badgenome said:
1) I didn't watch the whole video because it's very long and InternetAristocrat employs a lot of the same awful arguing techniques as the anti-Gamergate side (e.g., if Zoe Quinn behaved badly here, then we have to assume the worst about everything she's done). 2) But I believe I caught the relevant portion and I have to say, that's pretty thin gruel. I seriously doubt Quinn oinked Nathan Grayson in exchange for him mentioning her game in passing a couple of times. If so, she got fucked in more ways than one. I mean, again, it does highlight that there is a problem with people who write about games being way too chummy with their subjects. It should be enough to say, "Look, she's friendly with writers and made the sort of trendy Important Game With A Message that these bloggers wet themselves over, so she got more coverage than she properly deserved." That's a fair point. But there is zero evidence that she traded sex for favors, and Gamergate insisting on that is irresponsible and self-defeating. 3) Some gaters are indeed misogynists, while some are not. Many of them seem to have neither the desire nor even the ability to articulate what "corruption" means. A thousand different people will be drawn to the same movement for a thousand different reasons, and the result is what just looks like a lot of noise and inchoate rage to the outside viewer. So I don't think there's anything simple about Gamergate or similar anti-establishment movements, except this: there is a clear break between the games media and much of its audience. It isn't really a question of the media being corrupt or not. The media certainly doesn't see itself as corrupt, and in fact by tackling social issues instead of being a mere disseminator of corporation-approved information about huge commercial games, probably sees itself as becoming less corrupt. A lot of the complaints against them are simply a matter of bias and not of corruption. But whatever the reason, they no longer represent the interests or reflect the views and concerns of a large portion of their readership, and so we have this mess. |
1) Well, if you paid attention to the first few minutes of his video, you'd see that he explicitly says that whatever bad things she's done with her boyfriend is of no concern to him. He said this explicitly. He even made sure to say that whatever type of person she is isn't important. What _is_ important is that she slept with people to improve her standing in the industry that she works for. That was the point he made at the very beginning, and you cannot ignore that based on some other preconceived notion (or otherwise) you had about something else.
2) You can't directly prove she (or anyone) slept with someone unless she or her partner(s) in the act admits they have, or there's a picture of them caught in the act. However, you can easily correlate certain events as they transpired and put two and two together. Remember that Depression Quest came up before all of this happened. When her BF decided to post all of this, it correlated at the same time all of these other coincidences started to happen. If you then add in all the other crap that's going on, its pretty plain to see. I mean, lets be honest here. You claimed there wasn't a smoking gun in this Zoe Quinn scandal, but you provide very little evidence to claim this. There's heaps and heaps of information proving #gamergate contrary to what you're saying.
3) To say that some #gamergate people are misogynists while others are not says nothing. I can say some #gamergate people like pineapples while some don't. This doesn't really prove much of anything. As a matter of fact, #gamergate (I include the tag here to show its original roots) has nothing to do with misogyny. Those who want to be taken seriously when debating this topic wouldn't ever bring this up in their arguments because that really isn't want this movement touches upon. It just adds confusion.
