Category Archives: Slander Culture

Cool your jets, James Gunn probably isn’t a pedophile.

I’m going to go ahead and be a voice of reason when it comes to the whole James Gunn debacle so far (as things are still developing, more facts can come to light, and my position can change). As you might have heard, James made some tweets a few years back wherein he made some jokes about pedophilia. These tweets somehow didn’t surface until it became clear that he wouldn’t toe the line for the social justice narrative.

Disney has subsequently fired James, which ended his role as director of the Guardians of the Galaxy series, considering that the nature of the jokes didn’t fall in line with Disney’s family-friendly image. This would be the same Disney that recently picked up a sci-fi series depicting dismemberment and decapitation with laser swords and mysteriously strangling people from across the room, but I digress.

Fans then started pressuring Disney to bring James Gunn back, saying that while his jokes were crass, he was exercising his constitutionally-protected freedom of expression. Whether a company fires someone for their conduct outside of work doesn’t have much to do with freedom of expression, but I suspect that the fans are motivated by the possibility that without Gunn, the Guardians movies are finished.

Shortly afterwards, some images surfaced of Gunn having posed in a photo-op during a “pedophilia-themed” party. As you could imagine, the reactionaries went ballistic. By now, they’ll have already given themselves strokes from how violently they spazzed out, making sure that we know how much they hate pedophiles, saying things like:

“Pedophiles are totally awful! I’m glad I’m not a pedophile! Did I mention that I’m not a pedophile, today?!”

What reasonable people want to know is, how is it that the idea for a pedophile-themed party was pitched, a bunch of people agreed to it, and it somehow came and went without causing an uproar?

The answer is, it didn’t. It wasn’t a pedophile party. It was an anti-pedophile party.

The party in question was themed after the hit TV show, To Catch a Predator, which featured Chris Hansen. On the program, Hansen and members of law enforcement used chat rooms to arrange meetings with pedophiles who were led to believe that they were meeting up with children. It was redneck entertainment in the same sense as Cops and America’s Most Wanted, except easier to admit to watching. And it’s fun to watch again and again, even if the premise doesn’t change much from entrapping creepy, debased men who thought that they were getting this:

Chiyo-Chan.jpg

But instead got this:

chris hansen.jpg

A party based on that? Still sounds like a count-me-out kinda dealie, but I can see how someone might find that amusing. And it’s certainly far less outrageous than what people have been imagining against James Gunn since those party pictures came out. And it so happens that their imaginations hard-railed to the most negative possible implications that there could have been, like an op amp with a vicious slew rate.

In today’s connected world, a lie can travel around the world many times in the time it takes for the truth to get its shoes on. That being the case, let’s be at least a little careful with the facts. If you react without considering the information available, you’ll likely end up being a part of the problem.

While we’re at it, can we all just stop randomly accusing people of being the worst thing we can possibly imagine? A person isn’t a horrible criminal just because you think they’re kind of weird. The real problem is that you’re a peevish misanthrope.

It’s pedophiles today, but back in the nineties, if someone wanted to make someone else seem like a horrible criminal, they’d call them a psychopathic mass-murderer. We all know how reasonable it is to expect to find a serial killer walking down the street, instead of in a jail cell, right? And in the eighties, it was satanists. Yes, satanists.

It’s amazing how many people there are that know how to read, write, speak, and listen, but they find it hard to think.

If you can’t identify the real problem, don’t expect a real solution.

love complex

I’ve decided to provide a critical analysis of an article titled “Conservatives will not stop pushing the ‘Pence rule’ as a solution to sexual harassment”. If you want to, you can read the article for yourself. This article mainly picks at the parts that I most feel like arguing against. The article may be a few months old, but that doesn’t mean I can’t still critique it.

For one thing, the title of the article is missing the last word, which, if inserted, would make it closer to correct. If the word “claims” were added to the end, it would come far closer to the heart of the matter.

The author Casey Quinlan opens her article with the following frilly statement:

As stories of powerful men masturbating in front of women, forcibly kissing and groping women, and forcing teenage girls’ heads into their crotch have gained national attention, it’s sparked widespread conversation about how to prevent sexual harassment and assault.

This opening paragraph is almost graphic enough to be a porno. It’s obvious that she’s trying to invoke some pretty strong feelings here. And what better way to spark productive conversation than to drive your audience into an emotional frenzy?

The solution seems obvious: The best way to prevent sexual harassment and sexual assault of women and girls is for men not to sexually harass and assault women and girls.

Because we’re not naive, we all know that telling someone not to do something is no guarantee that they won’t do it. After all, telling someone not to murder isn’t stopping murders from occurring. Therefore, the best we can do is criminalize the undesirable behavior and enforce the law when someone steps out of line.

And I do have some good news for you from the current year! Sexual harassment is already illegal! That means that all we need to do is enforce the law when we determine it may have been broken, and mete out punishments when (and only when) a court of law has determined guilt. Yay, progress!

But wait, there’s more. I’m going to let you in on a little secret: Laws against sexual harassment were written, passed, and enforced primarily by men. If there really were some patriarchy that was out to get women (as many feminists claim), this would not have occurred. Looks like men aren’t your enemies, after all.

But conservatives appear to be less interested in finding ways to teach men how to co-exist with women, who comprise 47 percent of the U.S. labor force, than discussing how best to avoid women altogether.

In particular, conservative writers are increasingly focused on the “Mike Pence rule,” pointing out that Vice President Mike Pence does not eat dinner alone with women who are not his wife and does not go to events where alcohol is being served when his wife is not present. Pence first revealed this detail in a Washington Post article published in March.

Now, this is the heart of the matter right here: That men are starting to avoid women like Casey Quinlan, and they feel as though they are being punished. Not only that, more men are adopting the Mike Pence rule, which was obviously designed so that there’d be a witness in the event that yet another obvious false accusation arises, the likes of which we’ve been seeing on the news on a near-daily basis.

In a sense, the Mike Pence rule is a lot like the “stranger danger” that many of us were taught about as children. It’s a terrible thing to teach a child in any case, as it conditions children to distrust people they don’t know, they’ll lose the desire to meet new people, and their interpersonal skills suffer in the long run. And the type of people it was intended to protect them from are actually very rare. Yet, like “stranger danger”, the Mike Pence rule came to be because there are some messed up people out there.

A slander culture has developed that was intended to snipe the careers of men who were successful, so it stands to reason that men, particularly the more successful ones, take measures for their own protection. It’s an unfortunate side effect of the Pence rule that women sometimes feel that they’re being regarded with suspicion, but it’s amusing to see a left-wing writer complain that this is the case, considering that she’s done her fair share to manufacture the conditions of her own plight.

Casey, on the topic of a piece by writer David French, writes:

French argues that people are sometimes attracted to each other in professional settings, regardless of their marital status. He doesn’t explain why those people, regardless of their gender or marital status, can’t be expected to exercise judgement.

It’s not really surprising that Casey would (mis)use David’s article to prop up the idea that men can’t be bothered to exercise self control, but she brings up the main point in the next paragraph, even if with only a dismissive attitude. It’s as though she doesn’t want to admit what the problem really is.

French goes on to write that abiding by such a rule “protects both sides from” reputational harm, suggesting that high-profile men must always worry about women lying about them.

Do you suppose that perhaps these men’s concerns may be justified? After all, there have been copious allegations of sexual harassment against high-profile men in the last year. Just within the last month, Stormy Daniels and Michael Wolff were both found to have lied about claims of infidelity against president Donald Trump.

It’s as though we were in the middle of a false accusation epidemic.

Of course, it also doesn’t help to train people to be oversensitive to dating requests or mere pick-up lines. I suspect that Casey Quinlan would think it sexual harassment to be called “gorgeous”, though she doesn’t have to worry about very many men directing that at her.

 

As part of a 2016 survey, women told Harvard Business Review they were worried about retaliation from their harasser or the organization they work for if they reported. Women have a lot of reasons to ignore or downplay harassment, whether it happens to them or someone else because it seen as the price women have to pay for excelling in a male-dominated workplace, according to HBR.

I’m including this in my criticism because this is the worst citation I’ve seen in my life. The page she links to isn’t a study, it’s an article from Harvard Business Review, and it will be one of three article views you’re permitted on that site before having to sign up to read more. The article she referenced didn’t call harassment “the price women have to pay for excelling in a male-dominated workplace”, they called it “a cost to being attractive”. Apparently, Casey Quinlan doesn’t respect her own sources enough to avoid distorting what they’re saying.

The paragraph she referenced contained two links. One of which lead to a Huffington Post article. Did Huffington Post perform the study? No, they were merely discussing a study performed by Cosmopolitan. Yes, the same Cosmopolitan that sometimes takes a break from talking about sex to discuss celebrity gossip. So I followed the link that Huffington Post provided, and finally found the “study”. Except it wasn’t a study, it was an infographic. No information about methodology such as sample selection, variable consideration, or error control. Just a bunch of numbers on a chart which, for all we know, someone could have just made up.

The second link led to a study (yes, an actual study), but to view the study, you have to make an account or at least purchase short-term access. How unreasonable is it to assume that a college student has tons of money to throw around for citations for their research papers? If they’d have the $25 just to view this study, they’d probably put that money towards a month’s supply of ramen.

How is it that Casey Quinlan became a professional writer? When I did research papers in college, if I didn’t properly cite my sources, the professors would have given me a failing grade. They certainly wouldn’t have accepted me making them follow a maze that would maybe lead them to something of value.

If you’re going to cite a study, LINK TO THE STUDY ITSELF.

In any case, if a victim were concerned with the consequences of coming forward with a sexual harassment complaint, why does it seem easier for them to come to the spotlight of information media, rather than the anonymity of law enforcement? It’s law enforcement that would launch an investigation to determine guilt for the crime that had allegedly taken place. What would be the problem with that?

But French is not alone in his focus on the “Pence rule” in the midst of sexual harassment allegations. In October, former deputy assistant to President Donald Trump, Sebastian Gorka, tweeted the alleged instances of sexual assault and harassment that dozens of women say Harvey Weinstein committed could have been avoided if Weinstein simply didn’t meet with women one-on-one at all — referring to Pence’s rule.

From this point, Casey provides several examples of the Pence rule being taken too far. As she was cherry-picking, her ability to detect sarcasm was turned off.

sebastian.png

The subtle suggestion that Sebastian made was that those women were making things up, and if there were witnesses, they’d have had a much harder time getting away with it.

john.png

Stating the obvious in an ironic fashion. Of course, you’d have to tell an SJW that John was using his sense of humor. After all, SJWs selectively take things at face value.

timothy.png

It’s over-the-top and obvious why it’s not a practical solution. That’s an ample hint that Timothy was being sarcastic. Most of you could see that. Casey Quinlan did not.

Not only is it absurd, but it is also deeply harmful to the careers of women in the workplace. When men avoid women for fear of looking “improper” or for fear that they can’t control themselves, they deprive women of opportunities to gain sponsors in their careers and to build better working relationships with colleagues and supervisors.

Casey made it to the end of her article and still didn’t figure out that the Pence rule was crafted in response to something. Until she figures out what, she’s not likely to understand that the whole slander culture that she’s working so hard to enable is backfiring in a big way.

When you start making things up about people, don’t be surprised when they act in their own defense. Also, consider the possibility that things might end up with you not getting what you want. In any game of strategy, your opponent gets to make moves, too.

Anyhow, let’s not be too hard on writer Casey Quinlan. After all, if you offer most writers enough money, they’ll write just about anything.

Michael Wolff is a liar and a coward.

rubber chicken

Michael Wolff, the author of Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House was a guest on the Australian morning program The Today Show. However, he walked off the set during a live interview after he was asked a question about Donald Trump.

The question concerned whether Wolff was sure that Trump was having an affair behind the back of his wife while Trump is president of the United States. Here is the question, as asked by interviewer Ben Fordham:

“You said during a TV interview just last month that you are ‘absolutely sure’ that Donald Trump is currently having an affair while president behind the back of the first lady, and I repeat you said you were ‘absolutely sure.’

“Just last week however you backflipped and said I quote ‘I do not know if the president is having an affair.’ Do you owe the president and the first lady an apology, Mr. Wolff?”

It was a valid question. After all, being “absolutely sure” of something and to “not know” about it are two very different things. An irreconcilable contradiction is a sign that something is wrong.

Michael Wolff was put in a very tight spot, with the only means to save face being to find a way out. He hatched a plan: he pretended that the audio equipment was not working. Maybe if he did that, the interviewer would become discouraged, and move on to a question that Wolff was more comfortable with answering.

Too bad his plan didn’t work, as Ben just repeated the question. Running out of options to evade it, Wolff insisted that he still didn’t hear the question, then walked off the set. Afterwards, The Today Show confirmed that the audio equipment was indeed working. When asked to explain his own words, Wolff turned chicken and backed down.

The hard part about lying is remembering what you said.

So, why did Michael Wolff turn from his claim that he was “absolutely sure” that Trump was having an affair? He specified the other party as being Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the United Nations. However, Haley evidently didn’t like Wolff making up things about her behind her back, and she sharply denied Wolff’s statement.

When you go around making up lies about people, you end up making enemies. Who’d have thunk it?

Slander culture has been dealt another vicious blow, and they set themselves up for it. Perhaps soon, they’ll figure out that their approach doesn’t result in substantial gains in the long run. But I suspect that they’ll have to be shown quite a few more examples of their approach backfiring before they finally get it.

Sources:
Business Insider
The Washington “Democracy Dies in Darkness” Post

Ladder logic provides the solution to objectionable art

Waterhouse_Hylas_and_the_Nymphs_Manchester_Art_Gallery_1896.15

In the last few days, a #MeToo campaigner complained to an art exhibit to have a work removed because the person was triggered by it. Shortly afterwards, the work was reinstated after public outcry. The work in question was the one pictured above, a Victorian era painting titled Hylas and the Nymphs.

Great work guys, you censored a work of art from over a century ago that took inspiration from a fable thousands of years old just to satisfy a blowhard belonging to a fad movement.

If you want feminism to be taken seriously, don’t pull stunts like this. There’s way too much potential for them to backfire, and the result is that people become ashamed to identify as feminists, as indicated nicely by this note left for the curator:

feminist note to curator

If you spend time looking at art, you’re bound to find something that’s objectionable to you. If you don’t want to look at something that you find objectionable, your solution is a simple process: If you don’t like it, don’t look at it.

If this process confuses you, I’ve provided a simple ladder logic program to assist you:

ladder logic objectionable art

Here is a short explanation of how it works:

First Rung: If “You like it” is true, then “You look at it for as long as you like”.
Second Rung: If “You like it” is false, then “You stop looking at it”.

If you don’t know how ladder logic works, here is a tutorial. There you go. You just learned ladder logic, and it became immediately relevant in your life. You’re welcome.

That’s about as simple as I can make it. If you don’t get it, then you shouldn’t have been able to operate an automobile all the way to an art exhibit without causing an accident. Learn to drive. And while you’re at it, stop assuming that every artistic expression of nudity and sexuality somehow demeans women. Nudity is the natural state of the human body, and is not inherently evil. Sexuality is one of the most human traits, and is a universal part of the human experience. An expression of either one doesn’t devalue women. Or anyone, for that matter.

And if, after considering all this, you still don’t like a work of art, just don’t look at it. I doubt that you fill the Pictures directory of your computer with images you don’t like, so why go out of your way to personally view a piece that only makes you upset? Just move on. Calling yourself a feminist doesn’t give you permission to decide for everyone else what art they have access to. Stop assuming that the rest of us can’t handle what we see.

Feminists have a very negative view of the general population, and this is what guides their attempts to decide for us what media that we have access to. Museum goers did a good job of not letting them. Very well done, keep it up.

This is when the #MeToo slander campaign falls apart.

For a short while, porn star Stormy Daniels has enjoyed the notoriety that stemmed from her claim that she had an affair with President Donald Trump. Just yesterday, however, she fessed up that the affair never happened, according to The Washington Post.

While on the page, WaPo’s emo header caught my attention:

twp dies in darkness

Democracy Dies in Darkness? OH NOEZ!!!1 😥 😥 😥 That’s so sad... How can they be so mean?!?!?!?

But at least The Washington Post is being up-front with their objective.

As the #MeToo campaign gained in popularity, I’ve suspected that it was used to snipe celebrities and political figures as a means to bask in media attention for a short time, as I expressed in yesterday’s entry.

As the false-accusation trend reached its zenith, it needed a champion to act as its representative and ambassador of its virtues. Who better to fulfill that role than Stormy Daniels, who knows how to manage attention because the nature of her line of work demands it? And not only that, she had the plentiful gumption to level an accusation of infidelity at the very President of the United States?

Since taking her spot as the face of false accusation culture, she has been invited to appearances on Inside Edition and Jimmy Kimmel, as well as cashing in on sold out strip shows and having an appearance in a Las Vegas show known as the “Oscars of Porn”. She’s doing pretty well for herself, considering she shows her cunny for a living.

As many public figures do, Stormy Daniels has hired a lawyer. People who hire lawyers don’t usually understand what lawyers are about, so you can imagine her surprise when her lawyer told Stormy Daniels that she’d be a lot less likely to get into some legal hot water if she stopped going around lying to people. Was this what happened? I don’t know, but I imagine that this was what spurred her into coming clean with a full confession.

She made the whole thing up. Stormy Daniels had no affair with Donald Trump.

Suddenly, the #MeToo campaign and slander culture as a whole has lost their representative. She has done the worst possible thing that a person can do for their cause when what they represent is a total lie: she came clean.

There is more to this development than having lost a representative. The inference is obvious: if the chief representative of a movement founded on dishonesty has come forward and confessed to her dishonesty, then the dishonesty of the movement must be more far-reaching than is immediately apparent.

One can build up a skyscraper that can be seen for miles with the finest engineering that can be funded. But if the foundation of the structure is pure garbage, then the entire thing is eventually going to come crashing down, no matter how high it’s built. And so it is with the culture of false accusation that is made for cheap notoriety or as a cynical way to silence critics.

When you tell a lie, you’re playing a game you can’t win, as it involves speaking against reality itself, and may come with it struggling to maintain the ruse for a long time, possibly for the rest of your life, with the only way out being to finally come clean.

Steadfast adherence to moral principles wins the day once again.

TWAT News: Reverend needs lesson on the downsides of blasphemous libel

An opinion piece from NBC News could have easily fallen past my radar but it caught my eye, and I decided to give it a look. What I’ve found is that old dogs really don’t learn new tricks.

For one thing, the opinion piece is part of the “Think” series, which you may remember for their attempt to make gamers out to be Nazi sympathizers for the Alt-Right (Note: this is not an exaggeration, they literally attempt this). One thing I can hand to NBC News is their audacity to name their series for what they’re attempting to do for their regular audience.

However, my main issue with this piece is against it’s two writers, in particular, the reverend who should know the Bible better. Because his hit piece touches on themes of racism and slavery, I became interested in knowing what he looks like. And here he is:

rev barberA modern reverend wearing an expensive ring and a pre-Christian pagan symbol? You don’t say.

The Reverend Dr. William J. Barber, hereafter just William Barber, has much to learn about the topic of defamation. A willingness to make a group of politically-involved individuals out to be a bunch of racists who wish to reinstate slavery who actually have no inclination to do so is the behavior of a small but vocal minority that is very annoying on social media, rather than a man who has taken upon himself the task of representing the way of truth and life.

While William Barber does provide scriptural citations, the citations he makes are not specific to the matter that he is addressing, which includes Trump’s willingness to build a wall to protect American interests.

Whether William Barber cares to admit it, the Bible does not command against a country acting to protect its assets. In fact, the book of Nehemiah starts with Nehemiah returning to Jerusalem to have its wall rebuilt. As this undertaking was going on, Judah’s enemies (Philistines, Samaritans, Arabs, and Ammonites) were doing everything that they could to obstruct it, and they were soundly condemned as a result. If William Barber is to maintain the premise that he understands the inner workings of Scripture, he should at least have an elementary understanding of it’s historical events.

Perhaps more relevant to what William Barber might be going for, becoming politically-involved endangers his church’s status as a tax-exempt 501C3 organization.

However, that’s not the main issue that I have with William Barber today. Towards the beginning of his piece, he brings up the matter of Trumps alleged affair with porn star Stormy Daniels as a means of segueing into his main point. The fact that the allegation is just that, an allegation, and not proven, is key here. William Barber speaks of this adulterous affair almost as though it were a proven fact, and not as a mere accusation with the potential of being baseless.

If William Barber understood the Bible and lived by it’s principles, he would not presume guilt against a person for adultery before the matter was determined by a judge in a court of law. Even judges have to carefully consider the information presented to them after both sides of a case have made their testimonies.

Related to this, the Bible teaches “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” This is the ninth commandment. What’s more, the Bible says, “You shall not spread a false report.” (Exodus 23:1)

How does one know whether a testimony or report is true? Obviously, a person cannot make such a determination unless they were an eyewitness, victim, or perpetrator of a crime or carefully considered the evidence including confidential information that is usually only available to select individuals involved with a proceeding. Obviously, this means that ordinary members of the population who are only exposed to either allegations or arrest information from mainstream media sources do not have sufficient information to determine guilt.

This is the level of scrutiny with which the movement that cultivates political advantage through false accusation falls apart, as does the #MeToo movement that is used to snipe the careers of celebrities so the accusers can bask in the short-lived glow of cheap notoriety.

Believe it or not, wanting to protect America’s national interests (whether or not the means to do so are misguided) does not make a person racist. Disagreeing with you on some matter that you’re politically involved in (which may affect your 501C3 tax-exempt status) does not make a person a nazi, racist, sexist, or a whatever-a-phobe. People are getting better at seeing past the cynical misrepresentations that are a favored tactic of the Social Justice movement, which is one of the many reasons why people are getting sick of it.

I’m getting sick of defending Donald Trump, and I wasn’t really a big fan of the guy to begin with. But I know pretty well that the tactics that are used against him can just as well be used against any member of the population, which is why I feel a pretty strong urge to stand up and point out what I see that’s wrong. Personally, I’d rather be using this blog to talk about Pokemon.

If William Barber knew the Bible anywhere close to as well as he lets on, he’d know that defamation is a sin, and the Bible is particularly strong in its condemnation of it. I wonder whether he’s even aware that “Devil” is not a name, but a title, and it means “slanderer” or “accuser”. The enemy of mankind is known for his main trait. We have to be careful about whose work we are doing!

From a more worldly standpoint, William Barber should be more careful about how he expresses his viewpoints, as his careless accusations have the potential to be viewed as blasphemous libel, which is a form of defamation. Because William Barber is a public figure, it would be very easy for someone to sue him for damages in a court of law. And if someone has a case against him (such as Trump, for example), I say “go for it”. I’m really sick of seeing this kind of thing coming from mainstream media outlets.

EDIT (31 Jan 2018): Stormy Daniels herself has come forward and confessed in a letter that the affair never happened. Because the affair never happened, William Barber’s accusation came to a puttering stall.

What did we learn today?

NBC News has lost its mind.

Who’s up for watching a train wreck in slow motion?

You can tell that NBC News has done something special here, considering the like/dislike ratio of this video:

nbc news disliked

Oh, hold on…

NBC News subscription count wah waah

Considering that NBC News is a huge media institution, that subscriber count is pretty low. For comparison, here’s the subscriber count for a YouTuber:

sargon subscription count

That guy’s subscription count is higher in spite of the fact that he’s not an outlet for the corporate media. He’s just a guy who gets on YouTube and talks about how crazy left-wing fringe groups such as feminists are. Even though he’s just a guy, he has more power on YouTube than NBC News. This is in spite of the fact that the YouTube main page tries to shove the channels of old media outlets up our butts.

Back on subject, NBC News has attempted to connect GamerGate with the Neo Nazi protests in Charlottesville and the grassroots movements that got Trump elected, and dragging Discord’s name through the mud, while they’re at it.

That in itself is a mouthful, and I don’t really have to say anymore. But I’m going to keep going. That old media is finding new ways to disappoint us is surprising at this point.

I’ve said already that old media doesn’t have to convince the smartest people among us for their ideas to gain traction, they only have to convince enough idiots to make a difference, and they are the ones that they are primarily aiming for. Today, the idiots that old media are aiming for is an old group that we’re already familiar with; the Pharisaical busybodies that see video games as some boogeymen that cause violent crimes. The tune has apparently shifted, because the social engineers have determined that the most effective way to drag someone down is to call them “racist” or “sexist”, because those are the words that currently have the most impact. Therefore, these ad-hominems are now being thrown at gamers.

If you’re among the brighter people among us, you’d look into matters before arriving at a determination, rather than taking old media’s word for it. Better yet, you wouldn’t have used old media to inform you to begin with. Of course, anyone using their brain will know that the connection between racists and sexists with video games just doesn’t exist. There’s a certain baseline for intelligence that NBC is aiming for, and they decided to exclude those who can think above it.

Today, NBC’s efforts to mislead the public are backfiring in a huge way, considering that most people play video games in some form, and understand that the presence of racists and sexists among us is greatly overstated.

If you haven’t watched the above video yet, here’s an interesting point to keep in mind as you do so:

Cherry Picking fallacy:
When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld.  The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.
Description from LogicallyFallacious.com, “Cherry Picking”

Can you find examples in the video above? Here are just a few to get you started:

  • Discord is made out to be a haven for racists, even though such communities on Discord are few, if any even still exist. Discord themselves have even shut such a community down.
  • GamerGate is made out to be a sexist movement because some members have made sexist remarks, as the video shows. In reality, these members don’t represent the movement as a whole, as the vast majority of the GamerGate movement are for ethics in game journalism. It’s their stated objective.
  • Footage was shown of someone using racist language in a game’s voicechat feature. This is treated as representative of gamer culture as a whole. It should be obvious why this is unfair.

I only went about halfway through the video before I decided to stop taking examples. It doesn’t stop there. It just keeps going.

gamergate romantic(EDIT 8-Nov-2017: This tweet has been found to have originated from Kevin Dobson, who directed them to Anita Sarkeesian. The problem? The Kevin Dobson tweets were issued a day before the #GamerGate hashtag was coined. NBC News has been caught editing the #GamerGate tag onto a tweet not associated with them to vilify them. It just gets worse and worse.)

But while most of it was a train wreck, there is one part that made me bust out laughing. That part starts at 3:41. That’s the part where Lester Holt, with a bright, enthusiastic smile, asked me to subscribe to NBC’s YouTube channel.

No, Lester Holt. No.