I am Daddy Warpig, your host, back for Round 2 of the Fisk of the Century! In this corner is the scrawny newcomer from merrye olde England, Jon Stone! And in that corner is the all-time reigning World Heavyweight Champeeen, me, Daddy Warpig! This is gonna be a great fight, folks.
Jon Stone, poet, writer, and editor (and bad at all three, judging by his post), penned an overly-long, poorly written, wholly unedited screed about #GamerGate. Upon being tipped to it by the inestimable Adam Baldwin, I decided it deserved my best efforts and attention. Round 1 of the ensuing bloodbath can be found here.
As always, Jon’s piece is in blockquotes (the italicized stuff) and mine is real writing. (Take that any way you like.)
Say that [#gamergate] began as a harassment campaign targeting a female indie developer, as reported by credible news sites,
And we have our first false claim in the first few seconds! Yo, Jon, criticism is not harassment. As a writer, you should know that. Consult the dictionary. (It’s that thick volume right beside your overly-used thesaurus.) And all of that happened before #GamerGate anyway.
Even had #GamerGate existed, “campaign” implies organization, and #GamerGate — as anyone who’s read it for more than five minutes can testify — is about as organized as a 50-gallon drum of Legos dumped on the floor.
And the “credible news sites” you’re citing feature the very same corrupt journalists who were proven (see previous posts and also below), to have lied and colluded. It’s like citing Al Capone’s protestations of innocence, as binding proof that he was in fact not guilty.
“I didn’t do it, you honor!”
“Well, case dismissed, then.” Thanks, Jon Stone!
[Say that it began as a harassment campaign] and you are subjected to contradictory objections – “No, #gamergate began after that, as a reaction to biased reporting” and “No, #gamergate has been building up for years”
Wait, you mean that 10,000 different people have 10,000 different opinions on the exact same subject? Damn your black souls, #GamerGate! THIS OUTRAGE SHALL NOT STAND!
Listen, Jon, let me explain something about chronology, since your education has sadly been lacking. When discussing any historical event, even people who lived through the event will differ as to when something began or ended, or even exactly what happened. Ask a traffic cop, if you’re unclear as to why.
Moreover, one notes with exasperation, the two quotes you cherry-picked to illustrate supposed contradictions are not themselves, in fact, contradictory. Very often, the pressures which cause events to occur have been building before the events themselves actually occur. It’s called “cause and effect”, you dolt, and it’s the basis of our (apparent) chronological universe.
A married couple may begin arguing after a dish is dropped and broken. Yet the argument will range far and wide, covering matters of finance, displays of affection, marital duties, and so forth. Did every single one of these issues suddenly spring into existence the very instant the crockery shattered on the floor? Of course not. And only an idiot would believe otherwise.
[#gamergate is] barely a movement and it’s more than a controversy or consumer pressure group; it’s a creature.
You see, fair readers? You see the kind of crap I have to put up with? That single sentence is packed with stupidity, and it’s only 17 words. He wrote 3200 more of them.
#GamerGate’s not a creature Jon, it’s a group of people. Conversing. On an Internet website.
I don’t really have to explain that to you, do I? Fine.
There’s this Internet. It’s like a bunch of tubes…
Oh, never mind.
Taking it as read that much of that has descended, at this point, into post-hoc justification and mantra-like repetition, to begin with, here are some of the comments posted on early articles covering #gamergate:
“Taking it as read” means, in this case, “I don’t know, I didn’t check, and none of you reading have to either”. This, this right here is his core analytical methodology: an absolute refusal to gather or present any honest evidence. This blanket refusal to do anything but repeat cant and nonsense is what lowers his article from an erudite reflection on a controversy of note to mere Internet poo-flinging. Poo-flinging with a thesaurus-bolstered vocabulary, but still…
(Zooming right by “honest journalism”, past “biased journalism”, even past “dishonest shilling” along the descent. Quite the downward arc there, Jon, you dropped faster than a re-entry capsule.)
But it’s it’s the last line of that quote that’s most telling. Here’s what he says: “[H]ere are some of the comments posted on early articles covering #gamergate[.]” He then follows it with some screen caps of Disqus comments. (I surmise, based on the colors and styling.)
So, taking him at his own words, these caps come from a time when #GamerGate exists. When it is controversial. When it has been covered in the news several times.
Yet instead of proving the foul nature of #GamerGate by taking quotes from the hashtag itself, he takes them from pseudonymous commenters on these articles. Why, Jon?
#GamerGate produces 20,000 tweets on a slow day, spiking to 60,000 on major occasions. None of your quotes have a date or URL, so we don’t know where they came from or when they were left. Let’s assume it was “a month ago” (as in the screencap), as of Oct. 5 (your posting date). That dates them to within a week of the scandal. 7 days x 20,000 tweets is 140,000 individual tweets from #GamerGaters, and out of all those tweets you couldn’t find one single tweet to back your narrative.
There were trolls doing [poop]-posting, SJW posters shouting obscenities, and who knows what else (including bad behavior by #GamerGaters themselves). But you couldn’t find one single tweet, in all that.
“Give me six lines written by the most honest man, and I will find something there to hang him.”
You’re not just a troll, Jon, you’re a shockingly lazy and inept one. Richelieu would be sore disappointed.
(At this point, #gamergate became extremely excited that it had found proof of ‘collusion’ among the journalists it had targeted).
Dishonesty and denial. Collusion happened, and the emails that prove it were leaked. See this post, on Breitbart.com. And there are four or five others, same source. (Click “Milo Yiannopoulos” for all his articles, the GameJournoPros emails are among them.)
- The email list “GameJournoPros” existed.
- We have leaked emails from the list.
- They show collusion.
- Kyle Orland, who created and still runs the list, apologized for some of what went on.
- Meaning he confirmed its existence, and the validity of the leaked emails.
The existence of this list, and the incidences of collusion and corruption that occurred on it, is a verified fact. It is not supposition, inference, or imputation. Jon Stone is either ignorant or dishonest in denying this.
And yet other people are taking his word as Gospel truth. George Reese, an executive VP at Dell computer, said “The #GamerGate cabal are the technology world’s ISIS”. ISIS, the beheading-loving murderers of Syria and Iraq. Reese has also been spreading around a link to the very piece I’m fisking, on Twitter:
(If you look real close, you can see my happy face on the RT line. Because I was happy to RT this. Thanks, George. You’re a pal.)
And there on his tweet, under “Why bother with #gamergate[sic] ?” is the damn quote we started this whole thing with:
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
I can only conclude that vast numbers of antis have gone mad. (And I have evidence for my assertion, unlike Stone.) They write articles, comprised of equal parts bad writing and wholesale fabrications, then pass around those articles to each other, treating them as fact. On the basis of those supposed facts, they justify lying and collusion, which produces yet another layer of falsehoods they wholeheartedly believe and promulgate.
From long before the beginning of #GamerGate (I date the beginning of #GamerGate to when it began, oddly enough, with Adam Baldwin’s single tweet), a great many academics, devs, and games journalists took this same approach to addressing criticism from the games community: lie, lie, lie, deny, deny, deny, obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate. Slander and smear opponents and never, ever give them a platform for debate.
They did this on and just after Aug. 28, which is what started this in the first place. All they had to do to avert the insanity was to agree to minimal basic standards of ethics. The Escapist, after some mis-steps, did, and they’re regularly cited by #GamerGate as being one of the good ones (despite them harboring Jim Sterling, an loathed and obnoxious anti-GG troll). Kotaku, Polygon, Gamasutra, and all the rest could have backed off, but they chose to run the Jon Stone playbook.
We see how that turned out.
Quick sanity check.
At this point, we are less than 20% through Jon’s article. At this rate, I would have to do 10 more columns of this length, just to document the lies, logical fallacies, and sheer, stinking bullshit Stone has piled up.
I’m not writing 10 columns on this, and if I did you wouldn’t read it. The thing is, it doesn’t matter.
Jon has established a clear track record of ignoring contrary evidence, defaming opponents, and just plain shitty writing. As far as I’m concerned, his lack of good faith and lack of talent are clear.
Instead of going through the rest of his article bit by bit, I’m going to do one more piece, and call it quits. So come back tomorrow for the knock-out blow!
EDIT: Round 3 is live!
Welcome to the House of Geekery, the biggest, baddest geek blog in the Internet! We do a daily post on geek-centric topics, each written by our fabulous founder, Daddy Warpig!
Subscribe via RSS, drop some comments below, or just enjoy other quality posts in the archive. But mind the House Rules, up there at the top.
Thanks for dropping by! Cheers!