GamerGate goes after reviewer for review they didn't even write

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

renegade7:
Why the fuck does Gamergate still exist.

1. They achieved little 2. Some GGers used their platform for insulting whoever they feel like. They hope to still get away with it. 3. And this is my assumption, some are longing for the good old days of 2014

runic knight:

Smithnikov:

runic knight:

How does that relate?

gamergate is a loosely associated group of people joined only in their opposition to the gaming media's bullshit. They share no ideology, nor any motivation among the group. There is no uniformity of thought or ideal there, just a loose agreement to work together and oppose gaming media's bullshit. As such, the only way to even remotely fairly make claims about it would be based on population of the group, with majority support for an action being the closest indicator of "gamergate does a thing" claims.

Antifa is an ideologically motivated and organized group opposed to "fascism" that ultimately means being opposed to the enemies of the modern radical left that are labeled fascists. As such, unlike gamergate's lack of shared motivation in their opposition of gaming media, antifa does have a shared political stance that guides their opposition and is thus more uniform in comparison. Because of this, any claims of "antifa does a thing" are stronger because of their shared ideology, motivations and their organization means that it is more likely representative of the shared motivation, ideology and organization. Not enough to damn them for the actions of a single individual alone, of course, but enough to see actions, such as violently beating people in the streets, being cheered by others in antifa as being representative of the whole of the group there.

Finally SJW is a term relating to people who commit certain degrees of actions and behaviors done in the name of their political ideology. As such, this one is not even a group in the same way as the prior two are, but rather a description of people based on their behavior and actions in the same way that calling someone who kills people intentionally a murderer is. Notice that calling someone a murderer does not associate them to a group. As such, any generalizations about "SJW" are not even relating to a group of associated people but rather a group of people defined by their actions and behaviors itself.

Or, to put it another way while saying "antifa did a thing" or "gamergate did a thing" implies group responsibility of people associated by other reasons, saying "sjw did a thing" or "murderer did a thing" applies to a person or group of people defined by their behavior and actions without group responsibility.

So your point raised here, and whatever the implications from it you were insinuating, is nonsensical.

You were the one projecting your own bias about the fanboys and you got called out for the complete lack of any evidence or justification for it outside your own deep need for there to be the connection. Your response was to imply hypocrisy on my part by trying to compare apples to oranges, with antifa, and apples to squids with the SJW thing.

Blah blah blah, it's okay to generalize and demonize left wing affiliated groups, but not right. I've seen freshly washed glass less transparent than this, spare me.

You can dislike that I called you out for comparing apples to oranges and squids all you like, but it doesn't change the fact you are making a false comparison for the sake of an appeal to hypocrisy.

Also, I never made mention to specific political leans, you should stop projecting.

I explained why they were not the same based on what they were.

Gamergate is a loosely associated group with a shared goal but nothing else. They are akin to an other boycott in response to poor customer service. Generalizations about a group like that is hard to do and relies on percentage of the group overall.

Antifa is an ideologically motivated, structured and organized group that shares motivation, politics, and leadership. They are akin to an actual political group. Generalizations about it are easier because of how uniform they are in belief and motivation, but still require demonstrated acceptance and lack of rejection by the rest. With examples like those cheering the violent actions of their members, this is often easy to see.

SJW is not a group but a label. It is applied based on actions and behaviors, thus any generalization about those that fall under the label would merely need to be consistent with that label.

Your biases motivate you and blind you, but if you are just going to keep making things up to support your personal political causes, regardless how many times people call out your blatant and malicious dishonesty, than you ultimately do more to help those you consider your political opponents than many of their own do. I am sure they thank you for your continued service. Myself, I wish you'd try to show a modicum of intellectual honesty.

you've made the 'Lefties' sound malice and the Right seem so peaceful. I could agree that Smothnikov as biased but clearly you are too

trunkage:

renegade7:
Why the fuck does Gamergate still exist.

1. They achieved little 2. Some GGers used their platform for insulting whoever they feel like. They hope to still get away with it. 3. And this is my assumption, some are longing for the good old days of 2014

runic knight:

Smithnikov:

Blah blah blah, it's okay to generalize and demonize left wing affiliated groups, but not right. I've seen freshly washed glass less transparent than this, spare me.

You can dislike that I called you out for comparing apples to oranges and squids all you like, but it doesn't change the fact you are making a false comparison for the sake of an appeal to hypocrisy.

Also, I never made mention to specific political leans, you should stop projecting.

I explained why they were not the same based on what they were.

Gamergate is a loosely associated group with a shared goal but nothing else. They are akin to an other boycott in response to poor customer service. Generalizations about a group like that is hard to do and relies on percentage of the group overall.

Antifa is an ideologically motivated, structured and organized group that shares motivation, politics, and leadership. They are akin to an actual political group. Generalizations about it are easier because of how uniform they are in belief and motivation, but still require demonstrated acceptance and lack of rejection by the rest. With examples like those cheering the violent actions of their members, this is often easy to see.

SJW is not a group but a label. It is applied based on actions and behaviors, thus any generalization about those that fall under the label would merely need to be consistent with that label.

Your biases motivate you and blind you, but if you are just going to keep making things up to support your personal political causes, regardless how many times people call out your blatant and malicious dishonesty, than you ultimately do more to help those you consider your political opponents than many of their own do. I am sure they thank you for your continued service. Myself, I wish you'd try to show a modicum of intellectual honesty.

you've made the 'Lefties' sound malice and the Right seem so peaceful. I could agree that Smothnikov as biased but clearly you are too

I never mentioned left or right at all though.

Gamergate is an apolicial group that is actually filled with more people who are left-leaning than not according to polls taken looking into the matter.

Antifa is certainly an extremist left-wing group.

SJW is just a label describing behavior in the name of a certain set of political causes. This label could theoretically apply to some people in either group.

So, no, I am not making the right sound peaceful, I am not mentioning them at all there. I am breaking down and describing two groups and a label and explaining the difference between them.

If you want to say I am making gamergate sound peaceful and antifa sound violent, well, then I will happily agree there. gamergate has been well documented as being by and far a group of internet jackasses who were not violent and were even investigated and cleared by the fbi and other investigators. Antifa has a track record of violent clashes, harming people, and largely being a band of hostile, dangerous ideological zealots.

But don't make the mistake in assuming it is a "left versus right" thing here. It is an apolitical consumer group compared to a radical fringe political group.

runic knight:

trunkage:

renegade7:
Why the fuck does Gamergate still exist.

1. They achieved little 2. Some GGers used their platform for insulting whoever they feel like. They hope to still get away with it. 3. And this is my assumption, some are longing for the good old days of 2014

runic knight:

You can dislike that I called you out for comparing apples to oranges and squids all you like, but it doesn't change the fact you are making a false comparison for the sake of an appeal to hypocrisy.

Also, I never made mention to specific political leans, you should stop projecting.

I explained why they were not the same based on what they were.

Gamergate is a loosely associated group with a shared goal but nothing else. They are akin to an other boycott in response to poor customer service. Generalizations about a group like that is hard to do and relies on percentage of the group overall.

Antifa is an ideologically motivated, structured and organized group that shares motivation, politics, and leadership. They are akin to an actual political group. Generalizations about it are easier because of how uniform they are in belief and motivation, but still require demonstrated acceptance and lack of rejection by the rest. With examples like those cheering the violent actions of their members, this is often easy to see.

SJW is not a group but a label. It is applied based on actions and behaviors, thus any generalization about those that fall under the label would merely need to be consistent with that label.

Your biases motivate you and blind you, but if you are just going to keep making things up to support your personal political causes, regardless how many times people call out your blatant and malicious dishonesty, than you ultimately do more to help those you consider your political opponents than many of their own do. I am sure they thank you for your continued service. Myself, I wish you'd try to show a modicum of intellectual honesty.

you've made the 'Lefties' sound malice and the Right seem so peaceful. I could agree that Smothnikov as biased but clearly you are too

I never mentioned left or right at all though.

Gamergate is an apolicial group that is actually filled with more people who are left-leaning than not according to polls taken looking into the matter.

Antifa is certainly an extremist left-wing group.

SJW is just a label describing behavior in the name of a certain set of political causes. This label could theoretically apply to some people in either group.

So, no, I am not making the right sound peaceful, I am not mentioning them at all there. I am breaking down and describing two groups and a label and explaining the difference between them.

If you want to say I am making gamergate sound peaceful and antifa sound violent, well, then I will happily agree there. gamergate has been well documented as being by and far a group of internet jackasses who were not violent and were even investigated and cleared by the fbi and other investigators. Antifa has a track record of violent clashes, harming people, and largely being a band of hostile, dangerous ideological zealots.

But don't make the mistake in assuming it is a "left versus right" thing here. It is an apolitical consumer group compared to a radical fringe political group.

'apolitical'... God, I haven't laughed this hard all week. I needed that.

This ideology (and your use of marketing skills to push it) does explain the way you, so thanks for that insight.

trunkage:
'apolitical'... God, I haven't laughed this hard all week. I needed that.

This ideology (and your use of marketing skills to push it) does explain the way you, so thanks for that insight.

Yea, way to expose he's never once been to KiA, let alone /gamergateHQ/ or /ggrevolt/

trunkage:
'apolitical'... God, I haven't laughed this hard all week. I needed that.

This ideology (and your use of marketing skills to push it) does explain the way you, so thanks for that insight.

Yes, it is apolitical in its cause and its makeup. The fact that the group it opposes relies on ideological ties in order to mount their defense does not change that nor does it inherently make political those that oppose their tactics, behaviors, attitudes or personalities.

On gamergate you have a collective of people from all walks of life, political lean, age, race and gender who share the common goal of "hates the gaming media's bullshit". That is not an ideology any more than people being mad at EA being a shit company is. It is apolitical. On the media's side you have media personalities and their friends and defenders who all share the same ideology and who openly lie that people oppose them because of their ideology instead of the horrible stuff they do in the name of it and the fact they abuse their positions in the media to help do that. While they are certainly political in their ideology (as it is what they excuse their behavior with and use to both attack others and deflect their own fuckups with), being opposed to their bullshit doesn't make those opposed a political cause. Being anti-corrupt asshole isn't what I would consider a political statement, but you might be more supportive of them and see it as an attack on your politics because of how tied to your political belief those in the media are, so I don't know.

But feel free to laugh, I got a good one as you called it "marketing" skills to point out the obvious. Well that and Smith's "expose" comment.

Smithnikov:

trunkage:
'apolitical'... God, I haven't laughed this hard all week. I needed that.

This ideology (and your use of marketing skills to push it) does explain the way you, so thanks for that insight.

Yea, way to expose he's never once been to KiA, let alone /gamergateHQ/ or /ggrevolt/

Expose? What an odd choice of word considering I openly admit I haven't gone to one of them, and barely interacted with the other two. My view is primarily here, twitter and youtube and get things through the cross-sharing of the various and diverse websites. Why, it is almost as if that makes the point I made multiple times about how gamergate isn't some uniform group hivemind but rather a collective of individuals across multiple sites with varied motivations, politics, and end-goals all unites just by their dislike of the gaming media.

runic knight:
.

Varied politics my ass. When GamerGate threw a fit over Farcry 5, that alone stomped that into the dust. Even here on the Escapist it was the conservatives who said it was good that the creative team behind it got political pressure to change that promo picture lest it promote "white genocide".

And yea, it is a proper choice of words, because unlike you, I went into the belly of the beast and lurked.

Runic, when I say these next things, I'm commenting on GG as a group. You might have these ideals you espoused but that's not what I saw the group do. Feel free to take it personally if you want, that is not my intention.

runic knight:
On gamergate you have a collective of people from all walks of life, political lean, age, race and gender who share the common goal of "hates the gaming media's bullshit".

As a person who didn't fall into either camp, you know what the funny thing is? If that incident stay on topic about journalism, there wouldn't have been a gamergate. Did you know most Anti-GGers agreed with gaming journal being corrupt?

I see it as the same problem as Feminist. They claim moral superiority over a particularly issue to try and stop others from having any input. Hence, you see groups like the MRA - which has some ideas of substance and some just being spiteful of being left out.

Its also like Occupy Wallstreet and the Tea Party - they have very similar beliefs but just don't want to work together.

Gamergate decided it was Pope on journalism and didn't bother listening to anyone else. Even when they agreed. Then some GGers started attacking females which derailed the whole topic

Yes, it is apolitical in its cause and its makeup. The fact that the group it opposes relies on ideological ties in order to mount their defense does not change that nor does it inherently make political those that oppose their tactics, behaviors, attitudes or personalities

So, its the Antifa of the Gaming Industry? Also, you realised GG was used by some asshats to promote their political bias and that's why GG has a bad name now?

Smithnikov:

runic knight:
.

Varied politics my ass. When GamerGate threw a fit over Farcry 5, that alone stomped that into the dust. Even here on the Escapist it was the conservatives who said it was good that the creative team behind it got political pressure to change that promo picture lest it promote "white genocide".

And yea, it is a proper choice of words, because unlike you, I went into the belly of the beast and lurked.

"gamergate" is not everyone you disagree with, nor the grossly misrepresented boogieman you perpetually try to make it out to be.

I remember that farcry thing, where people were talking about how it was against white supremacists. I remember people laughing at those first crowing about it like it was some big win against gamergate because it was the evil white supremacists being made the villian, and then those same people whining and bitching when the religious group of the game was found to have black people and women as well, thereby undermining the narrative they wanted. I remember gamergate mocking and laughing those complaining about the subject, the petition that was pushed, and then on those upset it wasn't their anti-right-wing revenge fantasy after.

The petition about the game is also noteworthy too. To start with, it was resoundingly laughed out and called an obvious ploy, and after reporting it was made by gamergate, even geek.com apologized for misattributing it to them. Going so far as to re-examine the article written and offer this apology.
"I?ve been proven wrong on this subject, and based on the reactions and feedback I?ve seen regarding the petition it seems clear that the core Gamergate community is not responsible for it. Shortly after the story went up, I was invited on Twitter to comment on the discussion thread on my piece in Reddit?s /r/KotakuInAction subreddit, one of the earliest and most prominent Gamergate forums.

"I can say with a fair amount of confidence that the petition is wholly condemned by that community, and if you consider KiA to be the defining community of Gamergate, that means that Gamergaters have been shunning the petition from the beginning."
"I approached the subject spoiling for a fight, with a political chip on my shoulder. I also didn?t directly go to KiA first to find reactions to the petition, and for that I apologize to its users and those who consider KiA to be the heart of Gamergate. I did you a disservice, and I?m sorry."

Well, I will give him credit, he can at last admit when he was blinded by his own ideology and sought to correct his mistake there.

But that brings us to your trips to the "belly of the beast" mentioned here. Considering the very thread here stands as testament to your persistent and maliciously-motivated intellectual dishonesty at every turn, I will put the onus on you to actually back up your words by demonstrating gamergate's stand as a collective group and not just the cherry picked, or outright fabricated examples you want to pin to the corkboard, connect by silly-string, and claim are evidence.

I also wait for you to recant your disprove accusations prior, both in this thread and elsewhere, since they now pile up like week-old rotting fish and really do undermine you every time you try to make unsupported, misrepresentative, or outright dishonest accusations against gamergate.

trunkage:
Runic, when I say these next things, I'm commenting on GG as a group. You might have these ideals you espoused but that's not what I saw the group do. Feel free to take it personally if you want, that is not my intention.

And when I read them, and I see your selective experience is not representative of the group as a whole, realize that, at best, I view your arguments and reasoning with the same perspective I view those who justify their own racism because of their own selective experiences. Misguided, misrepresentative, and while possibly understandable, not excusable when I see used in conjunction with accusations toward an entire group, especially when said group collectively rejected those actions repeatedly, and been investigated and cleared multiple times, and has corrected the misconception every time it showed up. One can only listen to the intellectual equivalent of "but of course black people all eat fried chicken, I SAW it one time so it must be true of the whole group!". At worst, I may begin to assume you are doing as smith there has been, and are actively and maliciously stating falsehoods and dishonest accusations about gamergate for the same of personal hatred of and vendetta against it. Now I assume you are at least more honest than to do as he has in instantly assuming something that he disliked involving gamers is the responsibility of gamergate collectively. After all, seeing a few nintendo fanboys call out a reviewer and assuming it is gamergate just because it fits biases is a pretty hard to top display of manufacturing outrage to blame on gamergate aside from those who claim gamergate made Trump win, so I have to believe someone like you who has been at least relatively civil is not that far gone.

runic knight:
On gamergate you have a collective of people from all walks of life, political lean, age, race and gender who share the common goal of "hates the gaming media's bullshit".

As a person who didn't fall into either camp, you know what the funny thing is? If that incident stay on topic about journalism, there wouldn't have been a gamergate. Did you know most Anti-GGers agreed with gaming journal being corrupt?

I see it as the same problem as Feminist. They claim moral superiority over a particularly issue to try and stop others from having any input. Hence, you see groups like the MRA - which has some ideas of substance and some just being spiteful of being left out.

Its also like Occupy Wallstreet and the Tea Party - they have very similar beliefs but just don't want to work together.

Gamergate decided it was Pope on journalism and didn't bother listening to anyone else. Even when they agreed. Then some GGers started attacking females which derailed the whole topic

Except, if people opposed to gamergate were so opposed to the media being corrupt, why was it they repeated the lies and narratives used by them, despite reality and logic itself revealing the lies within, that no, gamergate was never a harassment campaign and all attempts to paint it as such were demonization and guilt by association, often to people not actualyl part of it in the first place, be it through prior disowning, or post-rejection of it? Why did they excuse the actions of Grayson or Hernandez or Wu and defend their unethical behavior or try to dismiss it as not being such? Why did they pretend that the collusion didn't happen and then, after it was shown beyond any more doubt or dismissal, they pretended it didn't matter? Why is it, every time someone in anti-GG claims they are opposed to media collusion, it is said with the same tone and intention as "Well, I am not personally racist, but you know what they say about those black people"?

You know, for people so against a corrupt gaming media, what exactly did they, you know, actually do about it in any way or shape that didn't actively help those corrupt within it or those who profited off of it being corrupt? Hmm, perhaps this deserves a more in-depth breakdown.

First, the claim that gamergate wanted to be pope is wrong. Lets cover how GG happened. My introduction into gamergate was before it even existed, and I got to watch it evolve in realtime. Also have a nice post-history I can go back and dig through to show the evolution and occurance. But by first introduction into the topic was during the quinnspiracy where quinn herself, or someone acing on her behalf and using her email, had falsely DMCA'd the video discussing the blogpost by her ex which detailed how abusive she was and the fact she slept with people in the industry that represented major conflicts of interests. This had started to be discussed on reddit and was at the time the most discussed post ever. Considering she sold herself as a feminist, I called it out at the time for what I saw, hypocritical of her, damaging for her ideology, and her sexual promiscuity itself a stupid detail outside of how it reflected on her, her ideology, and so on. After that, the reddit talk about it by Total Biscuit got axed without warning and was later found to be the result of Quinn reaching out to reddit mods who claimed it was to stop harassment that all witnesses in the thread claimed was a lie. Now at this point, this WAS a major story. Considering the media gladly discussed things like sexual assault allegations against developers, there was no moral excuse not to there, and considering the story now involved possible award rigging, journalistic conflict of interest, and illegal prejury by filing false DMCA, plus the cover-up people were rightfully pissed when, after they asked many sites to cover the topic, those asked attacked and called them harassers. This drove the whole notion that the media was working together (later proven), were abusing their power to cover themselves and their friend, and started people into being the investigators that eventually dug up things like people sleeping and living with those they wrote about, the coverage or lack there-of for certain people, and the various ways the media was corrupt. That in turn lead up to the single unified event that spurred gamergate itself, the media's collective response to gamers pissed by the media's open bias about the story and utter contempt for their audience in misrepresenting those discussing it. This would be the "gamers are dead" articles which shared a uniform theme of "fuck anyone talking about this story as harassers and misogynists". That of course made many games, including many who didn't want to side with the rebelling gamers on the topic such as boogie and total biscuit, form up against the media and those who went to bat defending their bullshit. Considering it was revealed how they were colluding with each other at the time, this cemented gamergate as being right about that assumption. Considering how many opposed to gamergate have since been revealed as sex pest, it seems to be cementing many as being right about their motivations too.

The problem is, after all that, after gamergate started proper and the media was openly revealed to be totally scummy in their behavior and how they were dealing with those critical of them by openly and unapologetically demonizing, reinforcing stereotypes, maliciously misrepresenting, and outright lying through their teeth, after all that the defense of the media was both uniform in how it was defended, and utterly wrong about how and why GG even occurred. The defense was, as you presented here, that "gamergate was harassing women". The problem being, it wasn't. More than one study into the group, any worthwhile unbiased examination into the group, and an outright fbi investigation... it was clear that the harassment was coming almost exclusively from either third-party trolls or the media and their friends while the majority of gamergate was actively opposed to it. Hell, there was campaigns against harassment that was pushed and heavily supported by gamergate, such as anti-harassment infrographs, and the harassment patrol.

Made worse, it was revealed that more than one group of professional trolls was involved, including old friends of Quinn herself. This was proven as well, and not surprisingly, was ignored with all the rest by those seeking excuse to believe what they wanted to about the group, regardless the reality of it.

The biggest problem with gamergate was its biggest strength: it was a disorganized, decentralized collection of gamers who were only united in their dislike of the media and its handling. This made them immune to problem with ideological purity or leadership, since there wasn't any. It was people who disliked the media and wanted to support the protest against it. As the group solidified under the banner of it, it became anti-harassment as well, and people where pruned by the usual method of such social groups, by disassociation and mocking them and declaring they weren't part of the group. See king of pol for a good example there. Some others supported gamergate without being part of it. Even milo, for all his influence on events, has said he didn't think he was part of the group itself. And it is funny, as those who were neutral on the subject, people like boogie and biscuit early on. People like angry joe, they weren't "targeted" by gamergate or demonized for not siding with it. Those neutrals were, not surprisingly, attacked mercilessly by those opposed to gamergate though. You had places like gamerghazi and neogaf that hoped TB's cancer killed him or who would go so far as to attack him on twitter or reddit with such, while simultaneously decrying gamergate's "harassment" of woman.

In fact, the only "neutrals" I really saw being called out were those who claimed they were neutral only to keep regurgitating the same lies about the group that had been corrected multiple times, and who tried to tone police the group, often revealing an open bias and poor acting skills hiding it in the process. "Rival" hashtags that were claimed to be a less controversial protest of the media were quickly abandoned by such self-proclaimed champions against corrupt media. And that is funny, as if they actually cared about the subject as much as many claimed they did when they pushed things like "#gameethics", than they would have lasted more than 2 days before abandoning it and jumping into attacking gamergate and defending the media's actions.

It is hard to believe the people give a shit about gaming journalism being corrupt when they are repeating the outright lies of the gaming media about is as a harassment campaign and that the people in the media did nothing wrong and that everyone should shut up about it. Really sort of undermines the claim when actions are demonstrably not supporting it, especially when those people opposed to gamergate cite a reason that is a gross fallacy from the start and reject YEARS of explaining why it is wrong to keep repeating it.

Yes, it is apolitical in its cause and its makeup. The fact that the group it opposes relies on ideological ties in order to mount their defense does not change that nor does it inherently make political those that oppose their tactics, behaviors, attitudes or personalities

So, its the Antifa of the Gaming Industry?

Well, considering antifa is a terrorist organization with a uniform political ideology, actually has leadership, is endorsed by the media, and is not united by a common opposition so much as just a shared method of and desire to act like facist and force others to obey their ideology by force, I would say that, no, it is not like gamergate at all.

I'd say it would actually be more likely that gamergate is the complete inversion of antifa.

Also, you realised GG was used by some asshats to promote their political bias and that's why GG has a bad name now?

No, GG's name was dirt before it exited because of the media narrative about it, but you are partially right about asshats seeking to use it. Problem is, I also realize that was the direct result of the media demonizing it and misrepresenting it in the first place that forced the group to seek allies anywhere just to be allowed to speak on a platform equally, resulting in it accepting tentatively aid from people like milo. Or tolerating, even if only shortly, people like Ralph or KoP before they got laughed off. And, because of how they wanted to frame their position as a moral one against harassers of women, the media created the very sentiment against feminism and liberalism that has grown since. But, given that the sentiment within the remnants of gamergate is still pretty much against how they act and the stupidity of their belief over the politics of the belief alone, I don't think it is politically based, even now.

Gamergate didn't kick people out for their political lean, and even after this long, still has not. Liberals, conservatives and independents all are still within it, posting along the old interconnected web of channels and sites. That one political ideology was so opposed to them and so blatantly prevalent throughout the gaming news media that they could mislabel and demonize those critical of them as a single political party alone is a testament to the problem within it itself.

People of all leans supported gamergate, people of one lean opposed it. Not surprising those who were enemies of that singular ideology shared by those opposed to GG would try to use it. Funny enough, it wasn't all that effective. Most people rejected the attempts to unify for anything more than opposing the gaming media, and participating was voluntary throughout. When people pushed for boycotts against game developers, or when folks like King of Pol tried to make them into their political army, they were ineffective. Those that just supported GG such as milo were rewarded for it by being given a chance in return, but even then when you are fighting the same foe at the time, it is a little odd to think one side is using the other but not acknowledge the other was using the first as well.

I remember a lot of people at the time certainly expressed that idea, using milo for wider and more fair coverage even if a lot of people didn't like him much.

runic knight:
.

Same old excuses.

Same old claims.

Same old omission of groups like /pol/ and Reaxxion like they never existed

Same old ignoring of people like Vox Day, Roosh V, and Matt Forney

And most telling of all

Same old giving a pass to Rebel Media, the NRA and Micheal Savage by saying "Only one idealogy was against us!"

This is going nowhere.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here