These are some random thoughts coming to me late.
"Healthism" is a bullshit statement made by people who are performing mental gymnastics to justify (mostly to themselves) that their empirically demonstrable unhealthy lifestyle has a negative impact on how they are viewed by others. It's another fancy buzzword thrown out into the blogosphere to deflect honest criticism (or maybe concern trolling) away from the issue at hand and transform it into everyone's favourite "oppression".
You feel that you are being "oppressed" because of "healthism"? Well, as a 157cm, 115kg woman, would you be able to perform the necessary duties as a member of a fire and rescue team? The only answer here is "no". Reason? The physical demands of such a job are outside of the scope of this theoretical individual. A mix of her physical composition and her gender results in a lack of cardiovascular capacity and markedly low strength. Is that "healthism"? Is she, as a fat woman, being "oppressed" because she cannot be part of a fire and rescue team? No. She is not.
"Health" is a bit of a nebulous concept. Many experts disagree on what constitutes good health. Consider that you could be continually stressed, get less than ideal amounts of rest, suffer from regular headaches, be unable to run 5 kilometers in less than an hour, have low back pain, and regularly have heartburn, but still be considered "healthy" because you have the correct body mass index (BMI)? Health is a multifaceted concept requiring a mix of empirical standards and personal goals.
Let's draw two examples to see what this means: me and our fictional lady mentioned above. I am 187cm, 84kg, male, and late 20s. This gives me a BMI of 24 (verging on overweight, even with my low body fat percentage). I run between 5 and 7 times a week, between 5km to 8km per session, plus lift weights for the purpose of strength building. I have Celiac Disease, which means I cannot eat gluten (found in wheat, barely, and rye). This greatly impacts my diet: I rarely eat out, I never eat fast food, and extremely high glycemic foods like bread do not factor into my diet at any point. In other words, I eat what most people would say to be very well. On average, I consume between 2400 calories and 3400 calories, with my maintenance calories set to 2850. Where the facade of my health comes apart is the Celiac Disease and a major back injury I sustained in March 2013 that required surgery. I continue to have rather significant nerve pain in my left leg as a result of that injury.
Our hypothetical woman, on the other hand, who weighs 115kg at 157cm (or has a BMI of 46), requires a different amount of calories. Being generous and saying the hypothetical woman has light activity, she would need about 2200 calories to maintain her body weight (and, thus, BMI). Now, 2200 calories is rather close to the daily recommended intake for most major countries' departments of health. However, there's the high and low end of intake to either increase or decrease body weight. For her to lose a kilo a week, she would be limited to 1500 calories (as a reference, that's a Big Mac, large fry, and a diet drink). Conversely, and the telling part of our lady's situation, for her to gain a kilo a week, she would need to consume 3600 calories a day! And, again, that's only a kilo a week. That volume of consumption is probably part of the reason why our late 20s hypothetical woman is the situation she is in. Let us say, though, that she does not have any ailments. She has a regular menstrual cycle, sleeps well, has no unexplained pains, chronic injuries, and does not yet have a metabolism disease.
Do we consider this woman to be of worse, equal, or better health than me? Of course there will be objections here: I'm comparing a man and a woman, I am taking a morbidly obese woman and comparing her to a fit man, or that I should consider what she things to be healthy. Unfortunately, all of those objections are moot. Being as overweight as this woman is is empirically shown to be unhealthy by several factors. While she does not have a metabolic disease yet, she is at extremely high risk of developing type II diabetes. Moreover, the stress on her joints from carrying around that excess weight will result in damage and wear at an earlier age, which effects both her longevity and her quality of life. She will be more likely to have reproductive issues, develop breast or uterine cancer, and to suffer from depression. This is a list of objectively unhealthy attributes linked to her body weight.
Now, the central backlash to the "healthism" bullshit is not actually based around being or not being healthy. Rather, it is focused on beauty. Beauty? Yes, a subjective judging of a person's attractiveness. The claim is that woman of any body size (mostly focused on the larger end) are all beautiful. There are two significant problems with this: firstly, beauty is entirely subjective. What I find attractive in my wife my best friend might not find as attractive. This subjective judging of beauty has many, many influencing factors, such as age, wealth, cultural values, desire for offspring, societal pressures, and spiritual importance. These elements determine an individual's personal preference for mate selection. Well, almost; look back at that list, there are two elements in that list which have little to do with societal or cultural pressures: offspring and age.
This is the second element of what comprises the subjectivity of beauty: interpretation of health. If a man has the desire for offspring at some point in his life, perceived health of a woman is going to greatly impact the man's subjective view of her beauty (in a similar way to how women while ovulating tend to find physically fit men far more attractive, but during menstruation and until next ovulation they find men with resources more attractive). For a man to judge a woman for her ability to provide offspring, the elements considered at things such as age (many woman over 35 will experience some difficulty with conception) and physical fitness. Physical fitness includes a perceived workload capability, adequate body fat for normal hormonal function, and observable secondary sexual characteristics. This is where a woman's shape comes into play: an "hour glass" figure conveys a powerful biological message that the woman is old enough to bare children, a rounded butt along with rounded hips indicates a healthy body weight, along with the size of the woman's breasts. Other factors go into this, too: shiny hair, smooth skin, good posture, and obvious grooming all convey the image of health in a reproductive sense.
When you take our hypothetical woman, where does she not meet the definition for beauty? Obviously the first factor is going to be the subjective preference. Personally, I do not find overweight women attractive, simply because overweight women were unable to keep up with my active lifestyle, and I want to share my life with my wife. Beyond that, what other areas does this woman fail to meet a basic sense of beauty? With her morbid obesity, it will be difficult to assess if she actually is able to bare children either in the present or in the future. Big women do not mean big hips, so this vital piece of information is lost. In fact, many of her secondary sexual characteristics are effected by her body mass, thus causing issues in the processing of her beauty. Simply put, because it is difficult to determine her health, the subjective viewing of this woman's beauty is diminished, unless the viewer has an a priori preference for larger women.
"Healthism" is not anything people should be attempting to understand or fit into their vocabulary. It is a non-event involving people who would rather change the world around them than change themselves. For myself, I never had any desire to go tell all women the world over that beards are sexy on men and if a woman didn't think a beard was sexy she was a "beardist". I recognized that I would either have to shave my beard to attract certain women or I would have to find women who found my beard attractive. It was incumbent upon me to make my situation work, not on the world to adjust to what I wanted. And this is where "healthism" fails. The empirically researched ailments that are linked to obesity are many. This allows the majority of people to say "obesity is unhealthy". If an obese person wishes to remain obese, that is entirely up to them; however, they must recognize there are long term and short term problems with obesity. Demanding the world change to meet your current situation is arrogant and foolish.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Monday, November 24, 2014
Saturday, November 8, 2014
Post 18 -- The E-Celeb Mindset
I'm going to be writing another short piece on KingofPol soon. Tonight, I want to blow shit up with friends in World of Tanks.
I do want to hash out one thing, however. In the wake of the KingofPol incident, the fallout was primary directed at what people were labeling "e-celebrity". These are people who aim to gain attention within an online space of (mostly) online individuals. There's a focus on elements such as Twitter followers, retweets, group friends, and blog views. This e-celeb mindset, of which KingofPol was claimed to have wanted, was called out as counter productive to #GamerGate.
So, I find myself on Twitter, attempting to follow whatever happenings there are, and I cannot seem to find anything. Why? Because there are no less than 5 people who have been clogging up my feed with ask.fm or similar answers. This is understandable when people are asking about important things (e.g., "when's the next video?", "thoughts on suchandsuch advertiser pulling out?"), but there is nothing by conversation which can only be described as talk to me online personality, I'm lonely.
Is that the ultimate undoing of #GamerGate? A couple dozen people who are too caught up answering stupid questions (yes, those exist) to anonymous people? Where has the intensity gone? Where has the rhetoric disappeared to?
Quit answering questions. Quit making yourself into an e-celebrity. It's a distraction. Want to blow off steam? Do a 60 minute stream, invite a few randoms on, shoot the shit, and then get back to your life. Do not get lost in the minutia of bullshit.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
I do want to hash out one thing, however. In the wake of the KingofPol incident, the fallout was primary directed at what people were labeling "e-celebrity". These are people who aim to gain attention within an online space of (mostly) online individuals. There's a focus on elements such as Twitter followers, retweets, group friends, and blog views. This e-celeb mindset, of which KingofPol was claimed to have wanted, was called out as counter productive to #GamerGate.
So, I find myself on Twitter, attempting to follow whatever happenings there are, and I cannot seem to find anything. Why? Because there are no less than 5 people who have been clogging up my feed with ask.fm or similar answers. This is understandable when people are asking about important things (e.g., "when's the next video?", "thoughts on suchandsuch advertiser pulling out?"), but there is nothing by conversation which can only be described as talk to me online personality, I'm lonely.
Is that the ultimate undoing of #GamerGate? A couple dozen people who are too caught up answering stupid questions (yes, those exist) to anonymous people? Where has the intensity gone? Where has the rhetoric disappeared to?
Quit answering questions. Quit making yourself into an e-celebrity. It's a distraction. Want to blow off steam? Do a 60 minute stream, invite a few randoms on, shoot the shit, and then get back to your life. Do not get lost in the minutia of bullshit.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Friday, November 7, 2014
Post 17 -- In defense of KingofPol
There is a problem with a central figure within #GamerGate. The loss of his credibility will result in a cascade of doubts on previous information.
KingofPol (Pol) brought out two major pieces of information regarding #GamerGate: the Denton leak and the pro-GG Secret Skype Group. Let's mince this quick.
Secret Skype Group
On Wednesday November 6, 2014, Pol started a live stream where he was attempting to "burn it all down" in regards to the credibility of several notable #GamerGate members because of their connection to the "Secret Skype Group" (SSG). The evidence displayed was circumstantial at best. Pol mostly incriminated individuals due to their being in the group and not based on whether or not they said or typed anything. Pol has no audio logs from any of the conversations, creating a major lack of evidence. Moreover, only 3 people were known to be contributing to split activity, none of whom are worth any effort to out as they are unimportant people (and I will not name them).
Pol's ferocity and bloodthirst was wholly unfounded. It was both predictable and strangely out of context. Pol had announced on Tuesday November 5, 2014, that he was done with #GamerGate, a tweet that is no longer there. Frederick Brennan of Infinite Chan openly mused to Pol that Pol had be bought out by outside groups to disengage from #GamerGate, something that is currently not proven (not dismissed, but can be placed out of our minds for now). For Pol to have had that live stream is questionable, something I will address after the Denton leak.
What's important to remember here is the circumstantial nature of the evidence, the lack of audio logs proving the SSG to be designed to serve the interests of only those in the group, that the SSG was not secret, but open, and allowed anyone to join, and Pol's mindset (more on that after the Denton leak).
The Nick Denton Leak, or the "Astrotrufing of #GamerGate"
On Tuesday November 4, 2014, Pol released the image of a Facebook post by Nick Denton, claiming sources confirmed this to a be a legitimate posting by Denton. The post claims that Gawker Media's Denton hired individuals to infiltrate #GamerGate and engage in "tone policing" to cause infighting. thus slowing or derailing the movement. 19 hours later, Pol released a second tweet showing a follow up Facebook post by Denton which appears to address his original comment. Again, Pol claimed this information was vetted and verified.
Pol's stature and previous work has given him a great deal of leeway. Pol openly claimed that the information was passed on to Milo Yianopolous for vetting. Unfortunately, it appears Pol went ahead with the posting before verification from Milo came back. Looking at Twitter, the closest to verification we saw was Milo stating that the source provided to him by Pol was not the source he needed to verify the story. This is probably because of the information Pol had given: the original email with the original Denton leak came from on Rachael Morris (progg.gawkeremployee@gmail.com), who claims to work at Gawker in an administrative role, and was passed the leak. She decided to share it with Pol. Interestingly, Pol's claim was that Kotaku Editor in Chief Stephen Totilo was the source. We can see the disconnect.
To my knowledge, Pol never released any text or audio evidence that he was having conversations with Totilo, stating he did not want to out his source. Curious, because sharing his name invites great speculation. Totilo as the source came out when Pol was talking to Brennan regarding the leak. There is very likely a record of private communication through the Twitter direct mail system if it is true that Totilo and Pol were talking. It could be the case, but that's rabbit hole talk at this moment.
What we can state at this point is there is no connection between the Rachael Morris and Totilo. The Rachael Morris here does not exist. "progg.gawkeremployee@gmail.com" (at the time of the leak) is not a real email address. As Brennan points out in his lament against Pol, "Anything online can be forced, and online communication comes down to trust. Screenshots are easily forced using the developer tools in every browser."
What does it come down to?
So, who forged this information? Let's avoid the rabbit hole and focus in on whether or not it was forged by Pol. Occam's Razor can be employed here to see if Pol's leak was a creation of his own or a manipulation of his fatigued, theory hunting, crowd pleasing mind. In other words, did Pol want to gain something from this or was he tricked into believing it to be true?
The more probable answer is that Pol was a credulous fool. Using the SSG as an example, Pol likely linked nebulous statements made by Totilo (which I assume to be true that they were actually talking, but nothing concrete enough to share as Totilo to be the source, as Pol recognized that evidence would be torn apart) to the veracity of the Denton leak. The leak had bomb shell potential, clearly, and Pol was willing to stick his neck out and run it with the intent of a morale boost. An admirable move by Pol, alas it was for naught.
Pol has been heroic in his efforts to work on cultivating information for the expressed purpose of aiding #GamerGate, not because he wants fame or popularity. After all, Pol is a Registered Pysch Nurse in the mental health mess that is Florida. The money he earns from his online notoriety is insignificant to his income as a healthcare professional. Pol is entirely transparent with his online income and does donate it based on what his viewers want. Remember this when you are considering how to view Pol in the future.
How we should deal with Pol
Pol made two significant mistakes in two days. The Denton leak did not pan out. The stress from that knowing his reputation would take a hit is difficult for many of us to understand. Pronouncements of "not giving a fuck" does not negate that stress. Pol followed up by what can only be called lashing out at the community in a paranoid schizophrenic manner.
Ultimately, it was a mistake, compounded by his actions the following day. Pol has damaged his image within the community. Please take note of this. He is not, however, broken or unforgivable. He must be forgiven because he is a vital source of energy when it comes to digging. The overwhelming majority of #GamerGate is too goddamn lazy to send a daily email, let alone pressure sources for information. Pol is that warrior. Let us not cast him out for what he has done.
I think Pol was played. That's another post though. Pol had a lapse in judgement. We as a community should continue to listen to Pol, but with a clear warning: we want thorough verification before we trust again. Sources of Pol should note this. If you are sharing information with Pol, understand that you will be outed as a means of verification for the information being leaked. Anything less will not due now. Remember #GamerGate, trust but verify.
A personal message to KingofPol
It does not hurt me either way if I am wrong in my assessment of you. You understand how groups and minds can be manipulated with your psych and history background. If you willfully manufactured anything, you hurt the movement exponentially more than your hurt yourself. I believe you understand this and that is why I believe you did not. I would like clarification, though. Transparency is our battle cry and we must all adhere to it.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
KingofPol (Pol) brought out two major pieces of information regarding #GamerGate: the Denton leak and the pro-GG Secret Skype Group. Let's mince this quick.
Secret Skype Group
On Wednesday November 6, 2014, Pol started a live stream where he was attempting to "burn it all down" in regards to the credibility of several notable #GamerGate members because of their connection to the "Secret Skype Group" (SSG). The evidence displayed was circumstantial at best. Pol mostly incriminated individuals due to their being in the group and not based on whether or not they said or typed anything. Pol has no audio logs from any of the conversations, creating a major lack of evidence. Moreover, only 3 people were known to be contributing to split activity, none of whom are worth any effort to out as they are unimportant people (and I will not name them).
Pol's ferocity and bloodthirst was wholly unfounded. It was both predictable and strangely out of context. Pol had announced on Tuesday November 5, 2014, that he was done with #GamerGate, a tweet that is no longer there. Frederick Brennan of Infinite Chan openly mused to Pol that Pol had be bought out by outside groups to disengage from #GamerGate, something that is currently not proven (not dismissed, but can be placed out of our minds for now). For Pol to have had that live stream is questionable, something I will address after the Denton leak.
What's important to remember here is the circumstantial nature of the evidence, the lack of audio logs proving the SSG to be designed to serve the interests of only those in the group, that the SSG was not secret, but open, and allowed anyone to join, and Pol's mindset (more on that after the Denton leak).
The Nick Denton Leak, or the "Astrotrufing of #GamerGate"
On Tuesday November 4, 2014, Pol released the image of a Facebook post by Nick Denton, claiming sources confirmed this to a be a legitimate posting by Denton. The post claims that Gawker Media's Denton hired individuals to infiltrate #GamerGate and engage in "tone policing" to cause infighting. thus slowing or derailing the movement. 19 hours later, Pol released a second tweet showing a follow up Facebook post by Denton which appears to address his original comment. Again, Pol claimed this information was vetted and verified.
Pol's stature and previous work has given him a great deal of leeway. Pol openly claimed that the information was passed on to Milo Yianopolous for vetting. Unfortunately, it appears Pol went ahead with the posting before verification from Milo came back. Looking at Twitter, the closest to verification we saw was Milo stating that the source provided to him by Pol was not the source he needed to verify the story. This is probably because of the information Pol had given: the original email with the original Denton leak came from on Rachael Morris (progg.gawkeremployee@gmail.com), who claims to work at Gawker in an administrative role, and was passed the leak. She decided to share it with Pol. Interestingly, Pol's claim was that Kotaku Editor in Chief Stephen Totilo was the source. We can see the disconnect.
To my knowledge, Pol never released any text or audio evidence that he was having conversations with Totilo, stating he did not want to out his source. Curious, because sharing his name invites great speculation. Totilo as the source came out when Pol was talking to Brennan regarding the leak. There is very likely a record of private communication through the Twitter direct mail system if it is true that Totilo and Pol were talking. It could be the case, but that's rabbit hole talk at this moment.
What we can state at this point is there is no connection between the Rachael Morris and Totilo. The Rachael Morris here does not exist. "progg.gawkeremployee@gmail.com" (at the time of the leak) is not a real email address. As Brennan points out in his lament against Pol, "Anything online can be forced, and online communication comes down to trust. Screenshots are easily forced using the developer tools in every browser."
What does it come down to?
So, who forged this information? Let's avoid the rabbit hole and focus in on whether or not it was forged by Pol. Occam's Razor can be employed here to see if Pol's leak was a creation of his own or a manipulation of his fatigued, theory hunting, crowd pleasing mind. In other words, did Pol want to gain something from this or was he tricked into believing it to be true?
The more probable answer is that Pol was a credulous fool. Using the SSG as an example, Pol likely linked nebulous statements made by Totilo (which I assume to be true that they were actually talking, but nothing concrete enough to share as Totilo to be the source, as Pol recognized that evidence would be torn apart) to the veracity of the Denton leak. The leak had bomb shell potential, clearly, and Pol was willing to stick his neck out and run it with the intent of a morale boost. An admirable move by Pol, alas it was for naught.
Pol has been heroic in his efforts to work on cultivating information for the expressed purpose of aiding #GamerGate, not because he wants fame or popularity. After all, Pol is a Registered Pysch Nurse in the mental health mess that is Florida. The money he earns from his online notoriety is insignificant to his income as a healthcare professional. Pol is entirely transparent with his online income and does donate it based on what his viewers want. Remember this when you are considering how to view Pol in the future.
How we should deal with Pol
Pol made two significant mistakes in two days. The Denton leak did not pan out. The stress from that knowing his reputation would take a hit is difficult for many of us to understand. Pronouncements of "not giving a fuck" does not negate that stress. Pol followed up by what can only be called lashing out at the community in a paranoid schizophrenic manner.
Ultimately, it was a mistake, compounded by his actions the following day. Pol has damaged his image within the community. Please take note of this. He is not, however, broken or unforgivable. He must be forgiven because he is a vital source of energy when it comes to digging. The overwhelming majority of #GamerGate is too goddamn lazy to send a daily email, let alone pressure sources for information. Pol is that warrior. Let us not cast him out for what he has done.
I think Pol was played. That's another post though. Pol had a lapse in judgement. We as a community should continue to listen to Pol, but with a clear warning: we want thorough verification before we trust again. Sources of Pol should note this. If you are sharing information with Pol, understand that you will be outed as a means of verification for the information being leaked. Anything less will not due now. Remember #GamerGate, trust but verify.
A personal message to KingofPol
It does not hurt me either way if I am wrong in my assessment of you. You understand how groups and minds can be manipulated with your psych and history background. If you willfully manufactured anything, you hurt the movement exponentially more than your hurt yourself. I believe you understand this and that is why I believe you did not. I would like clarification, though. Transparency is our battle cry and we must all adhere to it.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Post 16
Yesterday I wrote on KingofPol's Nick Denton leak. Like the good people of #GamerGate, we don't "listen and believe", we "TRUST BUT VERIFY".
Fredrick Brennan, creator of Infinite Chan and close friend with KingofPol, had a conversation with KingofPol regarding the Denton leak. In the Skype logs, Pol claims his source for the information is Editor in Chief of Kotaku Stephen Totilo. Fredrick took what Pol was willing to share to Milo Yianopolous for verification.
Well, it didn't look good. Milo was unable to verify the provided information to him from Pol.
Fredrick pressed Pol for a clear and obvious source for the leak. Pol refused until Fredrick threaten a blog post (the one this information is derived from) outing him as a liar. Eventually, Pol shared the email he received from the source. Turns out, it wasn't Totilo. It was from a person with the name Rachael Morris, using the email address "progg.gawkeremployee@gmail.com"
Fredrick attempted to contact this person via the email, but received a SMTP error (i.e., email doesn't exist). I wouldn't try it now, simply because some shill will have created it.
This is most likely manufactured. While it is still possible that it is real, it is most likely pointing to false. The question now follows: who manufactured it? There are three possibilities.
1. Pol manufactured this. Many reasons as to why he would did this, including self promotion. What purpose does this serve? He could have done it to create a morale boost.
2. It was manufactured by someone close to him, knowing his current state. For those of you who don't know, Pol is a psych nurse that does shift work. As I write this, he's currently working an overnight. Pol's full burn over the last several weeks on #GamerGate, plus full time work, several side projects, and getting work outs in (including selfies) leaves a man without much energy, potentially compromising his otherwise strong mental faculties.
3. Pol's personality and countless hours spent on /pol/ has resulted in a mindset that appears to be learned but is actually credulous. Pol's willingness to believe, requiring a low threshold of veracity of evidence, has him chasing wisps. An example of this is the re-hashing of the secret Skype group I mentioned in my previous post, where he believes the secret Skype groups of people are all going to be for nefarious purposes.
I personally believe it is a mix between 2 and 3. What makes his situation worse is he is being called out for this and he won't just let it go so he can take a break. He needs distance from this. He's being played by people from all sides. I'm not going to be one of them.
Pol did not lie, as he felt his information was true. To lie is to knowingly convey misinformation with the purpose to deceive. Pol was tricked, believed the information wholly, and attempted to play flag bearer of #GamerGate once again with what could have been a major story. It is clear there are people out there who are attempting to de-base Pol with these tactics. It's expected at this point.
I would like the opportunity to speak with Pol privately about this to see if my analysis is true. Unfortunately, Pol will most likely be more guarded over the coming several days as he's removed himself from #GamerGate because of his belief of shill/nefarious secret Skype groups.
Last point: do not lose your faith in Pol. We know people have doxxed him. We know he's a target. Those who are brave will support him.
This was an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Fredrick Brennan, creator of Infinite Chan and close friend with KingofPol, had a conversation with KingofPol regarding the Denton leak. In the Skype logs, Pol claims his source for the information is Editor in Chief of Kotaku Stephen Totilo. Fredrick took what Pol was willing to share to Milo Yianopolous for verification.
Well, it didn't look good. Milo was unable to verify the provided information to him from Pol.
Fredrick pressed Pol for a clear and obvious source for the leak. Pol refused until Fredrick threaten a blog post (the one this information is derived from) outing him as a liar. Eventually, Pol shared the email he received from the source. Turns out, it wasn't Totilo. It was from a person with the name Rachael Morris, using the email address "progg.gawkeremployee@gmail.com"
Fredrick attempted to contact this person via the email, but received a SMTP error (i.e., email doesn't exist). I wouldn't try it now, simply because some shill will have created it.
This is most likely manufactured. While it is still possible that it is real, it is most likely pointing to false. The question now follows: who manufactured it? There are three possibilities.
1. Pol manufactured this. Many reasons as to why he would did this, including self promotion. What purpose does this serve? He could have done it to create a morale boost.
2. It was manufactured by someone close to him, knowing his current state. For those of you who don't know, Pol is a psych nurse that does shift work. As I write this, he's currently working an overnight. Pol's full burn over the last several weeks on #GamerGate, plus full time work, several side projects, and getting work outs in (including selfies) leaves a man without much energy, potentially compromising his otherwise strong mental faculties.
3. Pol's personality and countless hours spent on /pol/ has resulted in a mindset that appears to be learned but is actually credulous. Pol's willingness to believe, requiring a low threshold of veracity of evidence, has him chasing wisps. An example of this is the re-hashing of the secret Skype group I mentioned in my previous post, where he believes the secret Skype groups of people are all going to be for nefarious purposes.
I personally believe it is a mix between 2 and 3. What makes his situation worse is he is being called out for this and he won't just let it go so he can take a break. He needs distance from this. He's being played by people from all sides. I'm not going to be one of them.
Pol did not lie, as he felt his information was true. To lie is to knowingly convey misinformation with the purpose to deceive. Pol was tricked, believed the information wholly, and attempted to play flag bearer of #GamerGate once again with what could have been a major story. It is clear there are people out there who are attempting to de-base Pol with these tactics. It's expected at this point.
I would like the opportunity to speak with Pol privately about this to see if my analysis is true. Unfortunately, Pol will most likely be more guarded over the coming several days as he's removed himself from #GamerGate because of his belief of shill/nefarious secret Skype groups.
Last point: do not lose your faith in Pol. We know people have doxxed him. We know he's a target. Those who are brave will support him.
This was an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Post 15
The King of Pol stream. Starts around the 13:00 mark.
That was major information. Here's a few points that need to be remembered before we draw too many conclusions.
First, Pol is a major "red pill" theorist. His analysis of situations is sharped by this. This method has its merits, but it can be shots in the dark, too.
There are many individuals named in this stream as being part of secret Skype groups. Some of these people had nefarious intentions, which were absolutely clear based on the chat logs. Note: there is no audio records of these groups, only the text from chat. Individuals in these groups have a variety of reasons for being there, such as being vocal on Twitter, YouTube, or other sites. Others are there because they focused on their own needs. It really doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter who is who. Why? Because there is a need to focus on two things: being transparent and continuing to email. Do not conflate individuals' statuses in a faceless consumer revolt with leaders. Some of these people are looking for an opportunity for themselves within or as a result of #GamerGate. That's fine. But be honest about it. If you aren't, you become the same monster that we are fighting right now. Do no replace a broken system with an equally broken system filled with equally corrupt people.
As always, I trust Pol. He had special access to these groups because the organizers believed Pol to be discrete with secret groups. That was a terrible error on those organizer's behalf. Truth minded people like myself, Pol, Internet Aristocrat, Sargon of Akkad, and RogueStar will let our friends burn if it means the vital truth comes out.
It comes down to this: we are a mass of individuals who are unfathomably diverse. We will not all get along. We can focus our energies on good things, like emailing, tweeting, and driving the conversation about the unethical nature of games media and those who slander gamers as a whole. Or bad things, like tearing each other apart for tangential connections to others who have bad intentions.
Pol did the right thing exposing. He was wrong to conflate participation in a group with agreeing with nefarious or "shill" intentions. Pol joined Sargon of Akkad's stream following the completion of his stream to confront both MundaneMatt and RogueStar on MundaneMatt's connections to these groups and the groups desire to attack RogueStar. To be blunt, Pol was a mess. He was all over the place, irritable, and cemented in his interpretation of data, making him unable to listen to RogueStar's statement that there is nothing to see here in regards to him and MundaneMatt. Pol apologized via Twitter to MundaneMatt personally and to #GamerGate as a whole for his actions.
Pol was right to share. Pol could have shared it better.
Now get back to those emails! Blizzard re: Polygon.
This was an unedited rant. @nrokchi
That was major information. Here's a few points that need to be remembered before we draw too many conclusions.
First, Pol is a major "red pill" theorist. His analysis of situations is sharped by this. This method has its merits, but it can be shots in the dark, too.
There are many individuals named in this stream as being part of secret Skype groups. Some of these people had nefarious intentions, which were absolutely clear based on the chat logs. Note: there is no audio records of these groups, only the text from chat. Individuals in these groups have a variety of reasons for being there, such as being vocal on Twitter, YouTube, or other sites. Others are there because they focused on their own needs. It really doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter who is who. Why? Because there is a need to focus on two things: being transparent and continuing to email. Do not conflate individuals' statuses in a faceless consumer revolt with leaders. Some of these people are looking for an opportunity for themselves within or as a result of #GamerGate. That's fine. But be honest about it. If you aren't, you become the same monster that we are fighting right now. Do no replace a broken system with an equally broken system filled with equally corrupt people.
As always, I trust Pol. He had special access to these groups because the organizers believed Pol to be discrete with secret groups. That was a terrible error on those organizer's behalf. Truth minded people like myself, Pol, Internet Aristocrat, Sargon of Akkad, and RogueStar will let our friends burn if it means the vital truth comes out.
It comes down to this: we are a mass of individuals who are unfathomably diverse. We will not all get along. We can focus our energies on good things, like emailing, tweeting, and driving the conversation about the unethical nature of games media and those who slander gamers as a whole. Or bad things, like tearing each other apart for tangential connections to others who have bad intentions.
Pol did the right thing exposing. He was wrong to conflate participation in a group with agreeing with nefarious or "shill" intentions. Pol joined Sargon of Akkad's stream following the completion of his stream to confront both MundaneMatt and RogueStar on MundaneMatt's connections to these groups and the groups desire to attack RogueStar. To be blunt, Pol was a mess. He was all over the place, irritable, and cemented in his interpretation of data, making him unable to listen to RogueStar's statement that there is nothing to see here in regards to him and MundaneMatt. Pol apologized via Twitter to MundaneMatt personally and to #GamerGate as a whole for his actions.
Pol was right to share. Pol could have shared it better.
Now get back to those emails! Blizzard re: Polygon.
This was an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Post 14
Small post regarding Arthur Chu (@arthur_affect), Jeopardy champion and blogger with The Daily Beast.
Chu has inserted himself into #GamerGate simply because he is smart enough to recognize the publicity an established blogger can gain. #GamerGate continues to forge ahead, creating headlines. Bloggers ingest those happenings to turn a dollar for themselves. Good on them for finding a market to do that in, but understand that does not make them an important figure, either pro- or anti-#GamerGate.
Chu is a publicity parasite. He does not understand what #GamerGate is, only what his editor wants the narrative to be. That's why when challenged by David Pakman on The David Pakman Show on why someone like Quinn is important when only the opposition to #GamerGate is talking about her, Chu responded poorly by continuing to talk about Quinn and not why she is only discussed by the anti-#GamerGate position. Why did he do this? He's only smart enough, which doesn't make him smart. Sure, he has a trivia brain, but that doesn't mean he's smart.
Chu isn't worth the number of words I've already laid out here. He wants his name used so people come to his blog. Whether #GamerGate is successful or not, Chu does not care. It's a story generating headlines that he gets to write about.
That is what we like to call a bona fide shill.
This was an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Chu has inserted himself into #GamerGate simply because he is smart enough to recognize the publicity an established blogger can gain. #GamerGate continues to forge ahead, creating headlines. Bloggers ingest those happenings to turn a dollar for themselves. Good on them for finding a market to do that in, but understand that does not make them an important figure, either pro- or anti-#GamerGate.
Chu is a publicity parasite. He does not understand what #GamerGate is, only what his editor wants the narrative to be. That's why when challenged by David Pakman on The David Pakman Show on why someone like Quinn is important when only the opposition to #GamerGate is talking about her, Chu responded poorly by continuing to talk about Quinn and not why she is only discussed by the anti-#GamerGate position. Why did he do this? He's only smart enough, which doesn't make him smart. Sure, he has a trivia brain, but that doesn't mean he's smart.
Chu isn't worth the number of words I've already laid out here. He wants his name used so people come to his blog. Whether #GamerGate is successful or not, Chu does not care. It's a story generating headlines that he gets to write about.
That is what we like to call a bona fide shill.
This was an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Post 13
Some thoughts on how #GamerGate looks in its third month.
There's some questions about whether the Nick Dentor "leak" is legitimate. The "leak" is a Facebook post from Dentor where he claims to have hired freelance individuals to join the #GamerGate movement and obstruct their efforts. Specifically, to work on the same level as the GamerGate harassment patrol and engage in "tone policing". In other words, to claim to be on the same side but take the attention and outward momentum and turn it inwards, creating needless infighting. There are two issues here: first, why would Denton let something like this "leak"? Certainly Denton is not stupid, knowing posting something of this nature on social media would leave it vulnerable to getting out. Denton is aware his social circle is not entirely homogeneous and there might be a person who might have shared it. This analysis makes this leak appear dubious at best.
Second involves #GamerGate's contribution. #GamerGate mind discussed this possibility weeks ago. Following the Anita Sarkeesian Utah State University death threat and false link to #GamerGate, the group mobilized to create a robust anti-harassment patrol which would seek out and take down accounts of individuals who engaged in harassment, whether they were pro- or anti-GamerGate. I was among the minds that brought this scenario ahead; in short, I mused there would be a vulnerability which comes from an open movement that begins to police or regulate itself. People who are against the movement can dawn the colours of the movement and start disrupting the execution of the group. That being stated, you can take it as a brief experiment: there is no effort to derail #GamerGate is our hypothesis. We then observe an influx of tone policing. In-fighting begins. Trace accounts back to newly created people with no history. Evidence shows people popping into existence that join, tone police, and disrupt the efforts by creating infighting. Conclusions can be drawn from the evidence.
The gap exists now between these people and the Denton "leak". Let me be clear: I despise "listen and believe" but I adhere to "trust and verify". That said, I trust KingofPol entirely and believe he puts the truth above all other things, including his image (e.g., interesting claims about the number of Jews killed in The Holocaust, something I haven't looked into myself). This image has emerged in the last 16 hours: (THIS HAS BEEN DEBUNKED, READ BELOW)
There's some questions about whether the Nick Dentor "leak" is legitimate. The "leak" is a Facebook post from Dentor where he claims to have hired freelance individuals to join the #GamerGate movement and obstruct their efforts. Specifically, to work on the same level as the GamerGate harassment patrol and engage in "tone policing". In other words, to claim to be on the same side but take the attention and outward momentum and turn it inwards, creating needless infighting. There are two issues here: first, why would Denton let something like this "leak"? Certainly Denton is not stupid, knowing posting something of this nature on social media would leave it vulnerable to getting out. Denton is aware his social circle is not entirely homogeneous and there might be a person who might have shared it. This analysis makes this leak appear dubious at best.
Second involves #GamerGate's contribution. #GamerGate mind discussed this possibility weeks ago. Following the Anita Sarkeesian Utah State University death threat and false link to #GamerGate, the group mobilized to create a robust anti-harassment patrol which would seek out and take down accounts of individuals who engaged in harassment, whether they were pro- or anti-GamerGate. I was among the minds that brought this scenario ahead; in short, I mused there would be a vulnerability which comes from an open movement that begins to police or regulate itself. People who are against the movement can dawn the colours of the movement and start disrupting the execution of the group. That being stated, you can take it as a brief experiment: there is no effort to derail #GamerGate is our hypothesis. We then observe an influx of tone policing. In-fighting begins. Trace accounts back to newly created people with no history. Evidence shows people popping into existence that join, tone police, and disrupt the efforts by creating infighting. Conclusions can be drawn from the evidence.
The gap exists now between these people and the Denton "leak". Let me be clear: I despise "listen and believe" but I adhere to "trust and verify". That said, I trust KingofPol entirely and believe he puts the truth above all other things, including his image (e.g., interesting claims about the number of Jews killed in The Holocaust, something I haven't looked into myself). This image has emerged in the last 16 hours: (THIS HAS BEEN DEBUNKED, READ BELOW)
This image was given leaked to the Twitterverse and taken up by #GamerGate as evidence of freelance payment from Gawker Media (i.e., Denton) for undisclosed work. It's obvious there are many missing key pieces of information here, such as the work performed or the job title. Where the story changes is entirely thanks to The Ralph Retort:
A few interesting points here: why so many likes? Does Denton have bots on his friends list that like everything he says? This is not what most people would consider a "likable post". I question this simply because of how the entire comments are removed, rather than just the commentor's names and pictures. Curious, but I do not have the ability to discredit this or the original post beyond simple conjecture.
So, GamerGate predicts this happening. It happens. It is sourced, even if there are some questionable elements and a couple of small gaps. Is this not enough to focus #GamerGate on what is really going on? This isn't just about minor infractions of friendships and positive press. This isn't only about rigged awards for indie devs. This is about how media puts itself above the people who consume it, using that arrogance to push agendas and narratives which do not represent, at best, or slander, at worst, the consumers.
We are the consumers. If we walk, the industry dies. We are the ones with the power. Let media outlets know that. Keep emailing. Keep focused. Together, #GamerGate will enact the changes we desire, leaving smoldering wrecks of organizations that disregarded their consumers.
This was an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Here's the edits now:
Yes, the bank statement image has been debunked. It's entirely bogus and a repeat attempt of another effort to make it appear Gawker is paying people to shitpost. To clarify, I never stated it to be taken as truth, just that people were using it as evidence. I had my doubts because, as I stated, there is no information giving context to that payment. No context, no trust.
Thank you to those who let me know it had been debunked.
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Post 12
What an image, right? #GamerGate continues on into its well earned third month. There's been too many happenings to chronicle here. I saw this image and wanted to get into the core issues which divide the pro- and anti-GamerGate folks.
Because misogyny is not even remotely attractive.
Why does this need to be said? The most active people I've been in communication with or have followed have flat out denounced such behaviour. GamerGate is, despite efforts to paint us otherwise, a rational movement. That rationality leads us to many places. One in particular is our view on other human beings: we're all equal. And we all deserve to be treated equally! Take #NotYourShield: it's not only about calling out SJWs who attempt to use someone's race/gender/orientation/ethnicity/disability/whatever else as their own personal soap box, but about asking people to just treat people like goddamn humans. In a wheelchair like Hotwheels? You deserve to be treated like a human who has the ability to ask for help when you need it.
So, we all already agree on this. Why make a point about it? Should we talk about the sky being blue? Or that "coloured people" should not have to eat in different restaurants?
Because I believe games should be made in variety, not just for one demographic.
Again, there is no dispute here. No one wants only Call of Duty, or Halo, or Grand Theft Auto. We want variety. That's good! Nothing bad comes from that. This is another falsity that's being spun.
Look, when games topped out on graphics, devs relied on stories to set games apart. Xenogears, Final Fantasy III, Star Ocean, just a few examples of brilliant stories. Games want more stories where writers are free to put what they want in it. Don't police those stories. When you police the stories for their content, you destroy the story, thus destroying the game.
Because I recognize that a true fight against corruption in journalism does not involve the oppression or harassment of women and minorities.
Agreed. Another point we share. We encourage everyone to use their voice. Sometimes being loud brings negative attention. That needs to be ignored. Both sides would benefit from this. GamerGate wants more voices and gains nothing from silencing people. GamerGate believes its message is stronger, thus it doesn't need to silence others with poor tactics.
Because I believe in equality.
So do we. I'm noticing a trend here. We aren't that different, after all.
Because I done my research to locate verifiable, reliable, information on the topic.
Which, I assume, has brought you to GamerGate's side? Unless it's a personal belief that ethics in the second largest entertainment industry in North America doesn't matter. How does this position stand up to the verified evidence brought forth by GamerGate? I bet it doesn't last.
Because the individual is the smallest minority.
But when those individuals see a problem and band together to solve it, they become greater than the sum of their parts. They are fighting for something more than just ethics. They are fighting for their identity.
This is asswipe propaganda, meant only to feed those who already "believe". GamerGate created Vivian James as a face because she cannot shill, go on live television and speak, be doxxed, be harassed, or be strawmanned. Vivian signifies resilience against the faces of unethical practices, those who go onto television to absorb the media, not fight for something.
You can "listen and believe" when it comes to these topics. That's fine. It's easier to do that. To become the "good" so you can rail against the "evil" or "bad" them. Instead of "listen and believe", let's "trust and verify": take what people say and question it for its veracity. Ask questions. It only makes you a better person.
In the end, we're not too different, anti and pro. We do want the same things. We just see different paths to get there. Maybe we should do more working together to show this is possible without slandering the consumers of the material.
This was an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)