GamerGate's Image Problem

[Something Amyss]

Yes just like last time you said you went through all my posts and concluded that i don´t take action to meet my words.

Strange. It'd be so easy for you to actually answer the question and prove your claim at the same time. I asked which thread, and the fact that you're avoiding an answer really makes me question your honesty.

Well, I'm getting nowhere asking for actual proof or evidence, so I guess there's nothing more to say.

 

[AntiChri5]

Dont know why people are getting so worked up about it. Some woman used sex to gain reviews from game reviewers. So what? Woman have been using their bodies to their advantage for centuries. Only thing that can come out of it is those reviewers have lost their ability to review games with an unbiased opinion and thus their careers are over. As for Quinn, whatever, dont care about the woman, so is she the first woman to cheat? The only people it effects are Quinn and her husband/boyfriend. Other than that its no bodies business. An all the hate mail and death threats should stop, people are acting like they are directly effected by it and none of them were (unless you are the wife/girlfriend of those game reviews).

Actually, she didn't. She fucked a journalist a few months after he wrote a thing where she got an offhand mention.

So the problem is what? She did it as a reward for mentioning her? I just have trouble with why anyone should care.

Well, it's possible that she fucked him to reward him, but i kind of doubt it. Here it is, by the way: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/08/admission-quest-valve-greenlights-50-more-games/ the only thing written by a journalist she fucked that mentions her.

Personally, i am of the opinion that she fucked him because she likes to fuck. Many people do.

 

[kurupt87]

So despite me explicitly stating the reverse, I am somehow implying exactly the thing that you want me to be. Interesting.

You seem utterly reasonable with an excellent grasp of English and are totally unbiased.

Actually, it's more that when you explicitly claim something, and then spend the entirety of the rest of your post contradicting your claim, you are implying exactly the opposite of the thing you claimed, thus proving it to be a lie.

I'm sorry if you do not understand this and chose to incriminate yourself in the way you did, but I'm not going to ignore your self incrimination simply because you started out by stating the opposite.

There is no point talking to you, you ignore the words that I put on the page and make something up that you want me to have said.

Have a nice weekend strange one.

 

[RexMundane]

The entire backlash against gamergate used those arguments. That we shouldn't go after toxicity in journalism because of a problem you have a particular movement. Copy pasted everywhere. Ties into gamergate's image.

Do you stomp on puppies because PETA did something stupid?

Do you destroy nature because of what greenpeace did?

No. Good causes are good causes regardless of movements. Its this mentality that gives gamergate its little "image problem." That somehow a cause is only as good as its movement.

Adam Sessler still does games journalism:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/04/02/adam-sessler-leaving-rev3-games-to-pursue-new-avenues-in-video-games/

And that is just the tip off the iceberg of hateful comments:

http://gamergateharassment.tumblr.com/

Greg Tito was harassed using the mailing list, and condemned it on twitter. Boogie too. Many developers came forward and said so. In fact, the mailing list was used to do a media black out because the journalists were "friends." In fact, this is a huge breach of ethics. There shouldn't be a journalist council censoring and spinning stories.

The press should be free, not by council a few figureheads. 47 pages of more collusion which not even normal journalists could get away with. Merely having a secret mailing list at all costs someone their job in real journalism.

and that's the major problem: Somehow games journalists are demigods who can never be wrong on anything. Even when some journalists apologized like Movie Bob, they went right back to insults.

Gaming journalists should not be on a level above actual journalists. They should have the same consequences as anyone else.

Even if it was just twitter bullshit, real journalists would be fired for what these people said. Yet advertisers gave them a warning where a real journalist is immediately fired.

That's the major issue here, that since all these journalists circle wagons around each other that they can do whatever they please regardless of ethics, morality, or the state of the industry.

Gamergate's issue with image stems from a beaten down gamer demographic, and the mentality that causes are only as good as their movements.

Both are incredibly wrong because we have the power to reform the industry and good causes are good causes regardless. But years of being told "we are helpless" actually made gamers believe it.

The sting of tribalism and party lines also contributes because gaming has a star struck problem where a famous person is treated as an infallible god.

So it becomes a fight of whose "god" is more powerful.

...I keep having to double check myself when I'm responding to you, and I honestly don't mean this as a dismissive insult, but will you listen to yourself, please? A "Journalist Council" of "Demigods," intolerant racist bullies of cancer patients with no ethics or morals, "beating down" the "helpless" gamers who've done no wrong? This is how you genuinely see the conflict?

I mean, look, this is a major part of the problem right here. You've all amplified the nature of this into a massive "Us vs. Them, Good vs. Evil" thing and it isn't healthy. People can't just disagree with the nature of the problem as you see it without being "disgusting," or "evil," or somehow just unworthy of being treated as humans who only need to be persuaded.

I mean forget the abuse harrassment and death threats (by which I mean, you know, DON'T actually forget it, but lets just move beyond for the moment), forget that this all started with vulgar accusations about a woman's sex life being used to get good press for her project, forget the harassment Sarkeesian was getting for revealing she received death threats, forget that the primary sympathetic news outlet is Breitbart which has had a checkered past with the facts, to put it very mildly.

Forget all that and we're left with this. This as the image of Gamergate. And it's impossible to take you seriously.

And you haven't? All you did was twist my words anyone and not see any meaning at all. You refuse to even see what I am saying and twisting it into some insult to you.

Real journalists get consequences. Gaming journalism doesn't.

Real journalists don't get treated as infallible. Game journalists do.

If you read any comments on Jim Sterling's videos you see a lot of hero worship. Same for Gabe Newell. Same for Nintendo. Same for Adam.

I got death threats because I publicly didn't like Nintendo and didn't grow up with their games. Death Threats for not playing Nintendo games. Death threats for having Max Payne and XCOM be higher on the nostalgia list than Smash bros.

The hero worship and tribalism is whats killing debate. You refuse to see that problem.

Gaming journalists spout hate and bully those who can't fight back, yet people are too busy looking the other way. You refuse to see this problem. Gamer culture is too cynical to do anything and allowing it to stagnate.

For instance, the Escapist has been nothing but cynical for years. That you can do nothing about anything because of how huge gaming's "meanies" are. That all you can do is sit back and buy a 60$ turd. The only difference is Jim Sterling who capitalized on that hopelessness for fame and telling gamers what they already know.

I never said you had to support the gamergate name, I said you have to call out bad behavior in gaming journalism where its due. We can't afford to look the other way for toxicity anymore. We can't afford to be passive anymore and hope someone else does it for us.

And its hilarious how you went straight to the political lines, origins, and personal hang up arguments to justify ignoring everything. The ones that I specifically said was a problem to the progress of the industry because they are used to justify looking the other way and ignoring real issues.

Gaming is becoming huge and if we don't call out toxicity now then we won't get another chance because people will point to previous failures to justify looking away again.

Can you agree that calling out toxic journalists is a good thing? And we should do it while we have the most momentum?

I feel as though you keep trying to get me to play some kind of game, like that's the reason your posts keep going all over the place and rambling on a handful of different subjects unrelated to the forum topic, like you're trying, maybe not deliberately but just because it keeps happening on most forums, to lure me into doing some kind of point-by-point rebuttal, irregardless of it all being unrelated to the topic at hand, in the hope that in the hours it would take me to address each minor issue and statement I might just become exhausted with the whole enterprise and give up. I don't want to play that game.

However, to your final question: No. It's not a good thing to do. Even if "toxic" were a meaningful classification (and it isn't), if abuse weren't a part of it (and it is), and even if every accusation were well sourced (and they're not), the very best you could hope to have is a "polite" witch-hunt. Further adding, as so much else does, to GG's image problem.

 

[RexMundane]

Oh sweet heavenly father, speaking of paranoid conspiracies and having an image problem, Milo is taking this to InfoWars [https://twitter.com/Nero/status/513025637251305472].

Spoiler

[/spoiler]

I hate to call myself psychic, but I totally called this weeks ago [https://twitter.com/RexMundane/status/508356113335857153]. Even some of the die-hard-est GG'ers are revulsed at the idea, and I am trying really, [i]really[/i] damn hard not to laugh.

 

[Netrigan]

Changing the name is one of the worst things you could do at this point. It's a tactic anti-#GamerGate tried with #GameEthics, where they tried to splinter you into different groups, cause in-fighting, and control the conversation. You'd be feeding right into their bullshit willingly, and risk killing this whole thing in the process.

Besides, you already have enough momentum on Twitter that when a giant like 4chan fell and split it's attention on getting it's boards back and finding a new base and regrouping, it skyrocketed #GG to it's highest point. Getting more people's attention in the process. No need to waste that.

Secondly, the sad truth is: there is no removing the "misogynist" or harassers. Just like there is no removing the crazies on the anti-GG side. You call them out when you see it. You tell them to be civil, fair, and focus on ethics and corruption; and give credit to journalists that agree. You keep taking screenshots of how horrible anti-GGs are. Keep engaging people on social media. Call advertisers. Boycott sites and give suggestions on "good" ones that allow discussion. Share images. Do your own individual streams and encourage bigger streamers on our side to help out by joining yours or doing their own. Keep doing what you've been doing basically. That's the best you can do. And it's been amazing so far.

Focusing on "image" is setting yourself up to fail. You don't have the outlets they do, you're not as sympathetic, you have no individual face on this movement(and you shouldn't). These people are extremists for the most part, the whole idea of this "movement" is tainted in their eyes; they want it dead. They'll never let up on those points. Simple as that. It's a waste of time putting in resources to "repairing your image".

You should push the point of how sad it is that gamers felt the need to turn to hard-right conservatives, who aren't involved in the industry, for fairness. That the journalists you're supposed to trust were clearly colluding with eachother in private(The googlegroup is password protected, right?) to push a narrative and censorship. Any honest journalist, regardless of political stance, will look at that and see instantly that there is something very wrong here.

edit: I totally misread the op, but I'll leave this up anyways. =/

I keep saying it, but so far you guys are more like Occupy than The Tea Party. Most of the major reporters or commentators aren't really a part of your movement in any way I can see. Thunderb00t is just piggybagging his Anti-Feminist agenda onto it. I don't think Davis Aruini has even tried to argue video games in porting his agenda over to gaming. Milo tweeted that he doesn't play, so he's pursuing his own agenda there. So far, I've only see MundaneMatt who dedicates a fair number of his videos to video games. Leaving Internet Aristocrat as perhaps the only voice almost exclusively devoted to video games. TotalBisquit is more or less on its side, but has no interest getting involved as long as 4chan is anywhere near it, because they're a bunderbust which just spray shrapnel on anyone in the vicinity.

Beyond that, it seems kind of obvious to me that you all have very different ideas about what the message is, although you're too busy fighting with others to notice. Some of you only care about journalistic ethics insofar as it involves SJW and Feminists. Others are more concerned with the gaming related scandals. Some insist this has nothing to do with Zoe Quinn anymore, but it's clear that in other circles she's a major part of it and they breathlessly report on every new wrinkle in her saga... hell, #GG seems to care about Fine Young Capitalist primarily because they had a problem with her.

Go to any successful movement and ask them, "without mentioning your political opponents, name me ten things you believe in" and they'd be able to talk your ear off. As reactionary as The Tea Party can be, they have a set of core beliefs that they actively fight for... while fighting against other interests. Feminists can name several key issues they regularly support. Ayn Rand's Objectistics can lay out a completely positive defense of Capitalism... although they tend to pepper their political sermons with all sorts of mentions of parasites and Communists.

What are the core beliefs of #GamerGate? How do they plan on achieving those goals? Until you can answer those questions, I'm not sure you'll be anything other than a reactionary mob like Occupy was who only knows what they're against.

 

[Schadrach]

First off, I do think it's fair to say that outside of these three actions there is little gamergate could do. It is possible that some kind of public statement could be crafted, but I doubt language could be agreed upon by a substantial number of prominent supporters and there would be serious risk that the final statement would include language that undercut the message. This is particularly true if any of the MRA-types in the movement got to weigh in.

You'd be surprised how many of the more noteworthy names involved have MRA leanings, especially the ones you aren't immediately associating with it, as well as some of the comparatively smaller names like Iribrise/Becca from last night's stream (who was also in the #notyourshield video). Though to be fair, there's quite a lot of MRA stuff that isn't all that objectionable, though I've always found (weirdly enough) that introducing people to women who are MRAs makes the positions more acceptable, presumably because it's harder for people to accept that women are taking these positions out of internalized mahogany (side note: someone needs to make an image macro of a woman eating wood chips to internalize mahogany).

I should point out however that not all pro-GG people categorically rule out these three options. A change of name has been proposed more than once. There are some pro-GG people who exercise caution when circulating material from the more toxic posters and/or those who make have cheered on harassment. So, it's not like these things haven't been tried, they just never seem to quite catch on.

There's a simple problem with a name change -- a name change costs the movement momentum, but doesn't cost the trolls anything to follow along.

Has anyone actually cheered on harassment? That's messed up. I'd love examples.

The problem with that understandable attitude by pro-GG people who came along after the birth of the hashtag is that it is totally unreasonable to condemn journalists' reactions to the anti-Quinn movement. At the time they wrote, there was only the extremely toxic anti-Quinn movement. So, essentially, current pro-GG people are really upset that journalists condemned a movement that they want to distance themselves from.

By the point the first "hit pieces" came out, the thrust of what was being talked about was the wide-spread media silence to an indie developer having a relationship with one member of press and two Indiecade committee members (creating the appearance of impropriety) as revealed by an ex who was in an apparently abusive relationship with her which included textbook gaslighting and violation of sexual consent, especially given that "a friend of a friend said Max Temkin raped her when they were in college" was newsworthy just a few weeks before. There's certainly the appearance of a double standard there, and now it seems to be more than just an appearance. "Gamers are dead" came after that. Most recently was the GameJournoPros thing, which several game journalists passed off as nothing interesting, and they generally are the ones that have said the most problematic stuff on it.

Related to this, props to Greg Tito for his defending us being allowed to even talk about this stuff here. Ben Kuchera, by comparison, was arguing that any discussion of this whole mess is harassment.

 

[Antlion33]

This has been has been my problem from the start, when has conservative social views ever wanted to add to gaming? I'm not talking about Conservatives, I'm talking about the social views, which have been held by various ideologies. To be even more specific, what has "Fox news" given to gaming, symbolically speaking.

From trying to legislate games in the 90's to scapegoating them even today, when someone like Milo pops up my alarms start going off. I mean the tone seems to be that of wanting to censor ourselves. GG doesn't want Journalists talking about it, but whats next?

I want to make this very clear, so long as it ADDS to gaming and doesn't take away, ALL views are welcome in my book. A game's content is between the developer and their consumers, period.

Bottomline is this, what Milo said about gamers was FAR worse than what Leigh Alexander said. If gamergate is going to literally say, "Well he's helping us." you have no credibility with me.

One issue is that the image of gamers, occasionally deservedly, is now being dragged through the mud by its own enthusiast press.

I'm completely inured to the fact that in the population at large (and subsequently also journalism at large), gaming as a hobby has at best been looked at with the sort of bemused condescension that is also reserved for, say, comic books or people who collect dead bugs. I don't always necessarily like it, but hey, keeping up with the ins and outs of a hobby as diverse as this is understandably beyond the grasp of casual or disinterested observers.

Conservative media has been running with the notion that gaming is the hobby of kids and the adults who refuse to accept that they're not one (and is thus secretly dangerous to children). Other media are running with the same narrative, it's simply originating from a different source.

But, interest is bubbling up. Gaming is leaking out into the larger field of pop culture. What is your typical, non-gaming journalist to do when he or she wants to peek inside? Read forums and articles, watch posts on reddit, and follow people on twitter? No, because you have a journalist contributor to your organization on file - if not down the hallway - who follows and reports on this stuff already.

If I'm a clueless journalist and I want to know why people are rioting in the streets over some scandal in sports, my first port of call is the sports desk across the newsroom, and if the person at that desk tells me there's no story other than sports fans being troglodytes, then that is likely going to color my reporting - if I even choose to report at all at that point.

At the end of the day, gaming journalism is basically Cat Fancy. It's an enthusiast press, and it's abundantly clear that it barely holds itself to the barren standards of one. Except, unfortunately, when other press come calling for information or quick filler articles, our Cat Fancy is telling them that too many cats are vectors for toxoplasmosis and most gamers are crazy cat ladies and if you hang around them too long you'll get toxoplasmosis also and really maybe its time we all moved on to ferrets. It's enraging to people who seriously want to discuss cats (even though, yes, lots of the people who'd want to talk about cats that much are probably crazy), and it does nothing to make the hobby as it stands more acceptable. That doesn't mean I'm arguing that games journalists shouldn't talk about social issues in gaming, or that we should all accept gaming as it is. But it does mean that those who've one way or the other come to represent the hobby to their colleagues are presenting their bias without any sense of reflection.

Milo has his motives - I doubt he takes gaming all that more seriously now, but this is a great time to show the conservative blogs and press how ideologically-opposite "journalists" can craft a narrative behind the scenes (and that really, really fits his narrative). He's walking into Cat Fancy and happily pissing on everything, but at the end of the day he's still going to think gamers are just crazy cat people. Which basically leaves the hard-right thinking the hobby is ridiculous for yet another reason, neutral observers thinking the hobby is ridiculous as they always have, and social progressives still thinking it's ridiculous for the reasons they've been told for the past several years (or more insidiously, for the push-back against the notion that crafting a narrative at all is a problem so long as it's for the right reasons).

So, when you see me taking our enthusiast press to task for this stuff, it's because their apparent disregard for the hobby equates to others continuing disregard for the hobby. It means that when I ask at least for a little transparency in the form of disclosing who you're friends with or who you're donating money to or who has been flying you out to a preview junkets, it's from a sincere belief that doing so will show that you take your job somewhat seriously and the hobby somewhat seriously. It also means that your peers across the newsroom might just be able to take the hobby somewhat seriously, as well, when they can tell if what you say might be only be a good start, rather than the conclusion, of a story. And finally it means I have less reason to worry about fucking Breitbart coming in and running politically roughshod over journalists that really should have known better and making this whole industry seem even more bush league and backhanded.

I'm sorry if that's not clear, or if you think I have to cross my heart and promise that I'm not some form of bigot before you take me seriously, but that's why I support #gamergate...
...or I would, if I used twitter...

edit: By the way, here's an article by The Atlantic that basically mirrors my thoughts on the matter: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/09/good-souls-corruption-in-the-enthusiast-press/244743/

 

[Bruce]

The press reports what is going on - and much as it doesn't want to make gamers look bad (because the press in this case is made up of gamers) the fact is right at the start of this thread there was a question.

How can we make gamergate look good - without distancing it from the misogyny and harassment that has become attached to the hash tag.

I'm sorry but if you are not willing to deal with those issues, the problem isn't the press making you look bad, the problem is that you are bad.

If you don't want to be treated like a hate-group, stop behaving like one.

And demanding the press in this case be anything but honest about that, is essentially demanding the gaming press adopt the ethics of Fox News.

Now if you want to get serious about solving the issues tied to gamergate - well here are a few options:

1: Create a resource similar to sourcewatch for gaming journalists. If journalists have a history of not disclosing important information such as sponsorships - then that should be made known.

While you are at it, you could also include a means of reporting when the companies involved lie too. That way you are not just whining about the issue, you are doing something concrete about it.

2: Cut out the anti-social justice issue. If this is about ethics - then the social justice positions of the journalists you are attacking should be irrelevant. If this is simply about wanting to protect your white male privilege - then expect to be treated with all of the respect we reserve for the KKK.

Because you aren't any different.

3: Organise such that you can have a manifesto and specifically refer to it to say X behaviour is not part of the movement, and is not in fact acceptable within it. You have to solve the harassment issue, and you have to adopt internet etiquete at least on a level with what you expect of others.

That means no doxxing, no threats, no harassment, no spamming.

Recognise this - every social justice issue ever has required the people calling for that justice issue to act in a way superior to the norm for it to have credibility. If you are not prepared to act in a way that is itself superior - you will be dismissed and derided as hypocrites.

At the moment the behaviour associated with gamergate is below the norm, it is stuff ordinary people think is psychotic. You want to make reforms, and be heard, start behaving like people that other people want to listen to.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm sorry but if you are not willing to deal with those issues, the problem isn't the press making you look bad, the problem is that you are bad.

If you don't want to be treated like a hate-group, stop behaving like one.

You know, you have the Klan getting upset at accusations they're racist now. I think this is just a sign of the times.

People don't want to stop being racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever, they just don't want the bad feelings that come along with those labels.

 

[Dragonmouth]

For Gamergate to improve its image, it must do more than distance itself from misogyny and harassment. It must ACTIVELY FIGHT THESE THINGS. Like it or not, slut-shaming Zoe Quinn is how your movement was born and you need to get away from that.

Secondly, you need to rein in all the anti-"SJW" rhetoric that seems rampant in the movement. Stop applying that label to anyone who criticizes the game industry's portrayal of women or non-white people. You need to get rid of the image of gamers as whiny white straight boys.

Finally, just leave Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian alone. They've been beaten up enough, regardless of what valid criticisms of them there are. Show that you are committed to journalistic ethics and not just harassing a few select targets.

 

[aliengmr]

snip

I agree with much of what you are saying and it really highlights the issues of the movement for me. I'm for holding journalists to account for "corruption"so long as its clear corruption and not the fruit of some conspiracy that always tends to lack the hard proof. But the "tone" of the movement shifts all the time. One minute its transparency, corruption, blah blah blah, which is fine, but then it moves to "What should we call SJW's today?" Well reasoned responses will be followed by someone posting videos of Aurini. it goes on and on like this.

As far as Milo is concerned, well I fear an "opening of the flood gates", in terms of gaming becoming an "agenda" battleground for extremists on both sides. FYI: I don't consider Anita Sarkeesian an extremist or her views unless she starts actively forcing her agenda and I haven't seen that yet.

I guess what I am trying to say is: The opinion existing and the people supporting those opinions also existing is not the same as forcing an agenda to me. My fear is that it might happen if this becomes some sort of extremist fight.

 

[kyp275]

If you don't want to be treated like a hate-group, stop behaving like one.

This goes both ways, but it seems to be a common trend for the detractors to think it's perfectly fine for the journalists on their side to behave like a hate group.

1: Create a resource similar to sourcewatch for gaming journalists. If journalists have a history of not disclosing important information such as sponsorships - then that should be made known.

Which has already been called "harassment" by said journalists, because divulging conflicts of interest in their professional work is just oppression and invading their privacy.

While you are at it, you could also include a means of reporting when the companies involved lie too. That way you are not just whining about the issue, you are doing something concrete about it.

And that's where they pull the "lolconspiracy nuts!" card.

2: Cut out the anti-social justice issue. If this is about ethics - then the social justice positions of the journalists you are attacking should be irrelevant. If this is simply about wanting to protect your white male privilege - then expect to be treated with all of the respect we reserve for the KKK.

Because you aren't any different.

Those aren't mutually exclusive, especially when certain journalists are attacking from a rather radical ideological position, or are you trying to say that gamers are indeed all white cisgendered male misogynist nerds?

BTW, please check your racial bias brush privilege, I'm certainly not white, does this mean I get to treat you like you're no different than the KKK?

3: Organise such that you can have a manifesto and specifically refer to it to say X behaviour is not part of the movement, and is not in fact acceptable within it. You have to solve the harassment issue, and you have to adopt internet etiquete at least on a level with what you expect of others.

As if GG is an organized movement.

Recognise this - every social justice issue ever has required the people calling for that justice issue to act in a way superior to the norm for it to have credibility. If you are not prepared to act in a way that is itself superior - you will be dismissed and derided as hypocrites.

IMO, GG is more of a consumer movement, I just don't see it ever being much more than that. For me personally, there are several sites which I would no longer visit, and some game devs whom I would no longer give my money to based on their behavior in this incident.

 

[RexMundane]

And of course, movement hero Milo went and let his freak flag fly a minute ago, deleting the tweet when called out on it because, you know, journalistic ethics. Not that sexism was ever a part of this, blah blah, Streisand Effect, blah...

[image src=http://i.imgur.com/jAyXY0E.jpg]

And of course when called out on it, he decided to take his ball and go home [https://twitter.com/Nero/status/513062000801611776] for a while (muddling the hashtag as he did so).

If you guys can't see that she's deliberately being provocative, there's no hope for any of you. I give up. Nero out. #GameGate

Milo Yiannopoulos, of Breitbart.com, accusing someone else of being deliberately provocative. This has devolved into full-on farce.

 

[Something Amyss]

As if GG is an organized movement.

Which makes this thread a non-starter.

 

[aliengmr]

And of course, movement hero Milo went and let his freak flag fly a minute ago, deleting the tweet when called out on it because, you know, journalistic ethics. Not that sexism was ever a part of this, blah blah, Streisand Effect, blah...

snip

And of course when called out on it, he decided to take his ball and go home [https://twitter.com/Nero/status/513062000801611776] for a while (muddling the hashtag as he did so).

If you guys can't see that she's deliberately being provocative, there's no hope for any of you. I give up. Nero out. #GameGate

Milo Yiannopoulos, of Breitbart.com, accusing someone else of being deliberately provocative. This has devolved into full-on farce.

"Ohh, but it was an emotionally charged moment, he's only human...right?"

Yea, color me not at all surprised by that or the reaction.

 

[Mr. Omega]

Oh sweet heavenly father, speaking of paranoid conspiracies and having an image problem, Milo is taking this to InfoWars [https://twitter.com/Nero/status/513025637251305472].

Spoiler

[/spoiler][/QUOTE]

Oh god, please let this happen. I want this to happen so badly. Just for the amazing amounts of crazy that will surely come from such a discussion. This is my new dream for this bullshit.

[quote]Even some of the die-hard-est GG'ers are revulsed at the idea, and I am trying really, [i]really[/i] damn hard not to laugh.[/quote]

They brought this on themselves. I'm sure as hell going to laugh.