what the diversity is. What I do know is I have seen a lot of guys like me.

As we promote the X-Wing culture as "Fly Casual" and how friendly it is to new people... why don't we have more women involved in our hobby? I wouldn't say it was lack of interest in Star Wars. I also wouldn't say that women are not good at tabletop games or strategy games. As I don't have a local gaming store, I am an odd man out at this. The closest gaming store at all is 30 miles away (which is new and better than my previous 50+ mile trip) but the wife of the owner is heavily involved, they just don't play enough X-Wing often enough for my preference.

As the post is in a non-specific tabletop game, the post is not necessarily pointed at our group. But, on the other hand, it's not specifically NOT pointed at our group? So, are we part of the problem or are we making our stores a safe place for women to join our ranks and in time they will be seen on the top tables at the Open Series and Worlds?

Please be respectful of others as you venture into the comments (or leave one) below...

I can expect to be silenced with extreme prejudice. Section 83.01 of the Criminal Code of Canada defines terrorism as an act committed “in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause” and with the intention of intimidating the public “…with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act.”

Unfortunately after reading the bold section I can assume with 99% certainty this is a Extreme Feminist that wrote this article.

They are neck and neck the worst in the United States and Canada.

Before I continue I will point out that some of the greatest women in the world come from Canada, none of them are Extreme Feminists. Its because of these Extreme Feminists that it gets harder and harder to tell just how much of a problem there maybe going on in a event, medium, club, organization, ect... because they go super overboard over little things... Like holding a door open for one, that is considered sexism in their book. You need to have permission to talk to them, maybe this isn't something they all demand but I have seen it brought up.

So what happens if your having a medical emergency...? You don't have permission to talk to one of these women, guess your only option is to die, through yourself into traffic? Oh and there Men who are Feminists as well, and they can act even more crazy / hostile than the women in this philosophical group.

You want to have more women play X-Wing with you? Just ask them to play the *** game, with you and your friends, or something like that.

The world would be a better, and cleaner, place if we stopped treating objects like women

This thread, had a good run, but it's leaking oxygen from too many hull breaches now, the drive core's on fire and the damage report machine has been damaged.

ABANDON SHIP

And this thread is becoming a reason why we can't have nice things.

Cheers

Baaa

It's worse than that.

Mr. Coffee has taken a direct hit.

Heck, you JUST threatened physical violence against a woman because you disagree with her.

Don't you think there is a distinct difference between saying someone can eat a fist and saying that you're going to be the one to feed it to them?

And frankly, wouldn't it be sexist if he would suggest a man could eat a fist, but somehow by virtue of gender a female would not be offered that meal?

In the words of the late George Carlin, "Let's not have a double-standard. One standard will do just fine."

As far as so called "extreme-feminists", I don't really engage with anyone who exhibits the generally attributed behaviours but are there really people that think that others need permission to talk to them? That's goofy.

I'll talk to anyone, men, women, children, old people, plants, animals, hell....I'll even make faces at babies and toddlers. What kind of person (other than those who haven't had their morning coffee) gets offended by someone talking to them?