/32/ - Psychopolitics

Ed tech money. Black PR. /thread

https://justinetunney.com/segregation.html

Here's an interesting, if tangentially related anecdote on what happened from Justine Tunney. Pretty much, it mirrored a lot of the failures that OWS had in the end. Black PR and Ed Tech money helped it along, but in the end, some things just aren't meant to be together, and geeks and activists are two of those things.

GG failed depending on the prism that you want to view it through. When it came to saving video games, it was an abject failure because GG convinced itself that the gaming industry was a fair maiden to quest to save, while that fair maiden was having wild, unprotected sex binges with the "evil" SJW black knight that's "holding it hostage. GG doesn't realize that the gaming industry views them as a bunch of chumps and is convinced that they need to be friends with the very people that abuse them while siding with SJWs to grow their demographic reach.

When it comes to creating a backlash against neo-progressive leftist excess, it's done moderately well, though the left has since moved on from gaming to crusade against easier, more willing conquests such as open source and tabletop gaming. Still, awareness of SJW tactics and the problem SJWs pose to society has drastically increased as a result of GG.

The moment GG starts to realize that gaming just isn't that into them and starts to attack the things that they can make a difference in, they'll start to actually have a purpose again. But they won't, since it's now become almost strictly a Reddit and Twitter thing, and they're more interested in whoring for karma and followers rather than accomplishing anything of substance.

>>2120

In a sense, GG gamified dissent. The supporters fell into an easy trap of consuming a spectacle, upboating what they like, just like they do with their precious viddy games. This was in lieu of deep analysis and research. The gamified approach was promoted and exploited by the folks who stand to gain from the SJW takeover of video game media. Unfortunately the most vocal supporter of deep GG research is the dubious Seattle4truth, who himself seems like some kind of gatekeeper with his staged autism. He seems to have poisoned the well with regard to the dig movement which was making disturbing discoveries with regards to educational technology and SJWs in tech/video game media. You'll also find that prominent GG personalities have connections to ed tech pushing corporations and SJW tech, if you look hard enough...

An interesting question would be, was the origin of GG a false flag? Gjoni has links to SJW tech and big data collection. Among other curious things.

>>2120

Check out this thread. Search for mentions of Tunney within it.

https://archive.is/PeQGp

>Early on in GG, Tunney came to KiA for an (uninvited) AMA and suggested to everyone that her unemployed friend Pax Dickinson become the leader and guide GG into incorporating. Suggested an office w/available phone number and a roster of all members etc.

>Pax did an AMA soon after that but it wasn't his first in KiA. He did one about 4 months before that (also uninvited).

Pax AMA #1 https://archive.is/49RhK

Justine AMA https://archive.is/4qQ9j

Pax AMA #2 https://archive.is/FdsLE

Tunney was HEAVILY involved in OWS, which was manned by Adbusters. Who else has Adbusters ties? Zoe Quinn (by way of Jim Munroe's Difference Engine at the Hand Eye Society) and Jonathan Macintosh.

It really makes you think.

>>2122

Isn't that pax guy the one who got fucked by SJWs and gawker for some dumb jokes he made while he worked at BI? and as the CTO, not the mail guy

I mean, even if his gf is an sjw I say much like that cuck gjoni they got screwed in a power struggle of sorts. That guy's pax name has no wikipedia entry but its mentioned in the "sexism in IT" article (yes there is an entry for this....)

>>2120

I think OWS showed just how the system was now prepared to deal with this kind of stuff and how the internet activism model was obsolete. I used to think all those companies selling internet PR services to corporations and governments were a joke and a quick cash scheme but now I realize they really did their homework for once...

>When it came to saving video games, it was an abject failure because GG convinced itself that the gaming industry was a fair maiden to quest to save

This I mostly agree, mainly because you could talk about anything at the gg board BUT boycott. The boycott was a taboo, which was absurd considering gamers still represent the majority of the industry revenues. As much as blogs like to brag about shit like candycrush those companies barely make a profit, the mobile market its bloated to hell and the cost to reach the user its absurd given the squalid returns. What is zynga now? where is farmville? rovio is going to shit too, a company some of these blogger shits said was going to be the new nintendo.

As for SJW involvement I think it wasn't a case of new markets since these companies were doing fine in that regard. I think its just another case of corporations adopting a token idiot for PR purposes. An anon explained that the $300 million from intel for "diversity" were most likely not going to be all in the form of cash but grants, events and such, and a lot of in-house spending which corporations use all the time for tax purposes. An example would be launching an ad campaign for diversity which is really for intel products, but because they pass it as a charity thing they get a tax exemption and they still get their ads.

>awareness of SJW tactics and the problem SJWs pose to society has drastically increased

On that I disagree, I think that before GG a lot of these characters were just impossible to put in front of a camera. Say people like zoe quinn had been at the forefront of OWS. It would have taken networks minutes to find out her backstory of drug abuse, internet trolling, grifting, scams, etc. But now the story is harassment so she and others are suddenly not a bunch of useless jokes but news-worthy. The absence of any research and blatant copypasting from the MSM in this case was one for the books, but in any case it shows you how useless GG was in reaching to the media. I remember there was a huge opposition to going to foxnews with this information and they refused, but not with milo's and breitbart involvement, why? In this case I have no doubt: this was an inside job.

>>2121

>was the origin of GG a false flag?

Doubt it, the way the sjws dealt with this situation was plain awful and unprofessional, you could see they were trying to handle a situation they didn't expect nor were prepared to deal with.

Problem is GG was even more incompetent than SJWs were, and in this case I'm willing to consider the possibility of internal destabilization by foreign elements.

If there was one thing sjws did right was not wasting a minute making "gamergate" a toxic word. With that they made sure that no known/well-respected figures would touch the subject. That also brought a certain level of containment: MSM coverage while incredibly biased was also pretty low overall, the whole deal barely got any attention from them.

>>2117

I think it failed because GGers were an immature group who didn't realize at the outset that they were getting involved in big-league politics, and once they did realize it they got cold feet and backed off.

GG did "win" in a way: they solved the mystery. At the very beginning it seemed like GGers had stumbled onto some bizarre, nonsensical conspiracy. Out of nowhere, a whole bunch of journalism sites came together in an apparently coordinated effort to defend an insignificant nobody named Zoe Quinn. Things got weirder when it came out that the "gamers are dead" narrative had been crafted by Edge magazine in the 90s and had apparently been honed behind the scenes--by multiple media outlets--into a talking point.

Then around Thanksgiving 2014 and continuing until Christmas, some anon(s) made an exhaustive series of posts tying the whole thing to Gamification and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Turns out the government and some major lobbyists have been interested in pursuing gamification as an educational model for quite some time, but first they have to make the idea palatable by removing the "toxic" elements of gaming (i.e. adolescent male gamers who love violent, misogynistic vidya games and use the words "nigger" and "fag"). The DoE knows that parents won't accept gaming in schools until gaming, as a concept, is uncontroversial, so they have to gently "kill off" the gamers. That's it. That's the big secret that GG uncovered.

I distinctly remember that when those posts came out, they were dogpiled by anons complaining that it was a wild conspiracy that couldn't possibly be true. Those threads died, and from that point on the focus was on trivial bullshit like e-celebs and random drama. I lost interest after that. I think GGers, once they realized the magnitude of what they were fighting, didn't have the energy to keep going and went back to their games.

>>2140

>That's the big secret that GG uncovered

Not really, gamification was a buzzword by then, they were really shilling that thing back in 08' or so, it was insane how many 'tech evangelists' were trying to say gamification could solve anything, they stopped short of saying it would cure cancer...

The big conspiracy I think is how much collusion there is in the gaming press and the press in general. I worked for a time in the gaming industry and even then I didn't see it, but now it seems obvious. Lots of gatekeepers deciding which story goes and which stays out of the news, and the decision usually depends on how much money there is on the table.

It also showed the results of all these unpaid interns replacing the paid pro journalists of yore. Because they are essentially working for free their employers wont fire them even if they start a shitstorm on twitter, and because all that matters anymore are pageviews there are no standards at all, all it matters is how many people you can get to the site. So as a result most news sites these days are staffed by the permaloser leftwing-type that's there because its the only job that will take those people.

I do agree that there were too many kids and people who didn't know anything about how these things work.

Anyway, I kind of lost interest when the idea of doing a sort of association to file defamation lawsuits got zero momentum. Thats another case of too much naivete: GGers thought the antigamers were just going to give up and confess their 'evil plans', or that non-gamers would suddenly give a fuck and defend them.

They don't get that in the real world they only stop messing with you when you mess with them in court. If you sue the living crap out of a bunch of shitslinging rags then they will shut the fuck up about you, they want to make money not lose it. Being the "bigger man" only gives them more opportunities to attack you

>>2140

This is exactly what happened.

>>2143

>Not really, gamification was a buzzword by then, they were really shilling that thing back in 08' or so

Well yeah, it was a known concept, but it still took GG a long time to make the connection. And why would they, when at first it seemed like gaming journalists were acting impulsively, slandering their audience for no reason? It wasn't until anons dug up the long history of the "gamers are dead" narrative that they understood these journalists' bosses' bosses had a specific vision for the future of gaming and couldn't afford to have a bunch of loudmouth gamers with conflicting visions ruining everything.

Now that I think about it, another problem was that anons kept chasing after red herrings. In my opinion they spent way too much time going after Sarkeesian and McIntosh, who are just a couple of self-described media critics with their own agenda and who don't carry much influence outside of their academic bubble.

I was impressed by the amount of legwork GG did overall, though. The Deepfreeze website was a particularly good idea.

>>2140

>they were dogpiled by anons complaining that it was a wild conspiracy that couldn't possibly be true.

This. They were against feminism, but didn't want to stray too far from the acceptable lines of discussion; essentially, in trying to pander to their critics by proving how "tolerant" they were, their movement actually ended up being full of people, who if not for their dislike of feminism, would be identical to the SJWs the movement was supposed to be against.

>>2149

>it still took GG a long time to make the connection

It took them a long time because GG was too disorganized, too fragmented between people in IBs and the reddit users who were still trying to stay there despite the complicity of admins and other high-ranking members of the company. IB users migrated from 4chan to 8chan almost immediately but it took half a year for reddit users to see the writing on the wall and move to alternatives like voat.

>slandering their audience for no reason?

This is one case of occam's razor: the reason was fairly simple, thats been their job for years. One of the reasons why I havent gone to a vidya news site or blog since around 2008 is that even by then they were becoming ridiculously pretentious and hostile to gamers. For me the tipping point was when one of these journos wrote a very half-assed op-ed regarding sonic games where he viciously attacked fans and gamers in general saying "they didn't know what they wanted in a sonic game" (recognize that absurd logic? same as they used in the gamers are dead attacks) and the other journos proceeded to spam the shit out of that ridiculous slander.

Now consider the absurdity of the matter at hand: you had supposed journalists defending one of the (currently) worst franchises out there by attacking the few fans it got left. Nobody in vidya would honestly say 3D sonic games are great or as good as the 2D originals, but these hacks are paid to defend the indefensible and they did, by attacking the customers.

Still their level of organization was unknown to me, I thought it was a case of cognitive dissonance but as it turns out it was a well-organized racket where favors and money traded hands for manufactured hype.

>hey spent way too much time going after Sarkeesian and McIntosh

>who don't carry much influence outside of their academic bubble.

I have to strongly disagree here because I think one major mistake gamers made was not digging into anita's past as a scam-artist all the way back in 2012 when she did that kickstarter. That and fullmac's past as a fringe leftist with a trustfund.

And their influence is actually fairly high, higher than anyone could predict. That intel choose to put them together with far more respected and older organizations in their $300M diversity pledge was unexpected. Their organization has a huge reach among the silicon valley and NYC startup scenes and they have contacts within mass-media and government.

I wouldn't be surprised if patreon's decision to kick 8chan out came from femfreq and not (as GG thinks) from quinn or harper. There is literally no startup out there that would close its doors on anita's face.

>The Deepfreeze website was a particularly good idea

Yes, but a bit late. Its one of the first things that should've been put together, that and ads instead of pulling stunts like the sealion thing.

This website is full of fascinating information about what Gamergate brushed up against. The elephant in the room, if you will.

Neurological Social Engineering Designed for Collectivist Political Purposes: the Real Purpose of K-12 Standards

http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/neurological-social-engineering-designed-for-collectivist-political-purposes-the-real-purpose-of-k-12-standards/

Reimaging the Nature of the World in the Minds of Students Alters Future Behavior and Social Events

http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/reimaging-the-nature-of-the-world-in-the-minds-of-students-alters-future-behavior-and-social-events/

When Gaming Intends to Shape and Distort Our Perceptions of Everything Around Us. Viva La Revolution!

http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/when-gaming-intends-to-shape-and-distort-our-perceptions-of-everything-around-us-viva-la-revolution/

Prescribing How We Frame Experiences is the Lynchpin of Wholesale Unconscious Behavioral Change

http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/prescribing-how-we-frame-experiences-is-the-lynchpin-of-wholesale-unconscious-behavioral-change/

Adding Comrade Education and Psychological Predation to Our Descriptions of Envisioned Cybernetic Learning

http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/adding-comrade-education-and-psychological-predation-to-our-descriptions-of-envisioned-cybernetic-learning/

Propagandizing the K-12 Classroom to Create Desired Worldviews for Change: the New Anti-Bias Standards

http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/propagandizing-the-k-12-classroom-to-create-desired-worldviews-for-change-the-new-anti-bias-standards/

Even aside from what everyone else has mentioned, it seemed to me like Gamergate was unclear on exactly what they were supposed to do to fight back. Was it sending emails to advertisers? That worked for a little while, but soon enough the advertisers realized that the social justice movement could cause them much more pain than a few thousand gamers with terrible PR. Exposing the corruption of video game journalism to a wider audience? Come on-- nobody really gives a fuck about video game journalism, and if you think you're going to get companies to stop paying journalists for good coverage you need to look harder at where the journalists are making their money and how much of a problem it would be for them to lose video game company bribe money vs. losing a (probably small) fraction of their readership. They were so focused on trying to appeal to as broad an audience as possible that they avoided making any sort of substantive arguments against SJW ideology except for naive arguments that people aren't actually affected at all by the media they consume. They also never caught on to the fact that journalists weren't writing bad things about them because they didn't do their research-- promoting ideological agendas is a large part of what journalists do, with "We only report objectively on the facts!" being a lie they tell to maintain their control over the minds of the people.

The best way to stop SJWs would be to get business to stop funding them, but given the financial incentives to increase diversity in the tech industry and drive down wages it will be difficult that we can hope to cost them more money than they think they can gain with this stuff.

>>2182

I think the movement got neutered from the inside

Gamers have been pissed off for years, part of the initial explosion of GG wasn't the five guys scandal itself, that was just the last drop for many.

The irony is how boycotts were downplayed all the time, both here in 8chan and in other places like reddit and TE forums. Its ridiculous, that's the only thing they could do that would actually matter. Companies are profit-driven, and they spend hundreds of millions in ads and PR, why would they care about a few emails? it only affected the likes of gawker which were already scratching the bottom of clickbait monetization, but not the actual corporations that could push the SJWs out of the industry.

>They were so focused on trying to appeal to as broad an audience as possible that they avoided making any sort of substantive arguments against SJW ideology

Its not just that, there was a certain elitism, a sort of reticence to reach the casuals and other wider audiences. It took GG forever to make their demands clear, let alone clear enough for the average nongamer to understand. The SJWs long ago dropped the academic nonsense of old feminists for infographics and blogspam that was also nonsense but far easier to digest for most people, and also far more incendiary and thus able to get readers to join their constant crusades the offensive thing of the week.

>but given the financial incentives

There I disagree, some companies are even noticing a certain backlash with this diversity fad, besides what drives wages down are 'imported' workers, firstworld women and minorities still ask for firstworld wages. On the flip side SJWs are now attacking asian and indian tech workers which eventually will hit them in the ass since under their own logic a firstworld white woman can't say she is less privileged than a thirdworld non-white man.

>>2183

Ellen Pao prohibited Reddit employees for negotiating for higher salaries by appealing to feminist claims that the wage gap is due in part to women being less capable of aggressively negotiating for more money. Of course, they believe this gender difference is purely due to socialization and might eventually be changed, but in the short term the solution they propose is to make it so that men can't use their superior negotiating skills. I suspect that other Silicon Valley employers will try the same thing.

It's true that importing H1-B holders is probably the biggest way that employers are using diversity to drive down wages, but I think it is also the motivation behind other initiatives to try to get more women and (American) minorities into tech.

>>2198

>Ellen Pao prohibited Reddit employees for negotiating for higher salaries by appealing to feminist claims that the wage gap is due in part to women being less capable of aggressively negotiating for more money.

This sounds like a slightly bad idea implemented for an absurd reason. It reminds me of the story "Harrison Bergeron", in which individuals are handicapped by the state in order to ensure total equality: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

>>2198

I have no doubt that the current 'diversity' campaign has a purely economic origin with the PR side being just an extension of it meant to act as a front

The case of reddit however its an example of a poor implementation of this method since it was very obvious pao did it to save the company some money and not because of equality.

The H1B case on the other hand its far better implemented, you have fwd.us which is a huge NGO that gets little if any bad press from the MSM and yet its nothing but a corporate arm pushing for what boils down to indentured servitude. A H1B holder is not a citizen and most likely will never be, its not even a legal resident, its literally a worker who must leave the country the moment they are fired, and so most H1Bs work for way less and accept bad working conditions, and somehow this is passed as "progressive"

>>2122

>It really makes you think

No. No, it doesn't. Not at all. Not in the least.

And, its clear from your comment that you lack the capacity to think.

In a free country, there are always multiple, overlapping associations, and groups that tend toward a particular political party tend to group together more closely. You need to take off the tin foil and start thinking social-scientifically, you dingbat.

>>2232

Tunney is a google employee singularian who advocates for some kind of transgender techno god and other alarming ideas on his website. Meanwhile transhumaist futurist types like Tunney but with more influence are trying to redefine video gaming to make it more palateable for the masses for the purposes of datamining and behavior changing- which GG diggers pinpointed. Tunney has a history of leading or attempting to lead movements of dissent; OWS stank from the get-go.

Please see yourself out.

>>2232

Just because a piece of information is irrelevant to you, that doesn't mean that it is irrelevant to others. Sometimes a very simple reference or analogy may spark an epiphany on a reader, or simply be remembered later when one's ideas are being formed. What I mean is that the anon who said "it really makes you think" probably meant that it made them think, and they assumed that it would also make others think. If it didn't make you think, then you could have simply said so, or even stated why it is that you do not believe that it would make anyone think.

If you do not see things from the perspective of the other (either by choice or by some limitation) that does not mean that you should say that said other "lacks the capacity to think". To assume that anyone who holds a different opinion than you does so because they are intellectually limited is a sure way to grow comfortable on your positions and never subject your own beliefs to analysis, which in turn can lead to negative consequences both for you and for those with whom you interact. The person shared information and hinted at the presence of deeper connections without making grandiose claims about conspiracies, while you said they needed to "take off the tin foil hat". Finally, you called them a "dingbat". That was uncalled for and rude.

Your post could have been worded in a much better way, so as that other anons would see it as an opportunity to discuss the points you made.

Instead, you made that.