cowuponacow

Yes! Awesome! Thank you. I kept thinking it was "_______ Road", and went through the whole archives Ctrl-F-ing "road".

Alright, I have a couple "Does anyone know which episode has..." things, in increasing order of vagueness, and simultaneously, decreasing order of importance. 1. The exact episode's not important, but what was the name of that board game they mentioned once or twice, in which you have to take control of a city (New York?) by like... manipulating different ethnic groups? All I remember is that it led to hilarious gross comments in-game like "Man, the Jews are a real problem for me right now." etc. 2. The bit where Jake (I'm pretty sure) and Chris have a brief dialogue on how to smother a baby. 3. This is super vague to the max, but I remember a bit where Nick was doing that Nick thing where he says he'll talk about something, then backtracks, then starts again, then says it's not interesting, and so on and so forth; and while he's doing this, the other guys are just dying of laughter, and Chris says in a strained voice, "What are you doing??". Also, comment on the current conversation: classic Thumbs are amazing. As much as I like the current era, there's a bit of magic in the early episodes that's not always captured in the recent ones. Some kind of barely-contained nonsense. And the memes were in full power, as well. I think the only one I ever really got tired of was "Have you heard about that game that lets you rewind time..." (paraphrased).

Looking at the mods was not something I had thought of. The rape fantasy subreddit gave me the first "you can't be serious" moment I've had on reddit in a while. This is a good point, and something that had not occurred to me. Twig and others seem to be taking the stance that the motivations behind the donation entirely dictate its moral value, which suggests a philosophical disagreement between myself and them which is... probably not surmountable in this venue. Because the "reasonable claims" are the ones that I've observed using my meager investigative methods (described previously). Again, if you have better methods of discerning this stuff, I'm honestly interested in hearing them (thanks again to Bjorn for suggesting investigating mods). I'm aware that all manner of evil things are attributed to GG, including the many threats and doxxings (doxes? doxen?) that their opponents have endured; but since I lack the evidence to tie these actions to GG with a high degree of certainty, the principles I observe (also mentioned previously) require me to presume innocence on the part of the majority of GG supporters.

Clarification: are you attributing this motivation to a vocal minority of GG, the majority of GG, or every member of GG? And, are you denying Hanlon's razor? Donating to the Pacer Center is not a redeeming quality?

This will be a partial response since this conversation moves pretty fast for me. Certainly; but these aren't very specific. What would it look like (to a GG proponent) for journalistic ethics, etc, to be "fixed"? At what point has the movement succeeded? In short -- as kickinthehead and others have asked -- at what point is it no longer necessary to keep GG, as a movement, alive? Presumably, the proponents of GG don't want to keep emailing advertisers, debating people, and tweeting #GamerGate for years and decades to come. I think it's unfair to say those are the only actions they perform. Wrongheaded or not, their attempts to educate themselves and others about this stuff, to engage their opposition in debate, to catalogue evidence that favors them, and to signal-boost their own side with objectively positive action (donations to Pacer Center) are not nothing. In answering Gormongous's question about what GamerGate's concerns are, my investigative tactic has been to go to what seems to be the hub of pro-GG sentiment (KiA), see what the top posts are, see what people are agreeing or disagreeing with, see what sort of stuff they appear to self-police, see what sites and articles and people they're linking to, read the wiki (which serves as a sort of manifesto, as well as a timeline and repository of relevant links), and see what verifiable action they've taken. I have also attempted to do the same with the other GG-related subreddits (mainly /r/GamerGhazi), as well as a few forums, such as this one. In answering the question about what corrective action they've taken, I have tried to keep my eyes open for stuff which is verifiable, or which GG in general admits to, or which GG in general (or its more influential members in particular) seems to encourage (either explicitly, or implicitly via their culture). Unfortunately, this can get into pretty subjective territory. In all things, I try to employ the principle of charity, Hanlon's razor, and the presumption of innocence. It seems that Gormongous and you (and others) disagree with my assessment of GG's goals and actions. I am interested in hearing what your methods are for discerning GG's goals and actions. I agree with all of this.

Upon further reading, I see that you are entirely correct! I concede this point, and thank you for teaching me something. Well... GG has the infuriating tendency to avoid actually agreeing on what, specifically, their goals and values are. And I try, as your name here said, to approach every pro-GG person with the thought, "oh look, a person with their own set of complex emotional experiences who has decided, for reasons yet unknown, to post with a hashtag." That being said, in following this stuff from a bunch of different angles, especially /r/KotakuInAction and its associated wiki, I've seen a number of ideas which are so consistently put forth by people who consider themselves part of GG that I think it's accurate to hold GG as a whole generally accountable for them (by which I mean, if you disagree with more than a few of these ideas, it's probably not accurate say that you're part of GG). Amongst them: the idea that there is widespread, malignant nepotism in mainstream games journalism; the idea that a relatively small number of people more or less control this journalism, and censor legitimate news and opinions which do not fit their own ideological narratives; the idea that many games journalists and reviewers are unfairly harsh or unreasonably subjective when covering games which they find offensive (and vice versa for games which validate their ideologies); the idea that reviewers in general are doing a terrible job of disclosing prior relationships with the makers of the games they're reviewing; and... I'm getting tired of listing these. I guess I can dig up some more if you want. What corrective action they've pursued: other than simple discourse and signal-boosting, GG has taken a very concentrated hit-them-in-the-wallet approach. This includes boycotts and, more significantly, email campaigns encouraging companies to pull their ads from sites which they perceive as being part of the problem (mainly Gawker-owned sites), with an extra push any time someone not on their side says something injudicious on Twitter. I think that answers your questions.

It's not my intention to paint them as equivalent. I know people don't like the label "anti-GG", but I don't know what else to use. I simply mean, people who are engaged in this conversation and believe GG to be wrong. No. You could very effectively disagree with it by showing my examples to be false, or by providing comparable examples of the opposite behaviour (GGers disallowing dissent, and the opposition allowing dissent). I'll have to refer you to my response to Bjorn in my previous post. Well, there's intolerance, and then there's intolerance. Right? I mean, banning anything is inherently intolerant of that thing, using the strict definition of the word. But that's not necessarily bad. There are things that should not be tolerated, such as harassment. My supposition is that it's not only stuff like harassment and doxxing that's not being tolerated, it's also people trying to (more or less calmly) explain and discuss why they think GG is right, and that this happens at least as much as what you describe ("#GamerGate has shown very little tolerance for heterodoxy..."). My further supposition is that, although this is not necessarily wrong (both because of the paradox of tolerance that you mention, and because privately-owned websites are perfectly free to moderate as they see fit), if it's done, we ought to keep in mind the negative effects that can come with it. EDIT: Minor edit for wording.

I have a hard time condemning any group for permitting dissenting opinions, regardless of their motivation in doing so. I'm sure that's true in some places, but I'm guessing only the minority. I'm going on what I've personally seen, so I definitely could be wrong. But my suspicion is that most places banned GG talk for other reasons. Isn't GG a reactionary movement? Doesn't that mean they're inherently anti-status quo? Does anyone disagree with my supposition that anti-GG is at least as intolerant (if not more so) of dissenting opinions than GG is?

I really don't know if the opposition has been any better, though. Has it? Pro-GG discussion has been banned on many sites since the beginning of all this, including unprecedented amounts of moderation on 4chan. I've seen numerous comments by anti-GG (and none by pro-GG) to the effect that fence-sitting, silence, or attempts at neutrality are bullshit. The top pro-GG subreddit allows anti-GG comments, while the top anti-GG subreddit does not allow pro-GG comments.

SecretAsianMan and JonCole: Alright, that sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Is there consensus that this is what happens? Serious question, because I honestly don't know.

This is a fair point. I did some googling and was unable to anything published by law enforcement on the matter. I'd be interested in knowing what TB's and the poster's source is, or whether it's one of those things that someone sort of remembers reading somewhere once. That said, I'm inclined to agree with TB's logic. The downsides of publicizing threats (whether or not the threats are "real") seem to me to be more definite and clear than the upsides. But, I'd really love to see a take on this issue that was backed up by some sort of professional expertise or hard data.

What about publicizing it? Informing people in general of what's going on?

What should one do if they receive death threats via Twitter?

I think what TB was implying to be unethical was Alexender's piece itself (e.g., the "'Gamers are over'" article). It's confusing; I think Chris misinterpreted one of TB's tweets, and TB then responded to the misinterpretation without clarifying his previous tweet.