GamerGate's Image Problem
- Thread starter entelechy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
So this topic. Is it anti-gamergate? If so then what's the end goal? The elimination of the movement? Why? I get that it can be annoying seeing it everywhere (despite it being heavily censored) but isn't fighting corruption in journalism a good thing? Do those opposed to GG like the status quo? Do they not mind or prefer the way video games are being reported? do they simply not care and as stated above annoyed? Not trying to start anything incediary at all. I'm just trying to understand the opposition instead of demonizing it.
you know, I keep seeing this statement, that of "milo is their last hope" thing and I still don't get it.RexMundane said:
now I certainly see it as a last ditch effort to dismiss and undermine the arguments made or wha the articles revealed by attacking the person, their politics or their mistakes in order to slander and shame all associated with it as a logical fallacy. That is pretty consistent, but watching you try and dogpile the comment like it shows gamergate is something it still isn't, well, it is just silly to me.
People supported him because he ran the articles that actually reported on the topic. If he really is misogynistic, they will abandon him with the same degree of individual choice. If he wasn't being misogynistic and was just reacting emotionally, admits it and apologizes for the below the belt remark, then probably will be forgotten and people supporting him will move on. See the way people responded to Tito or Acheon for other examples.
Remember, the big issue people tend to have with the journalists is the refusal to actually admit the problem and try to change after so long suggesting they can't actually be trusted to show integrity.
So lets give it a moment or two before you resume shitting on the board and declaring victory. Lets put this to the test and see how he responds to the mistake.
hmm, well now, that was fast
https://twitter.com/Nero/status/513067602709864449
owned up to it and apologized like a civilized person.
Tell me, did I miss where the gaming journalists have owned up to and apologized for collusion yet? Or would everyone like to keep pretending that this is some death-kneel to the gamergate movement, as if people upset with the state of journalism in gaming were going to abandon everything because a reporter being insult and claimed to have manufacture evidence said a mean thing in response?
Fair being fair, it seems both sides apologized, so that was good.
I'll take your word that you want to understand. I get that game journalism has problems. I want them to change. I don't think gamergate as a whole is sincere. It started as a result of harassment of an indie dev, and they never tried to get rid of themselves unsavory elements, insisting "we're totally past that point" when they very clearly aren't. Even the name of the movement has shitty origins, originally coined by Adam Baldwin, who was heavily involved in harassing the previously mentioned indie dev. In fact, they've openly embraced even worse elements, as seen with their championing of Breitbart, a site that's infamous for its constant violation of ethics.KokujinTensai said:
It's not that I'm happy with the status quo. It's that I know gamergate is full of shit.
How is it disingenuous when it is my actual opinion on that? I'm not trying to present that aspect as an argument but rather an aside, so I don't get why you would consider that disingenuous of me, since it is a sincere portrayal of my opinion itself. It HAS been going on in the epicthread a while now, and popping up here as well. People go after milo after claiming gamergate sees him as some sort of last ditch effort and then by trying to attack his credibility through various means, be it political affiliation, mistakes or what have you, in order to dismiss and attack gamergate by extension. And honestly, I think that is not only a fallacy of guilt by association in how it is handled but also rather silly to me.BobDobolina said:
Would you care to explain what you mean and how my confusion about what I can only fathom as a dismissive and discrediting tactic is somehow disingenuous?
Milo already apologized and his apology was accepted by Liana.BobDobolina said:
I am sorry @redlianak [https://twitter.com/redlianak]. That was a shitty thing to say. No interest in engaging further but wanted to apologise for the Mediterranean temper.
? Milo Yiannopoulos (@Nero) September 19, 2014 [https://twitter.com/Nero/status/513067602709864449]
@Nero [https://twitter.com/Nero] I accept your apology. I am disappointed that you do not wish to engage further. I will repeat that I apologize for my word choice
? Liana K (@redlianak) September 19, 2014 [https://twitter.com/redlianak/status/513068199680950272]
Fair being fair, "she made me do it [https://twitter.com/Nero/status/513068103027396608]" isn't, technically, an apology, nor particularly civilized.runic knight said:
Between this, courting InfoWars, the whole bogus Sarkeesian thing last week, the 4chan party he threw himself, the deliberate provocation and misrepresentation, him ragging on gamers in the past and glossing over it now, the obvious political axe he has to grind, the "earth-shattering emails" proving to be anything but, and the fact that he's now pretty nakedly just turning this into a pretext to launching the "Everybody Loves Milo Podcast!" because he's just not famous enough, the guy's pretty self-evidently toxic, or at least guilty of every single sin you guys are accusing everyone else of.
And the thing is, as I said, he's basically the only sympathetic "journalist" on your side, as in the only one answerable to an editorial board (even if it's only Breitbart) and libel laws in a meaningful sense. Because of his positioning, he's the main one whose supposed to be "respectable" in a sense that Baldwin and Aurini aren't. Minor internet celebrities aside, he was supposed to be the guy that gave you the imprematur of not being just an angry mob of misogynist conspiracy theorists, and he is failing at that job.
I don't want to derail the conversaton, but someone asked me a while ago, in context of ZQ, how I couldn't see that she was a con artist. I explained that, since due to my personal history I consider myself at least marginally capable of knowing one when I see one, she wasn't acting like one. She wasn't desperately seeking publicity over practically anything, or inventing enough stories, or playing enough of a victim, or saying more and more unbelievable things just to keep attention on her, and for a clear financial profit, and she was, at least from my perspective, not doing any of this.
This guy on the other hand? Red flags, for exactly the reasons listed. No more than my perspective on the matter, I realize, but there it is.
I would say its a thread that's outside the "echo-chamber".KokujinTensai said:
What I have seen from gamergate thus far, here on The Escapist, is blatant hypocrisy and very unsavory participants. Neither of which they seem to notice.
Gamergate also doesn't seem to be aware, or are willfully ignorant, of all the baggage that hashtag has with it.
Its only made worse by the fact that even if you disregard the previous stuff you are still left with a mob that doesn't quite know where its heading lead by a tabloid "journalist" who has no problem shot-gunning unconfirmed accusations and a healthy disdain for gamers as well.
Further problems include the fact that while, somewhat troubling, the evidence provided is far from the grand, evil plot to take over the games industry.
They (the journalists involved) may not have have gone about things the right way, but I see not wanting to have an open discussion about someone's sex life beyond responding to the accusations. Its not our business. No matter how many times people try to talk about the "cover up" I keep coming to the same conclusion, its just not our business.
Most want games journalism held to account for things, but gamergate is an angry mob.
Can you refute all evidence that is written Milo's articles? Game bloggers already confirmed an existence of their e-mails that were mentioned by Milo and one of them even wrote a non-apology.Mr. Omega said:
"Gamers are dead" too. We all know that thanks to Leigh Alexander. By the way, did she come through on her promise to destroy a career of a female developer?Mr. Omega said:
Your second point is a pretty naked attempt to try and derail the conversation. As to your first, what evidence exactly? I mean assuming we're agreed that the bit last week where he misrepresented the SFPD in order to rile everyone up over Sarkeesian again was outright wrong of him, what else is there? In nearly a month the only thing he's "uncovered" is the mailing list, and reading the emails doesn't really support the idea of industry-wide collusion that you lot have been on about for all this time, not even if you only read the ones he cherry-picked for you. What exactly is there to bother with refuting?Camel said:
Oh? You have some sort of information there that you wish to share with the rest of us about his motivations? I would love to see why you are so unwilling to accept the guy screwed up, realized he screwed up, and apologized, as did the one he was talking to. Or is this just going to be more assertions that you "know" he is.RexMundane said:
You dislike the guy, I get that. But outside of you own insistence here, and assumptions made about his motivations, you still haven't actually argued your case at all and instead just sort of appeal to emotion over and over.RexMundane said:
I get it, you dislike the guy, that is your prerogative, but so what? You disliked this entire gamergate thing, widely lambaste it as something it is not, constantly attack people for daring to associate with people of an ideological bent you seem to disagree with and generally just come off as proselytizing your opinion at others as if to try to shame them for disagreeing.
Well if you dismiss niche gamer, raptor tech, and the other articles that have come out, then yeah, I guess you could blindly assume he is the "only" one, yeah.RexMundane said:
As for him "failing", aside from your insistence of that, (and your own refusal to accept him as anything but some great cloaked committer of vile suggesting there is no convincing you of anything anyways) I don't get the feeling many people see him as failing. Screwed up there, to be sure, but did what was required to address the screw up and moved on. Honestly, how does one respond to a mistake like that in a way you would see as sincere? Or is your bias against him so great that because you already wrote him, and the movement itself, off that there is no way he could have handled it that would have satisfied you in which case what is the point of talking with you about it? Meanwhile, I still wait on the gaming journalists at large to admit their wrongdoings, of which in spite of your scoffs the evidence is plain as day, and to try to make amends to the audience. Yet you continue your attempts to demonize Milo over and over and over again and the gamergate movement by association. How odd.
You know, your gut feeling really doesn't actually mean anything to me when I don't respect you as any sort of authority on the matter. Not a knock on you, but you are a nameless faceless internet bobblehead and why should I take your word that you "know" what people are or are not like when all you seem capable of doing is relying on appeals to emotions and your own posts rely heavily on fallacies, such as the previous example of associative fallacy. In that regard, your word is worth less then the average in my eyes, as the appeals to fallacies undermines the view of your rationality and your obvious bias further suggests that contrary to your words, you are not someone to take at face value on this subject.RexMundane said:
Thus it does, once again, boil down to you declaring an opinion (of which you have every right to declare) and then insistence as to the importance and relevance of it in absence of an argument.
you dislike gamergate, you dislike Milo, you dislike Breitbart. All is well known by now, now what is your point about all that? And if your point is that such association harms the image of gamergate, why should anyone believe you if you need resort to rhetorical tricks to try to convince people of that point in the first place?
Considering your whole point seems to be "You just don't like the guy" you maybe didn't need to spend so many words saying it.runic knight said:
And I've listed my reasons, not least of all pertaining to his failures of ethical behavior as a journalist. Continue to ignore them if you like, and further dismiss any criticism of the movement from anyone outside. But be aware that you do so to your detriment.
Its a little more than just "not liking" the guy.runic knight said:
In my opinion, Milo is representative of gamergate's hypocrisy. For instance: Gamers being upset by what Leigh Alexander, which, prior to Milo, I could see as a reason to be upset. I didn't "wholly" agree but yea, sympathy points there. The blind acceptance and hero worship of Milo, makes dismiss that whining outright every time I see cheers for him.
I won't rehash the Anita Sarkeesian stuff, but yea, outright hypocrisy that's caste directly on gamergates central point of "integrity". This was compounded by the complete lack of any sort of mea culpa after that took place.
Furthermore, this recent tweet is entirely not surprising, considering his past, which, for a movement trying to move beyond its "checkered" past should be sending red flags up all over gamergate. Expect it to happen again.
Well the response seems to have to come up a whole lot when all your reasons seem to be merely your opinion. And I repeat it because I wanted to address your points one at a time, even if that meant repeating myself a lot in the process.RexMundane said:
You dislike him because of his political affiliation.
You dislike him because of his sites other stories.
You dislike him because he ran his mouth even if he apologized after.
I'm not ignoring your reasons, I am saying your reasons don't translate into convincing someone else since they are largely your personal opinion on the matter. Hence why I could boil it down like I did. And hence why I keep asking the question "alright, you dislike the guy, the site he is on, or his behavior on twitter...now what is your point" in relation to why your personal opinion affects the larger whole and why should your personal opinion be seen as something of merit or value in that larger discussion when you largely admit a natural bias against him?
People were very excited, yes. And they were right to be considering the news that was revealed showed exactly the claims that were made were entirely founded. But they were also excited when most stories dropped. They were excited when new people entered the conversation. They have been pretty consistently excited by every announced youtube video, article and podcast show actually. Yet the excitement about Milo has to be because they see him as some savior of gaming? That is a rather bold assumption based on behavior that has been consistent to people on the thread for a while now.BobDobolina said:
So again, where is it that I am insincere in my confusion as to why everyone who wants to hate on gamergate suddenly feels that milo is some savior of the movement? Where is my pretending this did not happen?
You seem to either not have been following things very long or just want to see people happy about his involvement as more then just people happy with his involvement. And honestly, that comes off a little disingenuous.
You know, I could take that as a jab. Quite frankly my argument was that I don't take their opinions as predictive value. And judging from the arguments used, I feel quite justified in not doing so.BobDobolina said:
Now, you claim that the predictions were correct. Care to back that one up a mite? Because I don't know if you haven't noticed about gamergate yet, but it isn't very well liked by people who claim it is a harassment and misogynistic movement. That never stopped from the start. It was like that before Milo became involved, and still is going. thus it is hard to honestly say that the prediction actually occurred. To make an analogy, if I said it was going to rain later while it was already raining, and the rain never let up, would that be that impressive of a prediction?
as such, no, I don't think the predictions have been proven to be correct and neither do I think their predictive capabilities of telling me it is raining when it is raining is impressive enough to take serious about trying to distance the movement from people willing to engage the community and actually investigate what is going on.
Milo admitted and apologized for talking bad about gamers, and for the recent outburst. Leigh has denied, lied and threatened people in attempts to hide wrongdoing. That is the difference and the reason why people are willing to accept Milo in the same breath as decrying Leigh. That isn't hypocrisy when a lot of the outrage itself stems from journalism being unable to hold itself accountable.aliengmr said:
I get the argument, I do, you are pointing at both people and going "see, they make the same mistake, but you support one and shun the other, thus hypocrisy" The problem is that it isn't just the mistake that is being condemned, it is the aftermath. What they do when the mistake is made. Milo admits upfront about it, accepts he screwed up and seems to try to do better. Leigh relies on her influence to harass, threaten, censor and silence in order to deny any wrongdoing.
You don't need to be a saint, but damn well have some integrity when you screw up. For all the slander and hate the guy gets, Milo seems to have a little. Leigh and many many journalists on the other hand? Not so much.
damn, didn't even notice this was a triple post. Sorry about that, should I compress them into one and ask the others be deleted?
The man is a complete arsehole. I have never read that article (the one oft linked and adored), I saw the picture and read the word "promiscuous" alongside "greedy, manipulative bullies" and didn't bother (although it was nice of him to put his arseholery right there in the address bar as a heads up). As everybody is now treating him as the saviour of the "movement" I decided to go back and give it a chance. After all the giant unflattering picture of Zoe Quinn (I presume) may have not been indicative of the content.runic knight said:
I at the end of paragraph one I was laughing out loud that THIS was what "gamergate" have chosen to rally behind, two paragraphs and I had to stop reading as my brain was dribbling out of my ears.
Is the third paragraph where it becomes clear the whole thing is satire?