Five Fallacies | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ต.ค. 2014
- Viewers like you help make PBS (Thank you 😃) . Support your local PBS Member Station here: to.pbs.org/donateidea
Tweet us! bit.ly/pbsideachanneltwitter
Idea Channel Facebook! bit.ly/pbsideachannelfacebook
Talk about this episode on reddit! bit.ly/pbsideachannelreddit
Idea Channel IRC! bit.ly/pbsideachannelirc
Email us! pbsideachannel [at] gmail [dot] com
Arguing on the internet, everyone's favorite pastime! But unfortunately, some people don't do it very well - or at least they could do it better. You owe it to them (and yourself!) to help them out and make their claims and/or arguments less fallacious. In doing so, you'll increase the quality of discourse between the both of you, perhaps even helping you finally figure out DEEP QUESTIONS like "WHAT IS LOVE" and "WHY IS SRIRACHA SO DANG TASTY." Educate yourself and your fellow internet commenters in this week's Idea Channel episode.
STUDY GUIDE
leighalexander.net/list-of-eth...
----------------------------------
Watch the individual videos:
Straw man Fallacy:
bit.ly/1nzyoR8
Ad Hominem Fallacy:
bit.ly/1wwauYB
Black and White Fallacy:
bit.ly/1th3q0M
Authority Fallacy:
bit.ly/1t5DPIn
No True Scotsman Fallacy:
bit.ly/1wu6J5Z
Watch the playlist:
bit.ly/1wpuCcU
------------------------------------------------------
ASSETS
4:31
• Salmon And Trout Hatch...
8:10
www.amazon.com/Breathing-Race-...
8:55
• Car Factory - Kia Spor...
9:04
• 2013 Kia Soul driver-s...
------------------------------------------------------
I made a podcast!
www.infiniteguest.org/reasonab...
------------------------------------------------------
MUSIC:
"Europe" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Level 5" by Room for the Homeless (bit.ly/10N0Ykm)
"Bouncy Castle" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
":P" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Squarehead" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Number Cruncher" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Little Birthday Acid" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Topskore" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Anti Vanishing Spray" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Tarty Prash" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Carry on Carillon" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Uptown Tennis Club" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Squarehead" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Dream Of Autumn" by Night Shift Master
/ 08-dream-of-autumn-nig...
"Insert Toy For Coin" by Eatme (eatme.pro/music/)
"Dizor" by Outsider
www.jamendo.com/en/artist/440...
"Lets go back to the rock" by Outsider
www.jamendo.com/en/artist/440...
"Something like this" by Outsider
www.jamendo.com/en/artist/440...
------------------------------------------------------
TRANSLATE THINGS @ ideachannel.subtitl.us
Hosted by Mike Rugnetta (@mikerugnetta)
Made by Kornhaber Brown (www.kornhaberbrown.com)
------------------------------------------------------
Want some more Idea Channel?
Are Video Games About Their Mechanics?
• Are Videogames About T...
How To Create Responsible Social Criticism
• How To Create Responsi...
What Do Hot Sauce Labels Say About America?
• What Do Hot Sauce Labe...
Does Pop Culture Need To Be Popular?
• Does Pop Culture Need ...
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.
MORE!!! (throws coffee mug on the floor)
I love you for that reference
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.
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'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.
Fencer Dave Thank you.
If you have to name a scandal after the place in which it transpired, name it after that place.
These guys get it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
The mark of a truly great debater is the ability to infuse many fallacies into his argument without getting caught.
YES! Please make more tiny videos on fallacies in this style that we can send to other people!
They're superb.
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 -.-
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.
This is both fun, educational, and incredibly useful. Thank you!
After all these years, I still enjoy seeing the video is 13:37 long :D.
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!!!
Saying that GamerGate is defined by the harassment of women is exactly the same as saying that Islam is defined by terrorism... #ButThatsNoneOfMyBusiness
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!
I have to rewatch this video just about every couple months
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.
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.
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 this video. Everything's so well explained. Someone really needed to point all these things out!
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
Am I the only one only hearing about gamergate via all their favorite people on the internet condemning it?
Hi
please do more episodes like this was so nice to see falsies laid out outside of a college classroom.
This was really cool, educational and fun. Plus I learned something. I definitely would love more of these!
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 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.
Please do more of these! I really enjoyed this!
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.
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.
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.
I just stumbled into your channel; I've spent the past few days catching up with the videos cause they are awesome :D
This rocks. Thank you for helping me pass my logic final!
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.
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*
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.
Please make more of these! I love these!
Man, I can't wait for the flame war about GamerGate in the comments.
he brought upon himself
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
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
This video was great! Added to favourites. Please do make more, I really enjoyed it and will definitely link people the mini-videos on the internet.
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).
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.
Thank you very much for this informative video. I think it will really help me catch myself in my own arguments and recognize the patterns of others.
Awesome to get fallacy awareness out there. More people need to be logical and informed during argument.
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.
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.
Thank you. It helped with a series I am creating on fallacies in risk. Thanks for the knowledge and ideas!
Thank you for standing with Extra Credits (love those guys).
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?
Only problem is, the people I confront are too stubborn to admit to their fallacies and brush it off as "don't try and act all smart on me!"
it is at that moment that thou must take the initiative and take victory as thy own.
When that happens you can safely tell yourself to drop the debate. You know you're never going to win because the other person is being unreasonable and it's just a waste of time for you. If you continue to debate then really you're just hurting yourself and helping them, right?
do more, yes! a lot i can learn to summarize from these videos to correct my style of arguing and my friends.
"You can tell me all day long that social justice warriors engage in the same tactics or that Gamergaters set up a campaign to donate to an anti-bullying charity. It kind of doesn't matter, because Gamergate has become so connected to, so defined by harrassment and of vitriol."
I'm starting to wonder if he left this statement there as an exercise for us to find all the fallacies.
olehermanse Like a game show?!
SPOT THE LOGICAL FAILING!
One point I was hoping you would make with this series is that when someone uses a logical fallacy, that doesn't mean they have lost the argument in its entirety. As Cracked pointed out in its article on dismissive argument tactics, some people on the internet like to point out that the other party has made a logical fallacy and therefore they are no longer worth arguing with. Even if they have not made a point for their side of the argument, the person who made the fallacy "loses" by default. If you could make it clear that a fallacy is not an automatic loss to an argument you could save the internet from a new wave of people using Idea Channels videos to "win" arguments on completely unrelated topics.
Definitely. This insight has definitely not gotten enough attention online, and has led to a LOT of annoying arguments that end up discussing absolutely nothing other than the form of argument.
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.
Thank you, Mike, for demonstrating examples of fallacies with your closing remarks.
Thank you for starting to teach the world about fallacies, that is awesome and you should do more of it.
These are subjects that are not commonly taught at the high school level, but would be great if included in those curriculum. There are many fallacies seen in almost each printing of every newspaper i have read and many airings of news reports. If the public could more easily catch those fallacies they would be far more likely to question the opinions that seep into the news and other media presented as facts.
11:02
Who is in the picture?
But I have a bad feeling about who it is...
Anita Sarkeesian
Ugggggggghhhhhhh
zoe probably gave mike a nice visit ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Ahahahahahaha...
A grand master when it comes to the subject of the video.
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.
Thx 4 the Straw Man Fallacy! I have a test coming up Tomorrow Morning so hopefully i'll get a Good Grade.
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.
I really like what Mike said about gamer gate. He makes a good point that there are ethical concerns in games and games journalism, but he points out something important: gamergate has become synonymous with misogyny in the games community. The people who keep trying to defend gamergate as not just about hatred of women are really crippling their argument. I don't see why we don't just cut ties with gamergate all together as it is a lost cause. Arguing without the weight of a dumb, overused buzz word might actually allow us to have a legitimate conversation about ethics in games.
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.
I keep rewatching this in hopes to grasp.
It is getting better.
Love this! I'd love to see more fallacy videos!
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
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? ;;;)
Love this!! Thanks for putting this together!
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.
I'm just that guy, reading the comments, not wanting to take sides.
I just found this video. It's useful and I'll be looking for more logical fallacy videos. I wonder if you would consider also separating each fallacy so we can also watch and share one fallacy at a time? Thank you
The fallacies are already separate, this video is actually a compilation. You can find the links to the individual videos in the description.
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?
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.
Gamergate is defined by what it has done, not what it believes it stands for.
is the music in the background from Kahoot???
BIG FAN of Idea Channel here. I was about to criticize Mr. Rugnetta and accuse him of being guilty of his own fallacies...
But I watched the full video and more clearly received his larger message with this video: information + clarification. One should not be lured by the temptation of labeling Rugnetta as a "Black & White" hypocrite. Rather, give this dude the chance to present himself as a neutral host of a show that is FREE to watch (for those already fortunate to have internet connectivity).
Allow me to give a shout out to the host, Mr Rugnetta: I am thrilled by the amount of enlightenment you share with the masses over TH-cam. Clever/accomplished colleagues of mine as well as ol' friends I considered "dumb" are big fans of yours. PBS Idea Channel exceeds the standard of the platinum label of PBS. Thanks.
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,
I don't really have anything to talk about with this subject... But please don't ever bring Straw Mike back....
He terrifies me..
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...
Excellent presentation, thank you
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.
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 is a really good video, I am currently studying fallacies and this increase my understanding. I was just distracted by the little videos and pictures so my concentration was a little bit divided.
I am a little late viewing this video, but I almost stood up and clapped at the end of it. Mike, I remember when you had an ep about global warming and you had a strong view about it but played it down for the overall goal and message of the episode. Then you thanked a commenter, a couple eps later, for keeping you honest. At that time you said you would try to do better about 'sticking to your guns about serious issues' (paraphrase) and you certainly have. I guess its easier for me to say that because I have agreed with your views so far. I also feel safe in this community to post comments, because this community is big and opinionated but respectful by and large. If I ever feel compelled to argue a point you made, I can argue it in a healthy, self regulated forum. I have always found this show insightful. It is now also inspiring hearing you flat out state your (more personal, possibly alienating) opinion and argue it, come what may. Keep it up.
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)
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.
Thanks for these. I'd love to see more!
Amazing! This video really helped me for my assignments lol
ironically i think where gamergate failed in taking on journalism and the media was the fact that they didnt have enough notable figures/leaders with strong ties to journalists and the media to get their side of the story out.
i dont think they intended for it to turn into an internet war, and i believe both sides gained support from people they probably didnt want involved. (GG getting trolls and the ugly side of Anon, and the media getting the crazy/scary side of the feminist movement. i think the total damage was most likely done by these two almost exclusively.) but only one side was able to spread their side of the story with ease. and in the end, no one saw the harassment or death threats, or doxing, and everything else aimed at the GGers. and after a point no one cared. so much coverage was shown from one side that GGs side of the story had become irrelevant. "harassing women" was what they became famous for, and at that point they lost all grounds to stand on.
or at least thats how it seems from what ive picked up after actually trying to look into this mess.
and most of the reason people were involved with gamer gate was the crazy/scary side of the feminist movement
Yup, pretty much. If they'd had a strong push away from the douchebags latching onto their cause they might have had something but as soon as they became defensive of any criticism things fell to pieces.
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.
I love these, please make more
Yes please do more of these, lord knows we so desperately need them.