Gamergate

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5203
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:32 am UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:
I see nothing wrong with responding to, say, a protest with counter-protest, or to a boycotts by boycotting in turn. That seems really fair, actually. Proportional.

Neither do I. The reason I don't see anything wrong with it is because I'm not claiming that it's ethically wrong to boycott in the first place.


Consider, if you will, a situation in which anti-abortion folks are protesting an abortion clinics. Some other group believes they are dicks for doing so. Their protests are making people feel shitty, say.

So, the second group sets up counter protests. Which make the first group feel shitty. Not accidentally, they're quite literally going to the same place to protest. Shit, they probably see this as "having an impact".

The second group is not hypocrites.


I think the point is that neither group actually holds as a value "You shouldn't make people feel shitty". As I understand it, what KrytenKoro is arguing is that if Gamergate is opposed to censorship, then they shouldn't be using censorship as a way to advance their goals. In the abortion case, it would be more like if the pro-life group did a protest by showing up en masse at Planned Parenthood and all demanded abortions in order to keep them too busy to help people who really needed them.


I'm not entirely convinced that telling Amazon that Kotaku / Gawker had some shitposts against the Amazon TOS really amounts to censorship.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby KrytenKoro » Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:36 am UTC

LaserGuy wrote:I think the point is that neither group actually holds as a value "You shouldn't make people feel shitty". As I understand it, what KrytenKoro is arguing is that if Gamergate is opposed to censorship, then they shouldn't be using censorship as a way to advance their goals. In the abortion case, it would be more like if the pro-life group did a protest by showing up en masse at Planned Parenthood and all demanded abortions in order to keep them too busy to help people who really needed them.

Yes, exactly this. If Gamergate merely argued "we don't like feminism in video game culture", and still performed the same ops, I would still oppose them for obvious reasons, but I wouldn't claim they were operating under obvious and outrageous cognitive dissonance.

When they start using "we're against the removal of platforms!" as a supposedly laudable goal to gather support and operate by attempting to remove others' platforms, their laudable goal is shown as a fig leaf.

A key part of "turnabout is fair play" and "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" is acknowledging that the action in question is acceptable.

I'm not entirely convinced that telling Amazon that Kotaku / Gawker had some shitposts against the Amazon TOS really amounts to censorship.

You're free to not be convinced. However, I saw then and I've seen today that KotakuinAction and other Gamergate hubs were explicitly supporting that Kotaku and Gawker be silenced and lose the ability to speak...when their original complaint was that their various enemies were doing some great wrong and censoring them, by moderating private forums in line with traditional desires to avoid witch hunts, derailment of discussion, slander, and possible legal liability.

I'm not claiming, in any way, that these ops were successful (though neither is this to say I think Gamergate is toothless). I'm claiming that they were fundamentally hypocritical and betray Gamergate's true, tribalistic character.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:34 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:I think the point is that neither group actually holds as a value "You shouldn't make people feel shitty". As I understand it, what KrytenKoro is arguing is that if Gamergate is opposed to censorship, then they shouldn't be using censorship as a way to advance their goals. In the abortion case, it would be more like if the pro-life group did a protest by showing up en masse at Planned Parenthood and all demanded abortions in order to keep them too busy to help people who really needed them.


I would posit that the "making patients feel shitty" does indeed significantly bother folks, and would be used as a motivational point to attract counter protestors.

The only way you get around this is by acknowledging that the actions are indeed identical, but focus on picking nits with the definition, such that the given action is acceptable for your group, and not for that group, because you're targeting different people. Such nitpicking can be used to dispense with any charge of hypocrisy.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby KrytenKoro » Wed Dec 14, 2016 8:05 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:The only way you get around this is by acknowledging that the actions are indeed identical, but focus on picking nits with the definition, such that the given action is acceptable for your group, and not for that group, because you're targeting different people. Such nitpicking can be used to dispense with any charge of hypocrisy.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to rebut here. Yes, Gamergate absolutely does have a tribalistic response, hypocritically claiming that they somehow have the moral high ground while cheerfully engaging in much more obvious and less arguable instances of the wrong they claim justifies them.

Look, here's what I see with Gamergate and its opponents:

Gamergate gets their posts removed from a private forum for some reason or another. Claims that removing posts or removing platforms is wrong, then goes in and removes posts from those who disagree with them, and runs ops to try to remove platforms from their opponents.

A member of Gamerghazi (a group of those victimized by Gamergate supporters, and those who try to emotionally support them) gets furious that a Gamergate supporter doxxed someone, doxxes that Gamergate supporter to a much lesser degree, makes a tearful confession and is told by the group that they fucked up, that their good intentions don't excuse what they did, and that they need to leave the group until they can make things right, with their confession stickied as a public admittance of shame for quite a while, and still one of the first results on google search.

Yeah, I mean... I loved your posts but... Really, that was well over the line. I'm not trying to rattle your cage here, I'm sure it's been well rattled, but WHY would we even care WHO this person was if they didn't want to publicly declare it? Who gives a shit if one more dev from what is demonstrably a mostly bigoted and batshit tiny vocal minority of game devs decides to coddle GiggleGrunt?

I'm glad you realized how bad this was, but I have to wonder how things like this ever happened. I mean, the one positive out of this is that we consider this a bad mark on our community whereas this would be simply business as usual for GG and part of exposing "collusion" or... Something.


Both of these instances were hypocritical. One group had the response to that hypocrisy that makes them morally tolerable.

For reference, it is exactly this lack of self-policing in Gamergate that those who oppose Gamergate are pointing out, and what they are labeling as cognitive dissonance.

Oh gee, self-policing and holding our side to the same standards we uphold for others, imagine that. It's possible, KiA!


----

I believe you are mischaracterizing what happened here, and its clear that nothing I say will change your opinion.


We left Gawker fucking sterile.

What happened was what we had expected to happen. After all the drama by aGGro over Intel dropping Gamasutra, the remaining advertisers saw the writing on the wall.

Carry on, #GamerGate. We are fucking winning this war. Emails are a grind, but we're due to level up. :3

So now it's just a starvation siege now I guess. Make sure they recieve as little cash as possible.

I don't think they can ever recover from this. This is an unhealable wound.

oddly enough some tactics are timeless. Attilla did this same strategy against Roman cities. If you cant attack their high walls. destroy their caravans.

Remove the advertisers, starve the media.


How KiA posters see what they're doing:
Isn't this doing exactly what the meanieheads do to people/things they don't like? I don't think I support this.

[–]PuzzlePlate 1 point 8 months ago

Fuck what the meanieheads do, (btw they doxx and harrass indiviual people not companies.) ODN is like a time honored tradition. There's people out there who hate Gawker so much, they won't stopen emailing until they die or Gawker dies. They're doing gods work son and driving the final nails in the coffin.

You said you joined the sub to protest against people cutting off revenue to companies based on moral standards. Is it safe to say you're concerned with game companies being attacked by moral activists who are against the content in games?

Interesting note -- the dissenting voice here apparently had their posts deleted by the mods. Despite "KotakuInAction is a community that condemns willful censorship, exclusion, harassment, or abuse."

KiA mission statement:

We believe that the current standards of ethics in the media has alienated the artists, developers, and creators who perpetuate the things we love, enjoy, and enthusiastically build communities around.

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction ... ard_to_be/

fuck, any time they talk about Zoe Quinn, or any other game developer not on their side.

We have taken notice of various incidents involving conflicts of interest and agenda-pushing within media which we feel are damaging to the credibility of the medium and harm the community at large.

http://anomalousgames.tumblr.com/

We believe the current media is complicit in the proliferation of an ideology that squashes individuality, divides along political lines, and is stifling to the freedom of creativity that is the foundation of human expression.

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction ... ance&t=all
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction ... l_justice/
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction ... e_the_new/
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction ... ete_about/

And then there's KiA explicitly stating that Gamergate systematically refuses to claim responsibility for what it asks its members to do:
Also for the benefit of other people reading my comment above and have never participated in an email campaign or never heard the following advice, don't say you are from GamerGate. The other side doesn't say "We are From the S.J.W. and we disapprove", they say their individual reasons on why they are unhappy.

Gamergate as a brand is indeed beyond reproach, but we have always acted as individuals and when somebody spots something wrong, that is our call to action to look it over, verify it, and then let the concerned people know about it. That is all that is required, no mention of the word gamergate is needed to share evidence.


As I've said -- the label of "cognitive dissonance" is because of claiming this farce that they are about free speech, freedom, absolute freedom of opinion on private forums regardless of if it is distasteful or not, and so on, and then making coordinated efforts to remove those from the groups which disagree with them on issues of bigotry and diversity.

You say you've managed to just not see all those incidents, and apparently you're just not aware of all this bald hypocrisy. Maybe that's true. Maybe, similarly, I'm just not aware of Gamergate publicly rebuking those who said these things and planned these "ops". Can you point me to where they have? I hope they have, because the virulent hatred for honesty on display in their pronouncements saddens me.
Last edited by KrytenKoro on Wed Dec 14, 2016 8:17 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Dec 14, 2016 8:14 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:The only way you get around this is by acknowledging that the actions are indeed identical, but focus on picking nits with the definition, such that the given action is acceptable for your group, and not for that group, because you're targeting different people. Such nitpicking can be used to dispense with any charge of hypocrisy.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to rebut here. Yes, Gamergate absolutely does have a tribalistic response, hypocritically claiming that they somehow have the moral high ground while cheerfully engaging in much more obvious and less arguable instances of the wrong they claim justifies them.


I'm pointing out that your argument of "they're hypocrites because they do the same thing they disliked being done to them" doesn't work as a general rule, and doesn't seem to be very valid.

This isn't saying Gamergate is good or bad or whatever(I'm honestly still a little unsure as to why it's attracted so much attention, when it appears to be the same sort of internet drama that happens everywhere), merely that this particular "fuck them, let's do the same back" is really normal, and doesn't make one a hypocrite. Now, if they had been doing that to others, and whined about how morally outraged they were when it was done to them, sure, laugh away. But order matters and reacting in kind to something is nigh-universal in human behavior.

I mean, a dude can be anti-violence, yet throw a punch back after being hit in the face. That doesn't make him a hypocrite. We recognize that initiating violence is different from a defensive response. Why not the same for other things?

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby KrytenKoro » Wed Dec 14, 2016 8:39 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I'm pointing out that your argument of "they're hypocrites because they do the same thing they disliked being done to them" doesn't work as a general rule, and doesn't seem to be very valid.

...in what way does it not work as a general rule?

Seriously. Despite your assertion, it is absolutely possible for the second group to be hypocrites. If someone went to out-yell a Nazi demonstration under the principle that "being loud is bad and these people are loud", they would be a hypocrite even if I disliked their opponents.

Your argument seems to be "it's not hypocrisy because they're in X's tribe", which is boggling my mind here.

Now, if they had been doing that to others, and whined about how morally outraged they were when it was done to them, sure, laugh away.

In that those who founded the movement already had reason to hate Sarkeesian and Quinn and had been actively trying to get Sarkeesian shut down and chase Quinn out of making games, yes. Yes, they have been whining about how morally outraged they are.

But order matters and reacting in kind to something is nigh-universal in human behavior.

And "an eye for an eye" is not justice. It's not how you solve things. You solve the thing by fixing the thing, not by just doing the ill treatment back at them.

I mean, a dude can be anti-violence, yet throw a punch back after being hit in the face. That doesn't make him a hypocrite. We recognize that initiating violence is different from a defensive response. Why not the same for other things?

If he is against unjustified violence, no, he's not a hypocrite.

If he's against all violence, and frequently campaigns against other people's defensive actions, yes he is a hypocrite.

Stated principles and beliefs are part of what defines hypocrisy. If you do the thing you said was bad, you're a hypocrite, end of discussion. There's some room for nuance here in the principles you lay out and hold others to, i.e., "it is bad for a person to initiate violence, but not to employ violence to defend themselves", but the core principle is that that nuance has to apply not just to yourself.

Gamergate is employing nuance, when they even recognize an apparent contradiction, only for themselves. To the extent that they give a shit about "who struck first", and aren't just saying that meanieheads are bad for video games fundamentally, it's demonstrably false claims about stuff like women and liberals "intruding" on gaming, when they've been there since the beginning and the only change is them pushing back against the direction gaming culture had taken.

And the idea that this is "nigh-universal" is a poor excuse. Gamergate enacts an op, has most cheering it on with a few people point out that it stands against their stated principles, and has their comments aggressively countered or outright deleted. A Gamerghazi individual doxxes a GG Enemy of the State, is harshly criticized and asked to leave, and the only people at all happy about the incident are happy because it shows that the community holds itself to a certain standard -- no one's happy about the violation of the principle. Self-policing is possible. Staying true to one's principles is possible.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Dec 14, 2016 8:56 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I'm pointing out that your argument of "they're hypocrites because they do the same thing they disliked being done to them" doesn't work as a general rule, and doesn't seem to be very valid.

...in what way does it not work as a general rule?

Seriously. Despite your assertion, it is absolutely possible for the second group to be hypocrites. If someone went to out-yell a Nazi demonstration under the principle that "being loud is bad and these people are loud", they would be a hypocrite even if I disliked their opponents.

Your argument seems to be "it's not hypocrisy because they're in X's tribe", which is boggling my mind here.


No. It's because responses are not treated identical to initiating something. If your neighbor is unreasonably loud, and you yell at him to be quiet, that's entirely reasonable. Obviously, you want quiet, but using noise to get that doesn't make you a hypocrite. It's a response in kind.

Tribalism likely is at play or what not, but it's frankly irrelevant to my argument. And they may well *be* hypocrites for other reasons. It's simply that this particular argument is not reasonable.

I mean, a dude can be anti-violence, yet throw a punch back after being hit in the face. That doesn't make him a hypocrite. We recognize that initiating violence is different from a defensive response. Why not the same for other things?

If he is against unjustified violence, no, he's not a hypocrite.

If he's against all violence, and frequently campaigns against other people's defensive actions, yes he is a hypocrite.


And this would also apply to censorship, of course. You see? If you asked them, I'm quite certain they would describe the actions taken against them as unjustified, and their response as justified.

If your only argument is "but they didn't make the exact same pedantic distinction I did", I must point you that you are picking technical nits with an argument that you yourself have constructed, and it's unlikely that their word choices are identical to yours. They would almost certainly believe that the other side's actions are different, especially with regards to criteria like "justified". This is invariably how such arguments go.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5203
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Dec 14, 2016 8:59 pm UTC

In that those who founded the movement already had reason to hate Sarkeesian and Quinn and had been actively trying to get Sarkeesian shut down and chase Quinn out of making games, yes. Yes, they have been whining about how morally outraged they are.


And many of those who joined the movement didn't give a shit about those earlier people. I think that's the point where you're missing out on. The moment of rallying / critical mass was the Reddit moderator / Gawker moderator issue.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby KrytenKoro » Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:01 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:If your only argument is "but they didn't make the exact same pedantic distinction I did", I must point you that you are picking technical nits with an argument that you yourself have constructed, and it's unlikely that their word choices are identical to yours. They would almost certainly believe that the other side's actions are different, especially with regards to criteria like "justified". This is invariably how such arguments go.

Despite you saying over and over that everybody does it and that it's normal, I provided an example of one organization actually practicing self-policing.

Look, in what universe is this not hypocrisy?
Among them is Kellogg's. Breitbart journalists and supporters then exhorted readers to boycott the brand and encouraged a #dumpkelloggs hashtag on Twitter, describing Kellogg's decision as "a disgraceful act of cowardice".

This is at odds with the actions of Breitbart's own Milo Yiannopoulos, who in 2014 reported gleefully on the success of "GamerGate" activists in getting companies to pull advertising from Gawker's websites after feminist criticism of video games. Obviously the two cases are completely different.


And many of those who joined the movement didn't give a shit about those earlier people. I think that's the point where you're missing out on. The moment of rallying / critical mass was the Reddit moderator / Gawker moderator issue.

Not missing out on it. Tyndmyr was trying to claim that it's all justified depending on "who started it", I pointed out that most of the people who started it (and many who continue/d to be figureheads, like Sargon, Cernovich, Yiannapolous, of Hoffman) had already been in this before Reddit did a damn thing.

As for whether current Gamergate is responsible for these things -- if they're not going to disavow the former actions done under their name, yes, they're responsible for it. If they're not willing to acknowledge that things like ODN were done in the name they have adopted and conflict with their current message, and will not be repeated, yes, they are endorsing it. Pussyfooting and beating around the bush about it is cowardly, and they deserve no moral respect until they actually condemn and disavow these things that they argue so strenuously they can't be held responsible for while simultaneously saying they were justified.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Dec 15, 2016 8:15 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:Look, in what universe is this not hypocrisy?
Among them is Kellogg's. Breitbart journalists and supporters then exhorted readers to boycott the brand and encouraged a #dumpkelloggs hashtag on Twitter, describing Kellogg's decision as "a disgraceful act of cowardice".

This is at odds with the actions of Breitbart's own Milo Yiannopoulos, who in 2014 reported gleefully on the success of "GamerGate" activists in getting companies to pull advertising from Gawker's websites after feminist criticism of video games. Obviously the two cases are completely different.


Uh, it sounds like they're annoyed that Kelloggs stopped fighting for their side. I'm not seeing the ethical appeal to stopping all censorship you purport. I'm sure they see their actions as legitimate, and the other side as illegitimate, by whatever metric they use. It's pretty normal. No more hypocrisy than any other difference of opinion.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, merely that your fixation on calling it hypocrisy is leading you down really odd paths.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5203
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:16 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:Look, in what universe is this not hypocrisy?
Among them is Kellogg's. Breitbart journalists and supporters then exhorted readers to boycott the brand and encouraged a #dumpkelloggs hashtag on Twitter, describing Kellogg's decision as "a disgraceful act of cowardice".

This is at odds with the actions of Breitbart's own Milo Yiannopoulos, who in 2014 reported gleefully on the success of "GamerGate" activists in getting companies to pull advertising from Gawker's websites after feminist criticism of video games. Obviously the two cases are completely different.


Uh, it sounds like they're annoyed that Kelloggs stopped fighting for their side. I'm not seeing the ethical appeal to stopping all censorship you purport. I'm sure they see their actions as legitimate, and the other side as illegitimate, by whatever metric they use. It's pretty normal. No more hypocrisy than any other difference of opinion.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, merely that your fixation on calling it hypocrisy is leading you down really odd paths.


I have no idea what he's trying to say. I google'd the text that he was quoting to try and find its context: its currently the #2 topic at https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/

https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/com ... t_edition/

It seems like there's something to do here with "Private Eye" or something or the other... but I'm honestly not following his argument at all...

---------

It seems like "Private Eye" is this magazine: http://www.private-eye.co.uk/ (or maybe a different print one?). I'm not finding that text through google in any case, so it must be in the print-edition of the magazine. If I'm to understand the GamerGhazi post, they are hypothetically arguing that "PrivateEye" is going to be seen as anti-Gamergate now that they mentioned the link between Milo Yiannopoulos + Gamergate, which is arguably a sin in the GamerGater's eyes.

In any case, I'm not exactly seeing what KrytenKoro is trying to say here...
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:22 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:21 pm UTC

Yeah, I'm not honestly sure how he believes this supports his argument.

I don't really want to go wading around in the muck trying to figure out personal lingo and stuff in order to make the case for 'im. I'm not one for Reddit, so the whole thing looks like two factions of meanieheads engaged in a never ending screaming match from the outside.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5203
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:23 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Yeah, I'm not honestly sure how he believes this supports his argument.

I don't really want to go wading around in the muck trying to figure out personal lingo and stuff in order to make the case for 'im. I'm not one for Reddit, so the whole thing looks like two factions of meanieheads engaged in a never ending screaming match from the outside.


Careful, "Meanieheads" is Gamergate lingo to describe their enemies. :roll: :roll: :roll: Say that in this argument, and you'll inadvertently declare you're on the side of #Gamergate.

This whole shitstorm is crazy. Just felt like warning ya about that particular language...
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:55 pm UTC

Feh. It applies to both sides, really. They're both crusading for "justice" or what have you. I get that one side tends to use the term a great deal more than the other, but if the shoe fits...

User avatar
Sizik
Posts: 1123
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:48 am UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby Sizik » Fri Dec 16, 2016 4:18 pm UTC

I believe KrytenKoro's argument is this:
1. Gamergate had a campaign to get advertisers to stop doing business with Gawker. By doing this, they are implicitly declaring that this is a valid tactic.
2. Kellogg's recently stopped doing business with Breitbart. In response, Breitbart called this "a decidedly cynical and un-American act"1 and started a boycott of their products (with associated hashtag).
3. By campaigning to remove advertising revenue from their adversaries, but being outraged when their own advertising revenue is removed, they are being hypocritical.

[1]
gmalivuk wrote:
King Author wrote:If space (rather, distance) is an illusion, it'd be possible for one meta-me to experience both body's sensory inputs.
Yes. And if wishes were horses, wishing wells would fill up very quickly with drowned horses.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5203
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Dec 16, 2016 5:44 pm UTC

Sizik wrote:I believe KrytenKoro's argument is this:
1. Gamergate had a campaign to get advertisers to stop doing business with Gawker. By doing this, they are implicitly declaring that this is a valid tactic.
2. Kellogg's recently stopped doing business with Breitbart. In response, Breitbart called this "a decidedly cynical and un-American act"1 and started a boycott of their products (with associated hashtag).
3. By campaigning to remove advertising revenue from their adversaries, but being outraged when their own advertising revenue is removed, they are being hypocritical.

[1]


That seems reasonable if the connection between Gamergate and Breitbart can be made. But I don't think anybody around here would disagree with the idea that Breitbart news is awful or that Milo Yiannopoulos is a jackass.

The main issue is that while Milo Yiannopoulos is definitely a "reporter" (scare quotes on purpose) that prominently shows Gamergate in a favorable light... I don't think its fair to define any movement based on the reporters who take their side. A lot of reporters (and publications: ie Breitbart) are biased jackholes... be they on the right or left.

Basically, the above statements only prove the awfulness of Breitbart news. Which is more or less a given as far as I'm concerned.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Dec 16, 2016 7:16 pm UTC

Yeah, that establishes that Breitbart is of course, hypocritical and self interested. Which is not a huge surprise, really.

But yeah, you can't generalize from one instance to an entire faction. Not all Democrats are hypocrites just because one politician says something stupid.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5078
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Gamergate

Postby Xeio » Fri Dec 16, 2016 9:18 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:The main issue is that while Milo Yiannopoulos is definitely a "reporter" (scare quotes on purpose) that prominently shows Gamergate in a favorable light... I don't think its fair to define any movement based on the reporters who take their side. A lot of reporters (and publications: ie Breitbart) are biased jackholes... be they on the right or left.
Uh, they "elected" Milo to represent them at that #GG journalism conference panel thing they did, along with Sommers and some other person I don't remember.

So it's pretty clear that #GG believes Yiannopoulos represents them, or did at the time anyway, I think he may have had a falling out with the alt-right or something on Reddit more recently.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5203
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Dec 16, 2016 9:43 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:The main issue is that while Milo Yiannopoulos is definitely a "reporter" (scare quotes on purpose) that prominently shows Gamergate in a favorable light... I don't think its fair to define any movement based on the reporters who take their side. A lot of reporters (and publications: ie Breitbart) are biased jackholes... be they on the right or left.
Uh, they "elected" Milo to represent them at that #GG journalism conference panel thing they did, along with Sommers and some other person I don't remember.

So it's pretty clear that #GG believes Yiannopoulos represents them, or did at the time anyway, I think he may have had a falling out with the alt-right or something on Reddit more recently.


I doubt that #GamerGate had an organized... anything... let alone an "election". Do you have a link describing this event?

I googled "elected" and "Milo Yiannopoulos", and only came up with this event from last year: http://www.polygon.com/2015/5/3/8539733 ... ff-summers . It seems like Yiannopoulos set up an event in DC but otherwise, I find it unlikely that an "election" would have occurred.

Clearly, Milo Yiannopoulos set up events for Gamergaters so I'm not questioning that at all.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5078
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Gamergate

Postby Xeio » Fri Dec 16, 2016 10:15 pm UTC

You can find some of the details here, otherwise you'd have to go trawling Reddit/8chan (is 8chan still around?) to find where they were discussing it and who to send to represent themselves.

I did put election in quotes though, you can't really have a formal election with how chaotic #GG was, but as far as overall support I didn't know who else in the movement had as broad support as Milo for speaking to their causes.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Gamergate

Postby KrytenKoro » Thu Jan 05, 2017 11:58 pm UTC

That seems reasonable if the connection between Gamergate and Breitbart can be made. But I don't think anybody around here would disagree with the idea that Breitbart news is awful or that Milo Yiannopoulos is a jackass.

The main issue is that while Milo Yiannopoulos is definitely a "reporter" (scare quotes on purpose) that prominently shows Gamergate in a favorable light... I don't think its fair to define any movement based on the reporters who take their side. A lot of reporters (and publications: ie Breitbart) are biased jackholes... be they on the right or left.

Basically, the above statements only prove the awfulness of Breitbart news. Which is more or less a given as far as I'm concerned.

They wouldn't disagree with it anymore, no. From what I can see, KIA finally disavowed Breitbart as of yesterday, starting with some concerns in the last twenty days.

Before that, as of 29 days ago (https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction ... _to_bully/), they were vehemently defending them, and had been for over a year (https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction ... source_on/) (https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction ... l_size_gg/)

So, I guess I'm glad they're finally putting their money where their mouth is. That being said, there appears to be no such condemnation of Milo, who is still being given the folk hero treatment ever since he did the GameJournoPros thing: https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction ... =new&t=all
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests