Can someone accurately explain GameGate in a sentence?

[radditsu]

Originally Posted by Misto [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I've been reading different articles about GamerGate, and I am starting to think it isn't a real problem.

Just a bunch of women complaining that they are being portrayed as weak and helpless in video games.

But there are plenty of games which don't portray women that way.

So I am led to believe that this isn't a problem and just a form of extreme attention whoring for ugly women who can't be cam-girls.

3rd generation feminists think that their feelings matter more than others because they are women and always right. They are ushing an agenda because one bitch with bad titties fucked a game critic for a good game review and want to obfuscate that fact. The internet found out, and decided that Games journalism is a hive of scum and villiany ( it is) and that should be rooted out. But feminists thing that gamers are sperglords, and that should be the issue.

Basically two groups arguing about competing, but wholly different issues.

Stolen from the rerolled boards: (
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]


Really interesting. Someone remapped the data from the original 350k tweets, and used the better extrapolations presented after the Newsweek article to make this. The Top right is pro-GG, bottom left is Anti-gg. The colors represent how much accounts have "changed" over the past 2 months, Blue accounts show no change, yellow and green have added many friends. The size of the circles are followers, I believe.

The interesting things are the lines. The lines represent discussion, the color of the lines represent re-tweets. It seems due to bannings and blocks, the Anti-GG people have literally isolated themselves from conversations with the Pro and Neutral people. That big blue blob in the lower left? That is Anita Sarkesian...From the analysis, it seems the Anti-GG is driven by very few individuals, and a bunch of followers who only communicate with those individuals. Meanwhile, GG is driven or discussed, by many smaller actors, and discussed with nearly everyone who will discuss it.

Pretty interesting to see an echo chamber literally in graphical form. )



Also in order to protect its revenue stream, Gawker Media (bastion of shit journalism) produced a ton of hit pieces against "gamers" portraying them as misogynistic shut ins, despite the majority of gamers belong to a generation that is the most liberal of all time in regards to social issues. So much that the entire label "gamer" is more synonymous with "television enthusiast" or "Guy who likes movies" nowdays.

Don't go to gawker sites...dont go to clickbait sites period.


Also the feminists at the forefront of this are trust fund babies ivory tower "liberals" ( as a liberal it disgusts me to say that) who don't understand how real relationships with human beings work.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by radditsu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

3rd generation feminists think that their feelings matter more than others because they are women and always right. They are ushing an agenda because one bitch with bad titties fucked a game critic for a good game review and want to obfuscate that fact. The internet found out, and decided that Games journalism is a hive of scum and villiany ( it is) and that should be rooted out. But feminists thing that gamers are sperglords, and that should be the issue.

Basically two groups arguing about competing, but wholly different issues.

Stolen from the rerolled boards: (
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]


Really interesting. Someone remapped the data from the original 350k tweets, and used the better extrapolations presented after the Newsweek article to make this. The Top right is pro-GG, bottom left is Anti-gg. The colors represent how much accounts have "changed" over the past 2 months, Blue accounts show no change, yellow and green have added many friends. The size of the circles are followers, I believe.

The interesting things are the lines. The lines represent discussion, the color of the lines represent re-tweets. It seems due to bannings and blocks, the Anti-GG people have literally isolated themselves from conversations with the Pro and Neutral people. That big blue blob in the lower left? That is Anita Sarkesian...From the analysis, it seems the Anti-GG is driven by very few individuals, and a bunch of followers who only communicate with those individuals. Meanwhile, GG is driven or discussed, by many smaller actors, and discussed with nearly everyone who will discuss it.

Pretty interesting to see an echo chamber literally in graphical form. )



Also in order to protect its revenue stream, Gawker Media (bastion of shit journalism) produced a ton of hit pieces against "gamers" portraying them as misogynistic shut ins, despite the majority of gamers belong to a generation that is the most liberal of all time in regards to social issues. So much that the entire label "gamer" is more synonymous with "television enthusiast" or "Guy who likes movies" nowdays.

Don't go to gawker sites...dont go to clickbait sites period.


Also the feminists at the forefront of this are trust fund babies ivory tower "liberals" ( as a liberal it disgusts me to say that) who don't understand how real relationships with human beings work.

Post is disqualified for being more than one sentence long.

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by radditsu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They are ushing an agenda because one bitch with bad titties fucked a game critic for a good game review and want to obfuscate that fact.

not true, and why gamergate is totally bogus. Because anyone who believes in it just makes up their own reason why it exists.

And see Kaga? thats why your stupid cause exists, becuse stupid nerds think someone traded sex for game reviews.

so dumb.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by radditsu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Also the feminists at the forefront of this are trust fund babies ivory tower "liberals" ( as a liberal it disgusts me to say that) who don't understand how real relationships with human beings work.

I love how you had a a whole post full of reasonably objective information, then a you throw in that completely baseless "fact" in at the end. What exactly was the sample size of your study on all feminists being trust fund babies?