I made a dumb joke about #GamerGate on twitter last night and was immediately beset upon by nearly a dozen shock troops for the cause. One lovely specimen, “Sail Hatan” quickly evaluated my profile and history to tell me how irrelevant and insignificant I was and how my existence had no worth. I blocked her(?) before we got to what was obviously going to be the “why don’t you just kill yourself?” part of the conversation.
Several engaged me in what appears to be a coordinated campaign of counterpropaganda. I had referenced the logical inconsistencies of a “vivian james” image being passed around. It quite glaringly contradicts itself three different ways in a very short amount of text. Having demonstrated the incoherence of the image I was challenged to provide “examples”. “Why are you being so vague?” they demand. “You obviously don’t understand logic.”
I could not have been more clear. There is nothing vague about a logical inconsistency. I was then told I was being rude and that I was using “big words” and not explaining my position. Apparently “my side” was doing a poor job of moderating “trolls” like myself.
Most grew bored and moved on taking their bad faith arguments with them, but one continued to harry me me for another three hours. “Max Jenius” he named himself. His personal hobby horse was patreon related corruption.
“This lawyer guy says funding sources is a Conflict of Interest!” he exclaims with a link. I listen to the interview, and it’s clear the lawyer understood the word “funding” to mean “investing” where the journalist has an opportunity for a windfall. Of course, $3 thrown in a hat every month is hardly comparable.
I pointed this out which prompted a shift to checkbook journalism. Jenius did not use this term. He did not seem to understand what it actually involved, but some anon on 4chan said “paying sources is wrong” so that had become his mantra.
I spent a good long time trying to pin him down on how contributing to a patreon was any different than buying a game for coverage. I was told many times to “look up ‘buy’ in a dictionary”, but he could offer no theory on how they were materially different other than the potential for a patreon to fail to produce.
“If nothing comes out,” I reasoned, “then there can be no conflict as there will be no game or coverage to influence.”
“Games get cancelled all the time!” he replies. Indeed.
I change tack. “What, in your opinion, makes a particular patreon holder a source?” This status being the cornerstone of his argument I assumed this was a simple question.
“Being a source and having a patreon are independent” he replies. Granted of course, but that did not answer the question. So I ask again, and he replies the same way a second time.
“So you agree they are unrelated and therefore no conflict is necessarily implied?” I ask.
And thus begins an nearly endless loop of him demanding if I know what “independent” means while simultaneously evading the substance of my query. “If they are a source and you are paying them with patreon that’s a big no-no.” he admonishes.
Back and forth, back and forth. “What is your justification for calling a patreon a source?”
“I said they’re independent. Don’t you know what independent means? Explain it to me. Look it up in a dictionary. They’re independent.”
I know what it means. I say so again and again. I even debase myself by defining the for for him in the context he used it but still he bristles.
“I asked you to explain what makes them sources. Still waiting. If you can’t then we must assume they’re not.”
Finally he replies. “If you interview them, for example.”
And there we have it. In his mind throwing $4 to an indie developer is no different than paying $10,000 for an exclusive interview with an accused murderer or a million dollar bounty for celebrity baby photos.
“By your logic a reporter who subscribes to Netflix must recuse himself from an interview with Reed Hastings.” I prod.
“Strawman!” he cries. “Why don’t you weave a hat with all that straw?”
“At least it would match your house.” I answer with a sigh.
