Beamer wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 19:36:There was no humor in that in the first place. If you thought it funny, I seriously question your ethical and moral standards on applying that to anyone.
You have absolutely zero sense of humor.
Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 19:31:
But if we're so terrible that isis finds it deplorable, I guess that means #stopgg2014 and gamerghazi(who is also using that hash) support rape, murder, genocide, slavery, and ethnic cleansing right? Then again, being "worse" than isis would mean that we're the polar opposite of them. My, my...how telling that is.
Beamer wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 19:02:Well you're right, it's just the same clique of sjw's that have launched 6 or 8 other hashes all of which failed miserably. Really there's no organized anti-gg? I guess you missed all those articles a while back, and how lw, lw2, and lw3 all keep injecting themselves back in while trying to direct the narrative.
You're right. I should have used "name," not "hashtag." As far as I know, no large group of people is identifying as "stopgg2014." But I also haven't seen many people actually call themselves "anti-gg." There's really no organized "anti-gg." There's the stupid gameghazi, but that's 1/10th of the KotakuInAction.
Also, if your movement is so terrible that even ISIS finds it deplorable... ha!
Julio wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 18:49:
There is no need to abandon the #Gamergate tag. It's working quite well. I can see why the anti-GG movement would like that to happen though. Why don't the anti-GG people abandon Sarkessian and Zoe Quinn?
Julio wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 18:49:Beamer wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 18:39:
This is why I've said they should change their hashtag.Squirmer wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 18:34:
what's the actual point of sticking with a label that can never possibly be salvaged? (Answer: it's not really about journalism ethics, and even if it were, no one wants to put in the effort required to effect any measurable change, oh well.)
There is no need to abandon the #Gamergate tag. It's working quite well. I can see why the anti-GG movement would like that to happen though. Why don't the anti-GG people abandon Sarkessian and Zoe Quinn?
Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 18:56:Beamer wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 18:39:So I guess that means that #stopgg2014 should change their hashtag now, after all they have people who called us "worse than isis" supporting them, and actual isis related tweets in there. I suggest they take #meow.
This is why I've said they should change their hashtag.
Beamer wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 18:39:So I guess that means that #stopgg2014 should change their hashtag now, after all they have people who called us "worse than isis" supporting them, and actual isis related tweets in there. I suggest they take #meow.
This is why I've said they should change their hashtag.
Beamer wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 18:39:
This is why I've said they should change their hashtag.
Squirmer wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 18:34:
what's the actual point of sticking with a label that can never possibly be salvaged? (Answer: it's not really about journalism ethics, and even if it were, no one wants to put in the effort required to effect any measurable change, oh well.)
Squirmer wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 18:34:
It kind of astounds me that anyone would still claim to support gamergate at this stage, considering the actual mainstream coverage of it. Outside of the distorted view of reality in gamergate circles, the mainstream coverage should make people realize that the rest of the world sees gamergate supporters as either 1) childish internet trolls, or 2) actual psychopaths.
If you actually care about journalism ethics, what's the actual point of sticking with a label that can never possibly be salvaged? (Answer: it's not really about journalism ethics, and even if it were, no one wants to put in the effort required to effect any measurable change, oh well.)
ASeven wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 17:47:
You are correct, in the literal sense of the law. When I meant privilege I didn't mean it in the literal sense of the law, I mean it as a god damn privilege for both parts, as in, "a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions" which in this case translates to an advertisement being placed on a site in order for the site to gain revenue from its exposure.
As for my words, you should worry more about your own continuing trolling of all gamergate threads and I'll take care of my own words, thank you.
From the start it broke the narrative, because it is a project that was slandered by SJWs from the moment it was funded by 4chan, and then GamerGate, in their indiegogo campaign and it's a project meant to aid women developers in the industry, something that SJWs keep saying Gamergate is not about.
This is the narrative breaker that every SJW loves to ignore because it proves that Gamergate was always about helping women and exposing the lack of ethics in "gaming journalism". When they were hacked, no SJW site covered this despite them covering about all the harassment GG allegedly did against everyone in their buddy list.
As a final word, I remember your first post on the GamerGate topics here on Blue being that you didn't really care much for all this.
In that case, and since you are weary of this, I suggest you leave these threads if they bother you so much.
Quboid wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 17:36:
I did, hence the bit about "what the rest of GamerGate seems to think of that". You have repeatedly generalised, even in this very post and in posts on this thread since.
They're not my camp and the line "you lot, not you specifically mind" is very telling. Why did you exclude me? I think it was because you realised you were generalising and you caught on enough to not include me (on this particular occasion, you lump me in with them throughout the rest of this post). However, you still generalised and tarred all but one of this imaginary camp with this brush.
I haven't commented on TFYC because I don't know much about it and it's nothing to do with me. It's your own misunderstanding that people who disagree with you are in some camp and pointing out inconsistencies is not pointing out hypocrisy, it's disproving your own stupid assumption.
UHD wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 17:34:An advertisement is a PRIVILEGE.
It is a business deal. Neither side would do it if it didn't mean a profit or benefit down the road. Privilege implies a whole different thing.
You have consistent trouble with words. I'd suggest putting more thought into how you present your ideas.
And still nothing on TFYC I see, which is what breaks the narrative completely of all SJWs. They can't stand that Gamergate funded a great project to help women developers, it completely goes against their narrative.
Redmask wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 17:36:
Someone the other day asked about drowning out others, this is exactly what I meant.
ASeven wrote on Oct 15, 2014, 15:00:
Also, you don't get to say I focus on a few to paint a large picture because that's all you lot, not you specifically mind, have been doing, calling all gamers misogynists, and far worse, and painting all of us under a very large brush. Before you accuse me of generalization, look at your own camp first.