- Joined
- Jul 13, 2014
Man this gamergate stuff keeps gets worse all the time. Its kinda like a rabbit hole at this point.
GamerGate Events and Discussion
- Thread starter Saney
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2014
The ongoing estimate's fluxtuated from 15-35 depending on who's quoted, but it's been listed on /gg/ a few times. But you've just caused me to realize something: That's never actually been directly sourced, and that's something that needs to change. I'm trying to get together an actual figure now (difficult, because Gawker hasn't disclosed much financial info), but Gawker itself has stated that the boycotts have, through lost revenue, cost the company at least "millions." Do bear in mind that it was only after Biddle's "bring back bullying" lost them Intel that they began retaliatory actions that did not win them any favors from Advertisers.
I'm going to coin the same analogy that Flush Rush used, since it's still the most analogous example to this. If what we're allowed to see of the actual damage we're causing them is due to them actually suppressing it, smart money is that we've done twice to three times that. Ergo, Millions is very likely to mean the 15-35 million number I've seen posted on /gg/.
Again, though, we need actual numbers here and not theorycraft, and if we have anyone here more capable with number crunching than me, I urge them to see what they can find out.
That said, do bear in mind - advertisers tend to be more self-aware than most businesses are want to be, and they would rather not be depicted as being on either side of any contentious issue. Rather than pull out outright (like Intel, Mercedes, et al), many existing advertisers are simply choosing to reduce the number ads they have already bought. This would also be why they've been rotating their ads and have significant gaps in their advertisement grids on the frontpage. New prospective advertisers aren't create new advertising campaigns they may have otherwise done. None of this is stuff that's loud, but we can garner it because we know from insiders that Gawker was already taking it on the chin from Adblock alone.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2013
You know...
I'm going to say something that's not going to be popular here but maybe, just maybe, if everyone just stopped responding to Anita and these hoes they would just go away, doesn't these death threats kinda validate their cause.
I'm not saying their right, but they are feeding off any attention they're getting.
I'm going to say something that's not going to be popular here but maybe, just maybe, if everyone just stopped responding to Anita and these hoes they would just go away, doesn't these death threats kinda validate their cause.
I'm not saying their right, but they are feeding off any attention they're getting.
Q
QI 541
Guest
kiwifarms.net
Tangently related: How confident are we that Gawker makes most of its cash through non-traditional sources, like that stacksocial thing? I know there was that article from a couple years ago, but there seems to be a lot of speculation, and I've learned not to take these things at face value.
1. We can't stop anyone from using a hashtag to say whatever they want.
2. We can't stop anyone some random person who isn't even using the hashtag from saying whatever he wants, and then getting it blamed on us anyways.
3. We tracked down one of the harassers and asked Anita to forward the information to the FBI in order to get charges filed. She blocked us.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2014
That's just it, though, Pikonic. They won't go away if simply ignored. Anita herself and the likes of Zoe Quinn are professional victims, but they're not the biggest threat in all this. Consider thus: the offense that the likes of what we've seen here is not something we have not seen before - quite the contrary, it's something we've seen multiple times before - first with Atheism+, next with the likes of the Occupy movement, and now, it's in our own front yard. It may sound far-fetched, especially to the uninitiated, but it has considerable evidence to support it - especially from those who lived it:
In each case, we've seen the same thing - a group of relative outsiders entering a largely inoccuous and open community, and shitting it up from within, dragging it off its initial focus to serve an agenda that most-assuredly isn't in the interest of the plurality. Additional evidence has been emerging slowly, but we're facing a threat here that's much bigger in scope than most realize. We know already that this mindset has the same source - and we already know Quinn herself is waist-deep in it due to the Dan Golding and Maya Kramer thing. Hell, we know Sarkeesian's in on it, too, thanks to the sourcing of all them "Gamer is Dead" articles, which all linked via Silverstring Media, which Sarkeesian herself works for. They see this as a culture war against us.
We can't simply ignore it. They're feeding off the attention, yes, but the correct response isn't to simply look away - it's to debunk it. That's getting easier as time goes on and more and more evidence is coming to light. Not as many people are as fooled as you'd think.
That's actually a very good question. A lot of evidence suggests that, rather as was the case for Clear Channel, Gawker's handlers may well finance it personally in the short-term, and possibly rely on stuff like Stacksocial in the long, but all of that depends upon traffic and clicks, none of which you're going to get when you have people actively boycotting you and getting the word out. Either way, it's something to consider.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2014
Sarkeesian at the very least won't give up. Sooner or later the press will lose interest in Quinn and Wu, and they'll likely just go back to what they were doing before. But Sarkeesian obviously now believes herself to be the face of downtrodden female gamers everywhere, and she'll keep plugging at it until she either reforms gaming or, like Jack Thompson before her, utterly destroys her own credibility when it becomes obvious even to non-gamers that she can't back her arguments up. And we owe it to ourselves to make sure the latter happens sooner rather than later.
That being said, the people who continue to act like misogynistic idiots (and I'm talking actual misogyny here, not vague sexism or just not liking them) toward the three remain GamerGate's biggest liability. Had there been a few more people making the issue about gaming journalism being more corrupt than 1930s Chicago and a few less making it about Zoe Quinn's sex life during the early stages of GG, the three (and Sarkeesian in particular) wouldn't have gotten anywhere near as much mileage out of it.
DrChristianTroy
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
So stop it in gaming journalism not real journalism. Gotcha. Can we still harass women?
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2013
This doesn't cover the horrible sexism tho...
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
You know about the whole harassment patrol thing, right?
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2014
Gamergate people should smoke a blunt with the SJWs. Then they could all stop being retarded.
Feminists vs. Fedoras is my fav movie.
Feminists vs. Fedoras is my fav movie.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2013
Better than nothing, but it doesn't fix the problem.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2012
You can't fix a problem you have no control over. I think you of all people should know what an Internet troll is.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
Agree to disagree. You think it's about sexism, none of us here do and none of us have ever harassed any women that I'm aware of.
I could have sworn we've shown you how every single community built around discussing GamerGate actively bans any and all people suggesting harassment and has no tolerance for it. Even our own. Gothicserpent here suggested that Zoe deserves the harassment and I'm pretty sure every regular thread follower either rated him disagree or dumb.
If the movement is sexist than that's just because of society being more inclined to yes, slut shaming which is awful. And there are a number of vocal Homers but they're mostly just relegated to their own twitters without any audience but themselves and the SJW who go out intentionally looking for posts like theirs to argue with.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2013
They could change their name. As it stands, they benefit from the harassers operating under the gamergate name, but without wanting any responsibility for it.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2014
I'll agree with the first paragraph, but I'm going to disagree with the second. Here's why: we've seen this playbook a few times since its inception. They would have claimed misogyny and harassment even if the harassment (the bulk of which we now know to be false flagging) hadn't been pushed to the fore for a while. Quinn broke out accusations of Misogyny and the like as far back as TFYC scandal, and that was before the FiveGuys part of the equation even broke. Further, this is all part of the same so-called SJW playbook that every single fucking one of them pulls from. We've seen it during the Atheism+ thing, we've seen it from the fact that any legitimate criticism of serial assholes like Leigh Alexander and Anita Sarkeesian is literally labelled Misogyny by default (even if you simply disagree), and we've seen it, perhaps most tellingly, from the many, many so-called SJWs and Tumblrfags that the CWCki has looked at. They all pull from the same tactic: Criticize at all, be labelled a Misogynist, Albeist, Transphobic, and worse.
There was no way to stop that. Not when all of them use that tactic religiously.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2012
It doesn't work like that. Stop reading Cogsdev's twitter.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
We don't benefit from retards making us look bad. That's silly.
I think hotwheels said it best honestly though about how over-exaggerated the 'harassment' is. "I think if you were actually scared you would have gone to the police."
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2014
And, pray tell, what would be stopping said aforementioned trolls from immediately co-opting the same tactic for use against the new name?
Answer: Nothing.
We'd be at the same spot, with new names just as tarnished as the old, and with none of the progress. It's a foolish suggestion that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2013
Its a problem that unfortunately will never be truly fixable. Because Zoe Quinn's actions were the catalyst for GamerGate, you're always gonna have that rogue sexist element. It doesn't and has never really defined what GamerGate is about though.
- Status