Squid Coyote: "GamerGate Thoughts: Of The People"

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Recently a GamerGate supporter named Squid Coyote published a video connecting GamerGate to the presidential election, which might be worth discussing. I apologize that there are a lot of questions, but he covered a lot in his video, which is over eighteen minutes long.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBjU2m9LjT0

Discussion Questions
* What are your thoughts on Squid Coyote's video?

* Do you agree with Squid Coyote that GamerGate played a role in Donald Trump becoming elected, even if indirectly?

* Do you agree with Squid Coyote that GamerGate began because of both the Gamers Are Dead articles and censorship of discussion about the Quinnspiracy controversy?

* Do you agree with Squid Coyote that there is enough evidence to show that there were legitimate ethical concerns in the Quinnspiracy controversy?

* Was the supposed "mass censorship" of GamerGate, a mistake on the part of those opposed to the movement? Did it have a streisand effect?

* Do you believe that the media and/or social justice community were quick to label any of their detractors as "GamerGate supporters," which caused the movement to grow larger and larger as time went on?

* Do you believe that if the media and/or social justice community condemned the individuals in the Burgers & Fries chat log, but focused on actual reform and worked alongside actual GamerGate people (most of whom didn't know or care about the B&F people), that things would have died down pretty quick?

* Do you believe that the media and/or social justice community were quick to call GamerGate supporters right-wing, even though they weren't, which ended up pushing liberal leaning people away from traditional liberal communities and possibly even some ideals?

* Do you believe that it was impossible for anti-GamerGate people to truly win, because pushing GamerGate people outside of their social circles didn't prevent those people from forming communities of their own?

* Do you agree with Squid Coyote that the "alt-right" doesn't really exist and it's just a "meme"?

* Do you believe that (at least part of) the reason that those opposed to GamerGate, Brexit and Trump failed, is because they focused on insulting their opponents, instead of engaging in discussion and arguing for their ideals?

* Do you agree with Squid Coyote that Hillary Clinton was the "ultimate social justice candidate," or at least was propped up as such?

* Do you agree with Squid Coyote that this election was a referendum on social justice and that it proves that social justice is disconnected from the people?

* Do you agree with Squid Coyote that liberal-leaning GamerGate people need to expose social justice as a detriment to the Democratic Party?

No, Gamergate has a vastly inflated ego if they're thinking that they had any substantial effect on a presidential election.

And if Hillary Clinton was the Ultimate Social Justice candidate, then I am the Hyper-Dimensional Social Justice Emperor, Lord of the Nine Galaxies, Hallowed is My Name.

...you know, you think you're prepared for seeing something stupid, and then... wow.

I don't know who this Squid Coyote fellow is, but I feel they need to lay off the Gamergate thing. Maybe go outside, see the sun. Listen to someone not neck-deep in an echo-chamber. 'Cause jesus.

(also time to go drown my Youtube feed in AMVs again, need to wash the dumb shit that follows this kind of video out of my recommendations. Ugh.)

Wrex Brogan:
...you know, you think you're prepared for seeing something stupid, and then... wow.

I don't know who this Squid Coyote fellow is, but I feel they need to lay off the Gamergate thing. Maybe go outside, see the sun. Listen to someone not neck-deep in an echo-chamber. 'Cause jesus.

(also time to go drown my Youtube feed in AMVs again, need to wash the dumb shit that follows this kind of video out of my recommendations. Ugh.)

If you're on chrome, I recommend the H.Bomberguy censorship plugin. Cleans up your recommendations like nothing else.

Windknight:

Wrex Brogan:
...you know, you think you're prepared for seeing something stupid, and then... wow.

I don't know who this Squid Coyote fellow is, but I feel they need to lay off the Gamergate thing. Maybe go outside, see the sun. Listen to someone not neck-deep in an echo-chamber. 'Cause jesus.

(also time to go drown my Youtube feed in AMVs again, need to wash the dumb shit that follows this kind of video out of my recommendations. Ugh.)

If you're on chrome, I recommend the H.Bomberguy censorship plugin. Cleans up your recommendations like nothing else.

Love it. I know where to go already if I want to stare into the belly of the beast. I don't relish my rec board getting flooded with Just a Robot and Varg Vikernes while i'm trying to listen to old Billy Joel tracks or watch classic pro wrestling matches.

Or you can just go into your YouTube history and selectively delete the videos that poison your feed.

Less effective, but if you don't use Chrome it works kinda-sorta well.

Any comparison between Gamergate the presidential election quickly falls apart when you consider that Clinton just isn't a social justice warrior....at all.

''Social justice'' hardly played a part in this election. It was about a sane career politician with all the baggage that comes with that going up against an unstable populist wolf with an equal amount of baggage. The promise of sane governance, not social justice was the big drive for Clinton supports.
Where does this idea that Clinton is on the side of the ''SJW's'' even comes from? Clinton embodies the establishment that 'SJW'' don't feel entirely comfortable with either. Clinton's track record of only supporting same sex marriage when it became convenient, her ties to wall street and her being a warhawk just don't support the claim that she and social justice have anything to do with each other.

Did the social justice warriors want Clinton to win? Sure, but they were only one group among many. Democrats, moderate republicans, minorities and sane people all wanted Trump to lose.

In the election social justice and the fight against it only played a minor part, if it even played one to begin with. With Gamergate Social justice and the fight against it is the big focus.

altnameJag:
Or you can just go into your YouTube history and selectively delete the videos that poison your feed.

Less effective, but if you don't use Chrome it works kinda-sorta well.

See, I've tried that after someone dumped Sargon onto me in place of their own argument, but I still had his videos popping up in my feed for months afterwards.

Though maybe some cookie got stuck somewhere and I didn't clear my cache the whole while. Ah well, I'm a chrome user at least, so the plug-in works. Actually sitting through all these insipid videos people keep using instead of their own arguments, on the other hand... ugh.

image

Sums up everything I need to say about them.

I mean, really!? Is Gamergate going to be the NRA of the nerd world? Where "Dey takin ur gurmz and puttin chicks, gayz, an blacks in em as main characters" is gonna be the new fear tactic of the modern age?

Because fuck all that!

GGs identify themself mostly leftwing. I have a hard time believing that being identified as "rightwing" by people they assume to be utterly wrong about other topics actually makes them more right.

I assume most of them voted Hillary and rarely anyone identified her of all people with the anti-GG crowd.

So no, i don't think that GG has had any impact on the election whatsoever.

Wrex Brogan:

altnameJag:
Or you can just go into your YouTube history and selectively delete the videos that poison your feed.

Less effective, but if you don't use Chrome it works kinda-sorta well.

See, I've tried that after someone dumped Sargon onto me in place of their own argument, but I still had his videos popping up in my feed for months afterwards.

Though maybe some cookie got stuck somewhere and I didn't clear my cache the whole while. Ah well, I'm a chrome user at least, so the plug-in works. Actually sitting through all these insipid videos people keep using instead of their own arguments, on the other hand... ugh.

Ugh, I know how that is. I keep getting this guy called Haedox in my feed and no matter how many vids of his I disliked they still keep popping up.

It hasn't gone away despite not watching any in months.

Netscape:

* Do you agree with Squid Coyote that liberal-leaning GamerGate people need to expose social justice as a detriment to the Democratic Party?

I, for one, would like to know where you are finding these "social justice" people. Honestly, I hear about how terrible and omnipresent they are several times a day and yet never find them in real life. Hell, I never even find them on the internet. Not saying they do not exist, just that they seem to keep to their own corner of the internet.

Oh right, an SJW is just a pejorative term thrown at anyone who is suspected of having any left-leaning views on any social issue at all, particularly those who think there might be room for improvement in video game portrayals of women and minorities. Carry on then.

jademunky:

Netscape:

* Do you agree with Squid Coyote that liberal-leaning GamerGate people need to expose social justice as a detriment to the Democratic Party?

I, for one, would like to know where you are finding these "social justice" people. Honestly, I hear about how terrible and omnipresent they are several times a day and yet never find them in real life. Hell, I never even find them on the internet. Not saying they do not exist, just that they seem to keep to their own corner of the internet.

Oh right, an SJW is just a pejorative term thrown at anyone who is suspected of having any left-leaning views on any social issue at all, particularly those who think there might be room for improvement in video game portrayals of women and minorities. Carry on then.

\

You never saw anyone here calling for people that own confederate flags to be "culled?" We had a bunch of forum discussions where a number of forum goers advocated getting people fired for wrongthink or saying something offensive online. One member even thinks that eliminating them isn't such a bad thing.

Nothing wrong with having left leaning views, I'm mostly a leftist. What differentiates a sympathizer to a cause from an sjw is intolerance of dissent and less limits to acceptable tactics. SJW's are ok with vitriolic or vindictive means to achieve their social justice goals. SJW's are fine with campaigns to get people fired for saying something offensive (even if not related to their profession- a teacher fired for using the n word in class isn't the same thing as a teacher fired for using the n-word in a private instagram message.) It is about unwillingness to accept differences in views or opinions without overt hostility or direct negative action. Someone advocating for a cause may picket you, a SJW will try and get you fired or shame your family or release your private info so someone harms you. They don't think that doing harm o others is a bad thing if those people are in their group of badthinkers. (IE. it's totally ok to get that father of 3 fired, he's a racist. )A human with compassion wouldn't be as concerned with punishment whereas a social justice warrior is about harming those they disagree with over helping those they are supposedly protecting. This can be easily verified by the # of hashtag activists trying to get someone banned or fired vs the # who try to help instead of harm or penalize.
An SJW would spend time arguing why you can't be racist to white people instead of stopping the harmful or insulting actions or words that were perceived as racist yet if someone changed the race of that exact same insult, the SJW would advocate for them being fired, expelled, or otherwise punished.

There are forums here where the people netscape speaks of discuss the things I've laid out. Not going to name names but if you look at some of the forums on this site you will find an sjw or 3 (or at least someone who advocates for the same goals and methods)

And I remember GG advocating games journalists and twitter folks lose their jobs for wrongthink. Specifically for saying offensive things online.

I believe you call them the "Gamers are Dead articles".

FriendoftheFallen:
snip

Culled (as in killed?) for having racist flags? No, not here I haven't.

As for getting people fired, it totally depends on the person and the job. I would have a problem with people going out of their way to have a racist assembly-line operator fired but in the case of the teacher? Public or private use of the N-word would totally be grounds for firing in my book if proven. Can you really imagine that someone who says that kind of thing in private is not also letting it seep into their job? There is no way I would be comfortable letting any kid of mine be taught by someone like that.

Accepting differences of opinion is one thing but there is a difference between tolerating someone who thinks that the top marginal income tax rate should be lowered (or raised) 2% and someone who thinks the jews run the world economy or that the president of the United States was secretly born in another country.

jademunky:

FriendoftheFallen:
snip

Culled (as in killed?) for having racist flags? No, not here I haven't.

As for getting people fired, it totally depends on the person and the job. I would have a problem with people going out of their way to have a racist assembly-line operator fired but in the case of the teacher? Public or private use of the N-word would totally be grounds for firing in my book if proven. Can you really imagine that someone who says that kind of thing in private is not also letting it seep into their job? There is no way I would be comfortable letting any kid of mine be taught by someone like that.

Accepting differences of opinion is one thing but there is a difference between tolerating someone who thinks that the top marginal income tax rate should be lowered (or raised) 2% and someone who thinks the jews run the world economy or that the president of the United States was secretly born in another country.

Yeah there are people like that in these forums. Someone actually advocated for people with confederate flags to be culled. The proof is still here.
I can understand the radical views idea but what if a teacher believes that white people are evil or wants to teach the concept of white privilege to a child who has parents opposed to that viewpoint?
Some people genuinely believe you can't be racist against white people. Some parents may have an issue with them being allowed to teach too. My point is that who decides which positions are insane? From the point of view of poor white parents who didn't get access to higher education, some teacher thinking that all white people are over privileged and evil would be equally damaging as a teacher who hates nonwhite people. Though I don't think that saying offensive things is always indicative of underlying viewpoints. 4chan racist rants don't always mean the person holds racist views irl. Otherwise all the people that go discuss hating white people in tumblr should be barred from teaching too?

FriendoftheFallen:

Yeah there are people like that in these forums. Someone actually advocated for people with confederate flags to be culled.
I can understand the radical views idea but what if a teacher believes that white people are evil or wants to teach the concept of white privilege to a child who has parents opposed to that viewpoint?
Some people genuinely believe you can't be racist against white people. Some parents may have an issue with them being allowed to teach too. My point is that who decides which positions are insane? From the point of view of poor white parents who didn't get access to higher education, some teacher thinking that all white people are over privileged and evil would be equally damaging as a teacher who hates nonwhite people. Though I don't think that saying offensive things is always indicative of underlying viewpoints. 4chan racist rants don't always mean the person holds racist views irl. Otherwise all the people that go discuss hating white people in tumblr should be barred from teaching too?

Wait, wait full stop. You keep conflating the concept of privilege with the idea that white people are evil and that it is somehow impossible to be racist against white people. If a teacher is actually capable of conveying the concept of privilege to children in a way that is non-accusatory and easy for them to comprehend, I'd say they should go for it.

Also, why would I not think that someone's racist online rant was not from the heart or that someone who openly hated white people shouldn't also be barred from teaching? Things said online do not exist in a bubble where they simply "don't count" just because some people don't want them to.

jademunky:

FriendoftheFallen:

Yeah there are people like that in these forums. Someone actually advocated for people with confederate flags to be culled.
I can understand the radical views idea but what if a teacher believes that white people are evil or wants to teach the concept of white privilege to a child who has parents opposed to that viewpoint?
Some people genuinely believe you can't be racist against white people. Some parents may have an issue with them being allowed to teach too. My point is that who decides which positions are insane? From the point of view of poor white parents who didn't get access to higher education, some teacher thinking that all white people are over privileged and evil would be equally damaging as a teacher who hates nonwhite people. Though I don't think that saying offensive things is always indicative of underlying viewpoints. 4chan racist rants don't always mean the person holds racist views irl. Otherwise all the people that go discuss hating white people in tumblr should be barred from teaching too?

Wait, wait full stop. You keep conflating the concept of privilege with the idea that white people are evil and that it is somehow impossible to be racist against white people. If a teacher is actually capable of conveying the concept of privilege to children in a way that is non-accusatory and easy for them to comprehend, I'd say they should go for it.

Also, why would I not think that someone's racist online rant was not from the heart or that someone who openly hated white people shouldn't also be barred from teaching? Things said online do not exist in a bubble where they simply "don't count" just because some people don't want them to.

I can admire your self-consistency. I have encountered too many people who attack racism but only from white people not to them. At least you attack it on both sides. The conflation is a bias from experiences. I think that things like privilege are a series of compound coefficients and that there are even circumstances where being white is a detriment.
I disagree about the bubble though. I have said things in online rants I don't agree with. Playing devil's advocate does not mean you secretly root for the devil. I understand where you're coming from there, I just don't personally agree with it. I think someone can express themselves in a way not reflective of their true thoughts to beliefs. For example, I don't believe Stephen King is a serial killer who sublimated those urges into writing.

FriendoftheFallen:
snip

When you play Devil's Advocate, do you make it clear that you are simply engaging in a thought experiment and are not actually advocating what you say? If not, you cannot really blame people for not being able to tell the difference (Poe's law and all that).

And yes, being white can be detrimental depending on where you live but where I live, at least (Canada), being white means that there is a certain type of bullshit that I just do not have do deal with. For example: when I was about 16, a friend of mine (my only black friend to be honest) was dropping of a resume at a hardware store, It was raining and as he was leaving, he tucked his file folder under his coat to protect it. Store employees immediately stopped him and demanded that he unzip his coat since, to their eyes, it looked like he was hiding something. He had several stories of people doing that to him, I have zero. This is kinda what people mean when they talk about privilege.

altnameJag:
And I remember GG advocating games journalists and twitter folks lose their jobs for wrongthink. Specifically for saying offensive things online.

I believe you call them the "Gamers are Dead articles".

If by "wrongthink" you mean blatantly and maliciously committing unethical and unprofessional behavior that encouraged stereotypes and was used to excuse outright harm towards people, financial, emotional and even encouraging physical, then yeah, you are sort of wrong.

I mean it wasn't because the journalists were of a different political view after all and anyone who claims that is simply being dishonest. Especially because many of gamergate itself shared the same political lean as those they were calling out for their unethical and unprofessional behavior. The simple fact is they were openly abusing their positions to try to cover their own asses and the asses of their friends by use of demonization, misrepresentation, and hatemongering against a group of people in a way that was unethical, unprofessional and utterly deserving of a response. That is got such a response is not surprising, though the demonization and intentional misrepresentation of that response and the motivations behind it still persist it seems.

So, unless you think people responding poorly to a waiter smearing "go to hell jews" on a restaurant wall is "advocating they lose their job for wrongthink" too, I am going to have to point out you are misrepresenting events badly here.

Tying that into the topic itself, the habit of misrepresenting people, in particularly of their motivations was a theme repeated in the election a lot, and one that heavily harmed hillary's campaign by driving people she needed for support her away from her. Back during the primaries it created a wedge between Bernie supporters and her and left a bitter taste in a few people's mouths. Moving on, that same intentional misrepresentation of people opposed to hillary as being sexist or racist or bigots (as opposed to addressing where their actual concerns lay, such as hillary's hawkishness, her controversies, her connection to corporations, etc) further killed any chance of rebuilding bridges and guaranteed only those who accepted hillary without reservation would be accepted by the campaign, and thus would bother to vote for her.

the very common tactic of refusing to accept people opposed to hillary or who supported gamergate as anything but entirely some sort of alt-right boogieman was also shared and was touched on well in the video. Anytime someone disagreed, they got thrown into the demonized pit. Which just made the pit grow and, not surprisingly, included a lot of people who hillary needed to vote for her not giving a damn about supporting her, despite how evil Trump was being presented as.

I suppose the after the fact sort of examination would also be a similarity there too.

altnameJag:
And I remember GG advocating games journalists and twitter folks lose their jobs for wrongthink. Specifically for saying offensive things online.

I believe you call them the "Gamers are Dead articles".

This was the same movement who unironically called for the elimination of the entire indie game scene. Not a shock to those of us who went in deep to observe, man.

FriendoftheFallen:
Otherwise all the people that go discuss hating white people in tumblr should be barred from teaching too?

If they talk in public like they do on tumblr, same conclusion from me. Fire their sorry asses. I wouldn't give any more slack to them than I would some /pol/ user who decides to lecture his or her class in the same way.

jademunky:

FriendoftheFallen:
snip

When you play Devil's Advocate, do you make it clear that you are simply engaging in a thought experiment and are not actually advocating what you say? If not, you cannot really blame people for not being able to tell the difference (Poe's law and all that).

No kidding.

I think I heard it in XKCD first:

Online, the Devil doesn't need an advocate.

I mean, someone, somewhere is arguing this shit completely unironically

altnameJag:

jademunky:

FriendoftheFallen:
snip

When you play Devil's Advocate, do you make it clear that you are simply engaging in a thought experiment and are not actually advocating what you say? If not, you cannot really blame people for not being able to tell the difference (Poe's law and all that).

No kidding.

I think I heard it in XKCD first:

Online, the Devil doesn't need an advocate.

I mean, someone, somewhere is arguing this shit completely unironically

Yeah and some places people unironically ask for people with confederate flags to be culled or think people should be fired and shamed for saying something mean online. There are some crazy sociopaths online that think that social justice causes justify vile tactics because of mean words. I can't tell if they are kidding when they defend mobbing firing people or if they are actually terrible people who don't care about the possibly lethal consequences of getting someone fired for being mean online.

I vehemently disagree that being online negates the benefits of playing the devil's advocate. People not being able to differentiate between intellectual exercises and truly alien opinions and views does not mitigate the possible knowledge or perspective gain of taking on other views hypothetically. The advocacy is for those that get the exercise, the bystanders that react without context choose to react that way often to their own detriment.

I'm glad jademunky doesn't have any stories of having to deal with shit because he is white. I feel bad that anyone has stories of experiencing racism. I happen to have those stories because I was forced to live them. Those stories tend to be more common in areas where whites are a local minority. I know a black person can be every bit as racist as a white person and as far as prejudice and power goes local power is just as efficacious at local oppression. Meaning a poor white kid in an all black neighbourhood with black teachers and other authority figures is in fact the minority and every bit as prone to oppression and racism as a black kid in an all white neighbourhood. Its almost as if groups of people act differently towards their own group than to minority outsiders. Those that say that one can't be racist against white people are just ignorant racists in my opinion. Some people act like one race is being mean to another and there is no reciprocation or mutual historical hostility. (Black people did take white slaves too. Though if we really want to judge former and current slave owners then the eye of judgement should fall upon the Muslim slave traders of North Africa. )

My issue is often that people that don't have to experience adverse consequences for being white or male or whatever group then proceed to mock those that have because "you can't be oppressed you're a white male." That denial of oppression is in itself a form of oppression. When one group endures abuse and then has it excused because "they had it coming" then members of that group that have endured that racist abuse are being doubly oppressed because even their torment is somehow excused by people with no skin in the game.

Back to my point. Devil's advocacy does not make you the devil, even if someone does not get that you are playing advocate. (Their perception of my deviltry is valid to their own context but given more perspective would be proven untrue.)

FriendoftheFallen:

My issue is often that people that don't have to experience adverse consequences for being white or male or whatever group then proceed to mock those that have because "you can't be oppressed you're a white male." That denial of oppression is in itself a form of oppression. When one group endures abuse and then has it excused because "they had it coming" then members of that group that have endured that racist abuse are being doubly oppressed because even their torment is somehow excused by people with no skin in the game.

Can ya do me a favor and wash the words out next time you take them out of my mouth? :)

crimsonspear4D:
I mean, really!? Is Gamergate going to be the NRA of the nerd world? Where "Dey takin ur gurmz and puttin chicks, gayz, an blacks in em as main characters" is gonna be the new fear tactic of the modern age?

Are you being serious right now? What in the world makes you think that GG people are opposed to diversity in games?

Netscape:

crimsonspear4D:
I mean, really!? Is Gamergate going to be the NRA of the nerd world? Where "Dey takin ur gurmz and puttin chicks, gayz, an blacks in em as main characters" is gonna be the new fear tactic of the modern age?

Are you being serious right now? What in the world makes you think that GG people are opposed to diversity in games?

Generally, the number of people I see in threads saying how diversity can only be done in certain specific ways and that being diverse for diversity's sake or trying to appeal to a different audience is a bad/harmful/misguided idea.

Netscape:

crimsonspear4D:
I mean, really!? Is Gamergate going to be the NRA of the nerd world? Where "Dey takin ur gurmz and puttin chicks, gayz, an blacks in em as main characters" is gonna be the new fear tactic of the modern age?

Are you being serious right now? What in the world makes you think that GG people are opposed to diversity in games?

You mean apart from the survey you conducted where you found that 70% of GGers that participated said that GG was also a movement against SJWs in gaming? Since SJW's are generally accused of being too much about "diversity for diversity's sake", I wonder how anyone could have gotten the idea that GG opposes diversity...

Netscape:

crimsonspear4D:
I mean, really!? Is Gamergate going to be the NRA of the nerd world? Where "Dey takin ur gurmz and puttin chicks, gayz, an blacks in em as main characters" is gonna be the new fear tactic of the modern age?

Are you being serious right now? What in the world makes you think that GG people are opposed to diversity in games?

http://www.reaxxion.com/6241/battlefield-hardline-shamefully-kneels-to-feminist-dogma

No reason.

Smithnikov:

http://www.reaxxion.com/6241/battlefield-hardline-shamefully-kneels-to-feminist-dogma

No reason.

So plonkers being plonkers eh?

For what it's worth here's my answers to the questions above.

* What are your thoughts on Squid Coyote's video?

Haven't seen it. Mainly because both sides have become extremist

* Do you agree with Squid Coyote that GamerGate played a role in Donald Trump becoming elected, even if indirectly?

No.

* Do you agree with Squid Coyote that GamerGate began because of both the Gamers Are Dead articles and censorship of discussion about the Quinnspiracy controversy?

The GAD articles may have given GG a boost, but as I see it, it was mostly the censorship of discussion regarding the Quinnspiracy controversy.

* Do you agree with Squid Coyote that there is enough evidence to show that there were legitimate ethical concerns in the Quinnspiracy controversy?

Yes

* Was the supposed "mass censorship" of GamerGate, a mistake on the part of those opposed to the movement? Did it have a streisand effect?

Yes.

* Do you believe that the media and/or social justice community were quick to label any of their detractors as "GamerGate supporters," which caused the movement to grow larger and larger as time went on?

Yes. However I also believe GG may have been too liberal in who they accepted amongst their ranks. GG didn't seem to actually want to conduct any "media warfare", and as such was derailed relatively quickly, while the opposition kept labelling any of their attackers as GG'ers whether they had that allegiance or not, to the detriment of any discourse that could have happened

* Do you believe that if the media and/or social justice community condemned the individuals in the Burgers & Fries chat log, but focused on actual reform and worked alongside actual GamerGate people (most of whom didn't know or care about the B&F people), that things would have died down pretty quick?

Yes

* Do you believe that the media and/or social justice community were quick to call GamerGate supporters right-wing, even though they weren't, which ended up pushing liberal leaning people away from traditional liberal communities and possibly even some ideals?

Yes. Further compounded by the US's frankly weird definition of "liberal"

* Do you believe that it was impossible for anti-GamerGate people to truly win, because pushing GamerGate people outside of their social circles didn't prevent those people from forming communities of their own?

If one looks at it like that, then yes

* Do you agree with Squid Coyote that the "alt-right" doesn't really exist and it's just a "meme"?

Not really. Whether one calls it "alt-right", or "extremely socially conservative" doesn't really matter

* Do you believe that (at least part of) the reason that those opposed to GamerGate, Brexit and Trump failed, is because they focused on insulting their opponents, instead of engaging in discussion and arguing for their ideals?

Yes. I used to support GG (while it wasn't super extremist, and still wanted full disclosure in interviews, and reviews), I am pro EU, and I feel any choice the yanks could've made would be better than Trumpet-man.

I watched the US election from Denmark (where I live), and it turned out there were some volunteers from Danish youth parties helping the Democratic party. What they said in interviews really said a lot about the US political landscape. They were almost shocked that no-one who actually worked with the Democratic party even entertained the idea that they might loose. Such an attitude just wont be seen here.

* Do you agree with Squid Coyote that Hillary Clinton was the "ultimate social justice candidate," or at least was propped up as such?

No. If anything Clinton was either too much, or too little of anything some human emotion

* Do you agree with Squid Coyote that this election was a referendum on social justice and that it proves that social justice is disconnected from the people?

No. If anything it was a referendum that showcased everything broken in the US electoral system, from the Electoral College, to the fact that elections in states are "Winner takes all"

* Do you agree with Squid Coyote that liberal-leaning GamerGate people need to expose social justice as a detriment to the Democratic Party?

I believe any extremism is a detriment to any position (that may be extremist in itself, but what I mean is, let's look at it on a case-by-case basis). But maybe this is because I'm conditioned by Danish politics to accept compromises, while compromises in the US are seen as the work of "the Devil himself"

Smithnikov:

Netscape:

crimsonspear4D:
I mean, really!? Is Gamergate going to be the NRA of the nerd world? Where "Dey takin ur gurmz and puttin chicks, gayz, an blacks in em as main characters" is gonna be the new fear tactic of the modern age?

Are you being serious right now? What in the world makes you think that GG people are opposed to diversity in games?

http://www.reaxxion.com/6241/battlefield-hardline-shamefully-kneels-to-feminist-dogma

No reason.

Reaxxion was a dark day for gaming, but such a evil good time for winning hypothetical internet debates. Someone would post a link to reaxxion as evidence then you could just post the about page for the site and watch them try to dodge around what they just did.

nomotog:

Smithnikov:

Netscape:

Are you being serious right now? What in the world makes you think that GG people are opposed to diversity in games?

http://www.reaxxion.com/6241/battlefield-hardline-shamefully-kneels-to-feminist-dogma

No reason.

Reaxxion was a dark day for gaming, but such a evil good time for winning hypothetical internet debates. Someone would post a link to reaxxion as evidence then you could just post the about page for the site and watch them try to dodge around what they just did.

Oh dear shitbaggins.

Netscape:
Are you being serious right now? What in the world makes you think that GG people are opposed to diversity in games?

Mate, it's been like 3 years now.

I understand you are passionate about GG but if you honestly at this stage still unable to figure out why exactly people perceive GG the way that they do, then I really question how much you really know about GamerGate as a whole.

PainInTheAssInternet:

nomotog:

Smithnikov:

http://www.reaxxion.com/6241/battlefield-hardline-shamefully-kneels-to-feminist-dogma

No reason.

Reaxxion was a dark day for gaming, but such a evil good time for winning hypothetical internet debates. Someone would post a link to reaxxion as evidence then you could just post the about page for the site and watch them try to dodge around what they just did.

Oh dear shitbaggins.

I clicked on that link this is what I got:

> An un-ironic pop-up stating "3 ways big gaming sites are lying to you. Sign up with us today!"
>a story in "Posts of the Week" entitled "Parasite In City Is A Great H-Game That Is Full Of Rape!" with "Gameplay" and comments about how people are up-voting it to protest "Fem-Nazi's"
>Another story called "3 Reasons Why Not Eating Pineapple On Pizza Makes You Worse Than Hitler" which claims Pineapple both makes you better at video games and gets you laid

...I know not all GamerGate-ers and such, but it really does a lot to justify general perception of GamerGate's understanding of journalism when this is the outcome of their own attempts at it.
Hell, Just the click-bait on their subscription pop-ups alone feels entirely like satire.

And remember, according to GamerGate, the site was just fine. No bias or anything.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

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