Me: Gives my mom a well thought-out argument with plenty of evidence to tell her why she is in the wrong in this instance and am very respectful throughout the delivery of my monologue My mom: No Me: why? My mom: Because I said so
Ignore the no and say until I am proven that this or that is correct I won't do it. Say a simple no doesn't satisfy you. Stand up for yourself. She might tell you to go to your room but so what. Don't just do shit because people tell you to do it. You have your own life, then why would someone tell something to you when you have a logical conclusion that the opposite is correct? Maybe you're wrong, but maybe you are actually right. And if you're right and you gave in to the "no" for no reason, then will you be happy about it? Do what you feel like you want to do, and not what others tell you to do. If you make a mistake and you are wrong, then you will learn from trial and error anyways.
I used to be a teacher on a gymnasium in the Netherlands. This type is only for the highest 5% of the students. Thus this very clever kids are fond of arguing about every thing. To avoid endless discussions I always used to say this. It worked every time, a kind of wonder. 😂🤣😂 When you get older it’s always a delight to find out that those stupid arguments of the adults works so good. But I invented some of my own. When I send a kid out of the classroom and s/he started an argument why I said “because you irritate me”, they always went. You can’t argue with that.
I think that might actually count as a strawman fallacy. You claim they are making a fallacious argument that they are not making in order to discredit your imagined argument.
Ryan Gatts I think that's different from yaragorm's point. They're arguing that it's a fallacy to think that a point being argued is discredited because the individual defending it argues fallaciously (fallacy fallacy) while you're saying that it's a strawman fallacy to incorrectly assert that your opponent is using a logical fallacy in their argument. You are correct that that would be the case but are understanding the op incorrectly I believe. If I assert something "true" and defend it using a logical fallacy that doesn't make the assertion less true it simply makes my defense logically fallacious.
It's a strategy for people who don't really believe in anything and just want to argue. Yes, maybe I am employing a strawman fallacy here, but I have had so many exhausting arguments with people who never put across their own point of view... they merely tally fallacies and tell me that I am wrong because of them. And I want to exclaim, "I'm wrong compared to WHAT? You give me nothing."
This is a good point. I would put that in the Ad Hominem category. Let us say that a person has incorrectly used a Straw Man argument. Instead of pointing this out and arguing only the original point, the other person points out that you used a straw man, and now, they must be correct. I have actually seen this in some of the other comments to this very video. Thanks!
I would love to have more fallacies! I'm working on my masters thesis, and these are helping me identifying fallacies in my own work and the conversations I'm having with other MA students.
Good for you Mike for joining those of us standing against Gamergate because of their horrendous tactics. The level of hypocrisy in so many of it's supporters is downright baffling. It's the same reason I will not stand beside the legion of SJW in places like Tumblr even though some mean well. I may be a member of the LGBT community, but I'm more often embarassed by the community at large's actions than proud of them.
I've got to ask what tactics are those ? Because for one Zoe Quinn was being harassed by people long before gamergate started so was Anita for that matter a fact people like to ignore.
darkdragonsoul99 Yeah, they were likely harassed long before Gamergate came about (I wouldn't know for sure, I never heard of this stuff much), but the movement itself has made it easier for the same kinds of people to continue propagating their ill-will. No matter how small these people may be in number in relation to the overall population of people in support of Gamergate, society as a whole is more easily drawn to the most negative of the bunch, and as such, Gamergate has become inextricably linked to the harassment and the death threats and the like. Over time it may improve, but it all depends on the people.
I don't really care about gamergate but I found it interesting that the reasons Mike's against it is due to the vocal minorities actions as opposed to the majority. By that reasoning we should judge religions by the extremist committing acts of terror instead of what the majority feel its for.
As a supporter of gamer gate I do not approve of threats. But I do not understand the idea that threats are unacceptable to the point where you have to invalidate the entire movements based on a few. Because let's face it, the *vast* majority of what has been aimed towards people by the gamer gate movement has been legit criticism, which these people in an attempt to play victims have tried to call harassment. Invalidating gamer gate because of a few alleged threats just seems like a ploy to avoid facing the very real criticism.
The winners will always be the ones to write the history books, so it is no surprise my books never mentioned those camps. Said books also never mentioned, the over all hatred in all of europe towords jews. (There even was a movement to round up all jews in europe and put them on Madagasgar) Unfortunatly, you didn't really change my thinging in the matter though. Yes, you can not go against everything nor will everything gain traction. But I haven't heared of ANYTHING. Not a single one case. Can you provide me with say three cases, where a person who is associated with gamergate denouces a game or a journalist or a publisher with acutall proof? (I used shadow of mordor, since this would have been so damn easy.) Gamergate is a community by choice. If you agree with what you percive as beeing their goals and/or ideology, you join. If that changes, you leave. People of color (be it black, red, yellow, white) do not have this possibilty. This is why I don't see the similaritys between me associating Gamergaters with a hatefull and hurtfull minority and you associtating black people with a violent minority. The former can choose wether or not they wish to belong, the later do not. About the legit criticism. No, I would not expect Ubisoft or Sony to publish the criticism that members of gamergate lay at their feet. I would, however, expect members of gamergate to publish this as widely as they can. So, once more my request: Where does this happen? Are there gamergate bloggers or vloggers, who show evidence? I haven't seen them (then again, I haven't activly looked for them, but as a supporter, I am sure, you know where they are) I really wish to learn about the whole issue not the fragments I have heared about so far.
founoe I would wager that most public figures have received death threats. There is nothing unique about feminazis receiving death threats. The overwhelming majority of gamers do not behave in that manner. Feminazis are professional victims, and use their victim complex to get what they want. In this case, they're trying to generalize the opposition as violent people who send death threats. We gamers are not going away. I'm not going to buy a game that has been tainted by hateful feminists, and I'm going to be as loud as they are about my opinions. Modern feminism is a joke. check-your-privilege-feminists.tumblr.com/post/95979451581/i-dont-understand-how-are-you-not-a-feminist
salavora Yes, they were public figures. They became public figures because of gamergate. I agree that threatening violence is wrong. I never defended those who threatened violence. The point of my post, which you seem to have missed, is that the overwhelming majority of gamers do not behave in that way. Trying to generalize gamers in such a way is pure bullshit. How is this hard to understand?
It's the Black & White Fallacy that made me give up on American politics. The two party system creates an arbitrary, polarized dichotomy, and that prevents actual political discussion from occurring. A person who would otherwise hold a moderate opinion is forced to choose either one extreme or another. The parties lambast and demonize each other, so their party members see the other side as the enemy, refusing to listen to anything they say or take them seriously. And since they refuse to consider the other side, they only listen to their own party's press and arguments, creating an echo chamber effect, and pushing them to further and further extremes. This extremism prevents them further from considering even a more moderate version of their opponent's positions, setting the whole process moving again in a vicious cycle. This fallacy is the most insidious, because it is often the only point the two sides agree on, and politics as a whole suffers for it.
PLEEEASE MAKE MORE OF THE FALLACY VIDEOS! I love being able to look back on these and point out that people aren't actually focusing on the point of the discussion.
He clearly doesn't understand the actual reasoning behind the creation of Gamergate. The only reason it is what it is today, is because of the bullshit excuses made by the journalists initially to protect themselves. Those statements ignored the actual issue entirely, completely attempting to shift the focus from their own corruption to the "harassment" that was and always has taken place on the internet. Certain groups attached to that to forward their own cause, shifting the focus further, and a vocal minitoriy attacked them, sometimes taking it too far, thus continuing the circle. The GamerGate issue is ethics/transparency/honesty in Journalism, THAT'S IT. There are two extremist groups of people bashing each other over the head, completely distracting from the original statement. Women in the industry and harassment are two separate issues in their own right and should be discussed, but they are both completely unrelated to the original intent of gamergate. To these extremist groups you are either for corruption and feminism, or you are anti-corruption and for misogyny, and that just makes no fucking sense. Being Pro-Gamergate doesn't excuse harassment, but it also says absolutely nothing about women in the industry or anything that seems to have attached itself to the cause. Gamergate is about gamers vs game journalists/developers/judges/etc, NOTHING ELSE. Anyone that truly thinks otherwise is simply trying to distract from that discussion, or push their own cause by artificially attaching it to gamergate.
"the bullshit excuses made by the journalists initially to protect themselves" No. The reasoning behind the creation of GamerGhazi was "an Indie developer had sex with a games journalist for good press". That has been disproved on day one.
arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/new-chat-logs-show-how-4chan-users-pushed-gamergate-into-the-national-spotlight/ Yes... clearly doesn't understand the actual reasoning behind the creation of GG... CLEARLY.
I would be more receptive to this argument, if not for the fact that I see Gamergate accuse women of corruption far more than men, despite women making up a far smaller portion of the industry.
The spark that kindled the whole debacle was a public rant by a jilted ex-boyfriend making bitter, hateful allegations that were quickly proven false. So pardon me if I don't believe that the movement is as pure as you make it out to be.
Gamergate is a great example of many of these fallacies. The anti camp has been arguing about how gamergate are a bunch of misogynistic exclusionary jerks, while the gamergate camp is trying to argue about corruption in gaming blogs, a clear example of the straw man fallacy. There's been plenty of ad hominem attacks on both sides, I mean we've all seen the vitriole coming from both sides, attacking the characters of the side, as opposed to actually arguing about corruption in gaming blogs. There's some "no true scotsman" mixed in there, with both sides attempting to quell the worst of their worst. Really, the fallacy that killed gamergate was the black-and-white fallacy, wherein people on both sides started claiming that if you sided with the other, you must hate women or support corruption in gaming blogs, when really there are plenty of people who both have a great deal of respect women and do want gaming blogs to stop being so horribly corrupt. I can't really think of any appeals to authority, although when your authority figures are gaming bloggers or reddit users, there's not really much that an appeal to authority can do, especially when both sides hate each other so much. There's got to be a certain level of respect between people for an appeal to authority to work. Really though, at the end of the day, I think that Gamergate has taught us two things: maybe don't expect bloggers to not be corrupt when companies have a lot of money on the line, and maybe don't trust the internet to not be a butthole...basically ever, really.
"both have a great deal of respect women and do want gaming blogs to stop being so horribly corrupt." Yeah, people like me. It's frustrating to want to see things improve for the better, only for it to devolve into a shouting match and mud slinging. I supported gamergate in its early stages, but I've become less confident in being in that camp, because they've become just as divisive and hostile as the mooks who use "sexism in video games" as a smokescreen to distract us from poor integrity in games journalism. cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/55548139.jpg It's not like it's a new issue either. Jeff Gerstmann being fired from Gamespot, Eurogamer Journalists giving out PS3 codes. Geoff Keighley straight up doing an ad for video game codes on Doritos and Mountain Dew. The list goes on. Really, we should be having an intelligent discussion about these sorts of things, but expecting civility and rationality on the internet is like herding cats. I guess was too much to hope for. Now it's gone all the way to death threats. I don't know who did it. Maybe it was a lunatic fringe of gamergate. Maybe it was a sock puppet to harm gamergate and further Anita's agenda. Maybe it was someone who just wanted to watch the world burn. It doesn't matter anymore. Anita has been made a martyr by the mainstream media, so we're not allowed to have an open discussion about these things anymore without being made into pariahs. Now history will remember her a brave pioneer of women's rights in games and people who see the bullshit on both sides will fade into obscurity. We had a chance. We had a chance to have a real positive experience and we blew it. Anita and what gamergate has become are the monsters we gamers created.
I can tell you a big idea in response to Gamer Gate as Mike touched upon. I would like to say "No true member of gamer gate have misogynistic intentions". There are a lot of problems with this involving the categorization of gamer gate advocates. However this is a good time to bring up something Mike should talk about if he wishes to inform anyone about fallacies. This being the fallacy fallacy. Just because I used the no true scotsman fallacy does not mean my claim is false. I should instead argue that a group should not be defined only by its extremists especially if they are minorities that are ostracized by the group. If you want to learn more about the fallacies Mike spoke of or others go to yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
Thank you so much for your stance on Gamer Gate. I appreciate that you do not shy away from controversy in your videos, and that when you talk about them you do so with grace and in a succinct manner.
I loved this and I think you are doing the internet a great service by making available these concise, accessible descriptions on types of fallacies and argument etiquette. I don't comment very often but I'm going to exercise my potential power as a viewer to influence the channel in this case. Please make more!
It would be wonderful to have a few more of these fallacy videos pop up over time, I think this one was super helpful both for me keeping track of my own previously not noticed bad argument habits and helping to explain them to others who might have them.
It's ironic how a video explaining fallacies makes a blatant fallacy at the end by saying that #GamerGate is represented by sexism and harassment. It's a -non sequitur- association fallacy: 1. Person A is sexist. 2. Person A is part of GamerGate. 3. Therefore, GamerGate is sexist. (It's kind of a reverse no true Scotsman.) Just because a minority of people in the GamerGate movement are sexist, that doesn't mean the whole movement is sexist. It would also count as an ad hominem: 1. Person A is part of GamerGate. 2. Person A is sexist. 3. Therefore, GamerGate shouldn't be taken seriously. Just because a minority of people in the GamerGate movement are sexist, that doesn't mean that their main goal of wanting to stop corruption in the video game news media and development should be undermined. UPDATE: It was also pointed to me that Mike's fallacy is closer to an association fallacy, and I would have to agree.
I would have to agree with your argument in its totality if it weren't for the little issue of the sexists in GamerGate being the majority, not the minority. If 51% or over of something adheres to a certain characteristic, then that characteristic becomes a defining trait for said something. But in the end, all of this is just labels and extremes again. "For GamerGate or against it." The entire thing is blown into such a 'pick-a-side' frenzy that the discussion has moved from "Why the GamerGate issue exists" to "Why it is important to be for/against GamerGate."
Not at all. I'm suggesting that they either start calling for a purge of those giving them a bad name, or admit that they don't mind sexist people in their label. Whether it's claiming that they are the majority or the minority, the fact remains that sexists are ABLE to take up the side of GamerGate, meaning the movement is conducive to sexists ideals. Figure out a way to fix it, or embrace it. Either way, they'll need to do something quick before the rest of the communities will take their arguments seriously.
The problem with fallacies is that they don't matter if there is no mediator judging the discussion. If the person who committed the fallacy frankly, does not give a damn, and no one else does either then its almost as if the fallacy not only doesn't exist, but just made their argument even more airtight. How often have you seen a comment that said "You're argument is wrong because you just used Ad Hominem" (which I see quite a lot in comment sections) and the other guy going "O damn, you're right, man you sure got me, I messed up."
Well, here's where it get's weird. "Your argument is wrong because you just used Ad Hominem" could be an argumentum ad logicam (fallacy fallacy.) This fallacy is when a person argues that an argument is automatically wrong because it contains a fallacy. In reality, an argument could be correct, just that the argument is rendered invalid because the structure of it is disrupted by a fallacy. Invalid =/= incorrect. Aren't fallacies fun? :3
Which says to me that we need to either be focusing on changing the culture surrounding internet arguments (where most are a case of win/lose, with pride on the line) and hopefully have enough education out there to make these things instinctual. Or we need to come up with a new set of rules for conversing on the net (again, dealing with that win/lose idea) ideally one which can closely simulate the realities and nuance of real world conversation found lacking in the text based nature of the internet.
Nodrog666 Not entirely, because if we go down the actual list of fallacies, almost everyone will be guilty of them at least once in every argument unless that argument is one sentence and is directed at a rock. This is why I generally don't like people bringing up fallacies at all, to think someones argument is invalid instantly because you don't like their style of arguing just seems like a cheap way for people that learn the fallacies to escape discussions without ever really having one to begin with.
This is exactly why it's important that people understand fallacies, because not only will they fall prey to making them less easily, they'll be able to recognize that someone else has made a fallacy and fall prey to them less easily as well. Also, while we're at it, you're kind of presenting a false dilemma, between a mediated discussion and a discussion in which nobody aknowledges the fallacy being made, where reality is that most discussions do have some in the audience that recognize the fallacies being pointed out.
Usually an argument will have an insult in it as a lack of respect but the argument itself doesn't hinge on the insult. The insulted party will throw up the words "Ad Hominem" to attempt to deflect the insult and win the argument by calling foul. The insult actually had nothing to do with the argument. Prima: You're wrong, you idiot. X is X because of Y. Secunda: AD HOMINEM!!!
I'm sure there is a bigger discussion to be had here, but I need to be clear on one thing... The Watergate scandal had Nothing to do with Water. At all. It's the name of a hotel. We seriously need to stop using the -gate suffix for these kinds of things. It's obnoxious.
I wished GamerGate never happened. Whenever I read an article about this mess, I sometimes lose hope for gaming as a whole. At its best, GG will yield some people to think more critically about gaming & journalistic ethics; at worst, GG will solidify that ugly stereotype of all male gamers being immature, sexist children who don't know any better. If GG gets any bigger, then it's all thanks to those misogynistic idiots who don't realize they're giving gaming a bad name.
I find that gamergate has split into two,we 1) gamergate vs journalists and ethics in journalism, the actual debate where it should be talked out. 2) Internet trolls vs feminists radicals on both sides have twisted the original arguments, as bad as each other one self entitled grandiosity that is using the controversy to become well known and the idiots who just want to cause a fight and have a problem with other people with no interest in the original arguments
this needs to be stated more often. most rational people probably agree with both sides, more consumer advocacy in the industry, and less harassment and sexism by the vocal minority, while preserving free speech and personal privacy in both instances. The argument about ethics in journalism needs a re branding, it needs to abandon the gamergate tag, so that both arguments can get the attention they need. Right now, to say there needs to be ethics in video game journalism, is synonymous with misogyny, which is a logical fallacy of some kind I bet.
quantumgambit I do agree with the rebranding and the idea that we should expect more than to be victimised and labelled as racist sexist troglodytes by the website that grew from the same interests.. but we won't win, journalists have the power to publish storys and articles that control what the public see and are exposed to,I think it was Karl marx(smarter people than me would know) refered to it as an institution of social control and the journalists will portray this negative image of gamergate and it's cause to distract and devalue the arguments from the real issues.
It can't be that bleak, can it? we live in the age of the internet. Even if the established 'journalists' have a bigger platform, Marx (if those were his views, i don't know, i've never read them) couldn't have envisioned a world where ordinary people have such a loud and far reaching mouthpiece.
Jeff Cimmarrusti so much energy and time has been wasted on gamergate 'battle' honestly I don't even label myself too strongly as a gamer but the death to the gamer articles and the character assassination of the gamer subculture. No one anywhere should be arguing that women have no place in video games as role models or main characters or devs bring more into the industry. Controversy is good for news outlets more clicks for their website=more ad revenue, this has been exploited by the industry and It argued that they controlled what stories are consumed
Ad hominem attack and ad hominem fallacy are not the same thing. An 'ad hominem' attack is simply adding insults. It doesn`t affect the argument. In an 'ad hominem' fallacy, the insult IS your argument.
+Alex Spec I agree, but lately I've been wondering what do you call an ad hominem fallacy that's also untrue? Is it still just an ad hominem? I mean if I tell say a Nazi.... that his or her argument is invalid because he or she is a Nazi, that's an ad hominem right? Because it doesn't address the argument they're making. But what if said persons isn't a Nazi, and I just call that person a Nazi or assume it... And therefore the argument is invalid? Is it still just an ad hominem fallacy with some added stupidity? Or is it two separate fallacies?
Sure, but what if the counter is... "I disagree because you're a nazi"? All of my thoughts and arguments on an issue are invalid because I'm supposedly a nazi. Not as an insult but because the person genuinely think I am when I'm not.
XxPetexXx That can be a non sequitor depending of what the disagreement is. If you disagree about the earth being flat or spherical, nazi doesn`t have anything to do with it, thus being a non sequitor. If the disagreement is whether you hate jews or not...
This is good stuff. I work at a university, where we teach critical thinking and it's always helpful to have videos like this, so people can watch it over and over if they want (so they don't have to sit and listen to us repeating it over and over... and over.). There's a lot of them out there, but a bit less formal and a little humor works better if you ask me. There's a few small mistakes/gaps, of which the clearest one is the ommission that the authority falacy is also applied when someone uses his/her authority to empower a flawed argument. (a.k.a. don't believe anyone just because they said so and their job is related ;-) ). But despite those: Thanks!
Scott Leitch I mean "practical" in the sense that these kinds of fallacies are often taught in an area that most universities refer to as practical reasoning, or practical logic. My uni did anyway. I have done several courses mostly focused around different ways of reasoning (i.e. deductive vs inductive) and fallacies associated with both kind of reasoning. This area is practical logic. As in you can put them into practice.
Wow. Mad props to both of you for having a civil discussion on the internet. Very appropriate that it was in a video about forming better arguments. Thanks! This was a breath of fresh air.
You are not quite correct on "Appeal to authority" though. This fallacy happens when one uses authority (of the speaker or quoting others) DESPITE the invalidity of the argument, simply because Authority Source says so. This is true even if the source is the authority on the subject matter. When you assume authority where one does not have, and assign credibility because of that. That is called "Appeal to non-authorities". E.g. your example of the mechanical engineer vs auto industry materials.
Claud Ka Kei Yeung I was thinking the same thing. Citing scientific consensus is not a good argument (and has led to many mainstream falsehoods). It may be powerful, but it is not compelling. Lazy arguments appeal to authority, strong arguments appeal to evidence and reason.
Anthony Nelson Yep exactly. By the nature of "appeal to authority", it does not matter how many people in authority agrees with an outcome, as long as the conclusion is arrived logically with supportive evidence then it is as credible as it is, otherwise it simply is not.
Also, I extreamly respect your stance on having and forming your own oppinion and standing with it no matter the differing oppinions, while remaning open for differing facts and data.
I love Newsroom. Here's why: a platform for media is faulted and criticized because all of a sudden its host decides to up and have an opinion -- and televise it. He becomes clear when he discusses his opinion and is also fair when he encounters an argument or is presenting something that is happening. That's what this channel is to me. It's why I'll keep watching. It's why I'll watch even if it were to say something as absurd as, "People are bad. They are never good. They are always bad.". Why? Because as long as the argument is presented well, argued and criticized, I and quite a few others have the unfortunate burden of being at least mildly intellectual. Enough so to be able to chime in and say or present things that run in the contrary. This argument is, if well presented, called attention to rather than buried. And that's why I, personally, watch this channel. I do not watch it because I need my perspective reinforced and my ego stroked, I watch it because it's a good encapsulation of an argument that I can pose and contend and regardless of whether or not I agree, it gives very good opportunities to invoking a dialectic method. Because even if I disagree, the arguments proposed is presented in such a way that enriches my understanding of my own opinion. Which if I must explicitly say so -- is (to me) a good thing. I find that more knowledge, more opinions and more healthy debate helps break people (such as myself) out of academic and intellectual insecurity. Thank you, Idea Channel.
If you do decide to make a gamergate episode, can you please explain what it is EXACTLY? I'm still unsure as to what it is, what its for, who it targets, what its goal is and why I should even care. It doesn't help that there are people saying it represents or means multiple different things. For example some people say its about corrupt games journalism, others say its about gamers being sexist and misogynistic towards women (no idea how that's possible when tonnes of women like myself ARE gamers but okay) and others say that its about what defines a gamer and anyone that doesn't follow that exact definition isn't a gamer. Honestly, I'd just like some clarity on the whole thing in an unbiased and intelligent way.
According to the comments here, this will be hard. Since apprently the members of gamergate don't know themselfs. But other then that, I second this motion! I would like to know more as well!
Here's a link on Reddit that helped me get a foothold on the issues surrounding gamergate: www.reddit.com/r/truegaming/comments/2jpvt3/serious_what_is_gamergate/
***** There was a huge shitstorm directed at Zoe Quinn that came from her ex-boyfriend making a whiny blogpost about how he cheated on her (and making accusations in the way Cartman would write about Wendy - meaning, very stupid attacks for you non-southpark people). Internet cesspools noticed that one of the people she had cheated him on (not proven) was Nathan Grayson who writes reviews on Kotaku. Nobody bothered to check that he actually didn't write a review on her game nor that the game was free to begin with, but they still broke lose a massive attack on Zoe over every possible social media website. Adam Baldwin noticed this eventually and called this incident "Gamergate" in reference to the Watergate scandal. This is basically it. Any Gamergater telling you its different either doesn't know better or flat out lies. Today, it's a combination of coordinated attacks on women who do things in gaming/say gamergate is bad and on the other half dodging accusations by using anonymity as a veil because "That was that other Gamergater who did the attack, not me! He is no true GamerGater if he does such attack!".
NextGenVixen here's some reading/listening material to get up to speed: www.twitlonger.com/show/ngscie blueplz.blogspot.no/2014/08/this-game-supports-more-than-two-players.html storify.com/LadyFuzztail/gamergate-may-be-a-victim-of-a-false-flag-operati Patterson, Pavlich, Baldwin, GamerGate If the above takes too long then this is the short version: #GamerGate in 60 Seconds
Thank you for publicly standing against harassment, vitriol, and bad argumentation. I don't envy you for the calibre of comment you're likely to receive, but I'm glad that you stand up for what you believe in. For the very little that it's worth, a stranger on the internet supports you. I would love to hear you do a break down of what "Social Justice Warrior" means and what it says about views of gender on the internet. Is it merely disguised misogyny and sublimated racism, or are there more complex factors at work?
I don't know if there's a named fallacy for this, but I believe the root of all these is that *the person committing the fallacy isn't willing to concede.* I had to learn to concede an argument awhile ago, and once I did, I started learning a lot more!
It's not fallous because either the matter is subjective and there is no right/wrong (making your statement a Black and White Fallacy ;) ) or if the person was proven wrong, he has to commit a classic fallacy in order to further his arguements. Not talking to you anymore is just childish, not fallous.
Enilias Nailo great points! I'll have to agree that it's not b&w, as sometimes you must stick to your guns more than others, but I'm reminded of an argument I had with someone over how mini blinds could exist outside mini vans. They never backed down...
It's no named fallacy, but you are not alone with thinking this to be the root of the problem. Arthur Schopenhauer named his (excellent) book about fallacies in discussions "the art of being right" - quite sarcastically :D
I would actually like to see an idea channel episode on GamerGate as I have seen numerous stories on it but still can't grasp exactly what it is all about. One talks about questionable journalist-developer relations, theres some misogyny in there, something about death threats, the whole Zoe Quinn fiasco... it just sounds like one big clusterfuck to me. It would be good to have some clarity on the subject.
I have also heard "Gamergate" said but have absolutely no idea what it means or what it is. Every time I've heard it the people talking about it have been quickly swept under the rug. It would be really helpful to have someone who is good at explaining things explain it in full.
Brozime Here's the cliff notes version: It started with a female developer named Zoe Quinn. Her ex-boyfriend accused her of sleeping with five people in the games industry to move up in the world. People started getting very concerned about corruption in games journalism because of this, and at some point they coalesced into a movement called Gamergate. Later, Zoe Quinn claimed that she had been lurking in 4chan IRC channels and had screenshots proving that all of the claims against her were fabricated in order to push 'SJW's' out of the industry, and that the concerns about ethics were started in order to disguise that intention. She apologized to people who had genuine concerns about ethics. A lot of Gamergate people said that Quinn fabricated her evidence. The movement is now inextricably tied to debates about sexism.
Dagda Mor It should also probably be noted that this isn't the first time Zoe Quinn's been harassed online. She also was when her game Depression Quest was put onto Greenlight.
Please please please do more of these. I am currently teaching logical fallacies to my students (I teach senior level English), and these are so helpful. You already covered three of the ten I mentioned in class too! I will definitely show these to my students
Dont forget to teach that just because they identify a fallacy in an argument doesn't mean they're right. It just means the other side used a logical fallacy. Its not as simple as "you used a strawman argument, therefore I win". Thats just as bad.
I think you got a couple of them a little bit wrong. Argument from authority is a fallacy even when the authority is an expert, or the scientific consensus. The fallacy is a fallacy because it is not counter to reason for anyone, or any number of people, to be wrong about anything - no matter their level of expertise. That's not to say that telling a climate change denier (to borrow your example) that all the experts believe it so it must be true isn't a valid avenue of discussion, but if you go down that path, then the argument is no longer about the validity of climate change (directly at least) but about the reliability of expert climatologists. For an example that makes this more obvious, think about something you disagree with (I would venture homeopathy) then think of all the most knowledgable people on that specific subject.
Arguments are pretty much always based on some general assumptions that both sides agree on, which would for example be that well-conducted scientific research gives results that are reliable. If either side does not agree on this you might as well not argue at all.
Well, that depends on the viewpoint. If an authority is not agreed on, one person might percieve the argument as good and another might percieve it as fallacious and they would both be (kinda) right because they dont agree on the authority.
Danny Duchamp Many good arguments are made by the use of experts, for example pretty much everything in any science field uses information from other experts to valididate (is that how you spell that?) their research. The example you gave: That's not to say that telling a climate change denier (to borrow your example) that all the experts believe it so it must be true isn't a valid avenue of discussion, but if you go down that path, then the argument is no longer about the validity of climate change (directly at least) but about the reliability of expert climatologists. This fails to discuss the possibility that the person who came up with the climate experts has ended the argument, at least for now. In most cases however, expert knowledge is less direct and thus less conclusive. In the case of homeopathy, the outcome is different because not everyone agrees on homeopathists being real experts.
I'm so tired of seeing the "Authority Fallacy" (or "Argument from Authority") yet again misrepresented. The key here is between the authority bolstering the validity of the argument or the soundness. Claiming that "Global Warming is true because of the scientific consensus" is an example of the Authority Fallacy (and the Bandwagon Fallacy). It isn't _necessarily_ true just because there's a scientific consensus, which is why it's fallacious. If a premise of your argument depends on proving Global Warming is true, the scientific consensus is good for bolstering the _soundness_ of the premise, but it doesn't help its _validity_.
I'd say you're right. But that's just the second version of the authority fallacy. The first version being in the video. But you would agree that we can cite authorities as evidence for a premise, wouldn't you?
Rene Descartes Yes, authorities _ought_ to be cited as evidence. They well support the soundness of a premise. But a call to authority shouldn't be a premise itself for the same reason that mocking one's authority (Ad Hominem) shouldn't be -- it literally doesn't matter who the source of an argument is. It's irrational for two people to make the exact same argument but for one of them to be wrong, just because that particular person is not "an authority".
Rene Descartes True, it's not. In that case, it's of statistical relevance -- Hawking is _probably_ more correct than your parents or best friend on a physics-related topic... but he isn't _necessarily_ correct. People can be wrong, and so can the consensus (which at one time disbelieved Java Man and Continental Drift). A logical argument, to be valid, must lead to a necessary conclusion. The truth/soundness of each premise may be probable rather than necessary, which is why authorities can be helpful in that regard.
I, partially, disagree with you. Of course, you are completely right that scientific consensus on climate change does not guarantee it's truthfulness. But organisations such as the IPCC as well the scientific community in general, do represent the pinnacle of human knowledge on the science of climatology. It doesn't exactly guarantee the validity of climate change, but it does mean that an argument strongly supported by these groups is likely to have _more_ scientific validity than any other in existence. To me, the only people who should argue against scientific consensus are individuals qualified in that particular field and read up on current research. I know this doesn't sound 'Freedom of speech-y' but sometimes laymen need to just sit down and shut up.
I really enjoy the idea of having tiny videos to send to people. Plus, the way you guys have done it, it is very polite and informative. If I were to receive one of those, it would be really hard to be mad about it.
A good video about fallacies! I know everyone wants to jump on the Gamergate comments on the end, but I want to comment on the actual substance of the video. I'll add a note at the end about Gamergate. 1. Strawman - Good rundown of this fallacy. I especially like how you point how that using the strawman means the members of a debate end up talking past each other rather than debating the subject at hand. 2. Ad Hominem - Bonus points for the Tu Quoque ("you too") fallacy. Glad you specified that this is only important when the appeal to character is irrelevant to the discussion. 3. False Dichotomy / False Dilemma - A little fast and loose with terminology here, but a good overall summary of presenting only the extreme ends of a debate. I felt like you were dancing around a bunch of different fallacies here and trying to lump them all into one category. This was the least clear of your overviews. 4. Argument from Authority - Problematic. You tried to elevate the status of science above its station. It doesn't matter if you're citing God, your best friend's roommate, NASA, or Noam Chomsky. If all you're doing is appealing to an authority, then that's an informal fallacy. For instance, the statement, "Science tells us that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old" on its own without any other evidence or argumentation is fallacious. The reason appealing to science works in society is because you can make further appeals to the arguments and evidence within science to further backup a claim. That is, it's well founded stuff. When you just use science like a Bible, though, you're elevating science to an authoritative place that it doesn't belong in. In this section you get lost in exploring what is or is not a good authority when, in logic, that is irrelevant. 5. No True Scotsman - This is such a complicated fallacy that putting it at the end with so little time didn't do it justice. For instance, say someone classifies themselves (or another) in a group where they don't logically belong. For instance, the Nazis praised Nietzsche as their party's philosophical father despite the fact that Naziism would have been anathema to Nietzsche. On the opposite side of this, we have Heidegger, who was actually a Nazi, but whose philosophy was also entirely at odds with Naziism. Who is the true Scotsman here? I don't like the fallacy very much because people can and will identify as something that they are not, so it's not very meaningful to get caught up in the issue one way or another. I, for one, am tired of atheists who try to "claim" historical figures like Einstein or contemporary figures like Neil deGrasse Tyson for their own political ends just as much as I'm tired of really any group who fights to try to put individuals in or out of any particular box to meet their ends. The whole practice of categorizing people at all should really be a fallacy. Anyhow, would liked to have seen a little nuance here, but I understand why it wasn't present. Overall this was a great video, though! As for all the people claiming that the last couple of minutes are just fallacies, just let me remind you that no argument was actually being made. They were just statements about the position of Idea Channel and some thoughts about the movement. Bringing up something like sexism within Gamergate is also not an Ad Hominem as, if you remember from the video, it's actually very relevant to the discussion. I recommend you hold on to your rage and ready your jerking knee for when and if Idea Channel actually releases a video about the subject.
So Mike brings up an interesting point about Gamer Gate (disclaimer: I'm very pro-Gamer Gate, and if you're not up to speed, I highly recommend you go to the Gamer Gate section of 8chan to see our point of view, and probably seek out some resources to see the other point of view as well). I think a lot of us can agree that corruption in Games Journalism is a problem and that it should be fixed. The problem is, the reason Gamer Gate has been portrayed as very anti-women/minorities/whatever is because Gamer Gate is a movement by the people, the consumers, against the corrupt goings on of games journalists and developers. We've made it clear in posts on 8chan that we do not condone the threatening of anybody in our name, we are not out for blood, and we are not against more diversity in games (personally, I'd love to see more women - especially queer women - represented in video games). We boycott organizations and argue and send emails in order to get the change we desire (which, as has been stated before, is to get corruption out of games journalism), and it may not have worked 100% yet, but it is working. The Escapist, which we've railed against before on grounds of corruption, has recently implemented a new standard of ethics and has been very public about it. Intel recently pulled their advertising from Gamasutra, which we've also criticized on grounds of corruption (prior to that, most of us boycotted Intel, and now that they've done that, we're not boycotting them anymore). Meanwhile, our opposition (primarily from the journalists and game developers we're calling out) has done little to address our arguments, instead preferring to just focus on how we're all hateful, full of -isms, and so on and so forth. Meanwhile, Zoe Quinn started the whole shitstorm with TFYC (she tweeted something along the lines of "Oops, did I doxx someone?" around the time that was happening, which while not an outright confirmation, does make her extremely fishy), the editor in Chief of Kotaku once said a while back that people should recuse themselves in conflicts of interest and then went on to defend the journalist who was alleged to have had a relationship with Zoe Quinn prior to reporting on Depression Quest (if I recall correctly - and I don't remember 100% so take it with a grain of salt - he basically just said something along the lines of "What he did wasn't wrong, so back off"). The big problem, I think, is how Gamer Gate started. It started as a movement by anonymous people on 4chan (many of whom decided to leave for good when moot decided to censor us - gee, that sure was nice of the "Champion of Unfiltered Free Speech"), and a ton of us have decided to stay anonymous. Because there aren't any big figure heads, it's easy for us to be misrepresented as a bunch of woman/black/latino/queer hating fuckwads. The New York Times and The Guardian have both misrepresented us, showing a clear lack of respect and journalistic integrity, which makes me think that maybe we should expand out to all areas of journalism. Maybe turn Gamer Gate into a general journalistic watch dog movement. tl;dr - We're being misrepresented by the people we're opposing, threats in the name of Gamer Gate do happen and it's shit and we hate it, and my comment is a winding fuckwad of text and I apologize for all this.
You're not being misrepresented. Your reputation precedes you. I saw what y'all were doing and I didn't like it. If you really want to talk about ethics in journalism, lose the gamergate tag drop the Zoe thing and regroup under another banner.
So you hate women? Basically you're a bad person. You either support women in games, or you're with gamer gate. Really smart and big names hate gamer gate. No true woman would ever support it. :-p
Stella-Terra Clemens Really, fallacies from the PBS IDEA CHANNEL video being used in the comment section. I know nothing about gamergate and I am not commenting on your opinion but your arguement
AdaptiveReasoning You're playing into the fallacies that were just discussed here... Also as stated in another thread here, The people covering #gamergate are the very 'journalists' being put in the spot light, of course the representation will not be very forgiving to pro gamergate people, the journalists want to fluff their side and damn the other.
Very cool video! One fallacy that I see a lot is "correlation equals causation", in which one would argue that two events that happen simultaneously or in short succession of each other must be related. In other words, A and B happened around the same time, therefore A must have caused B.
I honestly just wish this GamerGate business could come to close, because as far as I've seen, there's been absolutely nothing positive coming from it. I'm not saying that bias and ethics shouldn't be questioned, but just that this specific case has created nothing of value /that I've seen/, while stirring up a lot of groundless hatred and character arguments that I don't want any part of. That being said, I don't think anybody should be watching this channel who is only interested in hearing about views that they agree with. The whole point is raising questions and discussing ideas, and you shouldn't be restricted from approaching "sensitive" subjects. This channel's been very open and nonjudgmental so far, and has a very clear separation between opinion and fact, and I'm sure that won't change any time soon. P.S. NaNoWriMo's coming up. Any ideas? ;;;)
Didn't you use an ad hominem attack at the end of the video on gamergate supporters? I mean I love the video and your channel in general but why focus on the idiotic actions of a few when there are serious concerns, as you clearly understand, in gaming journalism and development? Or how about the ridiculous reactions on countless sites since all of this broke (ie shadowbans on reddit or the infamous GameJournoPros story)?
The focus is on those idiotic actions because those idiotic actions actually could lead to real and permanent harm to another person. Ethics in games journalism isn't likely to get anyone beaten, raped or killed. Once the more serious threat is dealt with, then yes, lets circle back and have a real conversation about gaming journalism and development. If my house was on fire, I wouldn't be focused on the fact that I spilled milk in the kitchen.
John Saul You will never not have idiots who do idiotic things. What extra action would you like to take besides the existing laws against threats and harassment? Some assholes use civil rights as an excuse to commit actual violence, not just threaten, so should we also not discuss that until we have locked up all the scum? By the time you "circle back around", the problem will only be worse.
Actually, it's more like a false generalization than an ad hominem. And the most clear fallacy in the end is in my opinion the strawman. That one I am almost certain he used when describing gamergate.
I think he was mostly getting at that, while it has its merits (as does anything), it is now, unfortunately, tied to the harassment and vitriol it has given rise to. He did say that criticism on and discussion of ethics in games is necessary, but the movement itself has become linked to the worst of the worst, and he personally can't support it. That doesn't mean the discussions and the criticisms of whatever kind cannot continue, but the movement of "Gamergate" itself has become...sullied, to say the least.
This is amazing and thank you!! As an English teacher who loves to teach rhetoric, this is quite accessible and helpful for my students. Thanks! Keep making more! This is the kind of thing that can improve the level of discourse online. Cheers!
Thank you very much for this video, it helped me realized I frequently use some of the fallacies you described in fear of losing an argument. I hope that knowing them will improve my conversations and help me build stronger arguments. Also I believe it's important to remind people (myself included) the goal of arguing, a better understanding of each other, which is often sadly forgotten. Good job!
All you have to base that assumption on is a single out-of-context quote from four years ago, disregarding anything she has said before or since. But, anyway: Even if it were true (and it demonstrably isn't), *it would in no way devalue the points she makes*. You attack her personality, instead of her actual arguments. That is, ladies and gentlemen, an ad hominem fallacy. Congratulations, you've just demonstrated perfectly what this video is talking about :) Furthermore: If all you care about is "ethics in games journalism" - why do you occupy yourself with Sarkeesian at all? She is not a games journalist.
InnerPartisan UHm... Noooo. You are adorable, but I'm basing my opinion on the multiple videos she's done where she laments the use of violence to solve conflicts even in angry birds.
InnerPartisan *Challenge accepted* Here we have a person who admittedly loathes games that rely on violence, A feminist who is determined to remove patriarchal reward structures from the narrative of games, An idealog with a pension for making authoritarian demands on how men should or shouldn't interpret their own emotion & motivations and has actually use sentences like..."This does not give you the *Emotional Licence* to feel bad for the villain" A disingenuous propagandist who makes constant corollary links to video games and domestic violence. An ignorant moralizer who uses gut reactions to review Movies, comic books and video game she's has *admittedly* not seen or ever played(Mirrors Edge, Bayonetta, Green Lantern, Sucker Punch) A misanthropic, anhedonic, curmudgeon whose opinions on Movies T.V and literature was set in stone from her 1st gender studies class. A bad critic in search of her own confirmation bias. An economic halfwit who honestly believes that destroying a brand by making incessant overtures to political correctness would ultimately be good for a company's overall image even if the that would lead to bankruptcy. So yeah.. she's not a gamer. She's a moral crusader building up an argument to tear games down. Oh and she's worse than Hitler....(what's my score?)
Please speak up about Gamergate. As a worker in media and entertainment, as well as a female gamer among many others friends, it's been very sad sight from my experience. I am not welcome to the gaming community.
1. I say DEFINITELY do more fallacy videos. It is a community service to your home town. 2. On the GamerGate thing, ::SIGH::. The problem is this debate wound up fueling a brushfire of vitriol, from both sides I might add, much of which was fabricated or machined into existence, and a lot of the fallacies you have made mention of in this video are getting thrown about... A LOT. On the GamerGate side, aside from those known agitators who are not there for a cause but TO CAUSE offense and destruction (guilty parties on both sides to be sure), as is the case with any movement, it has been largely peaceable and has some very valid concerns over journalism, ethics, and the interplay between those without scruples and the gaming population as a whole. Gamers by and large are decent, typically younger, people who are pretty darn open and accepting. Most everyone I have seen on the pro-GG side making comments have been as put out and angered by the poor behavior of the bad apples as anyone Anti-GG (ignoring the "members" of both sides of the debate who are themselves bad apples in this context), as anyone should be when hatred is being spewed, but there are valid concerns about agendas and politics overtaking real positive change and introspection. On the ANTI side my main issue has revolved around the bandying about of claims and accusations of... personal misanthropic agendas. It is well, good, and RIGHT to point out an individual who is spouting hate, or making threats, and allow the culture as a whole to shun them or remedy the rabble rouser in its midst, it is quite another to paint the entire culture with the brush of those vitriolic personalities. There are individuals who act in ways that give credence to the accusations being brought, but they are acting out on both sides of the battle lines, and do not reflect the entire gaming community. All these gross and negative terms and actions are not a quality of the gamer community but of the individual "gamers" who possess those qualities. It is a problem, but not one the entire gaming community is collectively guilty for. It is a problem stemming directly from those antagonists. We should not forget that the gaming community is a large and robust population made up of all walks of life, and to make collective claims against a community made up of individuals is scary and disheartening.
That whole debate is just insane. Especially the tweetwar surrounding it. Both sides just talk past eachother rather than addressing their concerns and listening. But I've been insulted by both Adam Baldwin and Adam Sessler on there, so pissing off both sides has been fun I guess? EDIT: though, the further I go on, the more I fall onto the Anti-GG side of the spectrum, so, sorry I guess.
***** It says a lot if you're able to get both sides to focus fire on you for a bit. What was the quote? if you've been called an anarchist, a racist, a hippy, a fascist, a liberal, and a neocon all in the same day... you're probably a libertarian. www.quickmeme.com/meme/3saprs
That's the thing, it's always the Vocal Minority who get looked at rather then the Silent Majority. This is why I have a different persecptive on Feminism, which I thought used to be just about hatred. Now I know it's the Vocal Minority. #GamerGate (cuz I wanna).
Brian Hunter Yeah its always the vocal fringe that gets the press and recognition. One of the big problems with social issues all thru history has been the polar extremes keeping the people who want to find a solution from being able to get to work.
Actually on the topic of Gone Home, completing the game is a Win-state and failing to find the next clue or whatever is implicitly a lose-state. The key is that there is a degree of challenge inherent in playing it. Otherwise it's not a 'game'. Note this a) doesn't prevent such 'interactive experiences' from being enjoyable or having value them in any way and b) is an important distinction to make for people buying a game. Many people playing games enjoy overcoming adversity. Be it finding hidden objects, solving a puzzle or just bashing people who get in your way over the head. I think the more important question to ask when discussing this sort of thing is 'Would a game like The Walking Dead or The Wolf Among Us be more or less enjoyable if you were unable to lose in anyway?' As well as 'Are 'genres' actually informing purchasing decisions enough these days?'
While I do agree that most if not all games do have degree of challenge, I don't know if you need a default win or lose state. The Stanley Parable jumps to mind as it has no win state, and old-school tabletop games like D&D in that while you can complete goals and defeat villains there is no finish line where you win.
Isaac Prusky But Minecraft technically does have a win state, if you beat the enderdragon and jump through the exit portal you 'beat' minecraft (with credits no less). Garry's Mod is much more interesting as where do you draw the line between a game and "'interactive experiences'" as Michael puts it. Garry's Mod has no goals or challenges, though it is quite enjoyable. Can we call Etch-a-Sketch a game or is it just a toy?
Nathan Veillon The very definition of game is that it is a challenge you want to beat. So if there is no objective in a video game, we might start calling it video toy or something like that. I'm always up for diverse and precise language.
Mike at the end of your video, you can literally substitute gamergate with feminism and it will still be applicable, even though they are painted differently by the media. Don't get me wrong, I would like to see fair representation and equality in games and society in general, but I cannot associate myself with feminism as much as I can't associate myself with gamergate. I hate that people are being threatened and bullied, but for once I would like to see people like Anita Sarkeesian for example stand up to valid criticism. Even if gamergate people are separated into people who just harass and people who are actually concerned about ethics in media, the other party is not concerned with letting their arguments stand on it's own merits and will group any actual arguments as harassment.
The vast majority of "valid criticism" against Anita Sarkeesian is based on the logical fallacies outlined in the video above. Discussion about the representation of women in video games is a very important one to have, but is constantly derailed by the same vitriol and negativity that Gamergaters espouse. It seems to me that so many seem to see Sarkeesian's critique as "attacking" video games, whereas the existence of critique lends itself more to the idea that the video game as a medium is becoming recognized as legitimate and mature. All mature media are the subjects of critique, and rightfully so.
Dave Hibbs The same vitriol that both sides dish out. Anti-Gamergaters are all to willing to dish out the hate. The difference is they can't take the heat when it is thrown back at them and are all too happy to play the victim card when it suits them.
Dave Hibbs Sure, I agree for the most part. But there are plenty of youtube channels that do critique her works and show how her research is unscientific with regards to references, data etc. These youtube channels are aware of logical fallacies for the most part because a lot of them are atheistic commentary critiquing theistic fallacies. Look I don't feel threatened by her critique, I wouldn't even classify myself as a gamer really. But she is ignoring the whole peer review process that should accompany any research people should take seriously. Also using threats and harassment as "evidence" of her arguments are fallacious in the most cases except if her hypothesis is that controversy will make people act like barbarians, (which we've all seen so many times throughout history) but for the most cases that isn't her hypotheses so she cannot use that as evidence. Although I can agree that the harassment is unfair towards her, lumping in all criticism with that is also unfair.
Perhaps, then, in order to start conversations one needs to make an attempt at curbing the harassment, separating themselves from those who simply harass.
Jesus Christ! Since when was this a Gamergate video? That's all the comments are focusing on! I don't know why people are so hung up on it - I mean, the whole "corruption" was just the baseless accusations of an angry ex-boyfriend. It was just a breaking-up squabble and it's reached the point where the poor woman doesn't even feel safe in her own house. Her family members don't even feel safe in their own houses. It's not a corruption thing, guys. It's far far darker than that.
The problem is we watched a video about logical fallicies (and I was going to argue about some missed points in the video; things about how spotting and naming a fallacy does not necessarily negate any set of premises outright, and this was only loosely brought up in during the Ad Hominem segment which is kind of a weird place to put it), and we got hit with a weigh-in on GamerGate in the end. It was a bait-and-switch maneuver to a very tense topic when it could have been just an informational video, and frankly for his sake I did not want to hear Mike's opinion because here and now was the inappropriate time and place. He should have just constructed a full video instead of shoehorning the topic into another without warning, and it may cost him face for weighing in prematurely.
Chronomaster That's the thing about GamerGate. Since Mike did that video with Dan and Dan has been very vocally anti-GamerGate lately, inevitably people will come out of the woodwork and start whining about it even if the connection between GG and what they're talking about is tangential at best. No matter how you approach it, whether in passing or as a topic of conversation, it's going to attract a lot of people with some very strong opinions. Expecting otherwise is like walking into a bear cave covered in steak and barbecue sauce and expecting to not get mauled.
***** What you guys need is a new hashtag that distance yourself againt the misogny, and sexism and treats of Sarkasian and Zoe Quinn. As long as it associate with that nobody will listen. You never see TotalBiscuit use the gamegate hashtag, which is the smart move. Distance yourself with the association of harrassmant of woman, and instead focus on the Shadow of Mordor controversy or web site like IGN getting review eclusive stuff like that. Distance yourself from all that shit, with a new hashtag, and people might actually listen.
thebritishgeek How's about this: Gamer culture is inherently exclusive to a certain kind of people who play a certain kind of game, labelling them unfairly as "not gamers", thereby implying that they should not become involved in this particular medium, keeping the audience of said medium small and narrow, reinforcing old-fashioned stereotypes and ideals that should be cast off by new, more eclectic audiences becoming involved in something we can all work together to make a better thing. If people are excluded from becoming involved in a thing then in most cases that thing will inevitably wither and die due to lack of exposure and lack of revenue going towards the people creating within that medium. Like it or not, we need "casual gamers" to actually make the medium accessible. What needs to change is not the kind of people playing games, but the kind of games being made, to herald in a new era of casual game legitimacy, which would be awesome.
I enjoyed this video. I enjoy almost all of your videos. Even though you said you weren't pro-gamergate, I will continue to watch your videos. I am pro-gamergate, but you also stand for what gamergate stands for. Ethics in journalism, inclusive games, and anti-bullying or harassment. I don't like how gamergate has been hijacked by trolls, misogynists, and anti-gamergater but I stand by its true principals. I don't want to be disrespected or misrepresented by the gaming press. I don't want to be called horrible things just because I stand for ethics in journalism. What's happening to gamergate feels like how america treated Muslims after 9/11. A few radicals taint the whole group and now every Muslim has to apologize for who they are. I will not apologize to people who insult me or be sidetracked by trolls who send death threats. We will expose the trolls and report them. Because I believe gamergate is good at heart. We have just been misrepresented by a media that does not understand nuance or trolls.
Maybe I heard the whole thing wrong, but you just used a Black and White Fallacy in a video talking about why the Black and White Fallacy is wrong. The gamergaters AREN'T defined by sexism and vitriolic behavior, or at least to my knowledge they aren't. They're defined by people who want games journalism to be more trustworthy. I could be employing a strawman fallacy here, but to me it really seems like you're saying that once you become a gamergater you're a sexist, which isn't true in the least.
My interpretation of his opinion wasn't that GamerGaters are inherently sexist (as he also mentioned that the movement was right in saying there are ethical concerns in journalism), but rather that the movement itself as a whole has exhibited negative characteristics which make it unfollowable for him personally, despite some of its otherwise more redeeming aspects.
PiMaster PI then by that logic any movement is unfollowable as each group has its radicals which do not represent the group as a whole but rather are the focused on minority because it's then "news worthy". It's like focusing on the doctor killers of the anti abortion movement or the substance abusers in the sports community. To view such a narrow and small sample as the whole of the side is a fallacy in and of itself.
By "as a whole", I meant the majority of the movement, not a vocal minority. Whether or not it really is the majority rather than a vocal minority is clearly subject to interpretation, and I'm not qualified to engage in that discussion. To clarify, I'm defending Mike's opinion and his right to have it, not my own. I have no opinion about "GamerGate".
Study effective social movements in the 20th century. They were mostly non-violent and VIOLENT MEMBERS WERE REMOVED by the more sensible majority. Affiliating yourself with people who are online harassers means you condone the behavior and at worst as accessory to the crime. Also makes you sound like a hypocrite and untrustworthy because... how do we know you don't do the same? Being an accessory to murder for example carries heavy prison time even though you killed noone.
Saying that GamerGate is defined by the harassment of women is exactly the same as saying that Islam is defined by terrorism... #ButThatsNoneOfMyBusiness
In regards to gamergate I pretty much just watched a couple pro-gamergate youtube videos about it, and I don't remember it encouraging harassment of anyone of any kind. Can someone tell me what I missed? EDIT: From the videos I've watched, all I've seen are arguments talking about how corrupt gaming journalism is.
From all I seen, the anti gamergate people have harassed people 100 times more than anything from the gamergate side, some of the shit people have said about gamers/gamergate people and doxxing people that agree with it is madding and then hearing that gamergate people are nothing but scum. Like that Devin what's his name from badassdigest supporting the doxxing and harassment of anyone that is for gamergate and saying there worst then ISIS.
The problem is that while there are a few rational people in Gamers Gate. The movement as a whole has problems. Gamers Gate people typically just go after A ) Feminists / People they consider to be Social Justice Warriors or B) People who disagree with them.
Jack Sander This is what confuses me. Trying not to use the "Not a true Scotsman" fallacy, but from the videos I've seen, they not only talking about corruption in games journalism in a civil manner, but they also outright encourages everyone to be strictly civil so that they won't give gamergate a bad name.
wakuboys Long story short: The idea channel, Extra Credits and many others have fallen for the false narrative being painted by the media against GamerGate. They're being too lazy to do actual research into the movement or its history before condemning it. **Example of media lying: The "threats" Anita got at the UFC campous thing didn't even mention or elude to gamergate, yet EVERY media outlet out there pretended gamergate was behind it.
***** Actually the beginning of gamergate started with Zoe Quinn and Phil Fish and having their data doxxed and publicly released. Cyber hacking/bullying along with your average sexist/unrefined persons who get blown out of proportion to smear everyone else who isn't 'misbehaving' is why the movement is seen as violent and unethical. Which is sad because the way this whole thing is spiraling is a lose/lose for gamers now when journalism point blank is corrupt. Check out native advertising, for example. That being said, Mike is likely a Socrates type of guy - the means do not justify the end.
Your example for no true scottsman is incorrect. A no true scottsman fallacy only applies if the piece in question contains the properties of the group as defined. If games are defined as 'having defined or implied failure states in an attempt to test a skill of an individual in a manner that is entertaining', then gone home fails to meet this definition. Basically, you can not commit a 'no true scottsman fallacy', unless the consensus definition does not carry the attributes used in the descriptor definition. To use a less nebulous example: "All scottish citizens are recognized as citizens by the scottish state." 'But O'Malley is a scottish citizen and is not recognized by the state as such!' "O'Malley isn't recognized as a citizen by the state, therefore he fails to meet the basic definition of being a Scottish Citizen." No matter how much an individual wants to extricate something or include it in a label, it is only labeled as such when it meets the pre-requisites of the label, and can not be extricated if it does meet the pre-requisites of the label. The ' no TRUE ____' only makes the argument seem apparent, when it it just as likely to apply to someone not saying that they're not a 'true' blank, but rather that 'x' is not blank. If a statement makes logical sense by replacing 'is not a TRUE _____' with 'is not a ______', then it is not a 'no true scottsman'.
Fuck me; that was so well put together I nearly climaxed. Although it could just be such a stark contrast to a lot of this comment section that causes it to appear so distinct. Well done anyway.
> If games are defined as 'having defined or implied failure states in an attempt to test a skill of an individual in a manner that is entertaining', then gone home fails to meet this definition. The problem is that there is not an agreed-upon definition. As such taking the definition as factual or agreed-upon is applying it "subjectively" or only from your point of view. That is the No True Scotsman fallacy: an argument of semantics.
Paranoid Android If a term does not have a generally agreed upon definition; then one can not commit 'no true scottsman'. The fallacy in 'no true scottsman' is claiming that a label has properties not in a proper consensus definition of it (and by extension allows something to be considered to be that label). If there isn't a consensus decision to work from (game is one of these terms where people have tried to exactly work out what makes a 'game', since an improperly constructed definition can allow things to be labeled 'game' that aren't; like general conversation or a museum exhibit) As for the definition I placed out, it's one that's been presented by some game devs, informed by the discussions of other devs, players, and people who studied game theory as a whole. In lieu of a proper definition for a label, discussion should shift to have people support their reasoning for a label. Like in the case of the 'gone home' example, mike would need to assert what he is using as the definition of game, since it isn't a term with a properly set definition, and 'straw mike' wouldn't be able to address if mike's definition of game is flawed (as his definition is flawed in over-specificity)
dmgirl3000 > If a term does not have a generally agreed upon definition; then one can not commit 'no true scottsman'. This is not *necessarily* the case, as a term can have an *array* of definitions. In the discussion, it can be disagreed upon as to which definition to use, even if there are multiple "agreed-upon" definitions in general. I didn't specify "generally agreed-upon" because I meant specifically in the context of a conversation, discussion, argument, or proof. > since an improperly constructed definition can allow things to be labeled 'game' that aren't; like general conversation or a museum exhibit I would argue that conversation and museum exhibits can be games, and I'd be prepared to define games in a way that is both acceptable at large and would allow for this to be true. That is another discussion though. > As for the definition I placed out, it's one that's been presented by some game devs, informed by the discussions of other devs, players, and people who studied game theory as a whole. I would argue this is an appeal to authority and ad populum. In this case I would argue this is the correct application of these fallacies because simply being a game dev or player does not make one an expert. Similarly, "game" relative to "game theory" will likely have a different definition than "game" at large because they are different contexts. So while they may be experts in one field (even one field directly related to "games" at large), I don't believe you can claim any of them to be authorities on what should make up the general term of "game". I would still be very interested in their input though. > In lieu of a proper definition for a label, discussion should shift to have people support their reasoning for a label. I agree wholeheartedly and this concept is one I push for in most discussions, especially ones concerning ambiguous definitions. I also appreciated you giving your definition for "game" before using it in context! > mike would need to assert what he is using as the definition of game, since it isn't a term with a properly set definition, and 'straw mike' wouldn't be able to address if mike's definition of game is flawed (as his definition is flawed in over-specificity) I agree! I would also bet that Mike is probably working on a more general discussion on this topic by tackling specific aspects of it, as evinced by the previous video discussing the definition of games relative to their mechanics. I feel that he said something with an "objective air" that he had not earned at the time which you were right to point out and call him on, though I think it was meant as an offhanded example. I would also argue on the definition of games which includes Gone Home and therefore on his behalf of the comment, even if the comment was not made with the proper context.
Paranoid Android Well, in regards to that; it's what would be considered context based. With defined definitions (albeit multiple ones), the debaters would present reasons from the context to use their definition, and the definition with better validation would be the one to use in this case. As for conversations and museums, that's a case of mutually exclusive terms. Being a game does not necessarily mean you can't simply be a conversation or museum exhibit, but the definition of game most likely should not cover all museum exhibits and conversations, just like a job can be construed as a game, but the properties of game likely would not apply to the construing of all jobs. You would be right that it was an appeal to authority/ad populum, if it wasn't for the fact that there are exceptions to this (specifically citing scientific consensus for such is one such example). The reason I pointed to people who study game theory as well as game developers is because these are people (more specifically the latter than the former, since game theory is more widespread, but does still cover games itself in it's broad scope) have experience in the construction and methodologies used for the creation of a game, which gives considerable insight into recognition of such. The main reason for citing it is that there is no major 'consensus' decision for what defines games. Many people arbitrarily define things as game or not based on their personal feelings rather than solid definitions of such. In application of the definition I presented, I find myself considering many things I would have called games actually be considered not games: -Candyland (it's a pure luck and a round of 4 players is the same if the 4 different players were all the same person) -Sims (there is a lack of intrinsic challenges for the most part, but applied challenges create the framework to consider it a game) -Visual Novels (this is not uniformly applied, as some contain elements that test skill, generally in the form of logic puzzles) And as a whole it just made me realize that a lot of things that I listed as games share many properties with things I would label not games, and it presented a general internal inconsistency. I guess that's my main reason for support of this general definition. It carries the degree of specificity to create proper boundaries (with logical backup) an allow for one to have an internally consistent system; especially when as a whole we do seem to lack a non-subjective definition of the term. And all of that isn't even getting into the fact that people take being labeled 'not a game' so seriously. Being 'not a game' doesn't intrinsically diminish the value of the product; it just means that the elements within simply don't meet denotative requirements for a definition. (Though I would argue that potentially some of the gripe comes from the fact that by a product being called not a game, they can't use it as an example of the depth of plot and philosophy a game can achieve)
Your statement towards the end suggests to say that there is no evidence that will change your view on the debate surrounding Gate Gate. You have arrived to the topic will a preset notion about the issue and only seek to cherry pick data that confirms the preset notion. I'm sorry to say that such a position seems to be the zenith of a anti-intellectual ideologue.
i think the biggest problem with #gamergate is that they don't see what they're doing as either 1) harassment or 2) misogynistic. i literally saw a post on a gamergate forum earlier saying, "how dare felicia day criticize #gamergate as misogynistic? she's just a washed up booth babe looking for press." these people are so incredibly steeped in this sort of thing they don't realize what they're doing is incredibly problematic. they think condemning outright threats somehow makes the other things they're doing okay. but the surrounding milieu of #gamergate creates and enables that direct abuse by creating an incredibly vitriolic, toxic environment. often via lies, slander and misrepresentation.
I disagree with your understanding of the argument from authority fallacy. You seem to be saying it's mistaking someone who isn't an authority on a subject for someone who is. That's not, in my understanding, the fallacy of the argument from authority. That's not even a fallacy, really, that's just poor judgement!.. The fallacy of the argument from authority is arguing that the truth value of a statement derives from the fact *that it was said by an authority* rather than *why it was said by an authority*. It's substituting an authority's *opinion* over their *evidence*. . (But 5 extra points for the demonstration at the end, where you show a "no true scotsman" by saying some of the so-called "gamergaters" aren't really "true gamergaters"..;)
It's actually as Mike described it, but what you pointed out could also be fallacious. I would link to the IEP (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy), but it seems to be down at the moment. On there it says that citing sources of legitimate authority isn't a fallacy and it is only when you purport someone who is not actually an expert as an expert.
Krip I couldn't bring up the IEP on my end either. Which is sad. I'd like to have seen your source. I was speaking off the top of my head from my general understanding - I didn't look it up. But Wikipedia's argument from authority page supports my understanding. It does also mention a similar fallacy of "appeal to an inappropriate authority," which sounds like what Mike is describing... But that's just Wikipedia. The IEP has better authorities for editors. It seems your authority would be better than my authority... :D
ThePeaceableKingdom Rationalwiki would be better than wikipedia, which says what mike says, but IEP is probably the best, since it's edited by philosophers with PhD's.
ThePeaceableKingdom From my understanding, the authority fallacy can be simplified to someone saying "Global Warming is true because scientists said so" rather than "scientists found (this), (this), and (this), which support the possibility of Global Warming". Also using scientists is a bit shaky anyways because our understanding of science in many fields continually changes from year to year anyways.
Crazy Boy Studios Yes. That's the way I understand it. Two citizens of Pisa are sitting in the market in 1589 and one says, "If I drop a grape and a melon from the top of the tower they'll hit the ground at the same time *because Galileo says so*." He has committed the fallacy because his appeal to Galileo's authority doesn't make it true - not because he chose the wrong authority. (Everyone at the time knew that the greatest authority of all was Aristotle anyway, who said heavier things would fall faster...) The citizen's argument was fallacious. (His opinion, though, was correct.)
Holy moly, the memes are fun and totally distracting. 😊 I had to rewind multiple times so I could see the meme and hear the information. Perhaps I absorbed everything better that way, but I can imagine that it would be a problem for me if I didn't have control of the rewind button. 😊
So...you spend 10+ minutes explaining these 5 logical fallacies...and then invoke most of them at the end of the video in your description of GamerGate? I mean, does that...even...register for you? This is just what makes it so difficult for me to take anti-GGer's seriously. Logic and reason go right out the window when you start talking about GG, and it just turns into a string of logical fallacies just brimming with loathing and disgust. I really, really want both sides to reach across the divide and have an honest conversation about this topic. I wholeheartedly do. I just don't know how we're going to do that when you guys can't even acknowledge the possibility that GG isn't "literally an ISIS of Hitlers."
Damien Trezgurar No, that little nugget of joy is from one Steve Hogarty. Although it very aptly sums up the opinion of the loudest voices of the counter-movement.
Damien Trezgurar Yes, that criticism was in my original post concerning his invocation of some of the very same logical fallacies that he discussed in the portion of the video leading up to his views on GG.
I don't get the laser-like focus on Gone Home whenever this topic of "non-games" comes up. Its certainly not only game in this category. Off the top of my head I'd add Stanley Parable, Dear Esther, and the excellent Vanishing of Ethan Carter. If we're going to qualify a how much of a "game" or "non-game" these are based on how much you interact with the environment inside each game, I'd say Gone Home is more of a game than Dear Esther, about the same level of "gameness" as Stanley Parable, and less of game than Vanishing of Ethan Carter. Its right in the middle. Yet its the one that always gets called out amongst GG'ers for some reason. Anyway, all this is besides the point. I could care less what you label it as. Its a great experience, and the other 3 I mentioned are as well. All worth picking up on Steam if you have the chance.
Chris Loos I believe the focus on Gone Home is because, while it may be about the same amount of "game/non-game" as Stanley Parable, might be because Gone Home most definitely comes off more as games imitating art, as in it tries to present the player/viewer with a (world) view that they may not be used to. Where as The Stanley Parable, while still presenting a view, is meant to be a more tongue-in-cheek or introspective look at games & gaming, and also provides multiple paths (a la Choose Your Own Adventure books.) I haven't played Gone Home as of yet, but if my understanding of it is correct, there is only the one path.
I think the biggest logical fallacy was the one that closed off the video. GamerGate users openly condemn harassment and is welcoming of minorities (see NotYourShield), and there is plenty of evidence that third parties are making the threats in order to place blame to the group. In addition, the supposed "oppressed" groups in question have been shown to either exaggerate their harassment (Brianna Wu and the "Oppressed GamerGater" incident, where she claimed users hijacked her meme - which was ironically made to harass GamerGaters - to harass her, when very few images even mentioned her, and no threats were made) or outright fake it (the "Death To Brianna" twitter account was extremely suspicious, and she even announced the death threat before it even occurred). Plus, GamerGaters have recently taken an effort to report any death threat - sincere or not - on either side. Are you not for GamerGate? That's perfectly fine. However, don't believe the talk about misogyny for a second. You're playing right into the hands of the GameJournoPros, who are writing that narrative, when you do.
citing NotYourShield is literally the Gamergate version of "How can I be racist if I have black friends?!" When are you knuckleheads going to realize this?
Except people involved with NYS put themselves forward to support an idea, not to use an irrelevant existing relationship in an attempt to discredit an accusation. If we were to say "we're not excluding people, we have non-white, female, and non-heterosexual people involved", then your argument would make some sense. But the thing is that those same individuals came forward instead of simply being picked out by a specific group. There's a difference.
Chris Loos Well, it's not like people who aren't straight white males all think the same. Some of the most obnoxious feminists I think of are straight white males.
Chris Loos While it is true that the fact that NotYourShield exists is not proof that gamergate is not fighting against women in gaming, the fact the the people who have used it have not been harassed by gamergaters IS. Following your "How can I be racist if I have black friends?!" argument: it is true that just because you have black friends does not mean you aren't racist. However, if you have not shown any evidence of harassment or racism towards black people, then the argument becomes moot because the accuser has no evidence to back his claim.
The only problem with the whole anti-feminist part of Gamer Gate is that it is part of the reason it started. Zoe Quinn a feminist in as far as she can make money (that being she totally shut down a charity with the soul purpose as to allow women with no experience in making games actually make a game because she wanted the winner to get payed more) slept with several games journalists in order to gain popularity and positive reviews for her indie game. With that spark of controversy it grew into this giant flame which exposed a hidden group of Journalists that email each other and that use the journalistic medium to sell their views i.e. social justice warrior type ideas. Those same journalists posted a coordinated attack against Gamers in their articles saying that "Gamers are dead" and tried to sell a black and white fallacy of your either a "gamer" and represent all of the evils that the social justice warriors try to sell or a "gamer plus" which is basically a good person. I feel sorry for you that you have been sold the false idea that #gamergate is anti-feminist, anti-women, or exclusionary because at the end of the day GamerGate is all about getting the topic back to Gaming and not about false representations of what Gamers are. Please I don't want what happened to the Atheist community happen to the Gamer community when the radical feminists rolled in with their "Atheist Plus" shenanigans
Thank you for saying what I'd like to say, but without the excessive aggression that would inevitably creep into my words. I also think it's odd that, in a video talking about fallacies, he commits several when explaining (poorly) why he doesn't like GamerGate: 1.) Assumes the entire movement is misogynist and hateful because of unstable individuals sending death and terror threats. 2.) Doesn't address or attempt to understand the widely understood (within the group) argument of GamerGate 3.) Further plays on emotion by suggesting that many who support GamerGate will do something childlike after hearing his opinion (lowering the perceived worth of our argument).
Can you PLEASE do more fallacy videos? Post hoc? Tu quoque? Circular reasoning?!! Red herring?!? With Trump as the Republican nominee, it's become more important for people to see how full of fallacies to political world is. Pretty please?
oh no twump uses fallacies when he talks?! oh no how dayr he! it's not like he is supposed to in order to actually get his point across, especially in the current political environment! and we only care when the right makes fallacies, but not when we do, cuz y should we?!
Here's something that doesn't really belong in any of these categories: A couple of days ago I suggested to a youtuber that, regarding his international viewership, he use the metric system in his videos. This comment had the sole purpose to state that a considerable part of the audience might have problems to understand the content because it was presented in the imperial system that hardly anybody outside the U.S. uses. However, this started an ongoing discussion about which system is the better one. This is a problem in many comments or discussions: Somebody makes a valid, yet specific point, and everybody lifts this up to a large-scale level and starts to ramble endlessly.
I think that's a strawman. The real point is being evaded by not giving an argument against using the metric system in his/her video but instead changing the discussion to the quality of an arbitrary system of units.
I live in the US and use the imperial system, but I recognize metric as the superior system. Actually I don't see how one can logically say imperial is better in any way except that they are already used to it.
Orion Kaelin It's based on factors of 12, and base-12 math is far superior to base-10 math. So, really, the problem is that people just use base-10 math because they're accustomed to it. The ideal situation would be to use a metric system based on multiples of 12 (which wouldn't be too different from the Imperial system, really) and base-12 mathematics.
This may be a strawman fallacy, but it could also be a natural evolution of an argument. For example, you might point out that a show has international viewer and thus should use the metric system. I might counter that the show also has American viewers, and so should use the imperial system. We would both recognize a contradiction here. One resolution to this contradiction is to decide that one system is universally better than the other, so we should use the superior system (if one exists). This is a common path for arguments to take and is one of the values of having arguments in the first place. As different sides add their viewpoints we can come to the realization that no one side has the correct viewpoint, and then work together to find a better one.
I feel like this comment thread is a piece of installation-art, where the point is just to scroll through and see Aaallllllllllll the many logical fallacies being used on every side of every argument. It's almost painful.
Let´s leave something clear. #GamerGate is not a political party, nor a movement or a structured architecture of any sorts. It is a consumer revolt made from people that are tired to be looked down upon the media they support. Calling #GamerGate a Harassment/misogyny campaign is also a huge disservice on people like Christina H Sommers, Jennie Bharaj, Jayd3 Fox and other women in the hashtag as well as #notyourshield . I thought this was an Ad-Hominem Mike
Casey Jacobs That requires believing that there's actually a point to convincing anyone in this shitstorm. You want to argue in good faith, that's your perogative. Me personally? I'm through with these folk.
Casey Jacobs Because like seriously, how the fuck am I supposed to debate with someone whose central animating tenet is that no structural issues of discrimination exist and that society is inherently fair? Like I just can't fucking manage that shit man.
I have not done such thing and I´m a supporter. Also isn´t this an ad-hominem? attack of the person, not the work? We have done donations, we have not bothered the escapist because they listened to us and changed their politics sincee day one. #GamerGate could be over in a week if news sites listened to us. I want to ask you something... take the "misogyny claims" out of #GamerGate for a second and tell me we wouldn´t exist. Just a mental exercise
I find you take on the #gamergate situation very close to, if not apart of the "ad hominem to quoque" fallacy, Some members of #gamergate may or may not be misogynists, but you are disregarding any and all points made because of this. I assume you are on the "If you criticize feminism/feminists you must be a misogynist" bandwagon...
It wasn't an ad hominem attack and he isn't disregarding anything. I don't know if you watched the video but he clearly stated that there are problems with ethics in gaming. The point he was making was that the most prevalent aspect of the Gamer Gate "movement" the thing most people will instantly think of when Gamer Gate is brought up is the awful harassment of women in gaming. Gamer Gate and harassment are too closely related to take Gamer Gate seriously as a movement that wants to improve ethics in game journalism. If you want to improve ethics in game journalism don't align yourself with Gamer Gate. If it was an ad hominem attack he'd say that Gamer Gate is about harassing women and therefore ethical problems don't exist because Gamer Gate is just a bunch of misogynists. But he didn't say that.
Abe TheMudokon Because the best way to debunk a movement that is entirely over the internet is to misrepresent it to your audiences. The same way you can ignore the feminist movement because there are literal terrorists in said movement and the first thing that comes to mind when thinking feminists are those feminazis who threaten to kill men if they look at them. Political tactics 101.
FerrumIgnotus Did you seriously just equate Gamer Gate with Feminism? First of all I don't believe that these "literal terrorists" if they actually exist are the first thing most people would think of when they hear the word feminist. The first thing most people will think is someone who fights for women's rights. Feminism like any ideology or movement has bad members, the thing is though Gamer Gate isn't a movement or an ideology it has no clearly defined goals. And before you say the goal is to increase ethical standards in video game journalism, what does that mean? Because I've seen people talk about reviewers giving good scores for bribes, or people saying that reviews shouldn't contain agendas,or game reviewers need more disclosure, or evil feminazis are trying to ruin games. Increasing ethical standards means nothing, because it could mean a multitude of things and there is no consensus amongst GG people. So it isn't an ideology or a movement it's a focusless mass of differing opinions with a massive dollop of harassment of women. If you care about ethics in games journalism, don't align yourself with GG.
Not exactly, he is merely stating that he is against what it now stands for. He is aware of the good things it might have brought, but the bad things have become too entangled with the name. He is not pro-gamergate, nor is he against people who are. He just does not support gamergate on grounds of what they've done, nor does he oppose those related to it, as long as they were not the harm-doers. Take that as you want, your prior opinion might not be influenced by my probably flawed logics ;)
He is for the conversation of ethics of game journalism, he has said in the end of the video that those types of topics are what they love to do and have done in the past. However he does not agree with GamerGate as a movement because of the harassment and exclusionary and manipulative tactics they use. To say the harassers are not part of the "True" gamegate would be the use of No True Scotsman Fallacy just as saying radical feminists or regular feminists aren't "true" feminists.
Omg BLESS YOU for making the reference videos!! It will be so much easier to make my point and (attempt to) educate people when they use these fallacies now!
I really liked this video because I'm one of those people who go into those full brony/hater comment wars and try to resolve peace. I feel if I could point out these fallacies that both Bronies and Haters use, then maybe we can come to peace. Because usually all I see is the haters going "your gay" or "horse f*ckers" and bronies going "you don't deserve to live" and the worse one..."love and tolerate". I feel like it's just anything go's in those comment wars, and I want to stop them. So thank you for some new ways to resolve them. -Goldendiamond945
Please find something more productive to do with your time than to fight people on the internet. It's a waste of your time, which could be better spent elsewhere,
So, about the ad hominem fallacy, sometimes you will see people try to dismiss someone over a small spelling mistake rather than addressing that person's points. Is that an ad hominem? I've always treated it as one.
I hate to say this, but you are correct. I have been guilty of this. I tend to think less of a person's intellect when their post is entirely upper/lowercase and lacking in punctuation, but that doesn't actual make them wrong. For many people on the internet, English is not even their first language, so considering spelling and grammar as a basis for intellect is completely unfair. Thanks for pointing this out.
That can be an ad hominem if it comes with an attack to one's intelligence, but strictly speaking, distracting a debate to something like a grammatical error is a Red Herring. A Red Herring is basically a distraction that's used in order to make the debate turn towards something irrelevant to the debate,
There is a problem about the knowledge of fallacies: the fallacy fallacy. In short: just because your "opponent" used a fallacy doesn't mean you are right. Even if it is not your intention to actually claim victory with that strategy, it shifts the discussion to an unconstructive level since it no longer is about the actual topic but about the fallacies which may or may not have occured in an argument. The strategy I normally use to prevent this is not naming the fallacies. For example, if someone uses a strawman fallacy against me, I'd just correct what my claim is and what it isn't. Further, my strategy would be to apologize for not making that clear.
The best way to use a fallacy is to point out when a particular piece of evidence supporting a claim is a fallacy, disregard that piece of evidence, and then continue the argument.
1UpForte When arguing against people who are not versed in argument etiquette, they may not "let" you simply disregard their evidence. Pointing out it's a fallacy may just anger them and cause them to be even less rational.
yes you are right let us condemn the whole movement because of a very small number of extremists since the other side doesn't have those and notyourshield isn't real and anti-gamergaters haven't harassed anyone gotcha, thanks for clearing that up
PBS Idea Channel So I have a question about the no true Scotsman fallacy. Lets say that I say "Group A cannot under any circumstance murder." If someone murders but says they are a member of Group A. Does Group A have no right to say that that person does not belong to them because they broke the rule? Where does this fallacy come into play with things like sports? If someone breaks the rules on my NFL team I can remove them from the team. It seems to me strange that you can't have a series of rules for a group and exclude everyone that does not follow those rules? Is every group universally inclusive? Or am I just misunderstanding this fallacy? I ask because I subscribe the the inverse kinda. To me if you want to be something more than yourself, to say you are not an individual but a member of a group that you must either accept responsibility for all members of that group or lay down solid ground rules that determine who is and who is not a member of that group. This way you remove the group power that crazy people have. The alternative seems to allow anyone to use the power of numbers to defend their insanity, even if hat insanity is not widely supported. ISIS more recently comes to mind in this category. Alternatively the misogynist subgroup within GamerGate. Both seem to get power and in some ways anonymity from this. But at the end of the day I'm pro individual and con group more often than not.
There's the thing about it, some groups have membership requirements. The Minnesota Vikings have a membership requirement, and among that requirement is to maintain good character. Saying "we don't want Adrian Peterson as a representative of the organization in light of his poor behavior" is not quite the same as "no *true* Viking would do that". The No True Scotsman fallacy generally applies to groups without explicit membership requirements. You don't really have to do anything to be a Scotsman, just be from Scotland. Similarly, for GamerGate, all you really have to do use a hashtag, which has no membership requirement, no regulatory measures to exclude them. Saying "Those assholes who harass don't represent GamerGate" is invoking the No True Scotsman fallacy, because like being a scotsman, there's no explicit membership requirements by which they forfeit behaviors like harassment. Since there is no explicit rules to which a person needs to maintain to be a member of GamerGate, nobody can say that they are or are not a representative of the group. Now ISIS has structure, so it can't apply there. Either you are a member of an explicit organization with a structure (in this instance, martial hierarchy) or you aren't. If you don't hold membership, you're not a member, period, and when anybody can be a member just by saying that they are, with no real barrier to entry, there's no litmus for who represents it, because everybody in that group is as equally a representation of it as any other member. I recommend checking out the webshow Extra Credits in relationship to the No True Scotsman fallacy, in particular their episode on the group "Anonymous". watch?v=tDeOMq4RPxY
QwertyCaesar Yeah I suppose that's my problem. To me there are either two groups. One with explicit rules that you follow or are not a member. OR a group where you take responsibility for all actions within that group. I realize that's a binary fallacy or whatever but this is my personal opinion rather than something I think is necessarily true. But then I don't really align with any group so it doesn't impact me on a personal level.
Isles of Scion Its important to note that collective guilt can be fallacious. For example, I'm a resident of the United States. Somewhere in the country, some dude is stealing somebody's car, right now. Just because I'm an American, doesn't mean that I condone that action, and just because I don't revoke my citizenship doesn't mean I approve of them. Another example, I'm a gamer. That doesn't mean that I condone shooting up Columbine. There's a difference between a effort made by a person and the status of a person. In the case of GamerGate, a proponent who also harasses people may or may not be considered a representative, depending on your feelings of collective guilt and accountability. However, if they harass in the name of GamerGate, then yes, they are definitely being representatives of it, and since there are people doing that in the name of GamerGate, and there's no real barrier of admission, they're as equally a representative of GamerGate as anybody else who is in it for the most noble of intentions. This creates a dilemna, one that could be solved by rigid boundaries of who is a member and who isn't a member. Being a gamer is, well, being a gamer - the barrier to entry is simply being an enthusiast. completely separate from other human beings with no cooperative goal or intent with them. Blaming me for the actions of a psycho who played videogames because we're both gamers would be like blaming you for the actions of Hitler because you breathe airand Hitler breathed air so JUST ADMIT YOU'RE HITLER!!1! Being a GamerGater is, on the other hand, a very specific concerted effort by multiple different people in which individuals, even if they can't on what the goal is, are all trying to achieve a goal. Since there's no real structure or membership, anybody's goals for GamerGate or the tactics for achieving those goals are as representative of the movement, so somebody who thinks its about fighting the evil Feminazis by making online space as hostile to them as possible by harassing them and sending them threats is a representative because there is no way to revoke their membership, no methoid to keep them away from you against their will since all it takes is a hashtag to be in its group and you can prevent them from using that, and they're a member of the group, no matter how much somebody wishes they weren't. Even if you believe it when somebody says that they don't condone the actions of them, the inability to or even reluctance to create a structure where you can hold them accountable brings into question their seriousness about the subject matter as a whole.
QwertyCaesar I suppose I should clarify that I think forced groups are bupkiss. If you didn't make a conscious choice to be a part of something I don't think that something is tangible in a way that it should be given group status. Which I think is what you were saying too but with far more words. Lots...and lots...of words. Similarly I don't think people should be proud of things they made no decision to be a part of. I'm certainly not proud of being a man. I don't dislike it, mind you, but I had no part in the matter. I am somewhat proud of various things I've made. Or when I fixed our car. Edit: As it stands I don't group myself into "Gamer". But I do play video games. At this point I think the descriptor "gamer" is too universal to serve any purpose. Anyone who has bumped a deck of bicycle cards is a gamer now which means basically every living human being is one.
First you explain the strawman fallacy and at 12:29 you seriously say this: "I understand that the party line is that GamerGate has ethical concerns at its forefront and that it is about games journalism, but for me GamerGate is very much defined by the harassment of women and its terrible exclusionary tactics ..." my hypocrisy-meter melted
Well, you do the same thing you claim he does. He said afterwards that the good things don't make the bad go away and that's why he isn't pro gg (I'm paraphrasing). Also, it's perfectly fine to not be pro-something if there's only one bad thing about it. If this bad thing goes against what you believe is right, it's totally ok to not be ok with it. Example: If a presidential candidate is a great economist, great at foreign relations but beats his wife, it's absolutely ok to not vote for him, regardless of the good things.
" Well, you do the same thing you claim he does." My comment didn't contain any direct claims. I implied that he constructed a strawman, which is illustrated by the quote I gave, where he "defined" GG for himself to be about pro-harassment of women, which it isn't (hence the strawman). Where have I done anything similar to this?
stormkern "He said afterwards that the good things don't make the bad go away and that's why he isn't pro gg" ... and he also talked about the ad hominem fallacy: Attacking the bad parts of a person/movement do not invalidate the whole of said person/movement. And he states he is "...not even a little... " pro GamerGate ( 13:20 )
I think you misunderstood his statement. He didn't specifically say that he thought gamergate is a bad thing and that everyone should stay out of it. He only says that HE will not be a part of it, because he do not want to support the bad part of gamergate even a little, which sadly is what supporting gamergate will do. He is not arguing for anything, he only stating his opinion.
Thulyblu What I'm saying is that you took part of what he said and made it all he said. He defined it that way because, as I said, the good things don't make up for the bad. And, as you said, he defined it for himself, it's his opinion. He's not debating the facts, he's not defining GG as such, just in his personal view. Reason being: he thoroughly despises this specific behaviour. I'm not saying that he's right, I'm saying he makes sense.
Also there is the reverse of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy where people use someone that claimed to be part of a group when that person doesn't have any ideals of that group. Example, a dictator from the 1940s clamed to be catholic so catholics are bad.
I stopped arguing on the internet last year and since then I've become much fitter, happier, got a girlfriend, a job and I stopped losing my hair.
That's awesome to read.
Good on you Chris, say hi to Pooh for me.
That’s a fallacy
Um, CHIMERA-man….It’s NOT because you stopped arguing on the internet, bro. It’s because you ABSORBED YOUR TWIN IN THE WOMB. Duh.
I disagree with you! No TRUE non-arguer would upset someone else and cause an argument
Me: Gives my mom a well thought-out argument with plenty of evidence to tell her why she is in the wrong in this instance and am very respectful throughout the delivery of my monologue
My mom: No
Me: why?
My mom: Because I said so
Ignore the no and say until I am proven that this or that is correct I won't do it. Say a simple no doesn't satisfy you. Stand up for yourself. She might tell you to go to your room but so what. Don't just do shit because people tell you to do it. You have your own life, then why would someone tell something to you when you have a logical conclusion that the opposite is correct? Maybe you're wrong, but maybe you are actually right. And if you're right and you gave in to the "no" for no reason, then will you be happy about it? Do what you feel like you want to do, and not what others tell you to do. If you make a mistake and you are wrong, then you will learn from trial and error anyways.
I used to be a teacher on a gymnasium in the Netherlands. This type is only for the highest 5% of the students. Thus this very clever kids are fond of arguing about every thing. To avoid endless discussions I always used to say this. It worked every time, a kind of wonder. 😂🤣😂
When you get older it’s always a delight to find out that those stupid arguments of the adults works so good.
But I invented some of my own. When I send a kid out of the classroom and s/he started an argument why I said “because you irritate me”, they always went. You can’t argue with that.
Mom’s privilege.
@@jannetteberends8730 whut
You know what 90% of times moms are right, they just can't explain or don't want to defeat you.
What about the "fallacy fallacy". When people point out that someone is using a fallacy and use that to discredit the argument entirely.
Yeah, that one seems to be very commonly used.
I think that might actually count as a strawman fallacy. You claim they are making a fallacious argument that they are not making in order to discredit your imagined argument.
Ryan Gatts I think that's different from yaragorm's point. They're arguing that it's a fallacy to think that a point being argued is discredited because the individual defending it argues fallaciously (fallacy fallacy) while you're saying that it's a strawman fallacy to incorrectly assert that your opponent is using a logical fallacy in their argument. You are correct that that would be the case but are understanding the op incorrectly I believe. If I assert something "true" and defend it using a logical fallacy that doesn't make the assertion less true it simply makes my defense logically fallacious.
It's a strategy for people who don't really believe in anything and just want to argue. Yes, maybe I am employing a strawman fallacy here, but I have had so many exhausting arguments with people who never put across their own point of view... they merely tally fallacies and tell me that I am wrong because of them. And I want to exclaim, "I'm wrong compared to WHAT? You give me nothing."
This is a good point. I would put that in the Ad Hominem category. Let us say that a person has incorrectly used a Straw Man argument. Instead of pointing this out and arguing only the original point, the other person points out that you used a straw man, and now, they must be correct. I have actually seen this in some of the other comments to this very video. Thanks!
I would love to have more fallacies! I'm working on my masters thesis, and these are helping me identifying fallacies in my own work and the conversations I'm having with other MA students.
I took a debate class a few semesters ago and this is basically what we learned. This was way more fun to learn watching this.
Good for you Mike for joining those of us standing against Gamergate because of their horrendous tactics. The level of hypocrisy in so many of it's supporters is downright baffling. It's the same reason I will not stand beside the legion of SJW in places like Tumblr even though some mean well. I may be a member of the LGBT community, but I'm more often embarassed by the community at large's actions than proud of them.
I've got to ask what tactics are those ? Because for one Zoe Quinn was being harassed by people long before gamergate started so was Anita for that matter a fact people like to ignore.
darkdragonsoul99
Yeah, they were likely harassed long before Gamergate came about (I wouldn't know for sure, I never heard of this stuff much), but the movement itself has made it easier for the same kinds of people to continue propagating their ill-will. No matter how small these people may be in number in relation to the overall population of people in support of Gamergate, society as a whole is more easily drawn to the most negative of the bunch, and as such, Gamergate has become inextricably linked to the harassment and the death threats and the like. Over time it may improve, but it all depends on the people.
>Implying that the AGG doesn't have extremists or hypocrites on it's side.
thanks for doxxing me by the way I had to delete my twitter account cause I support GamerGate
*****
You can tell Mike the same thing.
Am I the only one only hearing about gamergate via all their favorite people on the internet condemning it?
Hi
MORE!!! (throws coffee mug on the floor)
I love you for that reference
I don't really care about gamergate but I found it interesting that the reasons Mike's against it is due to the vocal minorities actions as opposed to the majority. By that reasoning we should judge religions by the extremist committing acts of terror instead of what the majority feel its for.
You Nail it haha
You heard it here, folks, Gamergate is comparable to religion.
Dagda Mor Actually they have nothing to do with each other, I'm sorry you missed the point. :(
InMaTeofDeath What do you mean? You compared it to religion.
InMaTeofDeath don't fall for the bait dude -.-
As a supporter of gamer gate I do not approve of threats.
But I do not understand the idea that threats are unacceptable to the point where you have to invalidate the entire movements based on a few.
Because let's face it, the *vast* majority of what has been aimed towards people by the gamer gate movement has been legit criticism, which these people in an attempt to play victims have tried to call harassment.
Invalidating gamer gate because of a few alleged threats just seems like a ploy to avoid facing the very real criticism.
The winners will always be the ones to write the history books, so it is no surprise my books never mentioned those camps.
Said books also never mentioned, the over all hatred in all of europe towords jews. (There even was a movement to round up all jews in europe and put them on Madagasgar)
Unfortunatly, you didn't really change my thinging in the matter though.
Yes, you can not go against everything nor will everything gain traction. But I haven't heared of ANYTHING. Not a single one case. Can you provide me with say three cases, where a person who is associated with gamergate denouces a game or a journalist or a publisher with acutall proof? (I used shadow of mordor, since this would have been so damn easy.)
Gamergate is a community by choice. If you agree with what you percive as beeing their goals and/or ideology, you join. If that changes, you leave. People of color (be it black, red, yellow, white) do not have this possibilty. This is why I don't see the similaritys between me associating Gamergaters with a hatefull and hurtfull minority and you associtating black people with a violent minority. The former can choose wether or not they wish to belong, the later do not.
About the legit criticism. No, I would not expect Ubisoft or Sony to publish the criticism that members of gamergate lay at their feet. I would, however, expect members of gamergate to publish this as widely as they can. So, once more my request: Where does this happen? Are there gamergate bloggers or vloggers, who show evidence? I haven't seen them (then again, I haven't activly looked for them, but as a supporter, I am sure, you know where they are)
I really wish to learn about the whole issue not the fragments I have heared about so far.
When people talk to me about game ethics without mentioning Gamergate or sexism, I'm a lot more receptive to their arguments. Just saying.
founoe
I would wager that most public figures have received death threats. There is nothing unique about feminazis receiving death threats. The overwhelming majority of gamers do not behave in that manner.
Feminazis are professional victims, and use their victim complex to get what they want. In this case, they're trying to generalize the opposition as violent people who send death threats. We gamers are not going away. I'm not going to buy a game that has been tainted by hateful feminists, and I'm going to be as loud as they are about my opinions. Modern feminism is a joke.
check-your-privilege-feminists.tumblr.com/post/95979451581/i-dont-understand-how-are-you-not-a-feminist
salavora
Yes, they were public figures. They became public figures because of gamergate. I agree that threatening violence is wrong. I never defended those who threatened violence. The point of my post, which you seem to have missed, is that the overwhelming majority of gamers do not behave in that way.
Trying to generalize gamers in such a way is pure bullshit. How is this hard to understand?
salavora
"What exactly are you trying to acomplish with this?"
That people say lots of shit that doesn't matter.
It's the Black & White Fallacy that made me give up on American politics. The two party system creates an arbitrary, polarized dichotomy, and that prevents actual political discussion from occurring. A person who would otherwise hold a moderate opinion is forced to choose either one extreme or another. The parties lambast and demonize each other, so their party members see the other side as the enemy, refusing to listen to anything they say or take them seriously. And since they refuse to consider the other side, they only listen to their own party's press and arguments, creating an echo chamber effect, and pushing them to further and further extremes. This extremism prevents them further from considering even a more moderate version of their opponent's positions, setting the whole process moving again in a vicious cycle. This fallacy is the most insidious, because it is often the only point the two sides agree on, and politics as a whole suffers for it.
PLEEEASE MAKE MORE OF THE FALLACY VIDEOS!
I love being able to look back on these and point out that people aren't actually focusing on the point of the discussion.
He clearly doesn't understand the actual reasoning behind the creation of Gamergate. The only reason it is what it is today, is because of the bullshit excuses made by the journalists initially to protect themselves. Those statements ignored the actual issue entirely, completely attempting to shift the focus from their own corruption to the "harassment" that was and always has taken place on the internet. Certain groups attached to that to forward their own cause, shifting the focus further, and a vocal minitoriy attacked them, sometimes taking it too far, thus continuing the circle. The GamerGate issue is ethics/transparency/honesty in Journalism, THAT'S IT. There are two extremist groups of people bashing each other over the head, completely distracting from the original statement. Women in the industry and harassment are two separate issues in their own right and should be discussed, but they are both completely unrelated to the original intent of gamergate. To these extremist groups you are either for corruption and feminism, or you are anti-corruption and for misogyny, and that just makes no fucking sense. Being Pro-Gamergate doesn't excuse harassment, but it also says absolutely nothing about women in the industry or anything that seems to have attached itself to the cause. Gamergate is about gamers vs game journalists/developers/judges/etc, NOTHING ELSE. Anyone that truly thinks otherwise is simply trying to distract from that discussion, or push their own cause by artificially attaching it to gamergate.
"the bullshit excuses made by the journalists initially to protect themselves"
No. The reasoning behind the creation of GamerGhazi was "an Indie developer had sex with a games journalist for good press". That has been disproved on day one.
arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/new-chat-logs-show-how-4chan-users-pushed-gamergate-into-the-national-spotlight/
Yes... clearly doesn't understand the actual reasoning behind the creation of GG... CLEARLY.
Keated Neat, thanks!
I would be more receptive to this argument, if not for the fact that I see Gamergate accuse women of corruption far more than men, despite women making up a far smaller portion of the industry.
The spark that kindled the whole debacle was a public rant by a jilted ex-boyfriend making bitter, hateful allegations that were quickly proven false. So pardon me if I don't believe that the movement is as pure as you make it out to be.
Gamergate is a great example of many of these fallacies. The anti camp has been arguing about how gamergate are a bunch of misogynistic exclusionary jerks, while the gamergate camp is trying to argue about corruption in gaming blogs, a clear example of the straw man fallacy. There's been plenty of ad hominem attacks on both sides, I mean we've all seen the vitriole coming from both sides, attacking the characters of the side, as opposed to actually arguing about corruption in gaming blogs. There's some "no true scotsman" mixed in there, with both sides attempting to quell the worst of their worst. Really, the fallacy that killed gamergate was the black-and-white fallacy, wherein people on both sides started claiming that if you sided with the other, you must hate women or support corruption in gaming blogs, when really there are plenty of people who both have a great deal of respect women and do want gaming blogs to stop being so horribly corrupt.
I can't really think of any appeals to authority, although when your authority figures are gaming bloggers or reddit users, there's not really much that an appeal to authority can do, especially when both sides hate each other so much. There's got to be a certain level of respect between people for an appeal to authority to work.
Really though, at the end of the day, I think that Gamergate has taught us two things: maybe don't expect bloggers to not be corrupt when companies have a lot of money on the line, and maybe don't trust the internet to not be a butthole...basically ever, really.
"both have a great deal of respect women and do want gaming blogs to stop being so horribly corrupt."
Yeah, people like me. It's frustrating to want to see things improve for the better, only for it to devolve into a shouting match and mud slinging. I supported gamergate in its early stages, but I've become less confident in being in that camp, because they've become just as divisive and hostile as the mooks who use "sexism in video games" as a smokescreen to distract us from poor integrity in games journalism. cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/55548139.jpg It's not like it's a new issue either. Jeff Gerstmann being fired from Gamespot, Eurogamer Journalists giving out PS3 codes. Geoff Keighley straight up doing an ad for video game codes on Doritos and Mountain Dew. The list goes on.
Really, we should be having an intelligent discussion about these sorts of things, but expecting civility and rationality on the internet is like herding cats. I guess was too much to hope for. Now it's gone all the way to death threats. I don't know who did it. Maybe it was a lunatic fringe of gamergate. Maybe it was a sock puppet to harm gamergate and further Anita's agenda. Maybe it was someone who just wanted to watch the world burn. It doesn't matter anymore. Anita has been made a martyr by the mainstream media, so we're not allowed to have an open discussion about these things anymore without being made into pariahs. Now history will remember her a brave pioneer of women's rights in games and people who see the bullshit on both sides will fade into obscurity.
We had a chance. We had a chance to have a real positive experience and we blew it. Anita and what gamergate has become are the monsters we gamers created.
I can tell you a big idea in response to Gamer Gate as Mike touched upon. I would like to say "No true member of gamer gate have misogynistic intentions". There are a lot of problems with this involving the categorization of gamer gate advocates. However this is a good time to bring up something Mike should talk about if he wishes to inform anyone about fallacies. This being the fallacy fallacy. Just because I used the no true scotsman fallacy does not mean my claim is false. I should instead argue that a group should not be defined only by its extremists especially if they are minorities that are ostracized by the group.
If you want to learn more about the fallacies Mike spoke of or others go to yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
How is saying "game journalism is corrupt" a straw man?
I was saying that the anti camp had built a strawman.
Aric Fargo ah ok. oh written word. how you can cause misunderstandings.
Thank you so much for your stance on Gamer Gate. I appreciate that you do not shy away from controversy in your videos, and that when you talk about them you do so with grace and in a succinct manner.
I loved this and I think you are doing the internet a great service by making available these concise, accessible descriptions on types of fallacies and argument etiquette. I don't comment very often but I'm going to exercise my potential power as a viewer to influence the channel in this case. Please make more!
+Quiche I think he's just trying to stir up more conflict and you're just satisfying his despotic tendencies.
It would be wonderful to have a few more of these fallacy videos pop up over time, I think this one was super helpful both for me keeping track of my own previously not noticed bad argument habits and helping to explain them to others who might have them.
It's ironic how a video explaining fallacies makes a blatant fallacy at the end by saying that #GamerGate is represented by sexism and harassment.
It's a -non sequitur- association fallacy:
1. Person A is sexist.
2. Person A is part of GamerGate.
3. Therefore, GamerGate is sexist.
(It's kind of a reverse no true Scotsman.)
Just because a minority of people in the GamerGate movement are sexist, that doesn't mean the whole movement is sexist.
It would also count as an ad hominem:
1. Person A is part of GamerGate.
2. Person A is sexist.
3. Therefore, GamerGate shouldn't be taken seriously.
Just because a minority of people in the GamerGate movement are sexist, that doesn't mean that their main goal of wanting to stop corruption in the video game news media and development should be undermined.
UPDATE: It was also pointed to me that Mike's fallacy is closer to an association fallacy, and I would have to agree.
I would have to agree with your argument in its totality if it weren't for the little issue of the sexists in GamerGate being the majority, not the minority.
If 51% or over of something adheres to a certain characteristic, then that characteristic becomes a defining trait for said something.
But in the end, all of this is just labels and extremes again. "For GamerGate or against it." The entire thing is blown into such a 'pick-a-side' frenzy that the discussion has moved from "Why the GamerGate issue exists" to "Why it is important to be for/against GamerGate."
stretch5792 I'm guessing we should just take your word for it that most of us hate women instead of game "journalism" sites
And this is why you don't get paid to make informative videos explaining fallacies (spoiler: "kind of a reverse true scotsman" is not a fallacy).
Not at all. I'm suggesting that they either start calling for a purge of those giving them a bad name, or admit that they don't mind sexist people in their label.
Whether it's claiming that they are the majority or the minority, the fact remains that sexists are ABLE to take up the side of GamerGate, meaning the movement is conducive to sexists ideals. Figure out a way to fix it, or embrace it.
Either way, they'll need to do something quick before the rest of the communities will take their arguments seriously.
stretch5792 "the fact remains that sexists are ABLE to take up the side of GamerGate"
please never go full McIntosh.
The problem with fallacies is that they don't matter if there is no mediator judging the discussion.
If the person who committed the fallacy frankly, does not give a damn, and no one else does either then its almost as if the fallacy not only doesn't exist, but just made their argument even more airtight.
How often have you seen a comment that said "You're argument is wrong because you just used Ad Hominem" (which I see quite a lot in comment sections) and the other guy going "O damn, you're right, man you sure got me, I messed up."
Well, here's where it get's weird. "Your argument is wrong because you just used Ad Hominem" could be an argumentum ad logicam (fallacy fallacy.) This fallacy is when a person argues that an argument is automatically wrong because it contains a fallacy. In reality, an argument could be correct, just that the argument is rendered invalid because the structure of it is disrupted by a fallacy. Invalid =/= incorrect.
Aren't fallacies fun? :3
Which says to me that we need to either be focusing on changing the culture surrounding internet arguments (where most are a case of win/lose, with pride on the line) and hopefully have enough education out there to make these things instinctual. Or we need to come up with a new set of rules for conversing on the net (again, dealing with that win/lose idea) ideally one which can closely simulate the realities and nuance of real world conversation found lacking in the text based nature of the internet.
Nodrog666 Not entirely, because if we go down the actual list of fallacies, almost everyone will be guilty of them at least once in every argument unless that argument is one sentence and is directed at a rock.
This is why I generally don't like people bringing up fallacies at all, to think someones argument is invalid instantly because you don't like their style of arguing just seems like a cheap way for people that learn the fallacies to escape discussions without ever really having one to begin with.
This is exactly why it's important that people understand fallacies, because not only will they fall prey to making them less easily, they'll be able to recognize that someone else has made a fallacy and fall prey to them less easily as well.
Also, while we're at it, you're kind of presenting a false dilemma, between a mediated discussion and a discussion in which nobody aknowledges the fallacy being made, where reality is that most discussions do have some in the audience that recognize the fallacies being pointed out.
Usually an argument will have an insult in it as a lack of respect but the argument itself doesn't hinge on the insult. The insulted party will throw up the words "Ad Hominem" to attempt to deflect the insult and win the argument by calling foul. The insult actually had nothing to do with the argument.
Prima: You're wrong, you idiot. X is X because of Y.
Secunda: AD HOMINEM!!!
The mark of a truly great debater is the ability to infuse many fallacies into his argument without getting caught.
I'm sure there is a bigger discussion to be had here, but I need to be clear on one thing...
The Watergate scandal had Nothing to do with Water. At all. It's the name of a hotel.
We seriously need to stop using the -gate suffix for these kinds of things. It's obnoxious.
I'm glad someone else feels the same way.
I wished GamerGate never happened. Whenever I read an article about this mess, I sometimes lose hope for gaming as a whole. At its best, GG will yield some people to think more critically about gaming & journalistic ethics; at worst, GG will solidify that ugly stereotype of all male gamers being immature, sexist children who don't know any better. If GG gets any bigger, then it's all thanks to those misogynistic idiots who don't realize they're giving gaming a bad name.
These guys get it.
I find that gamergate has split into two,we 1) gamergate vs journalists and ethics in journalism, the actual debate where it should be talked out. 2) Internet trolls vs feminists radicals on both sides have twisted the original arguments, as bad as each other one self entitled grandiosity that is using the controversy to become well known and the idiots who just want to cause a fight and have a problem with other people with no interest in the original arguments
this needs to be stated more often. most rational people probably agree with both sides, more consumer advocacy in the industry, and less harassment and sexism by the vocal minority, while preserving free speech and personal privacy in both instances. The argument about ethics in journalism needs a re branding, it needs to abandon the gamergate tag, so that both arguments can get the attention they need. Right now, to say there needs to be ethics in video game journalism, is synonymous with misogyny, which is a logical fallacy of some kind I bet.
quantumgambit I do agree with the rebranding and the idea that we should expect more than to be victimised and labelled as racist sexist troglodytes by the website that grew from the same interests.. but we won't win, journalists have the power to publish storys and articles that control what the public see and are exposed to,I think it was Karl marx(smarter people than me would know) refered to it as an institution of social control and the journalists will portray this negative image of gamergate and it's cause to distract and devalue the arguments from the real issues.
It can't be that bleak, can it? we live in the age of the internet. Even if the established 'journalists' have a bigger platform, Marx (if those were his views, i don't know, i've never read them) couldn't have envisioned a world where ordinary people have such a loud and far reaching mouthpiece.
Jeff Cimmarrusti so much energy and time has been wasted on gamergate 'battle' honestly I don't even label myself too strongly as a gamer but the death to the gamer articles and the character assassination of the gamer subculture. No one anywhere should be arguing that women have no place in video games as role models or main characters or devs bring more into the industry. Controversy is good for news outlets more clicks for their website=more ad revenue, this has been exploited by the industry and It argued that they controlled what stories are consumed
Ad hominem attack and ad hominem fallacy are not the same thing. An 'ad hominem' attack is simply adding insults. It doesn`t affect the argument. In an 'ad hominem' fallacy, the insult IS your argument.
+Alex Spec I agree, but lately I've been wondering what do you call an ad hominem fallacy that's also untrue?
Is it still just an ad hominem? I mean if I tell say a Nazi.... that his or her argument is invalid because he or she is a Nazi, that's an ad hominem right? Because it doesn't address the argument they're making. But what if said persons isn't a Nazi, and I just call that person a Nazi or assume it... And therefore the argument is invalid?
Is it still just an ad hominem fallacy with some added stupidity? Or is it two separate fallacies?
Sure, but what if the counter is...
"I disagree because you're a nazi"?
All of my thoughts and arguments on an issue are invalid because I'm supposedly a nazi. Not as an insult but because the person genuinely think I am when I'm not.
+Alex Spec Who agrees that a certain type of hair-splitting argument *(not all)* can be irritating.
+XxPetexXx I think that's similar to spacing out somehow.
XxPetexXx That can be a non sequitor depending of what the disagreement is. If you disagree about the earth being flat or spherical, nazi doesn`t have anything to do with it, thus being a non sequitor. If the disagreement is whether you hate jews or not...
This is good stuff. I work at a university, where we teach critical thinking and it's always helpful to have videos like this, so people can watch it over and over if they want (so they don't have to sit and listen to us repeating it over and over... and over.).
There's a lot of them out there, but a bit less formal and a little humor works better if you ask me.
There's a few small mistakes/gaps, of which the clearest one is the ommission that the authority falacy is also applied when someone uses his/her authority to empower a flawed argument. (a.k.a. don't believe anyone just because they said so and their job is related ;-) ).
But despite those: Thanks!
Yes please make more of these! I love practical logic!
Trust me when I say little of this is in anyway practical.
Scott Leitch I mean "practical" in the sense that these kinds of fallacies are often taught in an area that most universities refer to as practical reasoning, or practical logic. My uni did anyway. I have done several courses mostly focused around different ways of reasoning (i.e. deductive vs inductive) and fallacies associated with both kind of reasoning. This area is practical logic. As in you can put them into practice.
Sorry, I realise now that I may have been a little too presumptuous in my last comment there... smooth subtext burn there though :D
All good man - cheers.
Wow. Mad props to both of you for having a civil discussion on the internet. Very appropriate that it was in a video about forming better arguments. Thanks! This was a breath of fresh air.
You are not quite correct on "Appeal to authority" though. This fallacy happens when one uses authority (of the speaker or quoting others) DESPITE the invalidity of the argument, simply because Authority Source says so. This is true even if the source is the authority on the subject matter.
When you assume authority where one does not have, and assign credibility because of that. That is called "Appeal to non-authorities". E.g. your example of the mechanical engineer vs auto industry materials.
exactly
This is true
Claud Ka Kei Yeung I was thinking the same thing. Citing scientific consensus is not a good argument (and has led to many mainstream falsehoods). It may be powerful, but it is not compelling. Lazy arguments appeal to authority, strong arguments appeal to evidence and reason.
Anthony Nelson Yep exactly. By the nature of "appeal to authority", it does not matter how many people in authority agrees with an outcome, as long as the conclusion is arrived logically with supportive evidence then it is as credible as it is, otherwise it simply is not.
this.
please more of this please.
+Punk Patriot Papa P Says No
+Luis a. Martimez that's not a fallacy. fallacy fallacy.
You are trash shut up
Also, I extreamly respect your stance on having and forming your own oppinion and standing with it no matter the differing oppinions, while remaning open for differing facts and data.
I love Newsroom. Here's why: a platform for media is faulted and criticized because all of a sudden its host decides to up and have an opinion -- and televise it. He becomes clear when he discusses his opinion and is also fair when he encounters an argument or is presenting something that is happening. That's what this channel is to me. It's why I'll keep watching. It's why I'll watch even if it were to say something as absurd as, "People are bad. They are never good. They are always bad.". Why? Because as long as the argument is presented well, argued and criticized, I and quite a few others have the unfortunate burden of being at least mildly intellectual. Enough so to be able to chime in and say or present things that run in the contrary.
This argument is, if well presented, called attention to rather than buried. And that's why I, personally, watch this channel. I do not watch it because I need my perspective reinforced and my ego stroked, I watch it because it's a good encapsulation of an argument that I can pose and contend and regardless of whether or not I agree, it gives very good opportunities to invoking a dialectic method. Because even if I disagree, the arguments proposed is presented in such a way that enriches my understanding of my own opinion.
Which if I must explicitly say so -- is (to me) a good thing. I find that more knowledge, more opinions and more healthy debate helps break people (such as myself) out of academic and intellectual insecurity.
Thank you, Idea Channel.
After all these years, I still enjoy seeing the video is 13:37 long :D.
If you do decide to make a gamergate episode, can you please explain what it is EXACTLY? I'm still unsure as to what it is, what its for, who it targets, what its goal is and why I should even care. It doesn't help that there are people saying it represents or means multiple different things.
For example some people say its about corrupt games journalism, others say its about gamers being sexist and misogynistic towards women (no idea how that's possible when tonnes of women like myself ARE gamers but okay) and others say that its about what defines a gamer and anyone that doesn't follow that exact definition isn't a gamer.
Honestly, I'd just like some clarity on the whole thing in an unbiased and intelligent way.
According to the comments here, this will be hard. Since apprently the members of gamergate don't know themselfs.
But other then that, I second this motion! I would like to know more as well!
Here's a link on Reddit that helped me get a foothold on the issues surrounding gamergate: www.reddit.com/r/truegaming/comments/2jpvt3/serious_what_is_gamergate/
***** There was a huge shitstorm directed at Zoe Quinn that came from her ex-boyfriend making a whiny blogpost about how he cheated on her (and making accusations in the way Cartman would write about Wendy - meaning, very stupid attacks for you non-southpark people). Internet cesspools noticed that one of the people she had cheated him on (not proven) was Nathan Grayson who writes reviews on Kotaku. Nobody bothered to check that he actually didn't write a review on her game nor that the game was free to begin with, but they still broke lose a massive attack on Zoe over every possible social media website. Adam Baldwin noticed this eventually and called this incident "Gamergate" in reference to the Watergate scandal. This is basically it. Any Gamergater telling you its different either doesn't know better or flat out lies.
Today, it's a combination of coordinated attacks on women who do things in gaming/say gamergate is bad and on the other half dodging accusations by using anonymity as a veil because "That was that other Gamergater who did the attack, not me! He is no true GamerGater if he does such attack!".
Unless you're an all-knowing God, it's impossible
NextGenVixen here's some reading/listening material to get up to speed:
www.twitlonger.com/show/ngscie
blueplz.blogspot.no/2014/08/this-game-supports-more-than-two-players.html
storify.com/LadyFuzztail/gamergate-may-be-a-victim-of-a-false-flag-operati
Patterson, Pavlich, Baldwin, GamerGate
If the above takes too long then this is the short version:
#GamerGate in 60 Seconds
Thx 4 the Straw Man Fallacy! I have a test coming up Tomorrow Morning so hopefully i'll get a Good Grade.
Thank you for publicly standing against harassment, vitriol, and bad argumentation. I don't envy you for the calibre of comment you're likely to receive, but I'm glad that you stand up for what you believe in. For the very little that it's worth, a stranger on the internet supports you.
I would love to hear you do a break down of what "Social Justice Warrior" means and what it says about views of gender on the internet. Is it merely disguised misogyny and sublimated racism, or are there more complex factors at work?
I don't know if there's a named fallacy for this, but I believe the root of all these is that *the person committing the fallacy isn't willing to concede.*
I had to learn to concede an argument awhile ago, and once I did, I started learning a lot more!
It's not fallous because either the matter is subjective and there is no right/wrong (making your statement a Black and White Fallacy ;) ) or if the person was proven wrong, he has to commit a classic fallacy in order to further his arguements. Not talking to you anymore is just childish, not fallous.
Enilias Nailo great points! I'll have to agree that it's not b&w, as sometimes you must stick to your guns more than others, but I'm reminded of an argument I had with someone over how mini blinds could exist outside mini vans. They never backed down...
Jamie B Sorry, I'm not a native speaker so I tend to make mistakes
Exactly! Conceding is a very important part of discussing. I've had so many trash discussions before I learned that. I was a stubborn kid.
It's no named fallacy, but you are not alone with thinking this to be the root of the problem. Arthur Schopenhauer named his (excellent) book about fallacies in discussions "the art of being right" - quite sarcastically :D
I would actually like to see an idea channel episode on GamerGate as I have seen numerous stories on it but still can't grasp exactly what it is all about. One talks about questionable journalist-developer relations, theres some misogyny in there, something about death threats, the whole Zoe Quinn fiasco... it just sounds like one big clusterfuck to me. It would be good to have some clarity on the subject.
clarity would be amazing
I have also heard "Gamergate" said but have absolutely no idea what it means or what it is. Every time I've heard it the people talking about it have been quickly swept under the rug. It would be really helpful to have someone who is good at explaining things explain it in full.
Brozime
Here's the cliff notes version: It started with a female developer named Zoe Quinn. Her ex-boyfriend accused her of sleeping with five people in the games industry to move up in the world. People started getting very concerned about corruption in games journalism because of this, and at some point they coalesced into a movement called Gamergate. Later, Zoe Quinn claimed that she had been lurking in 4chan IRC channels and had screenshots proving that all of the claims against her were fabricated in order to push 'SJW's' out of the industry, and that the concerns about ethics were started in order to disguise that intention. She apologized to people who had genuine concerns about ethics. A lot of Gamergate people said that Quinn fabricated her evidence. The movement is now inextricably tied to debates about sexism.
This sums it up pretty nicely :]
www.clickhole.com/article/summary-gamergate-movement-we-will-immediately-cha-1241
Dagda Mor
It should also probably be noted that this isn't the first time Zoe Quinn's been harassed online. She also was when her game Depression Quest was put onto Greenlight.
Please please please do more of these. I am currently teaching logical fallacies to my students (I teach senior level English), and these are so helpful. You already covered three of the ten I mentioned in class too! I will definitely show these to my students
Dont forget to teach that just because they identify a fallacy in an argument doesn't mean they're right. It just means the other side used a logical fallacy. Its not as simple as "you used a strawman argument, therefore I win". Thats just as bad.
I think you got a couple of them a little bit wrong.
Argument from authority is a fallacy even when the authority is an expert, or the scientific consensus. The fallacy is a fallacy because it is not counter to reason for anyone, or any number of people, to be wrong about anything - no matter their level of expertise.
That's not to say that telling a climate change denier (to borrow your example) that all the experts believe it so it must be true isn't a valid avenue of discussion, but if you go down that path, then the argument is no longer about the validity of climate change (directly at least) but about the reliability of expert climatologists.
For an example that makes this more obvious, think about something you disagree with (I would venture homeopathy) then think of all the most knowledgable people on that specific subject.
Arguments are pretty much always based on some general assumptions that both sides agree on, which would for example be that well-conducted scientific research gives results that are reliable. If either side does not agree on this you might as well not argue at all.
Yet it's not necessarily fallacious to cite experts as evidence for a premise in an argument.
Well, that depends on the viewpoint. If an authority is not agreed on, one person might percieve the argument as good and another might percieve it as fallacious and they would both be (kinda) right because they dont agree on the authority.
Marijn Zilver No, even if both people agree the authority is indeed an authority, the argument remains a fallacy.
Danny Duchamp Many good arguments are made by the use of experts, for example pretty much everything in any science field uses information from other experts to valididate (is that how you spell that?) their research.
The example you gave:
That's not to say that telling a climate change denier (to borrow your example) that all the experts believe it so it must be true isn't a valid avenue of discussion, but if you go down that path, then the argument is no longer about the validity of climate change (directly at least) but about the reliability of expert climatologists.
This fails to discuss the possibility that the person who came up with the climate experts has ended the argument, at least for now. In most cases however, expert knowledge is less direct and thus less conclusive. In the case of homeopathy, the outcome is different because not everyone agrees on homeopathists being real experts.
I'm so tired of seeing the "Authority Fallacy" (or "Argument from Authority") yet again misrepresented. The key here is between the authority bolstering the validity of the argument or the soundness. Claiming that "Global Warming is true because of the scientific consensus" is an example of the Authority Fallacy (and the Bandwagon Fallacy). It isn't _necessarily_ true just because there's a scientific consensus, which is why it's fallacious. If a premise of your argument depends on proving Global Warming is true, the scientific consensus is good for bolstering the _soundness_ of the premise, but it doesn't help its _validity_.
I'd say you're right. But that's just the second version of the authority fallacy. The first version being in the video.
But you would agree that we can cite authorities as evidence for a premise, wouldn't you?
Rene Descartes
Yes, authorities _ought_ to be cited as evidence. They well support the soundness of a premise. But a call to authority shouldn't be a premise itself for the same reason that mocking one's authority (Ad Hominem) shouldn't be -- it literally doesn't matter who the source of an argument is. It's irrational for two people to make the exact same argument but for one of them to be wrong, just because that particular person is not "an authority".
Supernova Kasprzak I agree. But I'm going to believe Hawking's views of physics over my parents or best friend. And that's not fallacious.
Rene Descartes
True, it's not. In that case, it's of statistical relevance -- Hawking is _probably_ more correct than your parents or best friend on a physics-related topic... but he isn't _necessarily_ correct. People can be wrong, and so can the consensus (which at one time disbelieved Java Man and Continental Drift). A logical argument, to be valid, must lead to a necessary conclusion. The truth/soundness of each premise may be probable rather than necessary, which is why authorities can be helpful in that regard.
I, partially, disagree with you. Of course, you are completely right that scientific consensus on climate change does not guarantee it's truthfulness. But organisations such as the IPCC as well the scientific community in general, do represent the pinnacle of human knowledge on the science of climatology. It doesn't exactly guarantee the validity of climate change, but it does mean that an argument strongly supported by these groups is likely to have _more_ scientific validity than any other in existence.
To me, the only people who should argue against scientific consensus are individuals qualified in that particular field and read up on current research. I know this doesn't sound 'Freedom of speech-y' but sometimes laymen need to just sit down and shut up.
Awesome to get fallacy awareness out there. More people need to be logical and informed during argument.
I really enjoy the idea of having tiny videos to send to people. Plus, the way you guys have done it, it is very polite and informative. If I were to receive one of those, it would be really hard to be mad about it.
A good video about fallacies! I know everyone wants to jump on the Gamergate comments on the end, but I want to comment on the actual substance of the video. I'll add a note at the end about Gamergate.
1. Strawman - Good rundown of this fallacy. I especially like how you point how that using the strawman means the members of a debate end up talking past each other rather than debating the subject at hand.
2. Ad Hominem - Bonus points for the Tu Quoque ("you too") fallacy. Glad you specified that this is only important when the appeal to character is irrelevant to the discussion.
3. False Dichotomy / False Dilemma - A little fast and loose with terminology here, but a good overall summary of presenting only the extreme ends of a debate. I felt like you were dancing around a bunch of different fallacies here and trying to lump them all into one category. This was the least clear of your overviews.
4. Argument from Authority - Problematic. You tried to elevate the status of science above its station. It doesn't matter if you're citing God, your best friend's roommate, NASA, or Noam Chomsky. If all you're doing is appealing to an authority, then that's an informal fallacy. For instance, the statement, "Science tells us that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old" on its own without any other evidence or argumentation is fallacious. The reason appealing to science works in society is because you can make further appeals to the arguments and evidence within science to further backup a claim. That is, it's well founded stuff. When you just use science like a Bible, though, you're elevating science to an authoritative place that it doesn't belong in. In this section you get lost in exploring what is or is not a good authority when, in logic, that is irrelevant.
5. No True Scotsman - This is such a complicated fallacy that putting it at the end with so little time didn't do it justice. For instance, say someone classifies themselves (or another) in a group where they don't logically belong. For instance, the Nazis praised Nietzsche as their party's philosophical father despite the fact that Naziism would have been anathema to Nietzsche. On the opposite side of this, we have Heidegger, who was actually a Nazi, but whose philosophy was also entirely at odds with Naziism. Who is the true Scotsman here? I don't like the fallacy very much because people can and will identify as something that they are not, so it's not very meaningful to get caught up in the issue one way or another. I, for one, am tired of atheists who try to "claim" historical figures like Einstein or contemporary figures like Neil deGrasse Tyson for their own political ends just as much as I'm tired of really any group who fights to try to put individuals in or out of any particular box to meet their ends. The whole practice of categorizing people at all should really be a fallacy. Anyhow, would liked to have seen a little nuance here, but I understand why it wasn't present.
Overall this was a great video, though!
As for all the people claiming that the last couple of minutes are just fallacies, just let me remind you that no argument was actually being made. They were just statements about the position of Idea Channel and some thoughts about the movement. Bringing up something like sexism within Gamergate is also not an Ad Hominem as, if you remember from the video, it's actually very relevant to the discussion. I recommend you hold on to your rage and ready your jerking knee for when and if Idea Channel actually releases a video about the subject.
Ok
Nice
Gud
do more, yes! a lot i can learn to summarize from these videos to correct my style of arguing and my friends.
So Mike brings up an interesting point about Gamer Gate (disclaimer: I'm very pro-Gamer Gate, and if you're not up to speed, I highly recommend you go to the Gamer Gate section of 8chan to see our point of view, and probably seek out some resources to see the other point of view as well). I think a lot of us can agree that corruption in Games Journalism is a problem and that it should be fixed.
The problem is, the reason Gamer Gate has been portrayed as very anti-women/minorities/whatever is because Gamer Gate is a movement by the people, the consumers, against the corrupt goings on of games journalists and developers. We've made it clear in posts on 8chan that we do not condone the threatening of anybody in our name, we are not out for blood, and we are not against more diversity in games (personally, I'd love to see more women - especially queer women - represented in video games).
We boycott organizations and argue and send emails in order to get the change we desire (which, as has been stated before, is to get corruption out of games journalism), and it may not have worked 100% yet, but it is working. The Escapist, which we've railed against before on grounds of corruption, has recently implemented a new standard of ethics and has been very public about it. Intel recently pulled their advertising from Gamasutra, which we've also criticized on grounds of corruption (prior to that, most of us boycotted Intel, and now that they've done that, we're not boycotting them anymore).
Meanwhile, our opposition (primarily from the journalists and game developers we're calling out) has done little to address our arguments, instead preferring to just focus on how we're all hateful, full of -isms, and so on and so forth. Meanwhile, Zoe Quinn started the whole shitstorm with TFYC (she tweeted something along the lines of "Oops, did I doxx someone?" around the time that was happening, which while not an outright confirmation, does make her extremely fishy), the editor in Chief of Kotaku once said a while back that people should recuse themselves in conflicts of interest and then went on to defend the journalist who was alleged to have had a relationship with Zoe Quinn prior to reporting on Depression Quest (if I recall correctly - and I don't remember 100% so take it with a grain of salt - he basically just said something along the lines of "What he did wasn't wrong, so back off").
The big problem, I think, is how Gamer Gate started. It started as a movement by anonymous people on 4chan (many of whom decided to leave for good when moot decided to censor us - gee, that sure was nice of the "Champion of Unfiltered Free Speech"), and a ton of us have decided to stay anonymous. Because there aren't any big figure heads, it's easy for us to be misrepresented as a bunch of woman/black/latino/queer hating fuckwads. The New York Times and The Guardian have both misrepresented us, showing a clear lack of respect and journalistic integrity, which makes me think that maybe we should expand out to all areas of journalism. Maybe turn Gamer Gate into a general journalistic watch dog movement.
tl;dr - We're being misrepresented by the people we're opposing, threats in the name of Gamer Gate do happen and it's shit and we hate it, and my comment is a winding fuckwad of text and I apologize for all this.
You're not being misrepresented. Your reputation precedes you. I saw what y'all were doing and I didn't like it.
If you really want to talk about ethics in journalism, lose the gamergate tag drop the Zoe thing and regroup under another banner.
So you hate women? Basically you're a bad person. You either support women in games, or you're with gamer gate. Really smart and big names hate gamer gate. No true woman would ever support it.
:-p
Stella-Terra Clemens Really, fallacies from the PBS IDEA CHANNEL video being used in the comment section. I know nothing about gamergate and I am not commenting on your opinion but your arguement
channelonlytoreply That's the joke...
AdaptiveReasoning You're playing into the fallacies that were just discussed here... Also as stated in another thread here, The people covering #gamergate are the very 'journalists' being put in the spot light, of course the representation will not be very forgiving to pro gamergate people, the journalists want to fluff their side and damn the other.
Very cool video! One fallacy that I see a lot is "correlation equals causation", in which one would argue that two events that happen simultaneously or in short succession of each other must be related. In other words, A and B happened around the same time, therefore A must have caused B.
I honestly just wish this GamerGate business could come to close, because as far as I've seen, there's been absolutely nothing positive coming from it. I'm not saying that bias and ethics shouldn't be questioned, but just that this specific case has created nothing of value /that I've seen/, while stirring up a lot of groundless hatred and character arguments that I don't want any part of.
That being said, I don't think anybody should be watching this channel who is only interested in hearing about views that they agree with. The whole point is raising questions and discussing ideas, and you shouldn't be restricted from approaching "sensitive" subjects. This channel's been very open and nonjudgmental so far, and has a very clear separation between opinion and fact, and I'm sure that won't change any time soon.
P.S. NaNoWriMo's coming up. Any ideas? ;;;)
Didn't you use an ad hominem attack at the end of the video on gamergate supporters? I mean I love the video and your channel in general but why focus on the idiotic actions of a few when there are serious concerns, as you clearly understand, in gaming journalism and development? Or how about the ridiculous reactions on countless sites since all of this broke (ie shadowbans on reddit or the infamous GameJournoPros story)?
The focus is on those idiotic actions because those idiotic actions actually could lead to real and permanent harm to another person. Ethics in games journalism isn't likely to get anyone beaten, raped or killed. Once the more serious threat is dealt with, then yes, lets circle back and have a real conversation about gaming journalism and development.
If my house was on fire, I wouldn't be focused on the fact that I spilled milk in the kitchen.
John Saul You will never not have idiots who do idiotic things. What extra action would you like to take besides the existing laws against threats and harassment? Some assholes use civil rights as an excuse to commit actual violence, not just threaten, so should we also not discuss that until we have locked up all the scum? By the time you "circle back around", the problem will only be worse.
He's not dismissing the ethical concerns that GG brings up, he's just saying that he can't support the movement itself.
Actually, it's more like a false generalization than an ad hominem.
And the most clear fallacy in the end is in my opinion the strawman. That one I am almost certain he used when describing gamergate.
I think he was mostly getting at that, while it has its merits (as does anything), it is now, unfortunately, tied to the harassment and vitriol it has given rise to. He did say that criticism on and discussion of ethics in games is necessary, but the movement itself has become linked to the worst of the worst, and he personally can't support it. That doesn't mean the discussions and the criticisms of whatever kind cannot continue, but the movement of "Gamergate" itself has become...sullied, to say the least.
This is amazing and thank you!! As an English teacher who loves to teach rhetoric, this is quite accessible and helpful for my students. Thanks! Keep making more! This is the kind of thing that can improve the level of discourse online. Cheers!
Thank you very much for this video, it helped me realized I frequently use some of the fallacies you described in fear of losing an argument. I hope that knowing them will improve my conversations and help me build stronger arguments.
Also I believe it's important to remind people (myself included) the goal of arguing, a better understanding of each other, which is often sadly forgotten. Good job!
And yet Sarkisian still isn't a gamer...
All you have to base that assumption on is a single out-of-context quote from four years ago, disregarding anything she has said before or since. But, anyway: Even if it were true (and it demonstrably isn't), *it would in no way devalue the points she makes*. You attack her personality, instead of her actual arguments. That is, ladies and gentlemen, an ad hominem fallacy. Congratulations, you've just demonstrated perfectly what this video is talking about :)
Furthermore: If all you care about is "ethics in games journalism" - why do you occupy yourself with Sarkeesian at all? She is not a games journalist.
InnerPartisan UHm... Noooo. You are adorable, but I'm basing my opinion on the multiple videos she's done where she laments the use of violence to solve conflicts even in angry birds.
St1kyFinguz And that's a non sequitur. Keep it going buddy, you'll make it through all of them if you just persevere!
InnerPartisan *Challenge accepted*
Here we have a person who admittedly loathes games that rely on violence,
A feminist who is determined to remove patriarchal reward structures from the narrative of games,
An idealog with a pension for making authoritarian demands on how men should or shouldn't interpret their own emotion & motivations and has actually use sentences like..."This does not give you the *Emotional Licence* to feel bad for the villain"
A disingenuous propagandist who makes constant corollary links to video games and domestic violence.
An ignorant moralizer who uses gut reactions to review Movies, comic books and video game she's has *admittedly* not seen or ever played(Mirrors Edge, Bayonetta, Green Lantern, Sucker Punch)
A misanthropic, anhedonic, curmudgeon whose opinions on Movies T.V and literature was set in stone from her 1st gender studies class.
A bad critic in search of her own confirmation bias.
An economic halfwit who honestly believes that destroying a brand by making incessant overtures to political correctness would ultimately be good for a company's overall image even if the that would lead to bankruptcy.
So yeah.. she's not a gamer. She's a moral crusader building up an argument to tear games down.
Oh and she's worse than Hitler....(what's my score?)
*CoughNoTrueScotsmanCough*
For the love of god, yes! I want more fallacy videos! Yayyyy!!!!
Please speak up about Gamergate. As a worker in media and entertainment, as well as a female gamer among many others friends, it's been very sad sight from my experience. I am not welcome to the gaming community.
Thank you, Mike, for demonstrating examples of fallacies with your closing remarks.
1. I say DEFINITELY do more fallacy videos. It is a community service to your home town.
2. On the GamerGate thing, ::SIGH::. The problem is this debate wound up fueling a brushfire of vitriol, from both sides I might add, much of which was fabricated or machined into existence, and a lot of the fallacies you have made mention of in this video are getting thrown about... A LOT.
On the GamerGate side, aside from those known agitators who are not there for a cause but TO CAUSE offense and destruction (guilty parties on both sides to be sure), as is the case with any movement, it has been largely peaceable and has some very valid concerns over journalism, ethics, and the interplay between those without scruples and the gaming population as a whole. Gamers by and large are decent, typically younger, people who are pretty darn open and accepting. Most everyone I have seen on the pro-GG side making comments have been as put out and angered by the poor behavior of the bad apples as anyone Anti-GG (ignoring the "members" of both sides of the debate who are themselves bad apples in this context), as anyone should be when hatred is being spewed, but there are valid concerns about agendas and politics overtaking real positive change and introspection.
On the ANTI side my main issue has revolved around the bandying about of claims and accusations of... personal misanthropic agendas. It is well, good, and RIGHT to point out an individual who is spouting hate, or making threats, and allow the culture as a whole to shun them or remedy the rabble rouser in its midst, it is quite another to paint the entire culture with the brush of those vitriolic personalities. There are individuals who act in ways that give credence to the accusations being brought, but they are acting out on both sides of the battle lines, and do not reflect the entire gaming community. All these gross and negative terms and actions are not a quality of the gamer community but of the individual "gamers" who possess those qualities. It is a problem, but not one the entire gaming community is collectively guilty for. It is a problem stemming directly from those antagonists.
We should not forget that the gaming community is a large and robust population made up of all walks of life, and to make collective claims against a community made up of individuals is scary and disheartening.
That whole debate is just insane. Especially the tweetwar surrounding it. Both sides just talk past eachother rather than addressing their concerns and listening.
But I've been insulted by both Adam Baldwin and Adam Sessler on there, so pissing off both sides has been fun I guess?
EDIT: though, the further I go on, the more I fall onto the Anti-GG side of the spectrum, so, sorry I guess.
***** It says a lot if you're able to get both sides to focus fire on you for a bit.
What was the quote?
if you've been called an anarchist, a racist, a hippy, a fascist, a liberal, and a neocon all in the same day... you're probably a libertarian.
www.quickmeme.com/meme/3saprs
That's the thing, it's always the Vocal Minority who get looked at rather then the Silent Majority. This is why I have a different persecptive on Feminism, which I thought used to be just about hatred. Now I know it's the Vocal Minority. #GamerGate (cuz I wanna).
Brian Hunter Yeah its always the vocal fringe that gets the press and recognition.
One of the big problems with social issues all thru history has been the polar extremes keeping the people who want to find a solution from being able to get to work.
Well put. Please indulge in an internet cookie.
More fallacies please. Logical fallacies are my favorite thing ever!
Oh so because logical fallacy videos are your favorite, he should only make logical fallacy videos?
DruidsCalling Strawman?
A quick question can you explain what it is to me please?
Actually on the topic of Gone Home, completing the game is a Win-state and failing to find the next clue or whatever is implicitly a lose-state. The key is that there is a degree of challenge inherent in playing it. Otherwise it's not a 'game'. Note this a) doesn't prevent such 'interactive experiences' from being enjoyable or having value them in any way and b) is an important distinction to make for people buying a game.
Many people playing games enjoy overcoming adversity. Be it finding hidden objects, solving a puzzle or just bashing people who get in your way over the head.
I think the more important question to ask when discussing this sort of thing is 'Would a game like The Walking Dead or The Wolf Among Us be more or less enjoyable if you were unable to lose in anyway?' As well as 'Are 'genres' actually informing purchasing decisions enough these days?'
I don't know Gone Home but if you can complete the game, how is that not winning it? If you want a game you can't win, try dorf fortress.
While I do agree that most if not all games do have degree of challenge, I don't know if you need a default win or lose state. The Stanley Parable jumps to mind as it has no win state, and old-school tabletop games like D&D in that while you can complete goals and defeat villains there is no finish line where you win.
You don't need a nesissary win or lose state to make it a real game. Two prime examples: Garry's mod and Minecraft
Isaac Prusky But Minecraft technically does have a win state, if you beat the enderdragon and jump through the exit portal you 'beat' minecraft (with credits no less). Garry's Mod is much more interesting as where do you draw the line between a game and "'interactive experiences'" as Michael puts it. Garry's Mod has no goals or challenges, though it is quite enjoyable. Can we call Etch-a-Sketch a game or is it just a toy?
Nathan Veillon The very definition of game is that it is a challenge you want to beat. So if there is no objective in a video game, we might start calling it video toy or something like that. I'm always up for diverse and precise language.
YES! Please make more tiny videos on fallacies in this style that we can send to other people!
They're superb.
Mike at the end of your video, you can literally substitute gamergate with feminism and it will still be applicable, even though they are painted differently by the media. Don't get me wrong, I would like to see fair representation and equality in games and society in general, but I cannot associate myself with feminism as much as I can't associate myself with gamergate.
I hate that people are being threatened and bullied, but for once I would like to see people like Anita Sarkeesian for example stand up to valid criticism. Even if gamergate people are separated into people who just harass and people who are actually concerned about ethics in media, the other party is not concerned with letting their arguments stand on it's own merits and will group any actual arguments as harassment.
The vast majority of "valid criticism" against Anita Sarkeesian is based on the logical fallacies outlined in the video above. Discussion about the representation of women in video games is a very important one to have, but is constantly derailed by the same vitriol and negativity that Gamergaters espouse. It seems to me that so many seem to see Sarkeesian's critique as "attacking" video games, whereas the existence of critique lends itself more to the idea that the video game as a medium is becoming recognized as legitimate and mature. All mature media are the subjects of critique, and rightfully so.
Dave Hibbs The same vitriol that both sides dish out. Anti-Gamergaters are all to willing to dish out the hate. The difference is they can't take the heat when it is thrown back at them and are all too happy to play the victim card when it suits them.
Dave Hibbs Sure, I agree for the most part. But there are plenty of youtube channels that do critique her works and show how her research is unscientific with regards to references, data etc. These youtube channels are aware of logical fallacies for the most part because a lot of them are atheistic commentary critiquing theistic fallacies.
Look I don't feel threatened by her critique, I wouldn't even classify myself as a gamer really. But she is ignoring the whole peer review process that should accompany any research people should take seriously. Also using threats and harassment as "evidence" of her arguments are fallacious in the most cases except if her hypothesis is that controversy will make people act like barbarians, (which we've all seen so many times throughout history) but for the most cases that isn't her hypotheses so she cannot use that as evidence. Although I can agree that the harassment is unfair towards her, lumping in all criticism with that is also unfair.
Perhaps, then, in order to start conversations one needs to make an attempt at curbing the harassment, separating themselves from those who simply harass.
Adrian Griffin Yeah, that should go both ways though.
Jesus Christ! Since when was this a Gamergate video? That's all the comments are focusing on! I don't know why people are so hung up on it - I mean, the whole "corruption" was just the baseless accusations of an angry ex-boyfriend. It was just a breaking-up squabble and it's reached the point where the poor woman doesn't even feel safe in her own house. Her family members don't even feel safe in their own houses. It's not a corruption thing, guys. It's far far darker than that.
The problem is we watched a video about logical fallicies (and I was going to argue about some missed points in the video; things about how spotting and naming a fallacy does not necessarily negate any set of premises outright, and this was only loosely brought up in during the Ad Hominem segment which is kind of a weird place to put it), and we got hit with a weigh-in on GamerGate in the end. It was a bait-and-switch maneuver to a very tense topic when it could have been just an informational video, and frankly for his sake I did not want to hear Mike's opinion because here and now was the inappropriate time and place. He should have just constructed a full video instead of shoehorning the topic into another without warning, and it may cost him face for weighing in prematurely.
Chronomaster That's the thing about GamerGate. Since Mike did that video with Dan and Dan has been very vocally anti-GamerGate lately, inevitably people will come out of the woodwork and start whining about it even if the connection between GG and what they're talking about is tangential at best. No matter how you approach it, whether in passing or as a topic of conversation, it's going to attract a lot of people with some very strong opinions. Expecting otherwise is like walking into a bear cave covered in steak and barbecue sauce and expecting to not get mauled.
you have no idea do you? dose the phrase "gamers are dead" ring any bells? try actually researching the issue before spouting utter nonsense
*****
What you guys need is a new hashtag that distance yourself againt the misogny, and sexism and treats of Sarkasian and Zoe Quinn. As long as it associate with that nobody will listen. You never see TotalBiscuit use the gamegate hashtag, which is the smart move. Distance yourself with the association of harrassmant of woman, and instead focus on the Shadow of Mordor controversy or web site like IGN getting review eclusive stuff like that. Distance yourself from all that shit, with a new hashtag, and people might actually listen.
thebritishgeek
How's about this: Gamer culture is inherently exclusive to a certain kind of people who play a certain kind of game, labelling them unfairly as "not gamers", thereby implying that they should not become involved in this particular medium, keeping the audience of said medium small and narrow, reinforcing old-fashioned stereotypes and ideals that should be cast off by new, more eclectic audiences becoming involved in something we can all work together to make a better thing. If people are excluded from becoming involved in a thing then in most cases that thing will inevitably wither and die due to lack of exposure and lack of revenue going towards the people creating within that medium.
Like it or not, we need "casual gamers" to actually make the medium accessible. What needs to change is not the kind of people playing games, but the kind of games being made, to herald in a new era of casual game legitimacy, which would be awesome.
I enjoyed this video. I enjoy almost all of your videos. Even though you said you weren't pro-gamergate, I will continue to watch your videos. I am pro-gamergate, but you also stand for what gamergate stands for. Ethics in journalism, inclusive games, and anti-bullying or harassment. I don't like how gamergate has been hijacked by trolls, misogynists, and anti-gamergater but I stand by its true principals. I don't want to be disrespected or misrepresented by the gaming press. I don't want to be called horrible things just because I stand for ethics in journalism. What's happening to gamergate feels like how america treated Muslims after 9/11. A few radicals taint the whole group and now every Muslim has to apologize for who they are. I will not apologize to people who insult me or be sidetracked by trolls who send death threats. We will expose the trolls and report them. Because I believe gamergate is good at heart. We have just been misrepresented by a media that does not understand nuance or trolls.
Thank you. It helped with a series I am creating on fallacies in risk. Thanks for the knowledge and ideas!
I'm just that guy, reading the comments, not wanting to take sides.
Maybe I heard the whole thing wrong, but you just used a Black and White Fallacy in a video talking about why the Black and White Fallacy is wrong. The gamergaters AREN'T defined by sexism and vitriolic behavior, or at least to my knowledge they aren't. They're defined by people who want games journalism to be more trustworthy. I could be employing a strawman fallacy here, but to me it really seems like you're saying that once you become a gamergater you're a sexist, which isn't true in the least.
My interpretation of his opinion wasn't that GamerGaters are inherently sexist (as he also mentioned that the movement was right in saying there are ethical concerns in journalism), but rather that the movement itself as a whole has exhibited negative characteristics which make it unfollowable for him personally, despite some of its otherwise more redeeming aspects.
PiMaster PI then by that logic any movement is unfollowable as each group has its radicals which do not represent the group as a whole but rather are the focused on minority because it's then "news worthy". It's like focusing on the doctor killers of the anti abortion movement or the substance abusers in the sports community. To view such a narrow and small sample as the whole of the side is a fallacy in and of itself.
By "as a whole", I meant the majority of the movement, not a vocal minority. Whether or not it really is the majority rather than a vocal minority is clearly subject to interpretation, and I'm not qualified to engage in that discussion.
To clarify, I'm defending Mike's opinion and his right to have it, not my own. I have no opinion about "GamerGate".
Why are they going after Felicia Day then?
twitter.com/Onideus_MH/status/525112948919115776
twitter.com/Sargon_of_Akkad/status/525064239946289153
Study effective social movements in the 20th century. They were mostly non-violent and VIOLENT MEMBERS WERE REMOVED by the more sensible majority.
Affiliating yourself with people who are online harassers means you condone the behavior and at worst as accessory to the crime. Also makes you sound like a hypocrite and untrustworthy because... how do we know you don't do the same?
Being an accessory to murder for example carries heavy prison time even though you killed noone.
I don't really have anything to talk about with this subject... But please don't ever bring Straw Mike back....
He terrifies me..
please do more episodes like this was so nice to see falsies laid out outside of a college classroom.
Saying that GamerGate is defined by the harassment of women is exactly the same as saying that Islam is defined by terrorism... #ButThatsNoneOfMyBusiness
In regards to gamergate I pretty much just watched a couple pro-gamergate youtube videos about it, and I don't remember it encouraging harassment of anyone of any kind. Can someone tell me what I missed?
EDIT:
From the videos I've watched, all I've seen are arguments talking about how corrupt gaming journalism is.
From all I seen, the anti gamergate people have harassed people 100 times more than anything from the gamergate side, some of the shit people have said about gamers/gamergate people and doxxing people that agree with it is madding and then hearing that gamergate people are nothing but scum. Like that Devin what's his name from badassdigest supporting the doxxing and harassment of anyone that is for gamergate and saying there worst then ISIS.
The problem is that while there are a few rational people in Gamers Gate. The movement as a whole has problems. Gamers Gate people typically just go after A ) Feminists / People they consider to be Social Justice Warriors or B) People who disagree with them.
Jack Sander This is what confuses me. Trying not to use the "Not a true Scotsman" fallacy, but from the videos I've seen, they not only talking about corruption in games journalism in a civil manner, but they also outright encourages everyone to be strictly civil so that they won't give gamergate a bad name.
wakuboys Long story short: The idea channel, Extra Credits and many others have fallen for the false narrative being painted by the media against GamerGate. They're being too lazy to do actual research into the movement or its history before condemning it. **Example of media lying: The "threats" Anita got at the UFC campous thing didn't even mention or elude to gamergate, yet EVERY media outlet out there pretended gamergate was behind it.
***** Actually the beginning of gamergate started with Zoe Quinn and Phil Fish and having their data doxxed and publicly released. Cyber hacking/bullying along with your average sexist/unrefined persons who get blown out of proportion to smear everyone else who isn't 'misbehaving' is why the movement is seen as violent and unethical. Which is sad because the way this whole thing is spiraling is a lose/lose for gamers now when journalism point blank is corrupt. Check out native advertising, for example. That being said, Mike is likely a Socrates type of guy - the means do not justify the end.
This was sooo helpful! I would love to see more of these! :)
Thank you for standing with Extra Credits (love those guys).
Your example for no true scottsman is incorrect. A no true scottsman fallacy only applies if the piece in question contains the properties of the group as defined.
If games are defined as 'having defined or implied failure states in an attempt to test a skill of an individual in a manner that is entertaining', then gone home fails to meet this definition.
Basically, you can not commit a 'no true scottsman fallacy', unless the consensus definition does not carry the attributes used in the descriptor definition.
To use a less nebulous example:
"All scottish citizens are recognized as citizens by the scottish state."
'But O'Malley is a scottish citizen and is not recognized by the state as such!'
"O'Malley isn't recognized as a citizen by the state, therefore he fails to meet the basic definition of being a Scottish Citizen."
No matter how much an individual wants to extricate something or include it in a label, it is only labeled as such when it meets the pre-requisites of the label, and can not be extricated if it does meet the pre-requisites of the label. The ' no TRUE ____' only makes the argument seem apparent, when it it just as likely to apply to someone not saying that they're not a 'true' blank, but rather that 'x' is not blank. If a statement makes logical sense by replacing 'is not a TRUE _____' with 'is not a ______', then it is not a 'no true scottsman'.
Fuck me; that was so well put together I nearly climaxed. Although it could just be such a stark contrast to a lot of this comment section that causes it to appear so distinct. Well done anyway.
> If games are defined as 'having defined or implied failure states in an attempt to test a skill of an individual in a manner that is entertaining', then gone home fails to meet this definition.
The problem is that there is not an agreed-upon definition. As such taking the definition as factual or agreed-upon is applying it "subjectively" or only from your point of view. That is the No True Scotsman fallacy: an argument of semantics.
Paranoid Android If a term does not have a generally agreed upon definition; then one can not commit 'no true scottsman'. The fallacy in 'no true scottsman' is claiming that a label has properties not in a proper consensus definition of it (and by extension allows something to be considered to be that label). If there isn't a consensus decision to work from (game is one of these terms where people have tried to exactly work out what makes a 'game', since an improperly constructed definition can allow things to be labeled 'game' that aren't; like general conversation or a museum exhibit)
As for the definition I placed out, it's one that's been presented by some game devs, informed by the discussions of other devs, players, and people who studied game theory as a whole. In lieu of a proper definition for a label, discussion should shift to have people support their reasoning for a label. Like in the case of the 'gone home' example, mike would need to assert what he is using as the definition of game, since it isn't a term with a properly set definition, and 'straw mike' wouldn't be able to address if mike's definition of game is flawed (as his definition is flawed in over-specificity)
dmgirl3000
> If a term does not have a generally agreed upon definition; then one can not commit 'no true scottsman'.
This is not *necessarily* the case, as a term can have an *array* of definitions. In the discussion, it can be disagreed upon as to which definition to use, even if there are multiple "agreed-upon" definitions in general. I didn't specify "generally agreed-upon" because I meant specifically in the context of a conversation, discussion, argument, or proof.
> since an improperly constructed definition can allow things to be labeled 'game' that aren't; like general conversation or a museum exhibit
I would argue that conversation and museum exhibits can be games, and I'd be prepared to define games in a way that is both acceptable at large and would allow for this to be true. That is another discussion though.
> As for the definition I placed out, it's one that's been presented by some game devs, informed by the discussions of other devs, players, and people who studied game theory as a whole.
I would argue this is an appeal to authority and ad populum. In this case I would argue this is the correct application of these fallacies because simply being a game dev or player does not make one an expert. Similarly, "game" relative to "game theory" will likely have a different definition than "game" at large because they are different contexts. So while they may be experts in one field (even one field directly related to "games" at large), I don't believe you can claim any of them to be authorities on what should make up the general term of "game". I would still be very interested in their input though.
> In lieu of a proper definition for a label, discussion should shift to have people support their reasoning for a label.
I agree wholeheartedly and this concept is one I push for in most discussions, especially ones concerning ambiguous definitions. I also appreciated you giving your definition for "game" before using it in context!
> mike would need to assert what he is using as the definition of game, since it isn't a term with a properly set definition, and 'straw mike' wouldn't be able to address if mike's definition of game is flawed (as his definition is flawed in over-specificity)
I agree! I would also bet that Mike is probably working on a more general discussion on this topic by tackling specific aspects of it, as evinced by the previous video discussing the definition of games relative to their mechanics. I feel that he said something with an "objective air" that he had not earned at the time which you were right to point out and call him on, though I think it was meant as an offhanded example. I would also argue on the definition of games which includes Gone Home and therefore on his behalf of the comment, even if the comment was not made with the proper context.
Paranoid Android
Well, in regards to that; it's what would be considered context based. With defined definitions (albeit multiple ones), the debaters would present reasons from the context to use their definition, and the definition with better validation would be the one to use in this case.
As for conversations and museums, that's a case of mutually exclusive terms. Being a game does not necessarily mean you can't simply be a conversation or museum exhibit, but the definition of game most likely should not cover all museum exhibits and conversations, just like a job can be construed as a game, but the properties of game likely would not apply to the construing of all jobs.
You would be right that it was an appeal to authority/ad populum, if it wasn't for the fact that there are exceptions to this (specifically citing scientific consensus for such is one such example). The reason I pointed to people who study game theory as well as game developers is because these are people (more specifically the latter than the former, since game theory is more widespread, but does still cover games itself in it's broad scope) have experience in the construction and methodologies used for the creation of a game, which gives considerable insight into recognition of such.
The main reason for citing it is that there is no major 'consensus' decision for what defines games. Many people arbitrarily define things as game or not based on their personal feelings rather than solid definitions of such. In application of the definition I presented, I find myself considering many things I would have called games actually be considered not games:
-Candyland (it's a pure luck and a round of 4 players is the same if the 4 different players were all the same person)
-Sims (there is a lack of intrinsic challenges for the most part, but applied challenges create the framework to consider it a game)
-Visual Novels (this is not uniformly applied, as some contain elements that test skill, generally in the form of logic puzzles)
And as a whole it just made me realize that a lot of things that I listed as games share many properties with things I would label not games, and it presented a general internal inconsistency.
I guess that's my main reason for support of this general definition. It carries the degree of specificity to create proper boundaries (with logical backup) an allow for one to have an internally consistent system; especially when as a whole we do seem to lack a non-subjective definition of the term.
And all of that isn't even getting into the fact that people take being labeled 'not a game' so seriously. Being 'not a game' doesn't intrinsically diminish the value of the product; it just means that the elements within simply don't meet denotative requirements for a definition. (Though I would argue that potentially some of the gripe comes from the fact that by a product being called not a game, they can't use it as an example of the depth of plot and philosophy a game can achieve)
Your statement towards the end suggests to say that there is no evidence that will change your view on the debate surrounding Gate Gate. You have arrived to the topic will a preset notion about the issue and only seek to cherry pick data that confirms the preset notion. I'm sorry to say that such a position seems to be the zenith of a anti-intellectual ideologue.
This comment is so pretentious, I love it.
i think the biggest problem with #gamergate is that they don't see what they're doing as either 1) harassment or 2) misogynistic.
i literally saw a post on a gamergate forum earlier saying, "how dare felicia day criticize #gamergate as misogynistic? she's just a washed up booth babe looking for press."
these people are so incredibly steeped in this sort of thing they don't realize what they're doing is incredibly problematic.
they think condemning outright threats somehow makes the other things they're doing okay. but the surrounding milieu of #gamergate creates and enables that direct abuse by creating an incredibly vitriolic, toxic environment. often via lies, slander and misrepresentation.
This rocks. Thank you for helping me pass my logic final!
Man, I can't wait for the flame war about GamerGate in the comments.
he brought upon himself
But yeah, I spend some time every day filtering bad things out f my mind and adding positive traits.. I'd love more videos like this
x
I disagree with your understanding of the argument from authority fallacy. You seem to be saying it's mistaking someone who isn't an authority on a subject for someone who is. That's not, in my understanding, the fallacy of the argument from authority. That's not even a fallacy, really, that's just poor judgement!.. The fallacy of the argument from authority is arguing that the truth value of a statement derives from the fact *that it was said by an authority* rather than *why it was said by an authority*. It's substituting an authority's *opinion* over their *evidence*.
.
(But 5 extra points for the demonstration at the end, where you show a "no true scotsman" by saying some of the so-called "gamergaters" aren't really "true gamergaters"..;)
It's actually as Mike described it, but what you pointed out could also be fallacious. I would link to the IEP (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy), but it seems to be down at the moment. On there it says that citing sources of legitimate authority isn't a fallacy and it is only when you purport someone who is not actually an expert as an expert.
Krip
I couldn't bring up the IEP on my end either.
Which is sad. I'd like to have seen your source. I was speaking off the top of my head from my general understanding - I didn't look it up.
But Wikipedia's argument from authority page supports my understanding. It does also mention a similar fallacy of "appeal to an inappropriate authority," which sounds like what Mike is describing...
But that's just Wikipedia. The IEP has better authorities for editors. It seems your authority would be better than my authority... :D
ThePeaceableKingdom
Rationalwiki would be better than wikipedia, which says what mike says, but IEP is probably the best, since it's edited by philosophers with PhD's.
ThePeaceableKingdom From my understanding, the authority fallacy can be simplified to someone saying "Global Warming is true because scientists said so" rather than "scientists found (this), (this), and (this), which support the possibility of Global Warming". Also using scientists is a bit shaky anyways because our understanding of science in many fields continually changes from year to year anyways.
Crazy Boy Studios
Yes. That's the way I understand it.
Two citizens of Pisa are sitting in the market in 1589 and one says, "If I drop a grape and a melon from the top of the tower they'll hit the ground at the same time *because Galileo says so*."
He has committed the fallacy because his appeal to Galileo's authority doesn't make it true - not because he chose the wrong authority. (Everyone at the time knew that the greatest authority of all was Aristotle anyway, who said heavier things would fall faster...)
The citizen's argument was fallacious. (His opinion, though, was correct.)
Holy moly, the memes are fun and totally distracting. 😊 I had to rewind multiple times so I could see the meme and hear the information. Perhaps I absorbed everything better that way, but I can imagine that it would be a problem for me if I didn't have control of the rewind button. 😊
So...you spend 10+ minutes explaining these 5 logical fallacies...and then invoke most of them at the end of the video in your description of GamerGate? I mean, does that...even...register for you?
This is just what makes it so difficult for me to take anti-GGer's seriously. Logic and reason go right out the window when you start talking about GG, and it just turns into a string of logical fallacies just brimming with loathing and disgust.
I really, really want both sides to reach across the divide and have an honest conversation about this topic. I wholeheartedly do. I just don't know how we're going to do that when you guys can't even acknowledge the possibility that GG isn't "literally an ISIS of Hitlers."
Exactly!!
Are you saying that Mike said "GG is literally an ISIS of Hitlers"?
Damien Trezgurar No, that little nugget of joy is from one Steve Hogarty. Although it very aptly sums up the opinion of the loudest voices of the counter-movement.
Do you feel that Mike is a "anti-GGer" that throws logic out the window?
Damien Trezgurar
Yes, that criticism was in my original post concerning his invocation of some of the very same logical fallacies that he discussed in the portion of the video leading up to his views on GG.
If Gone Home is a video game, then a movie where you have to press the play button every 5 seconds is a video game.
I don't get the laser-like focus on Gone Home whenever this topic of "non-games" comes up. Its certainly not only game in this category. Off the top of my head I'd add Stanley Parable, Dear Esther, and the excellent Vanishing of Ethan Carter.
If we're going to qualify a how much of a "game" or "non-game" these are based on how much you interact with the environment inside each game, I'd say Gone Home is more of a game than Dear Esther, about the same level of "gameness" as Stanley Parable, and less of game than Vanishing of Ethan Carter. Its right in the middle. Yet its the one that always gets called out amongst GG'ers for some reason.
Anyway, all this is besides the point. I could care less what you label it as. Its a great experience, and the other 3 I mentioned are as well. All worth picking up on Steam if you have the chance.
Chris Loos I was being sarcastic, referencing Yahtzee's review of Beyond: Two Souls.
***** Pardon?
Chris Loos He must have just heard about trolling for the first time, don't mind him.
Chris Loos
I believe the focus on Gone Home is because, while it may be about the same amount of "game/non-game" as Stanley Parable, might be because Gone Home most definitely comes off more as games imitating art, as in it tries to present the player/viewer with a (world) view that they may not be used to. Where as The Stanley Parable, while still presenting a view, is meant to be a more tongue-in-cheek or introspective look at games & gaming, and also provides multiple paths (a la Choose Your Own Adventure books.) I haven't played Gone Home as of yet, but if my understanding of it is correct, there is only the one path.
I think the biggest logical fallacy was the one that closed off the video. GamerGate users openly condemn harassment and is welcoming of minorities (see NotYourShield), and there is plenty of evidence that third parties are making the threats in order to place blame to the group.
In addition, the supposed "oppressed" groups in question have been shown to either exaggerate their harassment (Brianna Wu and the "Oppressed GamerGater" incident, where she claimed users hijacked her meme - which was ironically made to harass GamerGaters - to harass her, when very few images even mentioned her, and no threats were made) or outright fake it (the "Death To Brianna" twitter account was extremely suspicious, and she even announced the death threat before it even occurred). Plus, GamerGaters have recently taken an effort to report any death threat - sincere or not - on either side.
Are you not for GamerGate? That's perfectly fine. However, don't believe the talk about misogyny for a second. You're playing right into the hands of the GameJournoPros, who are writing that narrative, when you do.
citing NotYourShield is literally the Gamergate version of "How can I be racist if I have black friends?!" When are you knuckleheads going to realize this?
Except people involved with NYS put themselves forward to support an idea, not to use an irrelevant existing relationship in an attempt to discredit an accusation. If we were to say "we're not excluding people, we have non-white, female, and non-heterosexual people involved", then your argument would make some sense. But the thing is that those same individuals came forward instead of simply being picked out by a specific group. There's a difference.
Chris Loos Well, it's not like people who aren't straight white males all think the same. Some of the most obnoxious feminists I think of are straight white males.
Chris Loos While it is true that the fact that NotYourShield exists is not proof that gamergate is not fighting against women in gaming, the fact the the people who have used it have not been harassed by gamergaters IS.
Following your "How can I be racist if I have black friends?!" argument: it is true that just because you have black friends does not mean you aren't racist. However, if you have not shown any evidence of harassment or racism towards black people, then the argument becomes moot because the accuser has no evidence to back his claim.
Gamergaters openly condemn harassment and quietly approve of it. The usual methods of the hypocrite.
I've been subscribed for a long time and laughed when my Writing 101 teacher directed me to this video for one of our assignments.
The only problem with the whole anti-feminist part of Gamer Gate is that it is part of the reason it started. Zoe Quinn a feminist in as far as she can make money (that being she totally shut down a charity with the soul purpose as to allow women with no experience in making games actually make a game because she wanted the winner to get payed more) slept with several games journalists in order to gain popularity and positive reviews for her indie game. With that spark of controversy it grew into this giant flame which exposed a hidden group of Journalists that email each other and that use the journalistic medium to sell their views i.e. social justice warrior type ideas. Those same journalists posted a coordinated attack against Gamers in their articles saying that "Gamers are dead" and tried to sell a black and white fallacy of your either a "gamer" and represent all of the evils that the social justice warriors try to sell or a "gamer plus" which is basically a good person. I feel sorry for you that you have been sold the false idea that #gamergate is anti-feminist, anti-women, or exclusionary because at the end of the day GamerGate is all about getting the topic back to Gaming and not about false representations of what Gamers are. Please I don't want what happened to the Atheist community happen to the Gamer community when the radical feminists rolled in with their "Atheist Plus" shenanigans
I can't believe the irony that in a video about logical fallacies, they commit the False Dichotomy fallacy on this matter.
It's just unbelievable.
Thank you for saying what I'd like to say, but without the excessive aggression that would inevitably creep into my words. I also think it's odd that, in a video talking about fallacies, he commits several when explaining (poorly) why he doesn't like GamerGate:
1.) Assumes the entire movement is misogynist and hateful because of unstable individuals sending death and terror threats.
2.) Doesn't address or attempt to understand the widely understood (within the group) argument of GamerGate
3.) Further plays on emotion by suggesting that many who support GamerGate will do something childlike after hearing his opinion (lowering the perceived worth of our argument).
Can you PLEASE do more fallacy videos? Post hoc? Tu quoque? Circular reasoning?!! Red herring?!? With Trump as the Republican nominee, it's become more important for people to see how full of fallacies to political world is. Pretty please?
Heres one for you "No true muslim fallacy" (BTW thats more relevant than scotsman)
Not real socialism.
r sin savage.
@lIbertylikes you just committed an ad hominem right there
oh no twump uses fallacies when he talks?! oh no how dayr he! it's not like he is supposed to in order to actually get his point across, especially in the current political environment! and we only care when the right makes fallacies, but not when we do, cuz y should we?!
Here's something that doesn't really belong in any of these categories:
A couple of days ago I suggested to a youtuber that, regarding his international viewership, he use the metric system in his videos. This comment had the sole purpose to state that a considerable part of the audience might have problems to understand the content because it was presented in the imperial system that hardly anybody outside the U.S. uses. However, this started an ongoing discussion about which system is the better one.
This is a problem in many comments or discussions: Somebody makes a valid, yet specific point, and everybody lifts this up to a large-scale level and starts to ramble endlessly.
I think that's a strawman. The real point is being evaded by not giving an argument against using the metric system in his/her video but instead changing the discussion to the quality of an arbitrary system of units.
Huh, I see your point.
I live in the US and use the imperial system, but I recognize metric as the superior system. Actually I don't see how one can logically say imperial is better in any way except that they are already used to it.
Orion Kaelin
It's based on factors of 12, and base-12 math is far superior to base-10 math. So, really, the problem is that people just use base-10 math because they're accustomed to it. The ideal situation would be to use a metric system based on multiples of 12 (which wouldn't be too different from the Imperial system, really) and base-12 mathematics.
This may be a strawman fallacy, but it could also be a natural evolution of an argument.
For example, you might point out that a show has international viewer and thus should use the metric system. I might counter that the show also has American viewers, and so should use the imperial system. We would both recognize a contradiction here. One resolution to this contradiction is to decide that one system is universally better than the other, so we should use the superior system (if one exists).
This is a common path for arguments to take and is one of the values of having arguments in the first place. As different sides add their viewpoints we can come to the realization that no one side has the correct viewpoint, and then work together to find a better one.
Yes please do more of these, lord knows we so desperately need them.
yeah, we get it, you like memes, but can you use less of them next time :(
1. this is from 2014...
2. why not just listen to it?
some people need CC matey
good point, sorry
Then look at the CC instead.
probassistNOT go read a book lol
Watching Straw-Mike is making me really uncomfortable for some reason...
It's not just you; I think he's really creepy as well. It's a bit uncanny valley.
I feel like this comment thread is a piece of installation-art, where the point is just to scroll through and see Aaallllllllllll the many logical fallacies being used on every side of every argument. It's almost painful.
this was more helpful than my whole Philosophy class ;D
Let´s leave something clear. #GamerGate is not a political party, nor a movement or a structured architecture of any sorts. It is a consumer revolt made from people that are tired to be looked down upon the media they support. Calling #GamerGate a Harassment/misogyny campaign is also a huge disservice on people like Christina H Sommers, Jennie Bharaj, Jayd3 Fox and other women in the hashtag as well as #notyourshield . I thought this was an Ad-Hominem Mike
SkullduggeryXI Yeah, I think you justified the anti-gamergate movement right there,
Durrrrr
www.newsweek.com/gamergate-about-media-ethics-or-harassing-women-harassment-data-show-279736?piano_d=1
Casey Jacobs That requires believing that there's actually a point to convincing anyone in this shitstorm.
You want to argue in good faith, that's your perogative. Me personally? I'm through with these folk.
Casey Jacobs Because like seriously, how the fuck am I supposed to debate with someone whose central animating tenet is that no structural issues of discrimination exist and that society is inherently fair?
Like I just can't fucking manage that shit man.
I have not done such thing and I´m a supporter. Also isn´t this an ad-hominem? attack of the person, not the work?
We have done donations, we have not bothered the escapist because they listened to us and changed their politics sincee day one. #GamerGate could be over in a week if news sites listened to us.
I want to ask you something... take the "misogyny claims" out of #GamerGate for a second and tell me we wouldn´t exist. Just a mental exercise
I find you take on the #gamergate situation very close to, if not apart of the "ad hominem to quoque" fallacy, Some members of #gamergate may or may not be misogynists, but you are disregarding any and all points made because of this.
I assume you are on the "If you criticize feminism/feminists you must be a misogynist" bandwagon...
It wasn't an ad hominem attack and he isn't disregarding anything. I don't know if you watched the video but he clearly stated that there are problems with ethics in gaming. The point he was making was that the most prevalent aspect of the Gamer Gate "movement" the thing most people will instantly think of when Gamer Gate is brought up is the awful harassment of women in gaming. Gamer Gate and harassment are too closely related to take Gamer Gate seriously as a movement that wants to improve ethics in game journalism. If you want to improve ethics in game journalism don't align yourself with Gamer Gate. If it was an ad hominem attack he'd say that Gamer Gate is about harassing women and therefore ethical problems don't exist because Gamer Gate is just a bunch of misogynists. But he didn't say that.
Abe TheMudokon Because the best way to debunk a movement that is entirely over the internet is to misrepresent it to your audiences. The same way you can ignore the feminist movement because there are literal terrorists in said movement and the first thing that comes to mind when thinking feminists are those feminazis who threaten to kill men if they look at them. Political tactics 101.
FerrumIgnotus
Did you seriously just equate Gamer Gate with Feminism? First of all I don't believe that these "literal terrorists" if they actually exist are the first thing most people would think of when they hear the word feminist. The first thing most people will think is someone who fights for women's rights. Feminism like any ideology or movement has bad members, the thing is though Gamer Gate isn't a movement or an ideology it has no clearly defined goals. And before you say the goal is to increase ethical standards in video game journalism, what does that mean? Because I've seen people talk about reviewers giving good scores for bribes, or people saying that reviews shouldn't contain agendas,or game reviewers need more disclosure, or evil feminazis are trying to ruin games. Increasing ethical standards means nothing, because it could mean a multitude of things and there is no consensus amongst GG people. So it isn't an ideology or a movement it's a focusless mass of differing opinions with a massive dollop of harassment of women. If you care about ethics in games journalism, don't align yourself with GG.
Abe TheMudokon "You make some great points, but... " sounds like the entire idea behind ad hominem fallacies.
No. He said that there really are problems with ethics in games, but he can't support the Gamergate movement because of how it operates in practice.
Regarding gamergate that he talks about at the end isn't he using a fallacy grouping everyone that is pro gamergate into a single group?
Not exactly, he is merely stating that he is against what it now stands for. He is aware of the good things it might have brought, but the bad things have become too entangled with the name. He is not pro-gamergate, nor is he against people who are. He just does not support gamergate on grounds of what they've done, nor does he oppose those related to it, as long as they were not the harm-doers.
Take that as you want, your prior opinion might not be influenced by my probably flawed logics ;)
Firzenick I'm neutral on the whole situation. It was his choice in words that slightly confused me. But thank you for that
Firzenick .... sure 12:36
Firzenick so he i against Ethics in game Journalism? what an asshole
He is for the conversation of ethics of game journalism, he has said in the end of the video that those types of topics are what they love to do and have done in the past. However he does not agree with GamerGate as a movement because of the harassment and exclusionary and manipulative tactics they use.
To say the harassers are not part of the "True" gamegate would be the use of No True Scotsman Fallacy just as saying radical feminists or regular feminists aren't "true" feminists.
Omg BLESS YOU for making the reference videos!! It will be so much easier to make my point and (attempt to) educate people when they use these fallacies now!
I really liked this video because I'm one of those people who go into those full brony/hater comment wars and try to resolve peace. I feel if I could point out these fallacies that both Bronies and Haters use, then maybe we can come to peace. Because usually all I see is the haters going "your gay" or "horse f*ckers" and bronies going "you don't deserve to live" and the worse one..."love and tolerate". I feel like it's just anything go's in those comment wars, and I want to stop them. So thank you for some new ways to resolve them. -Goldendiamond945
Please find something more productive to do with your time than to fight people on the internet. It's a waste of your time, which could be better spent elsewhere,
A BETTER INTERNET IS POSSIBLE
Kujakuseki01 I try not to fight, just resolve, and if it seams hopeless/ out of hand, then I move on. No point in trying if no ones going to listen.
So, about the ad hominem fallacy, sometimes you will see people try to dismiss someone over a small spelling mistake rather than addressing that person's points. Is that an ad hominem? I've always treated it as one.
I hate to say this, but you are correct. I have been guilty of this. I tend to think less of a person's intellect when their post is entirely upper/lowercase and lacking in punctuation, but that doesn't actual make them wrong. For many people on the internet, English is not even their first language, so considering spelling and grammar as a basis for intellect is completely unfair. Thanks for pointing this out.
That can be an ad hominem if it comes with an attack to one's intelligence, but strictly speaking, distracting a debate to something like a grammatical error is a Red Herring. A Red Herring is basically a distraction that's used in order to make the debate turn towards something irrelevant to the debate,
There is a problem about the knowledge of fallacies: the fallacy fallacy. In short: just because your "opponent" used a fallacy doesn't mean you are right.
Even if it is not your intention to actually claim victory with that strategy, it shifts the discussion to an unconstructive level since it no longer is about the actual topic but about the fallacies which may or may not have occured in an argument. The strategy I normally use to prevent this is not naming the fallacies. For example, if someone uses a strawman fallacy against me, I'd just correct what my claim is and what it isn't. Further, my strategy would be to apologize for not making that clear.
The best way to use a fallacy is to point out when a particular piece of evidence supporting a claim is a fallacy, disregard that piece of evidence, and then continue the argument.
1UpForte
When arguing against people who are not versed in argument etiquette, they may not "let" you simply disregard their evidence. Pointing out it's a fallacy may just anger them and cause them to be even less rational.
You have earned 100% of my respect for that IT Crowd pic. :D
You had 95%, but now you have it all.
That show is amazing.
yes you are right let us condemn the whole movement because of a very small number of extremists since the other side doesn't have those
and notyourshield isn't real
and anti-gamergaters haven't harassed anyone
gotcha, thanks for clearing that up
***** He's being sarcastic about the ending bit.
PBS Idea Channel So I have a question about the no true Scotsman fallacy.
Lets say that I say "Group A cannot under any circumstance murder."
If someone murders but says they are a member of Group A. Does Group A have no right to say that that person does not belong to them because they broke the rule?
Where does this fallacy come into play with things like sports? If someone breaks the rules on my NFL team I can remove them from the team.
It seems to me strange that you can't have a series of rules for a group and exclude everyone that does not follow those rules? Is every group universally inclusive? Or am I just misunderstanding this fallacy?
I ask because I subscribe the the inverse kinda. To me if you want to be something more than yourself, to say you are not an individual but a member of a group that you must either accept responsibility for all members of that group or lay down solid ground rules that determine who is and who is not a member of that group.
This way you remove the group power that crazy people have. The alternative seems to allow anyone to use the power of numbers to defend their insanity, even if hat insanity is not widely supported. ISIS more recently comes to mind in this category. Alternatively the misogynist subgroup within GamerGate.
Both seem to get power and in some ways anonymity from this. But at the end of the day I'm pro individual and con group more often than not.
There's the thing about it, some groups have membership requirements. The Minnesota Vikings have a membership requirement, and among that requirement is to maintain good character. Saying "we don't want Adrian Peterson as a representative of the organization in light of his poor behavior" is not quite the same as "no *true* Viking would do that". The No True Scotsman fallacy generally applies to groups without explicit membership requirements. You don't really have to do anything to be a Scotsman, just be from Scotland. Similarly, for GamerGate, all you really have to do use a hashtag, which has no membership requirement, no regulatory measures to exclude them. Saying "Those assholes who harass don't represent GamerGate" is invoking the No True Scotsman fallacy, because like being a scotsman, there's no explicit membership requirements by which they forfeit behaviors like harassment. Since there is no explicit rules to which a person needs to maintain to be a member of GamerGate, nobody can say that they are or are not a representative of the group. Now ISIS has structure, so it can't apply there. Either you are a member of an explicit organization with a structure (in this instance, martial hierarchy) or you aren't. If you don't hold membership, you're not a member, period, and when anybody can be a member just by saying that they are, with no real barrier to entry, there's no litmus for who represents it, because everybody in that group is as equally a representation of it as any other member.
I recommend checking out the webshow Extra Credits in relationship to the No True Scotsman fallacy, in particular their episode on the group "Anonymous".
watch?v=tDeOMq4RPxY
QwertyCaesar Yeah I suppose that's my problem. To me there are either two groups. One with explicit rules that you follow or are not a member. OR a group where you take responsibility for all actions within that group.
I realize that's a binary fallacy or whatever but this is my personal opinion rather than something I think is necessarily true.
But then I don't really align with any group so it doesn't impact me on a personal level.
Isles of Scion Its important to note that collective guilt can be fallacious. For example, I'm a resident of the United States. Somewhere in the country, some dude is stealing somebody's car, right now. Just because I'm an American, doesn't mean that I condone that action, and just because I don't revoke my citizenship doesn't mean I approve of them. Another example, I'm a gamer. That doesn't mean that I condone shooting up Columbine. There's a difference between a effort made by a person and the status of a person. In the case of GamerGate, a proponent who also harasses people may or may not be considered a representative, depending on your feelings of collective guilt and accountability. However, if they harass in the name of GamerGate, then yes, they are definitely being representatives of it, and since there are people doing that in the name of GamerGate, and there's no real barrier of admission, they're as equally a representative of GamerGate as anybody else who is in it for the most noble of intentions. This creates a dilemna, one that could be solved by rigid boundaries of who is a member and who isn't a member.
Being a gamer is, well, being a gamer - the barrier to entry is simply being an enthusiast. completely separate from other human beings with no cooperative goal or intent with them. Blaming me for the actions of a psycho who played videogames because we're both gamers would be like blaming you for the actions of Hitler because you breathe airand Hitler breathed air so JUST ADMIT YOU'RE HITLER!!1!
Being a GamerGater is, on the other hand, a very specific concerted effort by multiple different people in which individuals, even if they can't on what the goal is, are all trying to achieve a goal. Since there's no real structure or membership, anybody's goals for GamerGate or the tactics for achieving those goals are as representative of the movement, so somebody who thinks its about fighting the evil Feminazis by making online space as hostile to them as possible by harassing them and sending them threats is a representative because there is no way to revoke their membership, no methoid to keep them away from you against their will since all it takes is a hashtag to be in its group and you can prevent them from using that, and they're a member of the group, no matter how much somebody wishes they weren't. Even if you believe it when somebody says that they don't condone the actions of them, the inability to or even reluctance to create a structure where you can hold them accountable brings into question their seriousness about the subject matter as a whole.
QwertyCaesar I suppose I should clarify that I think forced groups are bupkiss. If you didn't make a conscious choice to be a part of something I don't think that something is tangible in a way that it should be given group status.
Which I think is what you were saying too but with far more words. Lots...and lots...of words.
Similarly I don't think people should be proud of things they made no decision to be a part of. I'm certainly not proud of being a man. I don't dislike it, mind you, but I had no part in the matter.
I am somewhat proud of various things I've made. Or when I fixed our car.
Edit: As it stands I don't group myself into "Gamer". But I do play video games. At this point I think the descriptor "gamer" is too universal to serve any purpose. Anyone who has bumped a deck of bicycle cards is a gamer now which means basically every living human being is one.
First you explain the strawman fallacy and at 12:29 you seriously say this:
"I understand that the party line is that GamerGate has ethical concerns at its forefront and that it is about games journalism, but for me GamerGate is very much defined by the harassment of women and its terrible exclusionary tactics ..."
my hypocrisy-meter melted
Well, you do the same thing you claim he does. He said afterwards that the good things don't make the bad go away and that's why he isn't pro gg (I'm paraphrasing).
Also, it's perfectly fine to not be pro-something if there's only one bad thing about it. If this bad thing goes against what you believe is right, it's totally ok to not be ok with it. Example: If a presidential candidate is a great economist, great at foreign relations but beats his wife, it's absolutely ok to not vote for him, regardless of the good things.
" Well, you do the same thing you claim he does."
My comment didn't contain any direct claims.
I implied that he constructed a strawman, which is illustrated by the quote I gave, where he "defined" GG for himself to be about pro-harassment of women, which it isn't (hence the strawman).
Where have I done anything similar to this?
stormkern "He said afterwards that the good things don't make the bad go away and that's why he isn't pro gg"
... and he also talked about the ad hominem fallacy: Attacking the bad parts of a person/movement do not invalidate the whole of said person/movement. And he states he is "...not even a little... " pro GamerGate ( 13:20 )
I think you misunderstood his statement. He didn't specifically say that he thought gamergate is a bad thing and that everyone should stay out of it. He only says that HE will not be a part of it, because he do not want to support the bad part of gamergate even a little, which sadly is what supporting gamergate will do.
He is not arguing for anything, he only stating his opinion.
Thulyblu What I'm saying is that you took part of what he said and made it all he said. He defined it that way because, as I said, the good things don't make up for the bad. And, as you said, he defined it for himself, it's his opinion. He's not debating the facts, he's not defining GG as such, just in his personal view. Reason being: he thoroughly despises this specific behaviour. I'm not saying that he's right, I'm saying he makes sense.
Also there is the reverse of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy where people use someone that claimed to be part of a group when that person doesn't have any ideals of that group. Example, a dictator from the 1940s clamed to be catholic so catholics are bad.