Support NeoGAF

[VibratingDonkey]

Kevin VanOrd of Gamespot said: "Some Gamergate people are celebrating the suicide. I will not link out of respect."
Since he noted that these specific individuals in the movement are terrible people, various ggaters have reached out to show him that ggate is in fact nice people, by accusing him of lying, using this tragedy to further his agenda, and calling him a lying shit, asshole, bully, monster, scum etc.

 

[Moon_frogger]

The patreon thjng blows my mind. If a writer likes a product enough to actually THROW MONEY FROM THEIR OWN POCKET AT IT I am far more likely to believe their positive opinion is genuine. Where's the conflict in covering things they genuinely think are worthwhile?
What suicide? And who in their right mind would drag a tragedy like that into a Twitter discussion about gamergate?

 

[HanktheAwesome]

The patreon thjng blows my mind. If a writer likes a product enough to actually THROW MONEY FROM THEIR OWN POCKET AT IT I am far more likely to believe their positive opinion is genuine. Where's the conflict in covering things they genuinely think are worthwhile?

Buyer's remorse? Not wanting to look like an idiot for funding someone who produced a 7/10 game when they were expecting a 10/10 game? Not wanting to hurt your friend's feelings?

Stuff like that.

I can also see someone donating to someone's Patreon and giving a totally fair review of the game.

But why risk it?

 

[JackDT]

Yeah it's so weird.

Let's say I post, "Hey I really like this game I think it's worth your time."

Someone responds, "Hey everyone you can't trust him. I know for a fact he has been paying for this game every month with his own money!"

Does that make you more or less likely to believe me? That I'm spending my money on it is evidence that I must actually like it.

 

[Orayn]

Buyer's remorse? Not wanting to look like an idiot for funding someone who produced a 7/10 game when they were expecting a 10/10 game? Not wanting to hurt your friend's feelings?

Stuff like that.

I can also see someone donating to someone's Patreon and giving a totally fair review of the game.

But why risk it?

If we want to talk about things that could possible affect reviews, let's start with the elephant in the room of publishers completely controlling access to review copies and media and being able to revoke that at a moment's notice.

 

[HanktheAwesome]

If we want to talk about things that could possible affect reviews, let's start with the elephant in the room of publishers completely controlling access to review copies and media and being able to revoke that at a moment's notice.

That sucks too. Let's talk about all of it!

 

[Orayn]

That sucks too. Let's talk about all of it!

I'd love to, but Gaters only seems interested in random indie witch hunts. The few times I've heard them talk about big publishers, they were discussing how they could be allies by asking them to pull ad campaigns from evil SJW sites.

The thing with WB and Shadow of Mordor? There was barely a peep out of GG. That should tell you something about the movement's priorities.

 

[tonysidaway]

Yeah it's so weird.

Let's say I post, "Hey I really like this game I think it's worth your time."

Someone responds, "Hey everyone you can't trust him. I know for a fact he has been paying for this game every month with his own money!"

Does that make you more or less likely to believe me? That I'm spending my money on it is evidence that I must actually like it.

Quite. There is a distinction between the suspicion that someone who spends money on a developer's Patreon may be displaying poor judgement and the suspicion that a developer may influence a journalist's judgement by giving them inducements or other rewards. The latter is a conflict.

Perhaps reviewers should disclose whether they have donated to a relevant developer Patreon. By the same token, they should disclose whether they paid money to obtain a copy. It helps transparency, though neither case creates any conflict.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

Buyer's remorse? Not wanting to look like an idiot for funding someone who produced a 7/10 game when they were expecting a 10/10 game? Not wanting to hurt your friend's feelings?

Stuff like that.

I can also see someone donating to someone's Patreon and giving a totally fair review of the game.

But why risk it?

Of course, if someone is donating to a Pateon, it probably means they are a fan of that person's work, but how is that different from, let's say, a big Nintendo fan reviewing the new Smash? Of course game writers are fans of specific games / creators, they are gaming enthusiasts like their readers.

 

[Nephrahim]

GGers priorities are definitely the "SJW" or Feminists or leftists or whatever you want to call them. The idea that they've been against corruption in general has always been a side thing.

I hate to say this because I am sure some GGers will disagree, but I've watched this from the start, and it's very obvious.

 

[tranciful]

Buyer's remorse? Not wanting to look like an idiot for funding someone who produced a 7/10 game when they were expecting a 10/10 game? Not wanting to hurt your friend's feelings?

Stuff like that.

I can also see someone donating to someone's Patreon and giving a totally fair review of the game.

But why risk it?

How does that not apply to buying a game off the shelf?

 

[Corto]

That sucks too. Let's talk about all of it!

We're running in circles now. But bias always exists in journalism and news reporting. You think a journalist doesn't have political affiliations or preferences? Or he doesn't use his/her personal connections to source his work? There's no "neutral reporting" "objective reporting". Even more so in the enthusiast press of glorified digital toys where status quo is as hegemonic and powerful as it is. In the case of Patreon, or small kickstarter projects their life or death depends on exposure, on connections and discoverability. I'm ok to give some curation power to people that deal every day with these creators even if they bring their own bias to the process.

On objectivity in journalism this article from Mhwilliams is absolutely spot on:

https://medium.com/@automaticzen/on-objectivity-and-journalism-90a96c167d8d

 

[MYeager]

If we want to talk about things that could possible affect reviews, let's start with the elephant in the room of publishers completely controlling access to review copies and media and being able to revoke that at a moment's notice.

It's been mentioned but that's a hard thing to change. Fact of the matter is there's no incentive for publishers to give out pre-release copies of games except for as part of publicity for the game. They don't owe free games to anyone. It's either take the industry deciding to no longer give these copies out to press, or the press as a whole decide to stop receiving them. The latter will never happen because they're fighting for page views against one another.

 

[MYeager]

Kevin VanOrd of Gamespot said: "Some Gamergate people are celebrating the suicide. I will not link out of respect."
Since he noted that these specific individuals in the movement are terrible people, various ggaters have reached out to show him that ggate is in fact nice people, by accusing him of lying, using this tragedy to further his agenda, and calling him a lying shit, asshole, bully, monster, scum etc.

They're calling him a lying asshole bully by being lying asshole bullies to him and can't even see it. Jaysus.

Kevin's gotta use that mute button.

 

[jstripes]

GGers priorities are definitely the "SJW" or Feminists or leftists or whatever you want to call them. The idea that they've been against corruption in general has always been a side thing.

I hate to say this because I am sure some GGers will disagree, but I've watched this from the start, and it's very obvious.

It's a side thing, but it helped them beef up their numbers by attracting people who are genuinely concerned about corruption.

 

[MisterShine]

Not sure if this has been posted in the thread, but here's an interview of Youtube group SuperBunnyHop talking to Dr. Greg Lisby, a professor of journalism and ethics at Georgia State University.

I think the whole video is interesting, but as the current discussion is on Patreon donations, SBH asks the Dr. this question, and I'll give the short answer of it here:

SBH- "Would you say that funding a source's creative process crosses that [ethical] line?"

Dr. Lisby -"*laughter Absolutely! No doubt in my mind, whatsoever. "


Full video here (relevant part starts at 3:59:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-7RLxrsJ04&feature=youtu.be

 

[Corto]

It's been mentioned but that's a hard thing to change. Fact of the matter is there's no incentive for publishers to give out pre-release copies of games except for as part of publicity for the game. They don't owe free games to anyone. It's either take the industry deciding to no longer give these copies out to press, or the press as a whole decide to stop receiving them. The latter will never happen because they're fighting for page views against one another.

There's another way. Stimulate the creation of critics outlets that go beyond the rushed consumer report review that this system tends to create. After release reviews/criticism/analysis would be great as more deliberate and well thought out analysis would be its result. Several "schools of criticism" could flourish, a more learned audience would thrive and better games would result of it.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Not sure if this has been posted in the thread, but here's an interview of Youtube group SuperBunnyHop talking to Dr. Greg Lisby, a professor of journalism and ethics at Georgia State University.

I think the whole video is interesting, but as the current discussion is on Patreon donations, SBH asks the Dr. this question, and I'll give the short answer of it here:

SBH- "Would you say that funding a source's creative process crosses that [ethical] line?"

Dr. Lisby -"*laughter Absolutely! No doubt in my mind, whatsoever. "


Full video here (relevant part starts at 3:59:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-7RLxrsJ04&feature=youtu.be

It has indeed been posted

 

[Slavik81]

If we want to talk about things that could possible affect reviews, let's start with the elephant in the room of publishers completely controlling access to review copies and media and being able to revoke that at a moment's notice.

This is absolutely a far, far, far bigger problem than anything I've seen discussed thus far. To the extent that even if all the complaints about journalism ethics where addressed, I don't think anything would be meaningfully changed. Reviews would still be untrustworthy.

It's pretty much unfixable, too. It makes me feel like all this ferver around game journalism ethics is basically a waste of time. Perhaps that we should stop trying to make them trustworthy and instead simply stop trusting them.

There's another way. Stimulate the creation of critics outlets that go beyond the rushed consumer report review that this system tends to create. After release reviews/criticism/analysis would be great as more deliberate and well thought out analysis would be its result. Several "schools of criticism" could flourish, a more learned audience would thrive and better games would result of it.

Absolutely. I'd much prefer to read a critical analysis of a game a few months later than a review when the game releases.

Unfortunately, I suspect that it would not be commercially viable. At least not on the same scale.

 

[Orayn]

This is absolutely a far, far, far bigger problem than anything I've seen discussed thus far. To the extent that even if all the complaints about journalism ethics where addressed, I don't think anything would be meaningfully changed. Reviews would still be untrustworthy.

It's pretty much unfixable, too. It makes me feel like all this ferver around game journalism ethics is basically a waste of time. Perhaps that we should stop trying to make them trustworthy and instead simply stop trusting them.

It's been mentioned but that's a hard thing to change. Fact of the matter is there's no incentive for publishers to give out pre-release copies of games except for as part of publicity for the game. They don't owe free games to anyone. It's either take the industry deciding to no longer give these copies out to press, or the press as a whole decide to stop receiving them. The latter will never happen because they're fighting for page views against one another.

I think a reasonable course of action would be demanding some transparency from the publishers about media access to reassure consumers that they're not unduly manipulating the press, and asking the press for continued and/or increased clarity about what they receive for free and what's being done with it. Those are both things that a grassroots campaign could potentially achieve, and seeing a good faith effort on either or both of them would foster a lot of trust.

Too bad GG is busy treating DiGRA like it's the fucking Black Cauldron.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

There's another way. Stimulate the creation of critics outlets that go beyond the rushed consumer report review that this system tends to create. After release reviews/criticism/analysis would be great as more deliberate and well thought out analysis would be its result. Several "schools of criticism" could flourish, a more learned audience would thrive and better games would result of it.

Excellent point. This is ideal.

 

[tonysidaway]

This is what I used to call "Bellman's Theorem", after the character in The Hunting of the Snark who says "what I say three times is true." If a mob wants to pillory someone, they make an accusation and act scandalised. When the victim denies, they repeat the accusation and call them a liar. By the third accusation and denial the mob has convinced itself that here is a particularly heinous case of a sociopathic liar whose misdeeds must be exposed to the world.

 

[tranciful]

This is not at all true. I did a search on twitter when this was brought up a day or two ago, and there were tons of #Gamergate tweets talking about Shadow of Mordor.

Specifically the Polygon "kissing versus killing" opinion piece.

hehe

 

[r1chard]

http://leighalexander.net/list-of-ethical-concerns-in-video-games-partial/

edit: sorry, shouldn't have just dropped a link without comment. it's a list of real ethical concerns in gaming that gamergate doesn't seem to be interested in pursuing.

i pretty much agree with all of it, and even people who don't like leigh alexander should read it. the tone isn't abrasive so even those with delicate sensibilities shouldn't be offended.

That is a great start at a list. And yep, all the "responses" from #GamerGate are all attacking people and not addressing the list in any way. Thus showing up their true agenda of hate.

 

[shacklesmcgee]

Count me in with the people who don't understand how patreon-ing can be unethical, there are no kickbacks right? Is it really different than a journalist giving money to a kickstarter and writing an article about it? Of course, this relationship should be disclosed, but we're past that now, many sites have now made this mandatory.

I dunno, I guess I'm just so confused at how this whole thing is still chugging along...

 

[HanktheAwesome]

I'd love to, but Gaters only seems interested in random indie witch hunts. The few times I've heard them talk about big publishers, they were discussing how they could be allies by asking them to pull ad campaigns from evil SJW sites.

The thing with WB and Shadow of Mordor? There was barely a peep out of GG. That should tell you something about the movement's priorities.

Yeah, if I had to guess, most of the rational #GG have jumped ship and are back to just rolling their eyes at click-bait articles again. What's left of the group are the crazies that wanted to hurt people, with a handful of "But not ALL of us are like that" people popping up on Twitter to decry the actions of the crazies and cite examples of the anti-GG being crazies themselves.

I think the reason that no one talks about that elephant is because everyone already knows that Activision and friends suck. And they're rich. And there's not much they can do about it. I already don't trust them. So targeting indies is better, right? Not really. But splitting your focus isn't really smart when you're trying to be this huge movement with a clear goal. But it does feel awfully hypocritical. Because it is.

I'm gonna go off-topic here and just go ahead and tell people what scared me, and what made me originally align myself with the GG people. People say "It's not about Zoe" but for me it totally is. Well. She played a central role. I didn't like that Zoe Quinn asked reporters not to cover the Fine Young Capitalists, and so the press didn't. That's all. That's what scared me.

Before the ex-boyfriend dropped all that personal shit about their relationship, which was fucked up by the way, the Zoe vs FYC thing happened. We didn't find out about it until AFTER the personal shit, but that's what brought it out there. Zoe thought the FYC were bad. FYC get messed up by Zoe's fans. FYC asks journalists to cover their pro-diversity thingy so that they can get funding because without exposure it's hopeless, some journalists agree to do it, then they suddenly refuse because Zoe said "don't do it they're bad /trust me/"

It doesn't justify the threats. It doesn't justify any of the harassment. I just want the press to do research before reporting on something. And I want them to report on the good parts and the bad parts of the things they choose to report on. For example, if you're going to report on ZQ because she received harassment for getting Depression Quest on Greenlight (so that you may boost awareness of the game/the plight of the developer), why not report on when the FYC are attacked and their fundraiser put in peril(so that you may boost awareness of the fundraiser/the plight of the people involved). Both stories are about good causes being attacked. One received press, the other didn't because it involved one of the people that the press had been championing as a shining example of women in gaming. And again, Zoe Quinn is still... redeemable. She made a mistake. The FYC policies were fine, or at the very least not egregiously backwards. So apologize (which she did later) and boom, we're done. And the press covers the initial event, the fall-out, and the apology, and we all grow as people. The end. But that's not what happened, and that's what scares me. I don't want my journalists refusing to cover something because they're scared of hurting their friends feelings, or they think that it'd be bad to say something bad about an overall decent human being, who happens to be female, who happens to have made a mistake. And I'm worried about what else they might keep from me to protect people for internet assholes.

The conspiracy theorists are out of control. They're doing poor research and coming up with bad conclusions. The death threats and all that shit is terrible. But bad people are bad. I knew that all ready. What I learned is that I don't trust games journalism. You guys are /v/ are two different sides of the a coin and I get the information I need from those two sources. So yeah. I learned that Twitter is awful, and that I don't trust games journalism, so don't use that shit anymore.

I feel better for writing this, if nothing else.

Hope we can all still be friends.

 

[Kinyou]

http://leighalexander.net/list-of-ethical-concerns-in-video-games-partial/

edit: sorry, shouldn't have just dropped a link without comment. it's a list of real ethical concerns in gaming that gamergate doesn't seem to be interested in pursuing.

i pretty much agree with all of it, and even people who don't like leigh alexander should read it. the tone isn't abrasive so even those with delicate sensibilities shouldn't be offended.

Isn't that pretty much just deflection?

Reminds me of those responses you so often see ala "why do you care about sexist videogames when there are so much worse issues that woman are facing"

I doubt this will convince anyone who's under the gamer gate label

 

[Deleted member 126221]

I didn't like that Zoe Quinn asked reporters not to cover the Fine Young Capitalists, and so the press didn't. That's all. That's what scared me.

Do you have any source of proof for that? I'm not necessarily saying you are wrong, but this is the first time I hear that.

 

[Slavik81]

I think a reasonable course of action would be demanding some transparency from the publishers about media access to reassure consumers that they're not unduly manipulating the press, and asking the press for continued and/or increased clarity about what they receive for free and what's being done with it. Those are both things that a grassroots campaign could potentially achieve, and seeing a good faith effort on either or both of them would foster a lot of trust.

Too bad GG is busy treating DiGRA like it's the fucking Black Cauldron.

Might be worth a try.

 

[HanktheAwesome]

Do you have any source of proof for that? I'm not necessarily saying you are wrong, but this is the first time I hear that.

My source is the FYC. So perhaps I'm a hypocrite for trusting them on their word. I believe that ish was confirmed, but I don't have that proof on me or anything. I'm not on my home computer. But the gist of it was that several gaming websites said they were interested in covering their kickstarter or whatever it was, and then after the ZQ drama happened with her fans "DDoSing" them or whatever, all of them back-out, a few citing talking to Zoe as the reason. I think. I /think/. I'm pretty sure. I think.

 

[Oersted]

Isn't that pretty much just deflection?

Reminds me of those responses you so often see ala "why do you care about sexist videogames when there are so much worse issues that woman are facing"

I doubt this will convince anyone who's under the gamer gate label

Quinns sex life was never an issue and that has been explained painfully detailed. It is too late to be a deflection. It is a simple fact.

 

[Lime]

Fuck yeah, GitHub bans their Gamergate repository for using it as a central point to organize harassment campaigns:

 

[vcc]

I'm gonna go off-topic here and just go ahead and tell people what scared me, and what made me originally align myself with the GG people. People say "It's not about Zoe" but for me it totally is. Well. She played a central role. I didn't like that Zoe Quinn asked reporters not to cover the Fine Young Capitalists, and so the press didn't. That's all. That's what scared me.

Asking people not to do something is not the same as compelling them not to do something. She might have had a personal problem with that fund raiser but it's trivial. The fund raiser is trivial. The request was trivial.

I'm not sure why that would scare you? Sound extremely dire for a trivial non event.

 

[Kinyou]

Quinns sex life was never an issue and that has been explained painfully detailed. It is too late to be a deflection. It is a simple fact.

Gamergate isn't all about Quinns sex life, is it?

 

[Oersted]

Gamergate isn't all about Quinns sex life, is it?

Your opening statement was "Isn't that pretty much just deflection?" Since you didn't say at all what is there a deflection, I picked one of her "that never mattered"-points. And well, Quinns sex life, one of Gamergates core motivations, never mattered.

 

[voodoopanda]

It seems like Zoe Quinn is a major target of GG, but the reasons why change as new charges come up then get debunked over & over. She's been built up as this near mythic mastermind controlling the media behind the scenes, so people are dedicated to finding evidence to support this, somewhere somehow.

 

[partyphone]

Gamergate isn't all about Quinns sex life, is it?

"deflection" implies a real actual problem is being ignored. but GG has never found a real actual problem.

 

[aeolist]

Gamergate isn't all about Quinns sex life, is it?

if it's actually supposed to be about ethical concerns then nothing there is a deflection, it's on-point and more relevant than anything GG has brought up

 

[HanktheAwesome]

Asking people not to do something is not the same as compelling them not to do something. She might have had a personal problem with that fund raiser but it's trivial. The fund raiser is trivial. The request was trivial.

I'm not sure why that would scare you? Sound extremely dire for a trivial non event.

Her asking is fine. I imagine most people would ask not to be negatively covered. But I think a lot of people probably worked hard for a woman to get a chance to make a game at FYC and for their project to be... Crushed due to misinformation spread by Zoe and her loyal followers isn't fair. So they deserved a chance to set the record straight. Zoe asked the press not to give the FYC that chance. That's fine. But the press should have ignored that request. That's unbiased journalism. And it's scary because if it can happen to a good cause like the FYC then it could happen to another good cause. Or a just a cause that those with that sway don't like. That scares me.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

"deflection" implies a real actual problem is being ignored. but GG has never found a real actual problem.

Feminism is the problem! It's a disease and it infected countless AAA games like... hmmm...

 

[tonysidaway]

Isn't that pretty much just deflection?

No, those are for the most part real and longstanding ethical issues, not excuses to attack Indie gamers and their popularisers in journalism.

I doubt this will convince anyone who's under the gamer gate label

That's kinda her point.

 

[aeolist]

Her asking is fine. I imagine most people would ask not to be negatively covered. But I think a lot of people probably worked hard for a woman to get a chance to make a game at FYC and for their project to be... Crushed due to misinformation spread by Zoe and her loyal followers isn't fair. So they deserved a chance to set the record straight. Zoe asked the press not to give the FYC that chance. That's fine. But the press should have ignored that request. That's unbiased journalism. And it's scary because if it can happen to a good cause like the FYC then it could happen to another good cause. Or a just a cause that those with that sway don't like. That scares me.

reporters can and do determine for themselves whether they should post stories, blaming that on quinn's shadowy machinations is just puerile.

also TFYC has never stopped trashing her in interviews, and i've seen them repeat plenty of things that simply aren't true. in addition it's kind of a shitty project to begin with if your purpose is to get women into game development because all of the actual development is being contracted out. the woman will be left with a sliver of profits that may not exist and "i had an idea" on her resume which nobody will care about because everyone has ideas and the development/follow-through are the important parts that people care about.

 

[tonysidaway]

Fuck yeah, GitHub bans their Gamergate repository for using it as a central point to organize harassment campaigns:

I've felt uncomfortable about that repository since I heard about it. Github as a software project repository is an insanely stupid place for trolls to base a campaign of harassment. Not to mention that this kind of conduct is grossly unethical in the first place.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

Browsed Twitter a bit, and it looks like their new defense is calling their opponents "misogynist" and "against diversity", while citing Christina Sommers as an example of "good feminism". I guess it's an effective defense; it's so ridiculous I'm not sure what I'd reply.

 

[jstripes]

"deflection" implies a real actual problem is being ignored. but GG has never found a real actual problem.

They kinda struck on something real with the whole "corruption in the games media" thing, it's a pretty big issue, but they went after it for all the wrong reasons.

 

[aeolist]

https://twitter.com/vectorpoem/status/518178047241904128
https://twitter.com/vectorpoem/status/518178180545277954

@leighalexander just thought of another one: the esrb is weird and opaque and not really accountable to anyone, and ACTUALLY censors things.

@leighalexander (it's censorship devs accept voluntarily so their games can be sold at retail obvs, but it is still a censorship process.)

another good one

 

[Kinyou]

Your opening statement was "Isn't that pretty much just deflection?" Since you didn't say at all what is there a deflection, I picked one of her "that never mattered"-points. And well, Quinns sex life, one of Gamergates core motivations, never mattered.

"deflection" implies a real actual problem is being ignored. but GG has never found a real actual problem.

It actually doesn't matter if you or me think that there's actual problem. The Gamergate guys obviously think there is. Her way of arguing is "those here are real problems, stop caring about that other stuff." To me that's deflection since it doesn't engage their actual arguments.

if it's actually supposed to be about ethical concerns then nothing there is a deflection, it's on-point and more relevant than anything GG has brought up

Well they say it's about the integrity of videogame news sites, just saying "but those issues are more important" seems like a deflective argument.

 

[tonysidaway]

Her asking is fine. I imagine most people would ask not to be negatively covered. But I think a lot of people probably worked hard for a woman to get a chance to make a game at FYC and for their project to be... Crushed due to misinformation spread by Zoe and her loyal followers isn't fair. So they deserved a chance to set the record straight. Zoe asked the press not to give the FYC that chance. That's fine. But the press should have ignored that request. That's unbiased journalism. And it's scary because if it can happen to a good cause like the FYC then it could happen to another good cause. Or a just a cause that those with that sway don't like. That scares me.

There were legitimate doubts about The Fine Young Capitalists. In particular because of the way it's set up it's a rather foolish way to run a jam if your aim is to help women to a career in game development. It's a quite inexpensive way to get publicity and funds for a start up, though. Zoe Quinn cannot have been the only person who thought this sounded hokey.

If you really want to help women into gaming development, you could do worse than fund scholarships, as Girls Make Games do. Women in gaming ought to be among the key players, not the ball.

 

[aeolist]

It actually doesn't matter if you or me think that there's actual problem. The Gamergate guys obviously think there is. Her way of arguing is "those here are real problems, stop caring about that other stuff." To me that's deflection since it doesn't engage their actual arguments.

their actual arguments are paranoid sexist conspiracy theories and there's no convincing them otherwise

the only real way to engage is to make them look ridiculous by pointing out actual problems and showing everyone else that they will just ignore them

 

[Deleted member 126221]

It actually doesn't matter if you or me think that there's actual problem. The Gamergate guys obviously think there is. Her way of arguing is "those here are real problems, stop caring about that other stuff." To me that's deflection since it doesn't engage their actual arguments.

Their "arguments" have been engaged for weeks and they don't care. What's the problem with writing that article? I don't get it.