GamerGate's Image Problem

RexMundane

New member
Dec 25, 2008
85
0
0
Thorn14 said:
The mob has passion and is the only reason #GG has not faded into obscurity. I don't constantly post on twitter, hell I've taken breaks, but I wont lie that the goals also match with mine.

I wouldn't mind if Polygon went under for its actions, but if everyone took the escapist route, I'd take that too.

This is the closest we have had to exposing this corruption, and I don't want to drop it because some people are unreasonable.

Should Feminism end because there are militant feminists who go around spreading #KILLALLMEN ?
False equivalency, reflexively justifying mob tactics, another 3-line response to me trying to write a few paragraphs and speak as clearly as I can, jesus christ do you See what I Mean about Why Bother Trying to Talk? I'm literally kicking myself for letting myself get sucked into the false promise that there's any debate to be had.

Jaegerbombastic said:
Simple: to get your point across and then defend it against your detractors. If you're so convinced that your perspective is the correct one, then you shouldn't be afraid to make a case for it. The fact is that Twitter is NOT an appropriate forum to debate the subject for a variety of reasons. The Kingofpol and KIA streams provide a better opportunity to discuss the issue: Its only between you and anybody else that is on the counter argument. It offers you time to explain your position clearly without worrying about a character limit. Finally, the fact that you're talking directly to a human being as opposed to sending off tweets or comments, it significantly hampers the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.

Yes, that Koz/Kaz fellow sucked at debating and getting his point across, and as a result he got dogpiled. But, like I said in the other thread, he was at least brave enough to put himself out there, make his case, and attempt to counter any criticism. He has my respect for doing that even though I think all of the points he made were wrong and hilariously stupid. I respect a guy who gets his ass kicked in a fight more than someone who talks a big game at how awesome he is but blows off any challenges.
My contention is that he could very well have comported himself eloquently and argued as effectively as possible, and there wouldn't be as much as one fewer GGer screaming for heads on pikes. Also, that the streams only really exacerbate the GIFT by giving them a target to fixate their fuckwaddery upon, particularly when that target is "the one guy who represents our hated enemy." Anyone willing to enter that kind of ambush is insane if they think there's anything to be accomplished.
 

Jaegerbombastic

New member
Sep 20, 2014
25
0
0
RexMundane said:
Jaegerbombastic said:
Simple: to get your point across and then defend it against your detractors. If you're so convinced that your perspective is the correct one, then you shouldn't be afraid to make a case for it. The fact is that Twitter is NOT an appropriate forum to debate the subject for a variety of reasons. The Kingofpol and KIA streams provide a better opportunity to discuss the issue: Its only between you and anybody else that is on the counter argument. It offers you time to explain your position clearly without worrying about a character limit. Finally, the fact that you're talking directly to a human being as opposed to sending off tweets or comments, it significantly hampers the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.

Yes, that Koz/Kaz fellow sucked at debating and getting his point across, and as a result he got dogpiled. But, like I said in the other thread, he was at least brave enough to put himself out there, make his case, and attempt to counter any criticism. He has my respect for doing that even though I think all of the points he made were wrong and hilariously stupid. I respect a guy who gets his ass kicked in a fight more than someone who talks a big game at how awesome he is but blows off any challenges.
My contention is that he could very well have comported himself eloquently and argued as effectively as possible, and there wouldn't be as much as one fewer GGer screaming for heads on pikes. Also, that the streams only really exacerbate the GIFT by giving them a target to fixate their fuckwaddery upon, particularly when that target is "the one guy who represents our hated enemy." Anyone willing to enter that kind of ambush is insane if they think there's anything to be accomplished.
You don't know that, but for the sake of argument lets just analyze that: Suppose someone from the anti-GG crowd goes onto a stream to debate. Worst case scenario its what you describe; zero sum. No one changes their opinion in the slightest. That person may even get mocked for what he says, as is the case of Koz/Kaz. Best case scenario is that he/she does get some people to, if not completely switch sides, then to moderate and think more critically of what their stance is.

So what happens when someone turns down the offer to debate because, like you claim, they consider it a pointless effort? The best case scenario is the same as the worst case scenario for option one; zero sum. No one has ever thought "Hey, that guy turned down a debate. Clearly that's because he has the more valid arguments!" Worst case scenario is that he/she comes off as a total coward. They have no problem voicing their opinion to a hugbox on Twitter, their personal blog, etc. but when given the opportunity to actually defend their argument, they flake.

The pro-GG side is the one offering to discuss and debate the topic, and the individuals putting up the stream itself have been very civil towards guests (the comments sections, being a comments section for a stream, is as inane as always). Meanwhile, the other side has not only actively avoided any debates on the issue but in a few cases have been trying to shut down discussion altogether.
 

RexMundane

New member
Dec 25, 2008
85
0
0
Jaegerbombastic said:
You don't know that, but for the sake of argument lets just analyze that: Suppose someone from the anti-GG crowd goes onto a stream to debate. Worst case scenario its what you describe; zero sum. No one changes their opinion in the slightest. That person may even get mocked for what he says, as is the case of Koz/Kaz. Best case scenario is that he/she does get some people to, if not completely switch sides, then to moderate and think more critically of what their stance is.

So what happens when someone turns down the offer to debate because, like you claim, they consider it a pointless effort? The best case scenario is the same as the worst case scenario for option one; zero sum. No one has ever thought "Hey, that guy turned down a debate. Clearly that's because he has the more valid arguments!" Worst case scenario is that he/she comes off as a total coward. They have no problem voicing their opinion to a hugbox on Twitter, their personal blog, etc. but when given the opportunity to actually defend their argument, they flake.

The pro-GG side is the one offering to discuss and debate the topic, and the individuals putting up the stream itself have been very civil towards guests (the comments sections, being a comments section for a stream, is as inane as always). Meanwhile, the other side has not only actively avoided any debates on the issue but in a few cases have been trying to shut down discussion altogether.
Your argument is ridiculous. In moreso than the general sense of believing that implying I'm a "coward" will coax me into doing what you want me to.

By way of demonstrating as much, let me ask: Do you think there exists a single person whose opinion is worth taking seriously, who thinks less of Obama for not appearing on Alex Jones' show? That he's some kind of coward for not walking into an ambush set up by a detractor? Even assuming Alex manages to somehow medicate the crazy out of him for the interview and that it isn't some massive shouting match, nobody in his audience will give the slightest credence to anything he'd have to say. He won't persuade anyone of anything to his side, and hell, it's more likely that people supporting him would actively question his judgement moreso for bothering.

Carry that analogy elsewhere. Why do you think it is that evolutionary scientists generally avoid debating creationists? Such debates happen, sure, but they're hardly common. Reason is, of course, that there's nothing in it for the scientists. People predisposed to the creationist argument won't be swayed in brief argumentative talking points, yet you run the risk of people predisposed to evolution ending up swayed, however momentarily, by the kind of rhetorical tricks science can't apply, like "hm, why are there still monkeys?"

And yet, why does it happen at all then? Why do liberals willingly go onto Fox News (aside from the obviously cherrypicked "easy target" ones)? They have something to gain from the exposure. Either getting an opinion or message out to an audience, clarifying their stance on a position, sharing new information, etc. They know they're going to get raked over the coals, but they do so because they have a point to make, an argument to make a case for, and here's where they can make it.

Yet here? Seriously, what could anyone possibly gain from going into a stream like this, in this hostile an environment no less, and saying anything? What hypothetical, mystical, ethereal thing could be argued that would even hazard coming out of the experience having gained anything? What on earth do you actually think you're "arguing" against?

Jesus, and I hate that I'm falling deeper into the "oh there's totaly a reasonable discussion to be had in an internet gaming forum" trap yet again, but I'm genuinely curious now, all strawmen aside, what do you think the anti-GG "argument" is aside from wanting this all to be over?
 

Jaegerbombastic

New member
Sep 20, 2014
25
0
0
RexMundane said:
Jaegerbombastic said:
You don't know that, but for the sake of argument lets just analyze that: Suppose someone from the anti-GG crowd goes onto a stream to debate. Worst case scenario its what you describe; zero sum. No one changes their opinion in the slightest. That person may even get mocked for what he says, as is the case of Koz/Kaz. Best case scenario is that he/she does get some people to, if not completely switch sides, then to moderate and think more critically of what their stance is.

So what happens when someone turns down the offer to debate because, like you claim, they consider it a pointless effort? The best case scenario is the same as the worst case scenario for option one; zero sum. No one has ever thought "Hey, that guy turned down a debate. Clearly that's because he has the more valid arguments!" Worst case scenario is that he/she comes off as a total coward. They have no problem voicing their opinion to a hugbox on Twitter, their personal blog, etc. but when given the opportunity to actually defend their argument, they flake.

The pro-GG side is the one offering to discuss and debate the topic, and the individuals putting up the stream itself have been very civil towards guests (the comments sections, being a comments section for a stream, is as inane as always). Meanwhile, the other side has not only actively avoided any debates on the issue but in a few cases have been trying to shut down discussion altogether.
Your argument is ridiculous. In moreso than the general sense of believing that implying I'm a "coward" will coax me into doing what you want me to.

By way of demonstrating as much, let me ask: Do you think there exists a single person whose opinion is worth taking seriously, who thinks less of Obama for not appearing on Alex Jones' show? That he's some kind of coward for not walking into an ambush set up by a detractor? Even assuming Alex manages to somehow medicate the crazy out of him for the interview and that it isn't some massive shouting match, nobody in his audience will give the slightest credence to anything he'd have to say. He won't persuade anyone of anything to his side, and hell, it's more likely that people supporting him would actively question his judgement moreso for bothering.

Carry that analogy elsewhere. Why do you think it is that evolutionary scientists generally avoid debating creationists? Such debates happen, sure, but they're hardly common. Reason is, of course, that there's nothing in it for the scientists. People predisposed to the creationist argument won't be swayed in brief argumentative talking points, yet you run the risk of people predisposed to evolution ending up swayed, however momentarily, by the kind of rhetorical tricks science can't apply, like "hm, why are there still monkeys?"

And yet, why does it happen at all then? Why do liberals willingly go onto Fox News (aside from the obviously cherrypicked "easy target" ones)? They have something to gain from the exposure. Either getting an opinion or message out to an audience, clarifying their stance on a position, sharing new information, etc. They know they're going to get raked over the coals, but they do so because they have a point to make, an argument to make a case for, and here's where they can make it.

Yet here? Seriously, what could anyone possibly gain from going into a stream like this, in this hostile an environment no less, and saying anything? What hypothetical, mystical, ethereal thing could be argued that would even hazard coming out of the experience having gained anything? What on earth do you actually think you're "arguing" against?

Jesus, and I hate that I'm falling deeper into the "oh there's totaly a reasonable discussion to be had in an internet gaming forum" trap yet again, but I'm genuinely curious now, all strawmen aside, what do you think the anti-GG "argument" is aside from wanting this all to be over?
It really says a lot that you think any suggestion that you can have a civil discussion on the issue is a "trap." What exactly do you expect Kingofpol, IA, Sargon, etc. would do if they have a bigger anti-GG name like Adam Sessler on? What events from their talks with Liana K and Koz give you reason to suspect this? What makes you think that talking to those men is somehow worse that the curt Twitter spats that have been going on.

Anyways, lets talk about Alex Jones. Personally, I can't decide whether he is mentally ill or if its all an act to pander to a niche audience. That being said, the man does put himself out on other shows to preach his views even though it leaves him vulnerable to criticism and mockery. He went on Piers Morgan's show to debate the 2nd Amendment even though he still came off as a paranoid loon. If he publicly turned down the offer to do so, claiming that he didn't "owe shit" to Piers Morgan and CNN, and instead remained on his own radio show and websites for his established followers to pat him on the back, do you seriously think that would make him look better?

As for the President, he has the White House press corps to answer to. We can spend a whole separate thread talking about the current effectiveness of the press corps in keeping Obama and his administration accountable, but nevertheless the WH Press Secretary goes in the front of the corps every day to brief them on Obama's plans and gets grilled by the press on his behalf. If the administration refused to address the press corps, you bet your ass their reputation would plummet.

You said yourself that there's a reason why Liberals go on Fox, Conservatives go on MSNBC, etc.: even if the debate itself ends up just being an excuse for the host to stroke his own ego and belittle his detractors (see: Piers Morgan), it gives them an open forum to make the case for their side. Staying within your echo chamber doesn't help your side at all, and publicly turning down offers to do so as something beneath you makes your cause look worse.

Also, the ant-GG do "want all of this to be over," but only in the sense that they want all discussion of it to arbitrarily stop and the status quo to continue unopposed. They don't actually want a resolution outside of the pro-GG being forcibly shut up, as shown in the GameJournoPro leaks. Demanding that the other side shuts up without confronting the reasons why won't end the shitstorm.
 

Exley97_v1legacy

New member
Jul 9, 2014
217
0
0
Mouser_House said:
Has anyone tried to talk about 4chan board culture in a neutral manner? They're mostly super contrarian skeptics who will reflexively start kicking against any mainstream ideas they don't like.
Um, sure, I guess you could call them contrarians and skeptics. But behavior like this? Well, that's a little more than just being outside the mainstream. And it's not culture. It's f---ing sick. And it's pretty indicative of why 4chan, as it relates to GG, has an image problem that, in my humble opinion, has stained the movement.

http://gawker.com/4chan-user-says-he-will-leak-emma-watsons-nudes-after-f-1637795819
 

Mouser_House

New member
Sep 17, 2014
10
0
0
Exley97 said:
Um, sure, I guess you could call them contrarians and skeptics. But behavior like this? Well, that's a little more than just being outside the mainstream. And it's not culture. It's f---ing sick. And it's pretty indicative of why 4chan, as it relates to GG, has an image problem that, in my humble opinion, has stained the movement.
That's on /b/. We don't go to Ravenholm anymore. Seriously, every other board hates /b/ with a passion (maybe even more than gawker media does!) There are 63 boards total. Mind you, /b/ sucks so much that it will probably be the site admin's doom one day.

/v/ is one of the fastest boards on a very large site. Only a small amount of people on /v/ were originally interested in journalistic/indie dev scandals and the rest of the board called them gossipy drama queens. This was before the "gamers are dead" articles whipped a much larger group into a frenzy across several sites.

You can't really go anywhere from here. No one is going to apologize for having posted on the same site where some script kiddie wants to play super villain. Just like no one on tumblr is going to apologize for posting on the same site that nearly drove Tom Siddell to suicide. This is why people need to move away from looking at things in black and white while repeating the genetic fallacy as their main argument. Both sides keep doing this. Everyone's stuck.

EDIT: messed up quotes
 

FEichinger

New member
Aug 7, 2011
534
0
0
Why does GamerGate need to fix the negative image that was painted by games journalists? I fail to see how this is somehow on us to do. Tweet after tweet called us misogynist neckbeard cis white scum. Screenshot after screenshot claimed that this was all a planned attack by easy-to-dehumanize groups (MRA, 4chan, conservatives). Article after article called us - and people who aren't even involved with this - backwards in our ways and unable to 'progress'. Now we are the ones who have to fix it? Hell no.

I'm one of the few people with my name on the board and I say 'Fuck that!' - we do not need to fix our "image", because the image was painted by the very people who are now using that image against us. If they hadn't already monopolized professional victimhood, I'd even say we should use this image against them and show the world what they have done to us.
 

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
Mouser_House said:
That's on /b/. We don't go to Ravenholm anymore. Seriously, every other board hates /b/ with a passion (maybe even more than gawker media does!) There are 63 boards total. Mind you, /b/ sucks so much that it will probably be the site admin's doom one day.
The only thing I never understand is that if the /b/ board on 4chan is bringing the entire board to such a low level that even the admins of the site wouldn't be surprised if they all got arrested for it's very existence...why don't they finally put that thread to rest.

It's literally what happened to the MegaUpload owner. He, and many users on the site did not partake in any of the shady business other users were doing of uploading shit loads of illegal content, but when he finally went to the courts that didn't stop his ass from going to lifetime prison.


Just like no one on tumblr is going to apologize for posting on the same site that nearly drove Tom Siddell to suicide.
I never actually heard of this case before, but during the whole 4chan raid on tumblr someone on the depression help tag (one of the many tags they raided.) actually committed suicide due to the stuff 4chan spammers posted there and as far as consensus went outside of tumblr everyone gave it a free pass "because 4 chan" and "Oh she was going into the shitter anyway". And that's not to mention that /b/ board on 4 chan has done plenty of shitty things of that calliber. More so than tumblr. People would be surprised (or not if your into the SJW thing.) that someone would kill themselves over something on tumblr. People will not be surprised to hear news about how someone( or multiple) people killed themselves over assholes on 4chan. That's how bad of a reputation it has.
 

theNater

New member
Feb 11, 2011
227
0
0
Lunar Archivist said:
Also, if your have journalist or advocate in mind with impeccable credentials who could help us instead of Milo, by all means, arrange a meeting for us. Otherwise, we have to stick with the only people willing and able to give us some press.
Advocates don't have to have a preexisting presence. New advocates for causes show up all the time. Start a new thread: "Finding an advocate for GG". Link it here and in the megathread. Use it to identify an individual who is passionate, well-spoken, vaguely photogenic, and clear of embarrassing history; there should be lots to choose from. Get that individual a webcam, and have them make a short video identifying the issues in question. Post that video on YouTube, get the entire GG community to hit the like button on the video. As a populist movement, GG should have more than enough people to make it go viral.

Bam! Ideal advocate for the cause.
 

RexMundane

New member
Dec 25, 2008
85
0
0
As the last handful of comments aptly demonstrates, GG doesn't see themselves in a position to need to treat their enemies as human. Their advseraries aren't misguided or incorrect, they actively wish to suppress debate by force, attempting to shame their enemies into dealing with them on their terms. They don't need to fix their image, don't need to apologize for anything, they're owed an apology by the world who dared to think less of them than they themselves. Whatever they want, in their minds, they'll get, because they refuse to stop, even when given what they nominatively want. Escapist isn't on any blacklist I've seen lately, yet they'll never make it to any whitelist either for so long as Bob Chipman and Jim Sterling aren't publically flogged for doubting the worm. And of late, they've not only declared war against all games media, but most major media generally, wikipedia, 4chan of all things, much of twitter itself, even against their own longest standing members who don't toe their line, whatever on earth their line actually is.

I genuinely wonder how long they can keep declaring enemies of everybody before they realize they don't have any allies. And then I honestly wonder if they'll be too far gone to care.
 

KokujinTensai

New member
Feb 11, 2009
41
0
0
We don't need to apologize to anyone. Were the consumers. Business cater to our will or we find an alternative. In this case we have none since its the whole industry so we'll starve them. GG gets bigger everyday.
 

doomrider7

New member
Aug 14, 2013
37
0
0
RexMundane said:
Errant thought that I dare not post in the megathread: There's not going to be much more left in the emails.

Judging from what I'm reading in the megathread the latest release was disappointing in that it didn't contain any daming evidence or information, just a few more "someone said a thing in private conversation we can remove from context to make them look bad." In other words just a "god I hope I can keep this non-story alive long enough for my podcast to give me the fame I so richly deserve" move from Milo. The first release was already pretty underwhelming from an evidence standpoint I take it, the second even more so. If the pattern holds, there almost definately won't be anything worth talking about in the coming releases.

If there were, the people involved would know what was said and how bad it would make them look, and would be working to pre-empt coming infodumps. "Rather than let Milo control the story, just let me say for myself that I did say XXXXX at the time and regret it." But none of that's happening, and it's been days.

If there were, Milo wouldn't be taking his sweet damn time between releases. He's hunting desperately for something, anything, and not finding very much. Even over a massive text dump like this must be basic searches wouldn't be hard to do. The controlled release has more to do with keeping the story alive past sell-by than conveying information.

If there were, and if the point wasn't to trickle information but to let it run free, then the whole thing would have been released online already, in it's entirety. The recent celeb photo dump shows us decency and privacy concerns aren't exactly big for some of the people most invested in this.
Underwhelming is an understatement from what I thought of those emails. With all that I've seen, heard, and read, GamerGate will go down as the stupidest media related debacle of all time in my opinion. This whole thing just needs to fucking die already. As for the reason people don't stand up to debate their opinions against the pro GG people, I'll just leave this quote from the late great George Carlin.

?Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.?

¯ George Carlin

At this point if there was any potential for civil and intelligent debate, that ship has LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG since sailed by.
 

marioandsonic

New member
Nov 28, 2009
657
0
0
Looking at this whole GamerGate issue from the sidelines, it's starting to remind me a bit of the Occupy Wall Street protests a couple years ago.

One group is trying to expose corruption through somewhat questionable means (and a few bad apples on their side), while the second group (and most of the surrounding media) are completely dismissing the first group's claims as not true or not important, and are using those few bad apples to paint the entire group as immature children.

But that's just my opinion, as I haven't been really paying attention, or at least haven't been trying to.

...

I will now put on my flame shield from both groups, and run away screaming.
 

RexMundane

New member
Dec 25, 2008
85
0
0
Mr.Doh said:
I see doomrider7 had ran from Sherdog to here to argue his point after getting thoroughly squashed in the GamerGate V1 thread. Nice to know that an MMA forum actually have more rational people than here.
See, this. This right here. What are you doing, guy? This is just bullying. You're just trying to pick on someone you don't even know. You came to a thread about Gamergate's image problem, in order to bully a person. I can't even be angry at this, it's like so bizarrely misguided, so comically laden with impotent fury that it's downright adorable. Truly, you are credit to team.

marioandsonic said:
Looking at this whole GamerGate issue from the sidelines, it's starting to remind me a bit of the Occupy Wall Street protests a couple years ago.

One group is trying to expose corruption through somewhat questionable means (and a few bad apples on their side), while the second group (and most of the surrounding media) are completely dismissing the first group's claims as not true or not important, and are using those few bad apples to paint the entire group as immature children.

But that's just my opinion, as I haven't been really paying attention, or at least haven't been trying to.

...

I will now put on my flame shield from both groups, and run away screaming.
See, Occupy makes for an interesting corollary because it's the exact same problems: no leadership structure, no codified list of goals, no real effort to keep out the riffraff, and in the end, just sitting around talking themselves up while the world got bored with them. And like there, Gamergate has those same problems, and gleefully confuses them for strengths. "If there were a leader there'd be a person to attack." "If we formalize goals there'd be something to try and pacify us." "You can't expect us to keep the angry mob under control, and have no right to judge us by our associating with them!" Until after weeks, all they were was a teeming mass of confused, directionless energy telling itself it made a difference.
 

Nikolaz72

This place still alive?
Apr 23, 2009
2,125
0
0
Dragonbums said:
Mouser_House said:
That's on /b/. We don't go to Ravenholm anymore. Seriously, every other board hates /b/ with a passion (maybe even more than gawker media does!) There are 63 boards total. Mind you, /b/ sucks so much that it will probably be the site admin's doom one day.
The only thing I never understand is that if the /b/ board on 4chan is bringing the entire board to such a low level that even the admins of the site wouldn't be surprised if they all got arrested for it's very existence...why don't they finally put that thread to rest.
Because /b/ is a containment cell. If /b/ were to fall a lot of the nets scum that we actively avoid by avoiding that board would flood out into the rest of the internet. To be quite frank, until Moot decided to become a sellout I was in favor of petitioning the worlds governments to give him government grants to operate /b/ in interest of keeping the internet a cleaner and safer place for all.

Houseman said:
Gamergate has an image problem like Batman has an image problem.
Because they're the hero we need, but not necessarily the one we want right now.
 

marioandsonic

New member
Nov 28, 2009
657
0
0
RexMundane said:
See, Occupy makes for an interesting corollary because it's the exact same problems: no leadership structure, no codified list of goals, no real effort to keep out the riffraff, and in the end, just sitting around talking themselves up while the world got bored with them. And like there, Gamergate has those same problems, and gleefully confuses them for strengths. "If there were a leader there'd be a person to attack." "If we formalize goals there'd be something to try and pacify us." "You can't expect us to keep the angry mob under control, and have no right to judge us by our associating with them!" Until after weeks, all they were was a teeming mass of confused, directionless energy telling itself it made a difference.
That's also true. Both groups (GamerGate and OWS) don't really have a clear goal.

Even if they have an intention that I honestly could get behind, I have no idea exactly how they intend to make that happen. They may have the passion and the outrage to bring the issue to the forefront, but outrage and protests without any clear goal or direction doesn't lead to a solution.

Houseman said:
Gamergate has an image problem like Batman has an image problem.
So GamerGate also regularly hires 12-year-old sidekicks?
 

RexMundane

New member
Dec 25, 2008
85
0
0
Mr.Doh said:
RexMundane said:
Mr.Doh said:
I see doomrider7 had ran from Sherdog to here to argue his point after getting thoroughly squashed in the GamerGate V1 thread. Nice to know that an MMA forum actually have more rational people than here.
See, this. This right here. What are you doing, guy? This is just bullying. You're just trying to pick on someone you don't even know. You came to a thread about Gamergate's image problem, in order to bully a person. I can't even be angry at this, it's like so bizarrely misguided, so comically laden with impotent fury that it's downright adorable. Truly, you are credit to team.

marioandsonic said:
Looking at this whole GamerGate issue from the sidelines, it's starting to remind me a bit of the Occupy Wall Street protests a couple years ago.

One group is trying to expose corruption through somewhat questionable means (and a few bad apples on their side), while the second group (and most of the surrounding media) are completely dismissing the first group's claims as not true or not important, and are using those few bad apples to paint the entire group as immature children.

But that's just my opinion, as I haven't been really paying attention, or at least haven't been trying to.

...

I will now put on my flame shield from both groups, and run away screaming.
See, Occupy makes for an interesting corollary because it's the exact same problems: no leadership structure, no codified list of goals, no real effort to keep out the riffraff, and in the end, just sitting around talking themselves up while the world got bored with them. And like there, Gamergate has those same problems, and gleefully confuses them for strengths. "If there were a leader there'd be a person to attack." "If we formalize goals there'd be something to try and pacify us." "You can't expect us to keep the angry mob under control, and have no right to judge us by our associating with them!" Until after weeks, all they were was a teeming mass of confused, directionless energy telling itself it made a difference.
One difference i could make from this vs OWS is that we are way coordinate and technical than the other side. We continually take proofs, store it and spread it around, while shifting to address criticism. OWS never had those 2 factors.

And no, i'm not bullying him. Just merely point that fact out. Unless i missed the sarcasm there
You came here just to call a stranger a coward. I mean why. For his own good? To the credit of the universe? To add to the discussion? What good have you done here today, hero?

Also yes, I'm sure we could have had real lasting economic reform if only Occupy had thought to screenshot mean tweets and write 10-foot long red-text manifestos. Exemplars to modern history, you are.

Houseman said:
Gamergate has an image problem like Batman has an image problem.
...Yes. You are Batman. You are all Batman. Well spotted. No argument here.