My poll was unscientific and unverifiable

Once again revisiting Mr. Schubert’s background, I remind readers that he is not, nor has he ever, held a degree or credential in the humanities. His experience is game design. It shows.

First and foremost, my examination of #GamerGate was not a poll. At no point did I ask someone for an opinion. I did not ask for any information by asking persons.

I aggregated extant resources, here from anti-GamerGate user Jenni Goodchild, into a singular form for dissemination. The word for such a behavior is often called research. Research is done by examining existing data to reach a conclusion.

At no point did I state my research was scientific in merit. Mr. Schubert also has a questionable definition for the word “verifiable” as all of my information is appropriately linked for any reader to click and look into themselves.

That is unless Schubert means the psychological testing concept of verifiable. If so, he still is not making any sense as testing verifiability tends to speak to the ability of a specific tool to measure the stated material. A math test to measure math aptitude.

So I encourage Mr. Schubert to step away from his “secret project” to learn the meaning of the words he uses.

I said, “nope, we’re all good here”

I did a ctrl+f of my document and couldn’t find this anywhere. I did find the following points:

• #GamerGate, according to those within the tag, is about gaming, gamers, ethics, journalism, reviews, standards, and goals according to Jenni Goodchild’s analysis.
• Kotaku, Gamasutra, and Ethics combined (38,500 tweets) get more mentions than Sarkeesian, feminism, Quinn, and Alexander combined (26,000 tweets). This means that Kotaku, Gamasutra, and Ethics are more on the minds of users than any of the listed women.
• Sommers continues to state that she is a feminist. While she ascribes to a different variant and school that is less mainstream now, we’ve no reason to doubt her self-identified identity.
• There’s no evidence that Yiannopolous is the favorite reporter of #GamerGate. Schubert presents no data to justify this claim.

Bigotry, Mr. Schubert, is very unbecoming.

For some reason, Schubert could not address these points. Instead, he created a new point that was nowhere in the original manuscript.

Hm.

I’m a female.

I’m a male. It’s possible that Schubert conflated me with Jenni Goodchild, an anti-GamerGate person who engaged in ethnographic and qualitative research on GamerGate. I linked to her work. I am not Jenni.

There’s something to be said about the assumption that I am Jenni or any other female in a rush to label me, dismiss me, and degrade me based upon the perception Schubert has of me.

If only I had a word for that.

Note: Schubert corrected this after I noted it.

Talking about feminist concepts in #GamerGate is “quite a lot”

Interestingly, Schubert assumes that the conversation of specific things is “half.” This tells us that he values proportion. Well, let’s delve deeper.

As of today there are 1,139,866 tweets with the #GamerGate tag.

In the tag between 8/6 and 9/6, 10,517 uses of Zoe and Zoe Quinn took place.

In the tag between 8/6 and 9/6, 11,477 uses of Anita, Sarkeesian, and Fem Freq took place.

In the tag between 8/6 and 9/6, 5,416 uses of feminism and marxism were used.

In the tag between 8/6 and 9/6, 20,215 uses of SJW appeared in the tag.

So if we combine all of these we come to approximately 44,500 uses.

Proportionately, usages of Zoe, Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Femfreq, feminism accounts for 3.9% of tweets.

Compare this to GamerGate’s use of ethics, games, and journalism wherein the terms were used approxomately 77,000 times for 6.7% of tweets.

Now compare these two the use of gay, trans, bi, lesbian, asian, hispanic, latino, and #notyourshield and these usages account for 143,141 uses or 12.5% of tweets.

Talking about money and sex in proportion means that sex is important.

So logically, if the anti-feminism component (3.9% of tweets) is the cornerstone, what are ethics, journalism, and games (6.7%) and minorities (12.5%)?

From Schubert’s own article:

They may be there for reasons that are good (press corruption, whatever). They may be there for reasons that they think are good. They may well not be feminists. They may be completely misled.

I guess the other 20% of usages (minorities and ethics and journalism) are there for “whatever,” reasons they just THINK are good, are anti-feminists, or just mislead…

You know, 96.1% of tweets are being completely ignored because 3.9% of tweets sit beautifully with one’s confirmation bias.