Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Hello KYM.

I've lurked your (excellent) site for six years now, but only now have I felt compelled to create and account and say something. About me: I'm a white guy, college student, specializing in ancient languages, history, and literature. Fluent in Latin and Greek. I have a deep understanding of scholarship, rhetoric, and consequently ethics. I'm also a lifelong gamer, general internet lurker. I bring all this information up because I think it's necessary to preface what I'm about to say.

I have strong opinions about truth, responsible presentation of information, and debate. I've always considered myself a proponent of women's rights, LGBT rights. My religion (Unitarianism) is stepped in the traditions of social justice: real social justice. We went into Hitler's Fortress Europe to help rescue Jews; we were some of the first to go to the South and join in the fight for civil rights: some of our ministers and parishioners even died for the cause. We were even the first religious organization to marry LGBT couples. Suffice to say, social justice, the belief that all people deserve equality before the law, the idea that life is sacred, that the intellect is sacred, and that compassion for others and respect for their differences ought to motivate us, these ideals are at the deepest, most central core of who I am.

So, imagine how furious I am when I see these "social justice warriors" raging across twitter and tumblr about oppression and injustice when all they really want is attention and vindication. I normally disagree with Internet Aristocrat on fine points, but one big theme I can agree with him on is that these people are not in it for the common good, but rather their own good. They create false victim complexes to distinguish themselves rather than actually doing something to make themselves excellent or exceptional. This behavior pitiful, disdainful.

GamerGate is emblematic of all these problems. The people who have been against you (us, dare I say, because I am on your side) note that they are mostly white. Twentysomething white liberals (I use that as a term of disdain even as a left-leaner myself in this context) who want to thrust their "progressive" Orthodoxy onto the world and silence any who disagree with them. The reactions of the Kotaku crowd, the LW women and their supporters, disturbs me profoundly as a believer in social justice because their actions are fundamentally counter to justice itself . People are born free, endowed with the (in my beliefs sacred and God-given) intellect, which allows them to choose for themselves. Shaming, harassing, silencing others on the basis that they disagree with you only makes everyone angrier and more hostile. That ruins the chance for dialogue, understanding, and true progress.

Of course, this issue affects me personally. I'm a white guy; I get along reasonably in society, but I've always had latent guilt issues about my gaming and internet-loving pastimes. I remember when the "games journalists" were lambasting Jack Thomas for calling Grand Theft Auto a "murder simulator and now the person who wrote the "How to End Gamers" guide used the phrase "Murder Simulator" himself! Of course, I'm still touchy about this facet of my identity, so when that sewage outflow of articles condemning white male gamers was vomited onto the internet, it hurt me personally, even though I was not part of the GamerGate movement back then.

On another level, the censorship is appalling. Moderators abusing their power, journalists using their platforms to preach hate-- they've succeeded at sewing misinformation and unjustly branding genuine and earnest people bigots. They've taken the cause of justice for the underprivileged and turned it into their platform as privileged white people to advance their own agendas. The hypocrisy is utterly staggering.

I think I've gone on a bit long. Here's the Teel Deer:

The aggressive response to GamerGate disgusts me on the level of a scholar because it violates the concepts of truthful reporting and responsible dialogue on every level. It disgusts me as a person because this platform attacks me on the basis of profiling, blaming me for the crimes of others. Worst of it all, however, was their response to Not Your Shield. The systematic harassment and denial of identity towards people of color, women, and LGBT people on the part of the anti-GG crowd is definitive proof that they're irredeemably in the wrong on this issue.

As you are attacked and harassed. As you are censored and banned, know that you're by and large doing the right thing. Refrain from aggression and vulgarity. Act with the grace and tact and humility that these colluding, self-righteous, arrogant crybabies lack. As someone who's dedicated his life to the pursuit of truth: spiritual truth, historical truth, personal truth, and ethical truth, I believe in your cause. And I believe you can triumph.

I'd like to conclude by saying that I have a deep and abiding respect for the KnowYourMeme community as a whole. As a scholar, I find the project of documenting internet culture fascinating and I'm proud of you all for presenting your information in a fair and level manner, even when you feel strongly about it. Your cover of GamerGate is peerless: there's a reason Christina Sommers chose to get her information from you.

Uhh… wow that's a wall. Alright, alright, I've got a few points.
1. Six years? Holy shit! I didn't believe that anyone could last that long on here. At the very least you should have seen a really fucking stupid comment that would have made you join just so you could argue with/insult the poster. Or am I the only one that signed up because of that?

2. Based on the points you've made on this whole issue, I think you'd enjoy the work of this man:

Yes he is an "atheist Youtuber", and often does make videos about that, but even if you don't end up "converted" by him (like I partially was) his arguments on topics ranging from theoretical physics to modern-day feminism are so clear, detailed and entertaining that it's nigh-impossible not to get sucked in.

3. In my opinion, this belongs in General Discussion, because from your OP I don't see any strictly defined "debate" to be had. But that's not my decision.

Overall, you seem pretty damn cool man. Keep up with the posting.

Well if you're into documenting stuffs then you're in the right place. but Ah. I wonder if you browsing the forums and/or IRC might change your perception of this site.

Speaking about Gamergate, I just uploaded this image the entry gallery and now its been moved??

See more on Know Your Meme
Explain this mods….

I’ve lurked your (excellent) site for six years now,

first of all, a wellcome from my part.

Your point of view is indeed really advanced and well given.

Wellcome to the gate bro.

meta content isn't allowed

I just looked at the post and realized the "six years" part was a typo. I meant to say five. I remember coming to this site when it was new, so I'm sorry I got that wrong.

Good to see we have more people joining in on this. I lurk on KYM a lot myself, and what these 'SJW's are doing absolutely disgusts me, but I'd also be completely oblivious to everything going on if it wasn't for KYM.
Now personally, it doesn't actually affect me much. I barely even use social networking. And I know barely anything about internet laws but I just feel that this is something serious that MUST be brought to the attention of the law. What people are doing is absolutely horrible and people are suffering because of it. People being are being doxxed and falsely incriminated left right and center. I'd help more if I could, but I doubt anything I could do could make a difference.
Either way, keep this shit up, KYM.

The only opinion I have on Gamergate at this point is that I'm fucking tired of hearing about it.
Not trying to be funny or whatever here, the internet really has let this one go on too long.

Well, it's actually closer to 6 than 5, because the counter on your profile only counts the last year. (For example, I've pretty much been a member for two years, but my account only says one year, which will change in a few months). Still, it's not really 6, but his mistake makes sense.

@OP

Awesome wall! I totally agree. Hope you have a good time here.

As far as gamergate goes I'm pretty much disgusted with people on all sides, and it just goes to show that the internet at large is not fit for dealing with these subjects. Just like Ticklechap I am sick and tired of this conversation.

The internet is perfectly capable. Just because of the amount of hate the comes with territory in these discussions is something you can't handle, doesn't mean others can't. I mean I can understand if you can't take the heat you should get out the kitchen, but that would require you to just ignore the whole thing in general instead of pretending everyone else is dumb and it should be dropped or whatever.

We're just in the rough stages now. To give up doesn't move anything past this point. Once the idiots get bored and find some other thing to shout at, it will leave a lot of the more well spoken and respectful members of the discussion, or at least the most passionate. It will slowly and gradually work towards a resolution. These things take time.

Exactly this. Even if the people against the gaming journalists act like assholes lots of the time, they're right assholes. The way they act doesn't discredit the cause, and there are tons of rational people on the anti-journalism side. Also, just because some people don't care and are tired of this doesn't mean others are. I'm personally tired of it, but I don't think it should stop. I'm glad there are people out there who don't get bored and keep on going. Just because you're annoyed doesn't mean it should all stop. Another thing, this comparison may be kind of stupid and it may sound over-the-top since these struggles are on very different planes of importance, but it's a relevant comparison nonetheless. If people just stopped fighting for what they believed in and told everyone else to stop just because they're bored, where would we be now in terms of civil rights? Did people get bored of fighting against slavery, discrimination, for women's rights, etc? I don't think so. Now, as I said, my analogy may be kind of stupid since this is just an internet argument over censorship and not even close to as important as civil rights, but it's the same concept.

Another thing Crimson, saying "the internet isn't ready for this" is somewhat an ad hominem fallacy. Just because it's the internet and lots of people fighting gaming journalism aren't the brightest, but that doesn't discredit their cause at all. In revolutionary US times, the public was pretty damn stupid overall and weren't entirely "ready" exactly to handle their own freedom, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken from them on those grounds. Again, pretty drastic analogy but still relevant.

can someone give me a short simple version of this mess? there is tons and tons of info and is really hard for me to digest it.

Here's a biased summary. (biased towards the "anti-Zoe" side of course)

It's pretty much the most factually correct and coherent summary I've seen on the topic that's relatively short compared to others and is mildly entertaining to boot. Also, ignore the channel it comes from if you don't like it because it has relatively no relationship to the actual content in the video. It covers the big picture but not really all the minor details which to be honest I'm lost at and would take hours of research to understand. I would recommend IA's summary, but in my opinion the facts in that aren't very solid and he makes too many baseless assumptions which this video doesn't.

Keep in mind that the internet is a tool, not a community. I think that what the issue boils down to is that the internet give a greater platform to a wider margin of people than ever before, but education (at least in the USA) in this day and age doesn't focus enough on rhetoric and proper argumentation.

The issue is that people on the internet are either ignorant of or willfully ignore the conduct for conducting a proper debate. Dialogue is possible and we've even seen it in some places; it's just that both sides are struggling to compartmentalize the conflict and advocate for themselves in a rational, holistic manner. For instance, the lumping together of the harassers with people wanting to initiate genuine dialogue is a fallacy on both sides.

Well since this is in Debate I might as well post a counter-point.

OP, despite your self-aggrandizement about being so very compassionate and having a deep understanding of ethics (and even Latin and Greek, OMG), I notice that nowhere in your lengthy diatribe do you express any sort of compassion or sympathy for those on the other side of this debate. Though you don't know any of the people involved personally, and therefore cannot easily or definitively tell what their motivations are, you appear to have somehow come to the solid conclusion that none of these people are genuinely trying to do good or responding as one would reasonably expect someone to respond given the situation, they're all out for their own personal gain and to prop up their fake victim complexes. You assume their actions must all be in bad faith, that they don't have any positive reasons for doing what they do or believing what they believe.

You ask people to refrain from aggression and vulgarity while calling the other side colluding, self-righteous, arrogant crybabies. Because that's totally tactful and not at all aggressive, or indeed self-righteous. You complain of people judging you for others crimes, while tarring those who disagree with you with an extremely broad and negative brush. While you at length decry the attacking and harassment of people on the pro-Gamergate crowd, you make no mention at all of the equally if not more serious attacks and harassment of the other side. While the aggressive behaviour of the "SJWs" seems to definitively prove their stance is wrong on your book, the fact the "Gamergate side" has continuously harassed and bullied the figures that they see as their opponents, to the point of at least two of them having to leave their homes due to serious threats, this doesn't even seem to register, let alone make you question the validity of their stance.

If you were to address this point, you may simply say they were making all of it up, or using it to drive up attention and sympathy and bolster their victim complex, that the people attacking them are all trolls that no one can do anything about and don't represent the movement (unlike the aggressive SJWs, they definitely do, of course!), how dare anyone draw attention to the abuse they're receiving instead of doing their due diligence of seeking out reasonable critics, etc. Which is all very convenient because it allows you to continue to neatly place people who disagree with you on the bad pile and people who agree with you on the good pile. I'm not prejudging you – you may or may not do any of this, but that's the reaction I've come to expect so I thought I'd get that out of the way.

Now, me, despite the fact that I would probably be placed on the "SJW" side of the debate and think Gamergate is at best a storm in a teacup (i.e. has some legitimate concerns but it's blown completely out of proportion and directed at the wrong targets), I don't agree with the idea some people in this camp may hold that the gamergate crowd are all raving misogynists – that's a massive oversimplification and is misleading. I certainly think a lot of this has been driven up by some people being dishonest and manipulative (which you're going to get when you have a lot of anonymous people acting without perceived consequences), and it's not an accident that most of the high profile targets have been women. But I don't think the majority of people under this banner are necessarily consciously doing this because of these things. People genuinely think they're doing what's right, the other side is terrible, and so what they're doing is justified, and that likely goes for both sides. Generally, people are very good at justifying things to themselves, regardless of what the underlying reasons for their stance is, and that goes for everyone.

So as much as one might like to get into a circlejerk and demonize outsiders (something KYM is quite adept at doing, btw. I don't agree at all with your claim that it and its community all provides their information in a fair and level manner), the reality of this situation is a lot more nuanced and complicated than that. And I'm not saying this as a dedicated student of ethics who devotes my life to the elegant cause of clarity and truth and justice and apple pie, just as a person who's saying what they think, and is as much prone to error as anyone else, including the aforementioned students of apple pie.

Incidentally, if you really want a good take on this debacle, please don't treat Thunderf00t or TheAmazingAtheist (though he's is funny, I'll give him that) as an authoritative source of information – they're not very intellectually honest at all and often misrepresent their "opponents" when it suits them to do so. They aren't interested in fostering understanding of the issue and getting to a mutually beneficial conclusion, they're interested in driving up hatred against people they dislike and making themselves look superior. By contrast, one of the best, nuanced, and relatively unbiased takes I've heard on it thus far is from TotalBiscuit Though he tends to fall on the "other side" to where I am (both pretty much by default since neither of us are expressly allied to any "side"), I don't disagree with anything he's said here. And it's in a Smooth Jazz Voice – what's not to like?

@Twee
"So as much as one might like to get into a circlejerk and demonize outsiders (something KYM is quite adept at doing, btw. I don’t agree at all with your claim that it and its community all provides their information in a fair and level manner)"

While KYM does its best to show information in a fair and level in manner, it can't do this all the time. Especially when it's user submitted content and usually there is a majority opinion that submits videos and images related to said opinion. I.E most people support gamergate here and thus are going to post more of that. That's just the way KYM works. Plus while it's prone to circlejerk here you will not be censored or stopped from posting against the majority (something that is happening on other sites, mostly anti-gamergate ones) . You will be responded with a lot criticism some of it better then others and probably downvotes but essentially it's pointless because that doesn't matter. You still get to have a voice here. Just because many people disagree doesn't mean it's necessarily demonization.

"Incidentally, if you really want a good take on this debacle, please don’t treat Thunderf00t or TheAmazingAtheist (though he’s is funny, I’ll give him that) to be authoritative source of information – they’re not very intellectually honest at all and often misrepresent their “opponents” when it suits them to do so. They aren't interested in fostering understanding of the issue and getting to a mutually beneficial conclusion, they’re interested in driving up hatred against people they dislike and making themselves look superior."

Don't treat Anita Sarkeesian or others like her as an authoritative source of information either then. It works both ways. She does pretty much the same. You just might believe she wants a balanced argument, I sure as hell don't. Plus that doesn't mean that their points are inherently untrustworthy and useless. They can still provide some good information.

I know I've seen you done some counter-arguements about GG.
I think I agree that we try too much to find the bad egg in the bunch, even on both sides. I've seen too much where even in both sides, they'll take the worst of people and basically parade them as if that is the whole movement.

If we want to have a more general debate, rather than just talking about tweets and stuff, I think it gets harder to do anything, because a lot of the actions comes from individuals, maybe each with a little different ideal, fighting for a certain cause they agree with (it works for both sides).

My first comment is that people end up focusing on the harassment too much. I've rarely seen anyone that actually try to think out exactly why Gamergate is a bad movement, but rather just saying that the people behind it are a bunch of people that harass women. It turns into an endless deflection game, in which everyone is shooting down why their side is wrong, while shooting out why the other side is right. This goes for basically both groups, whether it be right or wrong reasons.

So I like to get back to exactly some of the things that are big dirts, and I'll also like to debunk and theorize on them.

First, lets talk about the death threats. It's quite sad that anyone should receive death threats. It's quite a serious problem. Although there are people still skeptical about the death threats, for the sake of debate, I'll assume its true. Well, I'm sure most people would rather have those people be found. But because gamergate really has no leader, it is hard to say exactly what is the general mindset is exactly. You only know what you know.

Now, the other thing about how woman seems to be targeted, I have to disagree. The reason that people like Anita and Leigh got involved is because they jumped the gun first. Although I've seen some Leigh tinfoiling going around, I don't remember if that was before she was involved or afterwards. The biggest reasons these people are still involved is probably because they are also fighting just as hard. I also highly doubt it is because they are women, just look at Devil Feraci.

My other big concerns where when articles talked about the "death of gamers." That was one of those things that bothered a lot of people, myself included. They seriously tried to simplify the situation, and silenced most of the opposing voices. One of the main reasons this has been on the issue was censoring. This would have never been this full blown if they had not tried to silence others.

So endpoint, the fact that no one can get in a good arguement about gamergate, but instead people just target the bad bunch behind them, is sad. Snarky remarks on both sides isn't going to help a thing.

@Twee
Condescendingly accusing people of being condescending?

But seriously, I feel like that this has been blown out of proportion on both sides and that they're both doing pretty much the same thing with different goals. Both sides have been accusing the other side of some overwrought conspiracy, suppressing opposing opinions, overexaggerating their own influence to inflate their own egos (and that's not just KYM; the game journalism sites have far less real influence than they think), and in general deluding themselves into thinking their armchair activism is even remotely effective.

Counterpoints:

1. My aim wasn't to aggrandize myself but to provide background on the place from which I'm arguing. It's more an understanding of rhetoric, argumentation, and the transmission of information that I was explaining-- all those qualities are relevant to this debate. As for my knowledge of languages, that's somewhat tangential to this debate, but I will say this: reading the classics in translation is no substitute for reading them in the original language. A lot of cultural information and stylistic nuance is lost in translation; being able to understand ancient (or modern for that matter) materials in their language of origin affords for a more holistic view of historical literature.

2. In my approach on this matter, the emphasis has been less empathy and compassion and more reverence for the truth. The place for which I'm criticizing certain elements of this argument is a place of disdain for people who distort information for their own ends. From the outlining of my social justice background, it's implicit that I'm against the harassment of others. I had that as an explicit point in the first draft of the post, but I cut that to try and shorten things up just a little. I'll say it here just to be clear: I'm strongly against harassment, be it verbal, physical or otherwise in any way, shape or form.

3. To that end, I'm not a big fan of many personalities on the 'pro' side either. I haven't watched a thunderfoot video before and I strongly dislike the Amazing Atheist. I already knew about John Bain's treatment of this issue and read up on his coverage: I think he's very close to being neutral and level headed on the matter. On the other side, I respect Jim Sterling's treatment of the issue as well. In particular, I respect how he stresses that this isn't a black and white conflict.

4. Nowhere in the post was I vulgar. I certainly said unkind things about the harassers, but then they aren't interested in dialogue, are they? When engaging with people who have genuine concerns about issues of sexism and cruel behavior on the part of gamers, I have no interest in name calling; in my mind, their opinions are valid. Furthermore, I viewed this environment less as a place where I would be challenged to open debate (though I'm happy to do so) and more a place where I'd find people of similar opinions.

5. I agree that the galvanizing "war" imagery and rhetoric on both sides is problematic. It's when groups become dogmatic that they become capable of really deplorable behavior. It's why I'm uncomfortable with some of the images in the image gallery for the crisis here.

6. KYM as a whole isn't free of error, but of all the parties involved in this event, I think it has the best chance of presenting a fair and just take on events, regardless of whether it achieves that aim. I believe that mainly because it's a group effort and not the rhetoric of one person. Because the articles covering all this stuff are the product of multiple people's work, it allows for debate over what ought to be included. What's more, there's a higher likelihood for an accountable, responsibly written end product. Is it perfect? No. It is, however, an excellent starting point. What this site does has major potential for reasonable coverage of events. When I say 'keep doing what you're doing,' I also mean 'keep learning and improving at what you're doing.'

7.Conclusion: Perhaps my title was misleading when paired with the content of my posts. I don't like victim complexes and I try to keep myself out of the victim mindset, though I've found that's difficult for pretty much everyone, even though it's necessary. I never intended to provide holistic coverage of the events or fair shrift to the harassment going on on both sides, but rather address the topic of attacks from the 'anti-gg' crowd, which I see doesn't get editorialized often, if at all. My rhetoric here doesn't apply to everyone in that party necessarily. I began by introducing my beliefs in social justice not to put on airs or be self-righteous, but to demonstrate how deeply I believe in the same issues that these people really should be fighting for. Back when Depression Quest was greenlighted on Steam, I was 100% behind Zoe Quinn on the basis that she deserved to make, market, and distribute her product without harassment. Even if I don't like the behavior of her followers, I stand by that contention. Again, let me stress that my harsh criticism is really reserved for the Devin Faracis and Bob Chipmans, not people who have valid and legitimate concerns and want to voice them.

I would like to remind other KYM users of people like these:

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s6j3sh
https://twitter.com/Calvin_xc1/status/515555410661892097

And try to seek out more of them to paint a less stereotypical picture of the people we call social justice warriors. Some of them saw genuine justice in what GamerGaters are doing. Paint that picture not just for other GamerGaters, but for other SJWs as well.

I've been informed that this is where the big discussion regarding #GG should go, so pardon me for bumping this. But I feel that this is the only place where I'm going to get an actual discussion going. Not to sell the people commenting on the article itself, but a lot of us are fairly like-minded, and that has annoyed some, and that is perfectly understandable.

Throughout this entire scandal, I've been searching. Trying to find websites that allow for open discussion of #GG, without it being fully one-sided. I have found maybe 3 out of the 30+ that I've gone over that actually discuss things. Everything else is either a pro- or anti- circlejerk, a total fustercluck of angry mobs shouting in every direction before the mods inevitably bring down the banhammers, or the people that run the site throw in the towel and cease discussion before it can even begin to avoid falling into the other two categories.

When I go to the bad corners of the web where exclusive bunches with shady reputations gather, I'm expecting nothing but agreement that "Those misogynists are such whiners" or "The feminazis never shut up" because those are the crowds those sites gather and cater to. But when I see Cracked, what was at one point a more-or-less free reign site, take a side and censor, ban, or screw with the opinions they don't like, I come to a loss. I want this issue to be talked about. I want people to be able to reason this out with actual discussion and not just delve into a contest to see who can run their mouth the longest.

There are only three things I want out of this ordeal.
(1) For the gaming media to be more open with its viewership and not insult them. Gamers already have overzealous moms/teachers/politicians telling them that video games make them evil. They don't need to hear that from their own news outlets. At one point, gamers, the game reporters, and the game developers were more or less on the same page. Now, everyone has their own way of going about things, and as #GG has shown, that's caused problems.

(2) Discussion, not discord. Every one thinks that their opinion has more weight or meaning than everybody else's when it comes to what games should/can't/must/will do. Saying "I think {Game} would be better if {Thing} was a part of it. I'd like to see this change." is good and sets the groundwork for how things will work. Saying "{Game} absolutely needs {Thing} and I said so or else it is {Unfortunate Thing}. Fix it." Is not.
And before anyone thinks I'm taking sides, this is not something that one side needs to be better at. This is a problem with every audience in gaming. Hardcore, Casual, and the people who never actually play the game but talk about it anyway all think that they're right for wanting {This} and everyone else is wrong for wanting {That}. It's almost always been like that, and it's old.

(3) For people to do what they want when it comes to gaming without fear of being shot down/censored, as well as being ready to accept the consequences of their actions. I believe in the freedom to do whatever you wish with your own work. If you want to make a game all about clubbing baby seals with the limb of an endangered horse while your character prances around naked and spew profanities with every sentence, then you have every right to make that.

And you also need to own up when people criticize your game for being monumentally stupid and tasteless. That doesn't mean you can't make a sequel, but you should own up to whatever critiques or questions that your game raises. While this last point mostly hinges on the developers, this is important to the others as well. If you want to voice your opinion, no matter how rude or unpopular, you should have every right to do that. But you don't get to duck and hide when your opinion rubs people the wrong way.
.
.
Since I've been involved in this, I've labeled my self pro-GG. Which makes sense, as I like video games, enjoy playing them, and oppose the notion that people get to dictate what I play. But when I look at things in the big picture, I can say that I will still have video games I will enjoy. Certain fads in games will come and go, but fun games don't go out of style. What I've realized is that I'm not fighting for fun games. They'll always be there. What I'm fighting for is the right to say your piece. Maybe I haven't really been pro-GG as I am anti-censorship.

I'm not going to claim I'm right, or that I'm a paragon of virtue, or that my cause is the only right path. At the end of the day, I'm just a guy on the internet trying to find some calm waters in a tsunami of nonsense. I might ally myself against the pro side more often than not, but I'm not some radical #GG Knight. I just want to have my and other people's fun be free of censoring.

Edit: Why am I so bad at making HTML work the way I want it to?

You can try the Quarter to Three forums for civil discussions on both sides. I would like to remind people of certain things in a discussion:
1. You represent yourself and nobody else in a discussion, so take no responsibility for other people's actions.
2. Facts first, agenda later, always.
3. Links over screencaps whenever possible.
Edit
4. Call out people for attacking your origin, your presentation, your character… any attribute that's not your message itself.
5. The moment you resort to insults, you have already lost the argument. Applies to everybody.

Aw, man. The bullshit piled up so high ,you needed wings to stay above it

I have a couple of questions.

1) What exactly are we protesting against?
2) What can I do to help?

1. Gaming journalism corruption, nepotism, cronyism and a loads of other things related to it
2. Educate yourself on the matter. Educate other people on the matter. Take it to twitter to voice support, write email to advertisers….so on and so forth.