Gamergate

Nooooooooo.

I was so hoping this pointless, immature topic would have passed Bit Tech by. I'm so sad right now.

 

You were saying that the context or motives behind a sexual act can never be known except to its participants, because their thoughts and feelings are known only to them. I'd (mostly) agree with that. This means that you have to be really careful before you accept allegations on that subject. Especially when they come from someone who has a biased view and personal interest in presenting that act in a bad light. It does not pass muster as valid and reliable evidence.

GamerGate passes judgment without looking at both sides of the argument (see above). This casts doubt on their reasoning, their motivations and integrity, the very place they come from. They claim to fight for mutual respect, integrity and truth in reporting the facts. Yet they collude in the ****-shaming ramblings of a dumped boyfriend since proved wrong and retracted by him. They behave like a bunch of nutters. Any moderate, reasonable people associating with the more extreme elements will inevitably be tarred with the same brush, because sensible people so not join in with ****-shaming or bar brawls.

As you yourself say: you break up a bar brawl; you do not validate it. Because in a bar brawl nobody is right.

My conclusion is that alternative explanations can be given for all of these events. But much more importantly, my conclusion is that how people engage in a 'revolt' says a lot more about their position and motivations than the reasons for which they claim to engage in it.

We can also be sensible and recognise a bar brawl for what it is, and not take part in it or validate it.

 

No worries, I think we're all coming down to the conclusion that it's a pointless and immature topic. Once we got it out of our system, we can just refer people to this thread whenever it comes up again.

Think of it as inoculation.

 

See? The demote thread was the perfect place for it. Now you're getting demotivated in other threads, and no thread can be trusted to be safe ever again.

 

So that's one piece of evidence that doesn't pass muster or is questionable, what about all the other pieces of evidence. Just because a single piece of evidence has been discredited should you dismiss all future evidence ?

GamerGate isn't a they, them, or a group, it's a name given to a series of events that some people claim point towards collusion between some gaming devs and some gaming journalists.

You seem to be saying if a single person from X religion, political party, or using any other label does or says something wrong we should treat everything anyone from that group says or does in the same way we treated that single person.

Should we treat all Muslims as extremist nutters because of a small minority ?
Or because a Muslim, Christian, Tory MP, Labour MP happened to say something that later turned out not to be true, should we discount everything any of them ever say.

I would be interested to hear what your explanation would be for reddit deleting 25k posts discussing an article posted by TotalBiscuit.

Or the Gamers are Dead episode, where simultaneous publication from eleven different articles, each from different websites and blogs. Each published articles echoing the same narrative, which was that the "gamer" identity was dead.

Or why reddit has consistently delete both posts and accounts discussing GamerGate or the Zoe Quinn saga.

Or what the explanation would be for a former writer at Destructoid and writer for the hit FPS/RPG Borderlands 2, Anthony Burch, outed his former co-workers at Destructoid for giving favourable reviews to a game that he has worked on.

Or why some gaming journalists would be engaging in activism on behalf of their reporting subjects.

Or why journalists on the GameJournoPros are discussing the cost of bribing journalists.

Or why Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia would say...

That was in regards to the GameJournoPros mailing list.

But this is not a bar brawl, this is about forming an opinion based on the available evidence.

 

If that evidence discredits the reasoning/methodology by which that evidence was obtained, then yes, it casts doubt on all future evidence obtained by that reasoning/methodology.

They present themselves as a movement: a consumer revolt. They adopted the name to identify that movement by. Hence it is a group.

The British Council of Muslims has learned the hard way that if it doesn't publicly and clearly distance itself from extremists who claim to speak for Muslims, that they will be lumped in with that group. Hence where it seemed a bit coy in disavowing Al Qaida, it now vocally disavows ISIS. Sinn Fein is still grappling with how it is going to distance itself from past and present actions by the IRA, lest it is seen as endorsing its methods. Nigel Farage is also learning that now he is becoming politically relevant, he has to start weeding out the crazies from his party.

As I said before: sensible people don't join in with the bar brawl; they distance themselves from it.

It got ugly. Moderators doused the flames and banned the subject to prevent further bar brawls on their turf. They basically told people to take it outside. We have done the same here on Bit-Tech with e.g. 9/11 conspiracy theories, holocaust denial etc.

Games journalism is a small world which responds to current moods and trends. Similar people working in the same industry had the same ideas at the same time, and of course one each article is influenced by the preceding one.

Moderators dousing flames and telling people to take their bar brawl outside.

Hearsay, your honour!

Yeah, shame on journalists having a professional discussion group, and using that medium to decide on a unanimous public response conveying that ****-shaming women in the industry is actually not OK. Conspiracy!

Journalists trash-talking amongst themselves on a forum. Show me the money.

Personal opinion. Show me the money.

But all that really does not matter. My beef is with how this consumer revolt is conducted (even Anthony Burch seems to have something to say about that), not the reasons they give for engaging in it.

My opinion is that in a bar brawl it doesn't matter who threw the first punch, or for what reason, of what 'evidence' they had to justify them kicking off. It's a bar brawl. It's not a rational, legitimate way of addressing concerns.

 

The problem is that this bar brawl you speak of is only one aspect of the whole debate. Rightly or wrongly there is a large number of people who now associate themselves with the gamergate hashtag who have legitimate grievances with the gaming press. I'd argue that by lumping everyone together and censoring the discussion you just end up marginalising a large number of people, which is part of the reason this whole thing has escalated to the level it has.

Most efforts to establish a proper dialogue have been overwhelmingly positive, but alas we've seen too few of them. If you dismiss gamergate as a homogenous mob of woman-hating basement-dwelling man-babies and their deluded followers (and I know that's not necessarily the prognosis you're giving) then you're shutting off any hopes of reconciling with anyone who doesn't fall into that category and hence, since the trolls are never going to be won over by reason, any chance of deflating the situation.

 

"The beatings will continue until morale improves."

To quote Marshall McLuhan: the medium is the message. The way a message is communicated has a whole meaning of its own that cannot be altered by or separated from the content of the message.

By validating the message, you implicitly validate the medium through which it was communicated --which is a message of its own. By legitimising the concerns of moderate, reasonable people expressed in a bar brawl, you accept the bar brawl as a legitimate way of expressing concerns.

Now it is argued that GamerGate is not a movement with central leadership but just a bunch of "disparate ordinary folk expressing shared concerns under the same banner" blah, blah, blah, and therefore cannot be policed or moderated by its leadership or members that it does not officially have as such. I argue that's a big, fat cop-out; an abdication of responsibility and of the very principles that they claim to stand for. I mean, if they can knock out an official GamerGate site, they can publish a manifesto and a code of conduct of sorts.

Unfortunately extremists and trolls hide behind the unmoderated GamerGate banner, and turned what should have been a reasonable debate into a bar brawl (but what do you expect if your starting point is ****-shaming?). Moderate, reasonable people argue that they cannot stop that, but I would argue that if people are moderate and reasonable, they will not join the bar brawl but make every effort to distance themselves from it, because that medium of communication is incompatible with their message. Else they might be considered hypocrites at worst or inconsistent at best.

GamerGate is tainted. It's time for the sensible people to step away from that brand and express their legitimate concerns in a manner that is consistent with their position of openness, integrity and mutual respect. They will have to make the first move, because they're the ones raising the concerns.

 

I am speaking from personal opinion and please take everything I say as such. Though I am more than happy to defend my points

By allowing people to send very serious threats via social media and by not policing the comments and actions of its members (or people who use the GG label) it has become synonymous with aggressive and frenzied attack on the personal and professional lives of a small number of individuals, the vast majority of whom are women who have had the gall to criticize the male dominated world of gaming.

This has not been helped by victim blaming, the publication of large amounts of personal information (addresses, phone numbers, etc). No one should be able to argue with a straight face that "**** shaming" and the implied support of continued attacks on Feministfrequency and other outspoken critics of certain aspects of gaming should continue for a second longer.

The GamerGate movement/group/event/whatever-you-call-it, has squandered a good opportunity to have an open and productive discussion about the future of games journalism and has ensured that gamers as a community will almost certainly never be taken seriously by mainstream culture.

 

So we can discredit the blog post by Eron Gjoni, that leaves 143 other pieces of evidence.

While some people maybe using the Gamergate hashtag to identify themselves that's not what the -gate suffix means, "names in scholarly sources include a "-gate" suffix, by analogy with the Watergate scandal"

Or are we saying the term Watergate would be understood if a group adopted that name ?
How about Nipplegate, Bendgate, or Porngate ?

Even the Wiki article on the -gate suffix says the following...

If it makes you better to attach a label and gather everyone up into a group then feel free, personally i will stick with mine and the Wiki's definition that GamerGate is series of events, a controversy within and about video game culture and journalism.

Sorry I'm unclear are you saying this is right ?

As i said this isn't a bar brawl.

How do you know it got ugly, why not just lock the thread, why not just delete the posts they deemed as unsuitable and warn people ?

Also it isn't a bar brawl, it's people exercising the freedom of speech.

Claiming 11 different gaming journalists all had the same idea, all on the same day, the idea that "Gamers are dead" seem to be stretching the bounds coincidence don't you think ?
I'm no mathematician but whats the probability of that happening ? Thousand, millions, or billions to 1 ?

That may explain a few deleted posts but 25k, where all 25k of them offensive in some way ?

We aren't in a court, besides we can't hear what you're saying all the way from Egypt.
Claiming that those three examples are not evidence because it's what someone else said is being a bit silly don't you think ? Especially when there are screenshots.

So whose opinion should we put more faith in, yours or the founder of Wikipedia ?

Back to the few bad apples argument ? I know let's throw away the whole barrel, i just saw one of those on the top so they must all be bad.

Yet it's not is it.
It's people trying to discuss a suspected scandal.

 

Passed through the same evaluation and interpretation process that tagged Eron Gjoni's post as valid evidence. As I said: if the 'evidence' discredits the method by which it was obtained, all further evidence obtained by the same method is also discredited.

A gamergate is also a reproductively viable female worker ant that is able to reproduce with mature males when the colony is lacking a queen (true! Who said you never learn anything from these debates?).

In the colloquial the meaning of a word is determined by how people use it. The GamerGate website uses the label to identify the movement:

Whether by strict historical meaning of the word they should is a whole separate debate (and arguing about semantics, which I know you hate).

I'm saying it is politics. It's what happens.

I disagree and say that it is a bar brawl. It's a free-for-all punch-up.

I'm giving you an alternative explanation for what happened; I'm not talking about whether it was the best way of dealing with the situation (and dude, we know it got ugly, because GamerGate).

Depends on what was posted, and how.

Again: I gave you an alternative explanation. Here's another: remember how on the 19th August gaming journalists talked in their GameJournoPros mailing list about the public persecution of Zoe Quinn and how pissed off they were with that inappropriate behaviour, and how they wanted to make a statement about that? Maybe we got one 9 days later.

At Bit-Tech Forums we have dumped entire threads because it was just too messy to try and clean them up, and because basically we just decided to ban the whole subject. Because we didn't want these forums to become 4Chan, or the site of a bar brawl.

Screenshots of people making assertions about what other people did or said. Hearsay is hearsay, even on Twitter.

So we can agree that it is opinion then, not fact? And I suspect that even he would agree with me that he is stating an opinion.

If I look in a bar, and see a huge punch-up in progress, I assume all of the participants to have lost the plot big-time, because sensible people would have walked away. But you know, feel free to walk into the brawl and find some moderates to engage in a rational dialogue about their concerns. I'll stay outside and dial 999.

You are entitled to your opinion. I have explained mine.

 

So that would be each individual person then, information is just that, information.
How it's evaluated or interpreted is down to the person taking in that information, if they decide the information is evidence of wrong doings is down to them. That's the point of information, we can make decisions for our selves and not rely on someone else's opinion, or what someone tells us to think.

But are you saying condemning an entire group and everything they say, everything they do, for all eternity because of the actions of a small minority is right, or wrong ? Because based on what you have said so far it seems you are saying it's OK.

That's not the way things work.
It's down to you to prove something is, not down to me to prove something is not.

Not screenshots of a tweet, screenshots of the Google group GameJournoPros.

An opinion he came to by reading the emails from the mailing list.
Or are you only going to accept that some gaming journalist said these things if you personally see the emails ?

And who do you proposes we call in this situation ?

 

But GamerGate is not simply presenting information and leaving us to make up our own minds as to what it means. It is making assertions based on that information: presenting it as evidence to support their views.

Every person's thinking risks distortion by reasoning errors, subjective bias and selective perception and interpretation through the filter of a priori beliefs. It's why we invented the scientific discipline. I argue that GamerGate supporters' perceptions and interpretations are heavily subject to these cognitive biases, because if they weren't, they would have dismissed Eron Gjoni's post for what it was, or at least taken a long hard look at what the **** they were doing publicly colluding with the ****-shaming of a woman by her ex, given what they claim to be standing for (ethical integrity and mutual respect). They would have at least considered possible alternative explanations for their 'evidence'. There is no self-reflection, hence no self-regulation. Which shows in their behaviour.

Love the hyperbole. I am not making a statement of how it should be; I'm stating how it is. If extremists publicly claim to act and speak on your behalf, it behoves you to publicly and clearly distance yourself from them lest people interpret your silence as agreement. Everyone in politics knows that. Or you could, like, just rely on the wisdom of the public to see the difference.

In other words, if you find yourself in the midst of a bar brawl, you get the **** out lest you end up being arrested along with the brawlers. Makes sense, no?

You stated proof to mean something. I stated that proof could be interpreted to mean something else. You cannot confirm your hypothesis without refuting mine. Basically: it's a draw.

I thought we were talking about Anthony Burch then? Ah, well... Again: shame on those journalists for having a professional discussion group, and using that medium to discuss and decide on a unanimous public response conveying that ****-shaming women in the industry is actually not OK!

His opinion, my opinion, it's still an opinion. Show me the money.

Sorry? How is this bar brawl suddenly my problem to solve? I'll just go and stand with the sensible people across the road over there.

 

There are many things in this thread I'd like to respond to, but I really don't have the time.
These two I'll cover quickly though.

If you understand how Wikipedia works, you'll see that "Wiki's definition" here is considered vandalism and should be edited out immediately.

-First of all, the edit was made by an anonymous account, and they completely removed the original definition:

-Secondly, the "definition" contains many elements that are absolutely irrelevant in a definition, like the part about how they support TYFC.

-Thirdly, and most importantly: the sources the anonymous editor used are shady at best. Important to know is that Wikipedia's only purpose is covering and summarizing the reporting of trustworthy and reliable sources. The "oneangrygamer"-blog (used twice!) is not a reliable source. "p4rgaming" is not a reliable source.
Look at the talk page of GamerGate itself to see a discussion about the inclusion of claims based on such sources (also look here for "wiki's" real "definition" instead of some minor article mentioning it).

The original definition is the one that belongs on Wikipedia, not because Wikipedia "thinks it is right" or something, but simply because it is a reflection of the GG coverage in the media.

---

No one is disputing they talked with each other about it. You know they had the gamejournopro group as a discussion space.

Here's my alternate explanation which doesn't require an evil SJW hivemind pulling the strings and controlling the narrative:
It's a kneejerk reaction to the huge wave of corruption and collusion accusations coming from "gamers". They were angry and bit back. Not a smart move, I admit, but an understandable one.

I won't ask you to accept it as the truth, but just imagine for a second that you were one of those journalists, and suppose that all this time you honestly believed in everything you said. Just imagine. Now this huge movement comes along which accuses you of lying, corruption, a lack of journalistic standards and that all those things you so passionately wrote about were just a sham for "extra clicks". How would that make you feel? Really frustrated I'd think.

Alternate explanation 2:
They had been talking about "gamers", who gamers are, and what it means to be a gamer for a long time in their discussion group and came to similar [not necessarily true!] conclusions.
When the "gamer identity" got in the spotlight again with the GG controvercy, it was an opportune time to write and post about it.

Alternate explanation 2b:
Maybe only a very small group of journalists was involved in the initial discussion and the rest created their articles in response to the others, or as a token of agreement. A way to share the message with their own audience.

Discussing something / agreeing with other people and then posting articles about it is not collusion.

If there's one retort to nearly all of GG's accusations, it's simply Occam's Razor. Far-fetched theories are rarely right.

(Also maybe you should read the actual articles. Most aren't nearly as aggressive as Leigh Alexander's. The main message seems to be that gamers are simply getting more and more diverse as an audience. "Gamers are dead... Long live the gamers!")

---

I'll respond to some other stuff later.

 

And i would argue that GamerGate is much more than a single blog post by a jilted ex, if we took that single blog post in isolation then i would agree with you, and the fuss would probably have died down long ago.

But it's not just a single blog post is it, GamerGate didn't exist before at that point in time, GamerGate only came into being after multiple web sites all posted articles on the same day, on the same subject decrying a group of people known as "gamers".

Since then the gaming press have remained largely silent on the subject, for reason both understandable and baffling. In this vacuum they have allowed suspicion, conspiracy, and anger to grow, the more they have tried to shut down the discussion the more the suspicions, mistrust, and anger has grow.

I wouldn't say it's hyperbole, from my perspective and from what you've said it's not a matter of how it should be, or how it is, it's a matter of how you have approached the subject, that you have tarred everyone with the same brush.

Yes you're right that if extremists publicly claim to act and speak on your behalf, it behoves you to publicly and clearly distance yourself from them lest people interpret your silence as agreement.
But how do you propose they do that when discussion on GamerGate get deleted, banned, and generally silenced, when the press prefer to cover the extremists because it makes better headlines.

If it matters they have attempted to publicly and clearly distance themselves from the extremists.

Sadly the extremists exist on both sides, also sadly the media’s coverage of this has been glaringly one-sided as it doesn't suit the narrative, was there any reporting of the following ?
http://wiki.gamergate.me/index.php/Threats_and_Gamergate

So as you can see the trolls exist on both sides, unfortunately most of the media coverage so far has been anti GamerGate.

Sorry didn't you say right here that for you this is not an adversarial process, but an exploratory one. You're not out to "win" the debate or to be proved "right".

The information i put forward as "proof" has some credibility, when taken in context with all the other information it starts to paint a picture. The interpretation you put forward is at best implausible, facetious, or preposterous.

Nothing wrong with having a professional discussion group.
The problem comes from using that professional discussion group to discuss and decide on a unanimous public response on behalf of their reporting subjects, and also discouraging other reporters and editors from covering stories of interest to their readers.

It harks back to the JournoList scandal of 2010.

See Above: you seem to be keeping score.

Since you decided to enter the discussion on it, if you were truly standing over the road with the sensible people across the road over there you wouldn't be partaking in the discussion.

Well seeing as that description is on the Wiki page for "List of scandals with "-gate" suffix" and not on the actual GamerGate wiki page i wouldn't pay it much heed. After all people are looking at that page for a list of scandals with the gate suffix, not information specifically pertaining to GamerGate.

It's not about talking to each other, it's about why they are discussing and decide on a unanimous public response on behalf of their reporting subjects, and also discouraging other reporters and editors from covering stories of interest to their readers.

It flies in the face of journalism ethics and standards, of objectivity, impartiality, and it's a conflict of interests.

Unless what you're discussing is if you should support the subject your meant to be reporting on, see above.

 

This polemic has nothing to do with the question whether GamerGate's evidence is valid or doubtful. Just because the facts fit a particular story nicely, that does not make the story true. It's a human reasoning error to think that, but it's not how reality works. Beware of Story; she's a comely lass. Her sister Rumour is a femme fatale.

"Truth is stranger than fiction because it doesn't have to make any sense" --Mark Twain

But what can the gaming press do? As you say, if they challenge the story, suspicions, mistrust, and anger grow. If they stay quiet, suspicions, mistrust, and anger grow. That's the problem with firmly held beliefs: they become unassailable religions and the more you challenge them, the stronger they become.

It's what I observe happens. You are free to project ulterior motives, but they are your projections.

Well what does it matter then whether I think it's right or wrong, or whether it's how I choose to approach it or not? It is how it is.

Simples. On the main page of their very own website they could state:

"GamerGate is a consumer revolt aimed at addressing the conflicts of interest within video game journalism. It does not in any way engage in, or approve of the harrassment of women, making violent threats or publicly revealing an individual's personal details."

I commend their efforts on Reddit, and will assume this has nothing to do with the moderators raining down the fires of Delete and Ban on their asses when they took their bar brawl on Reddit before. Meanwhile on their very own site we get, somewhere tucked away on their Wiki page:

Hardly a clear disavowal. Then again, seeing as they started it with the whole Zoe Quinn saga, they are not exactly standing on firm moral ground to begin with.

(But to give them their due, I like the rule on their Reddit page: A major claim requires major proof. Think it over.)

Oh, OK. But they're doing it too! We have just downgraded from a bar brawl to a playground fight. Now Milo, isn't he the guy that talked about "an army of sociopathic feminist programmers and campaigners, abetted by achingly politically correct American tech bloggers"? Yeah. Extremist behaviour begets extremist behaviour; this is not right, but call it another observation of how things are. At least Milo is a big boy who has demonstrated in the past that he can give as good as he gets. Zoe Quinn or Felicia Day however...

You keep framing it as an adversarial process! To wit:

If you say so, but those are such subjective adjectives, no? Again, don't be tempted by Story; just because you think it all sounds neat and plausible --and above all excitingly congruent with your a priori beliefs-- that doesn't make it true. Reality doesn't have to make any sense. It just is.

So journalists are not allowed to unanimously agree that the harassment of women is not OK and to write a commentary about it? They are not allowed to refuse to give publicity to people who endorse such practices?

I'm curious: if journalists report on the plight of, say, Ebola victims, or the dispossessed victims of the civil war in Syria, and appeal for more medical and relief aid, are they violating ethics by speaking on behalf of their reporting subjects? if they decide not to publish ISIS beheading videos, are they covering up stories that are of interest to their readers?

I think as Pliqu3011 suggests, you need to examine your frame of reference a bit more.

See above: you keep framing it as such! "Show me the money" is an allusion to "Follow the money", a quote from the film All the President's Men about the Watergate scandal, and strangely apt. It basically says that the only solid evidence of conspiracy lies in proof of money changing hands where it shouldn't.

That is the first thing we agree on. it's been... interesting, but I think I'll cross the road now. Bye!

 

Sorry, it could very well be because I'm not a native speaker, but this sentence:

is absolutely incomprehensible to me. Could you spell it out a bit more? Kindergarten lingo if you have to.
Why exactly is discussing something and posting articles about it a violation of journalistic ethics?

What part of the definition of collusion applies here?

---

It comes across as if you just skipped half of my comment. I provided some (in my eyes) reasonable explanations for what happened and I asked you to go read the actual articles and see that for the most part they're nothing like what you're portraying them as.

---

This is almost becoming a GamerGate catchphrase.
Those are a lot of big accusing words, but are they even relevant in this case? Did you think about their meaning instead of mentally copy-pasting them?

1. "journalism ethics and standards"
I'll await your answer to my first question, which will hopefully contain some further elaboration on why you think it is a violation of ethics.

Here's an opinion on why the fact that these articles (and "SJW" articles about social issues etc. on the whole) are written, controversial as they are, might actually mean journalistic standards are getting better. Journalists dare to question and criticize [again, this doesn't mean they are right!] instead of being just another advertising channel for publishers:
https://medium.com/@upstreamism/to-fair-minded-proponents-of-gamergate-7f3ce77301bb

2. "objectivity"
They were opinion pieces and never pretended to be "objective" (== confirming to your biases). "Objectivity" is irrelevant.

As a side-note: If you want truly objective games journalism (an oxymoron since games are inherently tied to your personal experience), here's a website that's perfect for you: http://www.objectivegamereviews.com/

3. "impartiality"
They were opinion pieces and never pretended to be "impartial" (== confirming to your biases). "Impartiality" is irrelevant.
(also journalism doesn't have to be impartial)

4. "conflict of interests"
How? Whose interests were in conflict? And with what? Please specify.


I still don't see how these articles matter. A bunch of journalists post similar pieces around the same time. Why is this important? Why do people care? It happens all the time: something happens (i.c. "gamer identity" is once again a hot topic), people are inspired to talk and write about it or something related to it (i.c. "gamers" not meaning what it once meant any more).
True, the tone in some of them is clearly a knee-jerk reaction to self-titled "true gamers" basically accusing them of all sins imaginable, but the content is completely relevant.

Drawing far-reaching conclusions from this is like saying the sudden appearance of Ebola-related articles is a clear indication that the government is pulling strings to make us frightened and submissive and to distract us from What's Truly Happening.

Is it a coincidence that I see GGers post the Ron Paul "It's happening!" image so often? (also I just discovered this gem ) If it's not a conspiracy theory, GG sure is trying hard to make it look that way...

 

The "evidence" isn't in question, your proclamation that because a single item, or person has been called into question that every other person belonging to the same group is automatically condemned. An attitude that if you apply to both sides equally also calls into doubt all "evidence" put forward by those decrying those who support GamerGate.

There are no projections going on, there is what you have stated as your opinion, here "Anyone who tries to base a serious political statement on the rambling accusations of a dumped boyfriend about who his ex slept with, starts out with less than zero credibility"

And here, "But their arguments are based on wonky foundations, thus everything that is built on it is wonky also."

And again, here "Don't care, really I don't. I'm just not drinking their Kool-Aid, is all, and I have explained why.

And yet again here "Moreover they started from a position that has zero credibility"

Again you condemn all "evidence" based on a single person here "I don't think I need to ridicule them --they are doing a pretty good job at undermining their own credibility."

Need i give more examples of you condemning an entire group of people based on a small minority ? How about here "I think that as a movement they've lost the plot, and that they have zero credibility for presenting as proof for their assertions the ****-shaming accusations of a dumped boyfriend."

How about this example of tarring everyone with the same brush "How can I have confidence in their ability to perceive the facts objectively, evaluate them in a balanced manner and draw rational inferences and conclusions? How can I even have confidence in their moral integrity?"

All anyone has to do is look through this thread to see how you have condemed all "evidence" an entire movement, a whole group of people, based on either a single item, or person.

What you mean like posting on the main page of a site that in no way is an official GamerGate website. A site that is an aggregate website on GamerGate. ?

Or do you mean like Muslims have disavowed ISIS on their web site, ohh wait there is no single Muslim web site that speak for all Muslims.

What you mean all the "evidence" that you have condemned because a single blog post has been called into question, or do you mean the "evidence" of a screenshots where gaming journalists are discussing a unanimous public response on behalf of their reporting subjects, and also discouraging other reporters and editors from covering stories of interest to their readers.

And also not answering if there was any reporting of said incidents, or if we should condemn all anti GamerGate "evidence" because someone sent a letter containing a syringe in the mail.

So far you have been the only one making claims of whose right, winning, draws. Keep treating it like a pissing competition if it massages your ego and makes you feel better.

So no answer to why your interpretations are at best implausible, facetious, or preposterous then ?

Not when that person is the subject of their reporting no !
Its called Journalism ethics and standards, they exist for the exact reason we are seeing playing out in the GamerGate scandal. They are designed as guides through numerous difficulties, such as conflicts of interest, to assist journalists in dealing with ethical dilemmas

 

Sorry, couldn't resist. I've left this thread, was really coming back just to see what sort of state it was in - seems to be expanding... good on you guys.

 

If that group keeps harking back to that flawed piece of evidence, which it appears to be doing, then yeah, it's reasoning continues to be flawed. Of course I apply the same criterion to their opponents.

If the movement continues to refer to this flawed piece of evidence then yeah, I assume the movement to speak for the movement on that. If on the other hand GamerGate is just a bunch of people all with different opinions pursuing their own objectives in their own manner for their own reasons under the same banner, then it is a bar brawl, and bar brawls are always irrational, and more crucially, not a movement and this discussion is moot. Of course that also goes for their opponents.

OK. Let's get to the crux of this. The way I see it, a movement is supposed to have a shared opinion, interest, objective and strategy. It gains legitimacy by having many members sharing these common concerns and goals, and by acting as a group through a legitimate political process. It's how democracy works. You cannot have a bunch of individuals all independently expressing different opinions and pursuing different objectives in different ways for different reasons under the same banner, because that is not a movement, in the same way that a bunch of people all wearing NIKE trainers is not a movement. It is disingenious for GamerGate supporters to claim that they are just a bunch of different people with a shared concern, all speaking for themselves and accountable as individuals only. On the one hand each claims to identify with, and speak and act as part of, a greater movement or cause. On the other hand they abdicate responsibility and accountability for what individual members say and do whenever it suits them. That's not democracy; that's anarchy. Either you represent GamerGate, or you are a just speaking for yourself. Either you are a movement and take responsibility for and moderate its behaviour, or you're just a bunch of people having Opinions and doing your own thing. Speak as a group or speak for yourself.

Does the GamerGate site represent Gamergate? If yes, it speaks on its behalf and better mind its words. If it does not speak for GamerGate, it doesn't represent it and we can disregard it altogether.

The Muslim Council of Britain, France, Sri Lanka and various other countries, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, 126 Sunni imams and Islamic scholars from around the Muslim world, the leading Islamic educational institution, Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah in Egypt (which, I can assure you to Muslims, is a BIG, BIG deal, sort of like the Vatican to Catholics), and several Muslim nations have all disavowed ISIS. In the press (repeatedly), on their websites, in their publications. There is even a catchy #NotInMyName group on Twitter that Muslims worldwide have signed up to. Get the picture?

Again: shame on those journalists for having a professional discussion group, and using that medium to discuss and decide on a unanimous public response conveying that ****-shaming women in the industry is actually not OK!

I keep telling you: I find all that evidence wanting! Repeating yourself over and over is not going to change that.

"But they're doing it too!" Great, we've downgraded from bar brawl to playground fighting now.

Keep sedgewaying into ad hominem attacks when you feel that you are losing a debate which is not about losing or winning in the first place. Look, you are entitled to your opinion. Honestly. I just disagree, is all, and as you asked nicely, I have given my reasons why I disagree. You refute them? Fine with me. You think my reasons are implausible, facetious, or preposterous? Fine with me.

You're getting personal, so it seems you are taking this all quite personally. So I'm crossing the road now before this turns into a bar brawl.

In my opinion they're not, so there is no case to answer.

Explain to me how that violates journalism ethics.