Gamergate and Cyber Bullying

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: InTheLight

And i'm sure most gamers are not gonna consider people who play online poker, to be fellow gamers...

There's also the little problem of how this in no way proves that GG is about hating women...

Well, yes there are recent studies into the technology field where women techs find they are entering a realm of toxicity created by the men in that male-dominated field and for this reason, and other reasons, leave that field. Male domination in certain areas needs to be dissected.

www.bliptalk.org...

a reply to: InTheLight

'River whore' a commonly used term for when a person wins the hand in the final round and on the final community card, which is called the river. Oftentimes this person will have been losing the entire hand but gambled and got lucky on the last hand. Other players at the table will often curse this person and tag him/her a "river whore"

You wouldn't be attempting to play the victim here would you?

Because you know that would be incredibly stereotypical of you....

Oh and could you provide a source for those studies you mention?

originally posted by: Daedalus

originally posted by: amazing
Really? You really think Gate is okay to use to embellish a noun? No citation needed on that. Use of gate is never okay.

This exemplifies everything i've pointed out about your attitude, and the way you've handled this from the beginning.

You cherry pick the bits that either fit your bias, allow you to construct a strawman to attack, or simply allow you to attack your opponent directly, and then you ignore the rest....

Let's examine the quote a little closer, shall we? Pay special attention to the bold bits

The suffix is used to embellish a noun or name to suggest the existence of a far-reaching scandal, particularly in politics and government. As a CBC News column noted in 2001, the term may "suggest unethical behaviour and a cover-up".

It is certainly more appropriate in this application, than in a LOT of the other situations it's been used in. But then again, since you have no idea what GG actually is, or what it's actually about, i guess i could see where you wouldn't get it..

We can have discussion about the usefulness of gamer**** and if it is causing more harm than good, but I think we're at an impasse when you don't think that there are any trolls associated with the movement or are flocking to it.

I believe I said something to that effect, several posts ago. No intelliectually-honest discussion can be had, until you let go of your misinformed beliefs, and stop making baseless, unsubstantiated accusations, and assertions.

You KEEP making the claim that GG is full of these awful people, yet you never provide any evidence that such is the case....

You obviously don't read any gamer**** articles especially any written by women. You've got to open your horizons and stop drinking the Koolaid.

ROFL!

This is the single stupidest/funniest thing you've said all thread.

There is so much projection going on here...jesus man.....

You're implying that i don't read up on the subject, when i clearly know more about it than you....you claim i don't read articles by women, when, in reality, i have...though, i don't care what gender the author is, so long as they're saying something intelligent, and they're making good points...because i don't do the whole "social justice" gender politics game....

And then you have the audacity to accuse me of "drinking the koolaid", when all you do, is deny anything you don't agree with, make baseless accusations, and spout off anti-GG talking points...

Gate is still a stupid term. We put it at the end of every scandal these days. In this case gamer"gate" You're talking about a whole movement with many moving parts, people and issues. It's not one little scandal. Gate, in my opinion, is never okay, and in this case even less so.

So, you seem to be saying that there aren't thousands of haters all over gamer.... and any article or discussion on gaming or women in gaming or games for women etc. That implies that you aren't reading up on anything that doesn't support your beliefs. It implies that you aren't actually doing as much research as you say you are. You keep asking for citations but these things are in every article and discussion. How do you miss them?

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: InTheLight

'River whore' a commonly used term for when a person wins the hand in the final round and on the final community card, which is called the river. Oftentimes this person will have been losing the entire hand but gambled and got lucky on the last hand. Other players at the table will often curse this person and tag him/her a "river whore"

You wouldn't be attempting to play the victim here would you?

Because you know that would be incredibly stereotypical of you....

Oh and could you provide a source for those studies you mention?

Nope, just showing the results of my experiment...win hand as woman - called River Whore; win hand as man - "Good Play" from other men.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: InTheLight

'River whore' a commonly used term for when a person wins the hand in the final round and on the final community card, which is called the river. Oftentimes this person will have been losing the entire hand but gambled and got lucky on the last hand. Other players at the table will often curse this person and tag him/her a "river whore"

You wouldn't be attempting to play the victim here would you?

Because you know that would be incredibly stereotypical of you....

Oh and could you provide a source for those studies you mention?

Nope, just showing the results of my experiment...win hand as woman - called River Whore; win hand as man - "Good Play" from other men.

....you don't play much online poker so you?

It's used for both men and woman, so you can find something else to cry about.

No sources for those studies?

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: InTheLight

'River whore' a commonly used term for when a person wins the hand in the final round and on the final community card, which is called the river. Oftentimes this person will have been losing the entire hand but gambled and got lucky on the last hand. Other players at the table will often curse this person and tag him/her a "river whore"

You wouldn't be attempting to play the victim here would you?

Because you know that would be incredibly stereotypical of you....

Oh and could you provide a source for those studies you mention?

Nope, just showing the results of my experiment...win hand as woman - called River Whore; win hand as man - "Good Play" from other men.

....you don't play much online poker so you?

It's used for both men and woman, so you can find something else to cry about.

No sources for those studies?

I played quite extensively, but not lately. The source for my study is me.

originally posted by: InTheLight
I played quite extensively, but not lately. The source for my study is me.

So when you said:

Well, yes there are recent studies into the technology field where women techs find they are entering a realm of toxicity created by the men in that male-dominated field and for this reason, and other reasons, leave that field.

you were being deliberately misleading? even lying?

In no universe would one persons 'experiences' become 'recent studies'......seems we've found the real misogynist no?

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: InTheLight
I played quite extensively, but not lately. The source for my study is me.

So when you said:

Well, yes there are recent studies into the technology field where women techs find they are entering a realm of toxicity created by the men in that male-dominated field and for this reason, and other reasons, leave that field.

you were being deliberately misleading? even lying?

In no universe would one persons 'experiences' become 'recent studies'......seems we've found the real misogynist no?

You are confused, as there are two different posts, with two different studies I was referring to. Now go back and re-read them and you will understand, hopefully.

originally posted by: InTheLight
You are confused, as there are two different posts, with two different studies I was referring to. Now go back and re-read them and you will understand, hopefully.

Well I was referring to the most recent mention of a 'study,....the one you said you had a source for, which was.......you......?

Either way you havent provided a link for either studies so...

Do you have the integrity to admit your claims and thoughts on the 'river whore' where completely inaccurate?

Or are you in too deep to start admitting such things?

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: InTheLight
You are confused, as there are two different posts, with two different studies I was referring to. Now go back and re-read them and you will understand, hopefully.

Well I was referring to the most recent mention of a 'study,....the one you said you had a source for, which was.......you......?

Either way you havent provided a link for either studies so...

Do you have the integrity to admit your claims and thoughts on the 'river whore' where completely inaccurate?

Or are you in too deep to start admitting such things?

My main intention for jumping into this thread was to show my personal experimentation and others' personal experience when entering male dominated realms. I provided my results from my experiment and provided a link to another's experience. I believe that you are more than capable of searching through the hundreds of studies provided on the internet in regards to male dominated industries and how women fare in them. Good luck On second thought, here is one study just to wet your whistle.

Garann Means became a programmer for similar reasons. After 13 years, she quit too, citing a hostile and unwelcoming environment for women.

www.abqjournal.com...

originally posted by: InTheLight
Well, yes there are recent studies into the technology field where women techs find they are entering a realm of toxicity created by the men in that male-dominated field and for this reason, and other reasons, leave that field.

Where?

Male domination in certain areas needs to be dissected.

Why?

www.bliptalk.org...

Yeah, more false narrative nonsense.....perpetuating the myth that GG is about hating women, without providing any proof that such is the case...

Reading that article, it's clear what the author's agenda is...

originally posted by: Daedalus

originally posted by: InTheLight
Well, yes there are recent studies into the technology field where women techs find they are entering a realm of toxicity created by the men in that male-dominated field and for this reason, and other reasons, leave that field.

Where?

Male domination in certain areas needs to be dissected.

Why?

www.bliptalk.org...

Yeah, more false narrative nonsense.....perpetuating the myth that GG is about hating women, without providing any proof that such is the case...

Reading that article, it's clear what the author's agenda is...

Her agenda is to reveal the truth.

originally posted by: amazing
Gate is still a stupid term. We put it at the end of every scandal these days. In this case gamer"gate"

I agree, it's overused...i've said that before.

However, it's usage in this instance is more appropriate, due to the scandal, and coverup...

You're talking about a whole movement with many moving parts, people and issues. It's not one little scandal. Gate, in my opinion, is never okay, and in this case even less so.

Firstly, it's not a "movement" per-se...for that, there would need to be actual organization, and leadership. This is a consumer revolt. You're entitled to hold the opinion that you do, however, don't be offended, or angry, when people ridicule you for it, because the opinion is based on completely bad information.

So, you seem to be saying that there aren't thousands of haters all over gamer.... and any article or discussion on gaming or women in gaming or games for women etc.

You've still failed to produce any examples of people engaging in this kind of behavior, under the GG banner...at this point, i feel inclined to believe that you are now purposely trolling this thread.

That implies that you aren't reading up on anything that doesn't support your beliefs.

No, it doesn't imply anything...it demonstrates, quite clearly, that I am not deriving all of my information on the subject, from the overabundance of "omg, we're so oppressed" articles out there...which is what it appears YOU are doing. I've read a number of these articles, and they are laughable.

It implies that you aren't actually doing as much research as you say you are.

Again, it doesn't imply anything....it simply demonstrates that I am not inclined to simply "listen and believe"...I prefer facts, over hyperbole.

You keep asking for citations but these things are in every article and discussion. How do you miss them?

How about you actually link to some examples, instead of implying that I am oblivious, and attempting to shame me for it?

originally posted by: InTheLight
My main intention for jumping into this thread was to show my personal experimentation and others' personal experience when entering male dominated realms. I provided my results from my experiment and provided a link to another's experience. I believe that you are more than capable of searching through the hundreds of studies provided on the internet in regards to male dominated industries and how women fare in them. Good luck On second thought, here is one study just to wet your whistle.

So all you have are anecdotes?

You don't have any studies, just personal tales? nothing even remotely scientific about it then?

You were indeed being deliberately misleading with the intention of demonizing males....both with this claim and your tale about being called a river whore because you were female.

You have no idea just how harmful you are to those actually working for equality of both sexes.

You should get used to being called out on such bs.

originally posted by: InTheLight
I believe that you are more than capable of searching through the hundreds of studies provided on the internet in regards to male dominated industries and how women fare in them.

No, you don't get to do that. It doesn't work that way.

You made a claim, the burden of proof is on you. Same rules for everyone.

www.abqjournal.com...

That's not a study..that's an article....big difference.

a reply to: InTheLight

O,o

Seriously?

originally posted by: Daedalus

originally posted by: InTheLight
I believe that you are more than capable of searching through the hundreds of studies provided on the internet in regards to male dominated industries and how women fare in them.

No, you don't get to do that. It doesn't work that way.

You made a claim, the burden of proof is on you. Same rules for everyone.

www.abqjournal.com...

That's not a study..that's an article....big difference.

If you bother to read it you would see a Harvard Business Review study cited, as well as all the research and studies done by the companies in the article.

a reply to: Prezbo369

Read the articles' with study results and take off your blinders.

originally posted by: InTheLight
If you bother to read it you would see a Harvard Business Review study cited, as well as all the research and studies done by the companies in the article.

I actually did read it...which was painful.

It made a lot of claims, but did little to substantiate them. Yes, it referenced a HBR study, but didn't provide a link to the actual study, so that the reader could verify whether it was a proper study, or just a poll. Additionally while it referenced other internal research, it failed to produce links to those either...In cases, such as these, they may as well not have bothered, because without links to the associated materials, mentioning them is worthless. It's an example of the "appeal to authority fallacy." They're name-dropping, in an attempt to lend credibility to their claims, without actually having to substantiate them.

originally posted by: Daedalus

originally posted by: InTheLight
If you bother to read it you would see a Harvard Business Review study cited, as well as all the research and studies done by the companies in the article.

I actually did read it...which was painful.

It made a lot of claims, but did little to substantiate them. Yes, it referenced a HBR study, but didn't provide a link to the actual study, so that the reader could verify whether it was a proper study, or just a poll. Additionally while it referenced other internal research, it failed to produce links to those either...In cases, such as these, they may as well not have bothered, because without links to the associated materials, mentioning them is worthless. It's an example of the "appeal to authority fallacy." They're name-dropping, in an attempt to lend credibility to their claims, without actually having to substantiate them.

What substantiates these claims is actual people, men and women, making claims of harassment and if you don't want to believe either the people being harassed nor companies that research this harassment, then there is really nothing that can be said to make you believe it, now is there?

In September 2012, a study showed that 45% of the polled female players already either received sexist comments or threats, or been harassed or provoked in the video game community while they were not playing, 5 times as much as men. 78% of women had their video games skill or taste challenged, compared to 6% of men. 11% of men and 7% of women admitted to being targeted by sexists comments or behaviors. Overall, 79% of the polled players think that sexism is prevalent in the video gaming community.[1] A study from 2006 showed that 83.4% of gamers had seen the words "gay" or "queer" used as derogatory names, and that 52.7% of gay gamers perceived the gaming community as "somewhat hostile" while 14% perceived it as "very hostile".[19]

en.wikipedia.org...