I love that EBG's argument is basically that because everyone agrees that GG is a bad thing, it must therefore be a good thing, without any requirement to apply knowledge or critical thinking to the subject matter.

You're ignoring this

What I have never been able to work out is, despite being brighter than a box of rocks but dimmer than a light bulb is what the flying he'll people mean when they say "meta-" out of a "We looked at the data from 160 papers and.." context. Community is "meta", "don't use meta data in mafia" ( and don't sit near Trooper, he nicks your crisps on the night phase). I dunno.

"Meta" means "higher" or "beyond." So a meta-paper is one that takes as its data source not raw research but other papers. In a computing context, metadata is data about data; so if your data is a CSV file on your hard drive then its associated metadata might include the file name, the date it was created, and who can read it. Metadata in Mafia would be stuff like post times correlated with when somone was posting on the forum in a blind game. Then there's meta-humour, including all sorts of numerous techniques like breaking the fourth wall, using a punchline from a different joke, and various other means to play with the audience's expectations and preconceptions. That's the sense in your Community reference.

"Meta" means "higher" or "beyond." So a meta-paper is one that takes as its data source not raw research but other papers. In a computing context, metadata is data about data; so if your data is a CSV file on your hard drive then its associated metadata might include the file name, the date it was created, and who can read it. Metadata in Mafia would be stuff like post times correlated with when somone was posting on the forum in a blind game. Then there's meta-humour, including all sorts of numerous techniques like breaking the fourth wall, using a punchline from a different joke, and various other means to play with the audience's expectations and preconceptions. That's the sense in your Community reference.

I'm not weighing in on it either way

You're all pathetic, weasily, circle-jerking children who are so anti-GG that you consider any criticism of your smug, self-righteous, impotent backslapping in here to be tactic support for the opposing side. Strawmanning reductionism that you're trying to pretend doesn't exist.

It's little wonder this forum is doomed to negative population growth. Eventually it'll be the same half-dozen of you posting nothing but tired old in-jokes back and forth at each other.

Also, hi. I've trod in stuff that I've given more of a crap about than your level of respect for me.

Hey! Some of us have ex girlfriends out in Nigeria fighting Ebola!

You have ex-girlfriends everywhere, doing everything.

They all seem to put an inordinate amount of effort to not be in the same country as MaliA anymore. I wonder why.

Then we'll leave this there then. I think you're an intellectually devoid arsehole so any further discussion is pointless. You can rant and rave about this issue until it dies its natural death and you can possibly retain some wheezing sense of delusion that you added to its cause.

Wondered if it said something that it was written by a man of that profession

I think the fact that no one has (what's the expression?) doxed the 6ft plus American Football player, but someone has doxed Felica Day (five ft not much) says as much as can be said about the gamergate crap as can be said.

For the last time you fucking, fucking moron. I am not, not have I ever sought to debate the merits of GamerGate. I have made no attempt to. I said that from the first post, but that hasn't stopped every detractor strawmanning me as a supporter. Having then tediously clarified my position, people like Craster and the myp have continued to insist otherwise. It's trolling or idiotic, pick one.

The quality of 'debate' here is non-existent. You simply want an echo chamber to wax self-righteous smarmery on a subject where you believe you're in the right. The debatable facts of the matter and my knowledge of them are irrelevant. Your conduct in discussing it speaks volumes, and it's that which I've criticised. The fact that I'm continuing to be lambasted as ignorant on the subject which I'm materially not discussing as a way of attempting to nullify my point about your behaviour simply proves it.

Your inability to differentiate between something so simplistic as conduct vs. subject just makes you stupid, but is more likely merely group protectionism against your narrow views that are not robust to even the slightest criticism.

'But you don't know anything about GamerGate! You're ignorant! Telling us we're acting like feeble-minded children doesn't apply because we've read up about it!'.

Even in this place of left-wing idiots, I've never encountered such stupidity.

I'm off for the weekend now, but please do try hard to make a new EBG in-joke in the safety of my absence, and be sure to continuously reference it in every other thread and haw-haw about how jolly clever you all think you are.

Irony: Anita Sarkeesian's work on misogynistic gaming tropes was ethical jornalism.

Very much so, as she collected money from readers via direct contributions and hence was not beholden to adverts placed via AAA games publishers.

I will rally behind any woman who is threatened with being murdered because she has an opinion on something.

So she deserves death and rape threats because you don't think she's very good at her job?