Longknife

We disabled take pride in having the best nicknames hands down. In high school I was often known as Stubby or Peggy for having one leg, and on rare occasion when someone didn't mind the syllables, Sir Limpsalot.

I think if it came out someone faked harassment, this already explosive enviorment would go nuclear. Not saying it happened in this case, but it would cause quoite the firestorm.Also, her sockpuppet troll account was dumb. Erections from deathscenes? Murderboner? I'm starting to think SJWs are projecting a bit. I personally would actually be willing to bet money it was faked. An idiom (a person's habits when speaking) is deceptively telling and in some way difficult to imitate as it can sometimes involve picking up on rather subtle speech patterns. You have one, I have one, everyone has one. She's shown a willingness to create multiple accounts (yes, there is some level of effort and dedication required here), the woman herself is very obscure (NEVER heard of her) and she supposedly has another game coming out so the press is good for her, and I sincerely doubt a troll would have the foresight to recognize her idiom and imitate it while making the death threat. I said before, I believe in all kinds of people. For example I don't think Anita would make bomb threats to herself at the big events she's attended as - were she caught - she's looking at SERIOUS legal ramifications, seeing as they dispatched actual bomb squads to those events. This on the other hand...? This is this woman's first spot in the limelight, I highly doubt police are going to conduct a serious investigation into a threat made on the Internet (especially one where the guy making the threat shows ignorance in that he doesn't know if she has kids) and catch a staged threat plot, and again the circumstantial evidence here is HIGHLY suspicious. Circumstantial evidence won't hold ground in a court of law or the like because it fails to connect the dots, but I also think as rational and cognitive human beings, if you can hit someone with circumstantial evidence not once, not twice, but multiple times, then yes it's time to start seriously considering that person suspicious. As such, personally my intuition sees that and calls foul. But I digress. It's still only circumstantial evidence that can't be proven (at least not without police charging her with filing a fake report, which as stated is unlikely) so it's kinda pointless to discuss. Likewise while I feel the character of such people is relevant in highlighting hypocrisy and a general culture from the two sides (btw, just to get it all out there before moving on, here's another alleged foul-up that allegedly got deleted very quickly, according to the kotakuinaction reddit board: https://mobile.twitter.com/The_Camera_Girl/status/522138531108749312/photo/1 ), I think it's important to differentiate between relevance to a culture and "character assassination." I think I've commented enough about her at this point so there's no reason to discuss it further. EDIT: oh and just if it wasn't clear, in the pic linked, supposedly wu is claiming her twitter got hacked briefly so someone could make that crappy comment, then returned her account to her.

Circumstantial evidence, yes. Damned good and convincing circumstantial evidence? Also yes: http://i.lightimg.com/34d0b14a.jpg

Random thought/hypothesis: So gamasutra, RPS, Kotaku and various others all felt a backlash from the gamers are dead articles. I'm big on three little intuitive thoughts: that statistically there's one of every type, that there are people that think like you and that while many people are idiots there are also plenty that are wise. How likely do you think it'd be that there's at least ONE supervisor for one of these journalism websites who's read an article that GamerGate itself hates, agrees the article was terrible and wanted to fire the person over it, but then came to the conclusion that, were they to do so, the very same group crying and calling gamers sexist would begin crying and calling that (already unpopular or questionable) website sexist for firing a pro-feminism journalist? I'm just trying to make RATIONAL sense of why journalists would take things this far. The way things have played out, it feels as though journalists are acting like absolute children, refusing to accept reality and believing that if they shout the lie hard enough, it'll become true. I for one refuse to believe that a collective of decent size could be absolutely devoid of more clever and rational thought, so when I try to rationalize why none of the journalism websites have come forward and....yknow...APOLOGIZED to the people that put food on their table, the only thing that comes to mind is that they view it as doing so may clear their name with GamerGate, but effectively puts a target on their backs from SJWs and competing journalism websites, who would be quick to point out the corruption that surely exists amidst that website. Still, it also feels like surely ONE of them would rationalize that there's potentially good money in taking chances with GamerGate, as the general consumer base would be supportive of a turncoat and be willing to hear what they'd have to say about corruption of the other sites while pardoning the alleged corruption of the turncoat in hopes it won't happen again. I just find it so shocking that this many journalists keep repeating the same stuff and not a single one decides this isn't for them, nor does a single employer decide to fire a journalist or two as a scapegoat. And it's even getting WORSE because now we have the non-gaming journalists providing equally bias coverage....how the FLYING F*** did that happen???

I'm speechless. Maybe Gamers didn't die, maybe journalism did. I mean put the context aside. Pretend this isn't about GamerGate and SJWs, pretend it's an article about Crips vs. Bloods. I still don't think there's any reason for such undeniable bias from a JOURNALIST, flaunting an opinion in the most hyperbolized, factual fashion imagineable. This might be the single most bias and terribly unethical article to date....and what's scary is it's not even from a gaming journalist with an already terrible reputation, who we'd EXPECT this kind of **** from...

Glory to Arstotzka

Someone better tell that to Jaden Smith.

That is as much as objective as to asking Von Däniken why the US government is hiding UFOs. Is it to much to ask for a sociology scholar/professor, with no previous affiliation with feminism, to conduct some research? But do we now dismiss any opinions from feminists as "automatically biased " ? ....It's from the same media circle that owns Kotaku.

I would still argue that it's very much relevant, because as long as a name is not put on the GamerGate movement, opposing sides are free to make whatever accusations they please with little need to cite sources. It can continue to be "someone said" rather than "_____ said." You see, if the conversation went "TotalBiscuit said he hopes all women die in a fire and considers them mentally and physically inferior" and TotalBiscuit was STILL championed by the movement despite those claims....? Then yes, you've got a problem with a lot of people either supporting sexism or turning a blind eye. But when you say "someone who supports Gamergate said he hopes all women die," then I'm going to promptly laugh at you and tell you to GTFO. This is the internet, I don't care if Pepperoni_Nipples said something outrageous on random video or forum #27. Pepperoni_Nipples is probably a troll who's drunk on the anonymity and absurdness of the internet and thought it'd be funny to say something absurd. But beyond words that carry no weight, he won't do anything else. So yes, the fact that SJWs continue to cite comments by "someone" as the problem, I will continue to take them as seriously as I take this hatemail letter I got from beating someone in a Dark Souls II fight where he said he was gonna find out where I live and take a dump on my lawn. Disclaimer: Pepperoni_Nipples is infact a fine and entertaining youtube citizen who wouldn't say such things. I had the pleasure of sharing a video view with him and commenting in response to a humorous comment he made here. His name was used purely for demonstration purposes.

As a citizen of the fine town of Bumretch, Nebrahoma, I for one am profusely offended by this article's portrayal of my home and demand an immediate apology.

Just saying - and you may already be aware - that website looks and functions like Kotaku because it's also an affiliate of Gawker Media, just like Kotaku. It's also HIGHLY bias on such a topic as a rule of thumb (has written feminist-related stories before) and is not above controversy itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jezebel_%28website%29 It's funny, it seems as though all of Gawker Media is met with controversy and questionable morals:

Who the HELL said this? Outside of this thread? Only a lot of people. You'd be shocked how many people are willing to say this out loud, type it on the internet for everyone to see, and act like it's normal. It's sickening. Inside of this thread? it's the phrases like "the industry needs to stop doing X and think of what it is teaching society" kind of nonsense. This convo suddenly reminds me of that time I challenged a SJW to name a game developer, gaming journalist or strong GamerGate proponent who's said something sexist. Lo and behold, no one can actually name one beyond pointing at anonymous Youtube comments on videos about Anita or Zoe Quinn.

Who the HELL said this?

I must say that Anita's public views are quite moderate Her views paraphrased by me "I want developer's use less tropes, especially those I see to be degrading towards women" "I want developer's to use more active female protagonists" "I want more games that don't focus so much on violence" "I think using tropes that I think to be sexist and not giving women as many active roles as men shows that our society is still leans towards patriarchy" "I want/hope that game developers start to make more games for my tastes" Her vision for what direction games as medium and art form should develop don't wholly correspond with my vision, but I don't think that her vision is anyway radical. The issue comes about in two seperate ways: 1) Anita CAN be radical. Find a video she did on sexist Christmas songs. Have fun with it. 2) Anita lies. Check how she misrepresents Fallout New Vegas (and others) in her women as backround decoration video. Those two combined, you actually start to wonder if there aren't ulterior motives, moreso with the second one than the first. Either she's soooo radical she pulls ridiculous claims out of thin air here and there (unlikely, as other times she IS quite reasonable), or the girl honestly is just trying to profit off of this situation she's found herself in, leading to profit > truth and thus she'll do misleading or half-assed pieces to gain profit. 1) I fail find out what is radical in it? It seems only be continuum to her other work to point out what pieces of media she finds to be sexists. Her reasonings for why songs are in list may be somewhat ridiculous, but I don't see anything radical in the video. She don't demand that these songs should be censored, or that people should take actions against them, but instead she ask to hear songs that she likes, which maybe somewhat silly, but not anyway radical thing to ask. 2) Lying is not radical, it is just at least morally gray way to get people that aren't very interested about subject to support your point of view. Most of people use lying at least some point of their life to get/try to get what they want. Lying don't make person radical or their opinion radical it just shows that their morals aren't necessary as high as they maybe should be. People making profit when life gives opportunity do so I one of the standing principals of capitalism and general thinking of western societies. But for me she seem to do remarkable job not make profit even though she has amble opportunity to do so, but that maybe because she isn't financially adept instead of moral or ideological standings. But anyway may point was that Anita is quite moderate in her public views, as she don't try to cause public uprising, or get things censored or made forbidden by law. Most radical thing is that she wants media products that at least currently have somewhat lacking offering in markets. But if such thing make person radical, then I am and large bunch of this forums users are radical as we wanted products that mass markets didn't produce and funded at least one of such product in Kickstarter. So I will not say that person that don't at least like some aspects of products that mass markets currently offer to be radical even if aspects that she don't like aren't same aspects that I don't like or even like in those products. And way she express her dislike towards those aspects is very moderate compared to way many of us in these forums express our dislike towards products/aspects of products that we don't like. So in short I disagree with Anita's views lot, but I don't think that she is radical anyway that I know. 1) She referred to "I saw mommy kissing Santa Claus" as sexist because it "portrays all women as promiscuous cheaters." wat I mean really. I cannot "wat" hard enough. That combines a blatant misunderstanding of the song's meaning with a ridiculous hyperbole, mixed with a touch of not recognizing history and that Santa Claus stems from Saint Nicholas, who was infact a man. How she could take a song that's essentially about how dumb and adorably naive kids are and twist it into some propaganda song that portrays ALL WOMEN IN THE HISTORY OF FOREVER as dishonest cheaters is beyond me. 2) You're basically justifying her dishonesty by saying "everybody lies." That's terrible justification and by that same logic, we are all justified in commiting crimes and atrocities because others have done it too. No, misleading info is misleading. She's purposefully or negligently (probably via laziness) misleading people to be up in arms about a game that did absolutely nothing wrong and is by no means guilty of the very things she's claiming it's guilty of. Just because she's not leading the charge and personally making a call-to-arms to censor games or something does not mean she's not a contributor. What she occassionally does ("occassionally" because as we've both said, at times her stuff is more reasonable) is basically incite outbursts from people by portraying things far worse than they actually are. That kind of stuff does NOT help people calm down and...yknow, be reasonable. I've not said she's radical; that was a word you brought up (or someone else did and I missed it, I don't know), and no I do not care what label you or others wish to give her. The only label I wish to apply is "problem," regardless of whether she's a problem because she's called a radical feminist, because she's called a member of ISIS or any other claims people might make about her. I only care that the woman has shown she can make ridiculous and exaggerated claims while providing misleading and half-assed information to the public in order to further her agenda. No, I don't cut politicians or CEOs any slack when they utilize such tactics, so I'm not cutting her any slack either.

She farts in their general direction.

Good thing GamerGate thought to pay Tyrone for scripted videos first!

I must say that Anita's public views are quite moderate Her views paraphrased by me "I want developer's use less tropes, especially those I see to be degrading towards women" "I want developer's to use more active female protagonists" "I want more games that don't focus so much on violence" "I think using tropes that I think to be sexist and not giving women as many active roles as men shows that our society is still leans towards patriarchy" "I want/hope that game developers start to make more games for my tastes" Her vision for what direction games as medium and art form should develop don't wholly correspond with my vision, but I don't think that her vision is anyway radical. The issue comes about in two seperate ways: 1) Anita CAN be radical. Find a video she did on sexist Christmas songs. Have fun with it. 2) Anita lies. Check how she misrepresents Fallout New Vegas (and others) in her women as backround decoration video. Those two combined, you actually start to wonder if there aren't ulterior motives, moreso with the second one than the first. Either she's soooo radical she pulls ridiculous claims out of thin air here and there (unlikely, as other times she IS quite reasonable), or the girl honestly is just trying to profit off of this situation she's found herself in, leading to profit > truth and thus she'll do misleading or half-assed pieces to gain profit.

Btw, check this out: Just the intro sting to gaming journalists. I found that pretty boss.

He didn't draw a single ****ing parallel....

Apparently Christina Sommers - the "conservative" feminist who came out in support of GamerGate - well her husband just died and she did a tweet where she thanked some GG supporters who sent flowers. I will become sick to my stomache if this becomes a point of mudslinging... I don't think I could imagine your loved one and partner for life dying and becoming a target and point of discussion for such a stupid debate.

Now see, THESE are awesome, interesting and definitely worth respect. All of them provide insightful opinions and there's even a nice degree of spectrum within the opinions, from those who'd back GamerGate 100% to a guy who makes a very true statement about how in the end, this WAS all sparked by revenge porn, for better or worse. It's nice to see some actual "discussion" and actually hear some opinions and voices from people within the industry itself. Even the developers are speaking out now while journalists continue to just pretend people are listening to the BS they keep preaching....

I take my investigation of all sources and articles very seriously. I will be looking into the matter of whether or not Tara Strong is a p0rn star or not.

Very underrated show

I think at this point, the lack of validity of that article is entirely unquestionable. I am not sure what the original point behind quote is, but that article that is linked in the quote laments the fact that people dismiss girls in geekdom by using "fake geek girl" stereotype. Meaning that article's writer don't claim accuse anybody to be "fake geek girl", but instead ask people not to use such term as she feels that it's term used by elitist jerks. Although article refers to one article from Forbes written by one of their female contributors that has tittle that seems to attack girls that fake to be geeks, but even it is more general lament about fact that geeky things are in this days popular and accepted by society and people embrace term geek instead of be branded by it. But anyway said article don't seems to be great for any point of view that quote reflects. EDIT: As article is about usage of term "fake geek girl" among comic book reader so it is weak reference for such thing happening in gaming circles. And I don't see why article that laments about people dismissing girls by using term "fake geek girl" loses it significance just because it is written by a woman? I find the whole thing strange in general. I actually play Team Fortress 2 with various friends, amongst them a french girl with an outrageous french accent. One day she spoke and the server flipped a **** to realize Bella was infact a female and not just a feminine name, and omg a female with a hot french accent aswell! She immediately got questions like what's her favorite TF2 class in the chat. Thing was she and I were on a ventrilo server, and I specifically asked her to answer "Scout" - my best and favorite class - believing we'd soon see a mass switch of desperate guys going Scout, and I was gonna have a jolly ****ing time curbstomping the little twerps and crushing their dreams of winning Bella's love by showing their pro Scout gameplay. Spoiler alert: It ****ing happened and it was hilarious. Point is, while I'm sure women occassionally get harassment, I think they're more prone to unwanted affection and unneccesary attention moreso than anything negative. I'm not doubting that women may find this absolutely annoying after a point, but is it intended negatively? Hell no, these are sad people with sad lives chasing delusional fantasies of putting their **** in the first female they encounter in their favorite game. The only thing I can imagine that matches that "fake geek girl" mentality is sometimes you come across a woman who's sooooo attention starved and has found the gaming world not because of their love of games so much, but because it's a culture that'll feed their lust for attention since many guys rarely encounter women in games and thus they have to fight said guys off with baseball bats. I consider myself to have a VERY good sense of people and good intuition with people (this is a skill I'm learning that I have with experience) and yes, for people like myself, these women come off as very desperate and try-hard, and I dunno, it's just annoying to see someone THAT starved for attention that every conversation has to begin with a statement that might as well be "yes, it is I! a woman that plays video games! You may now kiss my feet and ask me what my favorite flowers and chocolates are so you can buy them for me!" But that's hardly exclusive to women. Once again it's not an issue of gender, because there's try-hard men too. PLENTY of them. The only difference is men can't really flaunt their gender as a point of garnering attention in the gaming world. And of course, such women are in the vast minority. I'm merely acknowledging the existence of such a "fake gamer girl" (or what they might be referring to) and trying to put an explanation to it. Side note? Seriously considering taking Bella to a TF2 server filled with kids (most younger than 16) and having her speak, recording it and uploading the damned thing to Youtube. Iunno what they're complaining about, being a female in online games seems like hours of entertainment to me.

As a huge comedy fan, I can say with a very high sense of certainty that this is the type of thing you would see be the target of scathing jokes on something like the Daily Show, were GamerGate relevant enough.