By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
QuintonMcLeod on 16 October 2014
Edit Thread
badgenome said:
QuintonMcLeod said:

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.

1. He said that, and then he proceeded to hammer on her sexual promiscuity throughout the rest of the video, at least until I stopped watching. It's a nice trick. "Well, of course, I don't care that she's a whore... but look at what a whore she was." It's hard to swallow his claim that he doesn't care what kind of person she is when the video is a half hour character assassination, and I say this as someone who finds Zoe Quinn distasteful in the extreme. What he did was purely gratuitous. Make a point, substantiate it, and move on.

As for the assertion that she slept around to improve her standing, I can't and don't have to prove a negative. That she had sex with people in the industry doesn't really seem to be in question, but that she did it to receive favorable treatment rather than for normal reasons like because they were there and she wanted to is in no way proven by the people making the claim.

2. There is no smoking gun. If there were InternetAristocrat would have come up with something better than, "OH, LOOK. NATHAN GRAYSON SAID 'DEPRESSION QUEST'. TWICE!"

Kotaku was a big booster of Depression Quest, and the biggest booster there was Patricia Hernandez. Who is Zoe's friend and, presumably, not a sexual partner. So there's reason enough to say that she was getting favorable treatment from her friends without leaping to assumptions about trading sex for good press, however wonderfully scandalous that sounds.

3. Except nobody in Gamergate is motivated by liking pineapples, and some are clearly animated by misogyny. It can't really be helped. Any time feminists turn up you are going to get anti-feminists on the other side, and that will invariably include misogynists. All the rest of Gamergate can hope to do is disavow misogyny and harassment but not get too sidetracked by it, though even that is futile because the very media they are protesting against controls the narrative. Outside of getting advertisers to drop offending sites and taking their webtraffic elsewhere, I'm not really sure what they can hope to accomplish.


1) Seems to me that the point he was trying to make has been lost to you. If that's all you could pick up from the video, then there's really no way to reason with you on the points he's trying to bring up.

2) Did you read his articles? Doesn't seem like you read any of Nathan Grayson's articles at all. You just skimmed over what the video highlighted. That speaks more about you than it does about the Internet Aristocrat. The point being is that he provided evidence. You are not.

You then mention some other friend of Zoe Quinn's in regards to Kotaku, but then you continue to ignore the countless number of articles from Kotaku in which Patricia Hernandez wasn't ever a part of.

3) This now turns into your personal opinion. Welcome to the Internet, where people use controversy to sell their own agendas. Look. The point is, #gamergate is about journalistic integrity. I'm sitting here telling you what it's about, and you keep bringing up all of these other things in which it is not about.