| Kane1389 said: You havent been reading GAF GamerGate thread, have you? It's not good for your health |
Yeah, I had the displeasure. Helped put me off GAF for good. The mods have always been atrocious there, and they're getting worse now that they have ModBot to hide behind.
I don't care about any of this crap, but I hold the opinion that gaming was a much better place before all this crap got going. There are hypocrites everywhere on all sides, and the less gaming has to do with anything remotely political the better. Ugh.
badgenome said:
Yeah, I had the displeasure. Helped put me off GAF for good. The mods have always been atrocious there, and they're getting worse now that they have ModBot to hide behind. |
They are just trying to welcome more people to the board !
badgenome said:
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.
| pokoko said: What I've mainly seen is that members of the gaming media have every intention of ignoring any and all well thought-out arguments. Instead, they'll continue to pound away at the extremists, deliberately positioning the most aggressive and spiteful members of the opposition as the only members of the opposition. There is no winning there, as these people have the biggest soap-boxes. It's distasteful but it's also expected. This is what we see in the political entertainment medium and it's why those snake-oil salesmen have achieved so much popularity and support. The gullible are a breeze to influence. It's easy to see with this blog post. The writer starts from the very beginning with a snarky little comment about the word "bias" in a clear attempt to paint anyone on the other side of his argument as an idiot. It's a petty tactic. He follows that up with a defense of his ad hominem attack on the backers of The Sarkeesian Effect. Why would I take this person seriously? He derails his own credibility with cheap propaganda. It is what it is. People like this will always simply pick out the worst, most vile comments as representative of the whole. It's the easiest path even though it ultimately means nothing. |
I couldn't have said it better myself!
badgenome said:
Wow. A whole subreddit of people who despise besada as much as I do. |
Be sure to check out EviLore's EURO trip thread on opa-ages as well. One of the funniest threads on the internet
| Kane1389 said: Be sure to check out EviLore's EURO trip thread on opa-ages as well. One of the funniest threads on the internet |
Oh, man, I know! I somehow stumbled across it a year or so ago. An absolute classic.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
