"this reminds me of gamergate" => "questioning ethics in any journalism anywhere"

It's a fairly stock form of strawman, taking someone's opinion and extrapolating it to the extreme. There are qualitative parallels between this event and gamergate, and the GP was mentioning them. I thought the same as the GP. But questioning ethics in any journalism anywhere? Seriously? For example, people question the ethics of Rupert Murdoch's empire and those of the UK tabloid culture, yet that public questioning is not reminiscent at all of gamergate.

I certainly don't see Murdoch getting numerous vitriolic rape threats because of his questionable journalistic ethics.

The comment was intending to cast doubt about a critique of the news article posted here. This article has nothing to do with gamergate, and the critique had nothing to do with gamergate. The comment could've elaborated on the parallels and presented a thoughtful analysis about that, but that's not what was posted. Thus if there was no blatant relationship between these events, and none were elaborated or clearly argued for, then what is the rule for applying this whole "integrity in journalism argument" => "gamergate" => BS chain of logic? If there is none, then by definition, it can be applied anywhere. So I don't see how my comment is logically invalid in pointing this out.

I also hope you realize that your comparison between this article and gamergate is about as valid as my original one was to orwell & huxley; i.e. it's pointless to just point out and insinuate some kind of similarity unless you clarify what it is you're actually trying to argue. Pointing things out like that without explanation just gives the impression that you want to throw the negative connotations of events like gamergate (or the holocaust for hitler analogies) onto unrelated arguments to silence them.

And finally, the problems with media run farther than just the bigtime moguls out there like Murdoch, and as I've already mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it's a direct byproduct of the influence social media has had, and this is more thoroughly elaborated on in the book "Trust Me, I'm Lying". That book came out well before gamergate even happened, yet random questions about the dubious journalistic practices this book outlines are all somehow related to that silly gamergate incident?

No, just because the GP didn't elaborate reasons for the comparison does not make your strawman not a strawman. You put words into badsock's mouth, and then applied shame for things badsock didn't say. "This reminds me of gamergate" is not "any criticism of any journalistic ethics anywhere", period.

Similarly, my 'there are parallels' and your 'huxley and orwell' aren't the same. You say that it's pointless to present without clarification, yet I presented the comment dispassionately and gave some counter-examples to clarify. Your huxley/orwell comment was a snarky comment, based off a strawman.

You're also confusing my point with the GP's. While I agree with the GP, my point is not that this event is reminiscent of gamergate, but that you're behaving hypocritically.

The only thing I am saying, is that even mentioning negative events such as gamergate, triggers in readers the negative connotations associated with them, and it is a common tactic to sully opponent's arguments for that reason. So when possible, it is good to avoid those kinds of unproductive remarks unless there's a good tie-in, which so far there hasn't been, and I already elaborated on why it doesn't make any sense for there to be in my previous comment. If you seriously think that saying

> those last two lines read to me like a callout to #gamergate's "It's about ethics in journalism" BS.

was just a simple "This reminds me of gamergate", then you are the one putting words in people's mouths. The intention lies in the words "read to me like", implying that the original comment that was in response to, was invoking connotations of the gamergate event.

You are also applying the definitions of these fallacies you are mentioning rather selectively. Because if I am a hypocrite, then your argument that those gamergate parallels are more valid than the godwin invocations is equally hypocritical. A logical fallacy is not a matter of degree, it is a binary evaluation: either an argument is valid or it is not.

> even mentioning [negativity]... So when possible, it is good to avoid those kinds of unproductive remarks unless there's a good tie-in

So then why are you shaming people with snarky remarks about Orwell? You say you aren't a hypocrite, yet you're doing exactly the thing you say shouldn't be done?

Anyway, I'm tired and bored, and couldn't be bothered reading more of your efforts to somehow argue that a widespread shrill grassroots online hate campaign over 'media ethics'; a female target; based on faulty, incomplete data; in the internet political culture specific to the current time... should put absolutely no-one in mind of gamergate ahead of any other particular event. The two events apparently share no commonalities. You're using me as a sort of playing field for the academic parlour-game of seeing if you can spin-doctor the way out, and frankly, I couldn't be fucked continuing.

I did admit wrong on the orwell part, but you seem to be taking this quite personally to be releasing that kind of frustration out so needlessly without even addressing any of my points. If anything, that shows you have clear bias there, but I need not point it out very much, for your frustration with this debate should've made that quite clear by now. Strong emotions always cloud analytical thinking. And it doesn't matter what arguments anybody may propose to you if you have already made up your mind that much, so arguing under the guise of objectivity or logical correctness is quite disingenuous.

Well,

a) From my first reponse, I've been addressing your points. I haven't addressed every single last one of your points, just like you haven't done so with mine, because discussion works that way. Not to mention we'd end up with immense walls of text if we did. I just opted out in that last one, for obvious, declared reasons.

and

b) When the argument switches from arguing about a topic to arguing about the nature of the argument itself, it's boring. You can play semantic games into perpetuity like that. I've been arguing online since before the turn of the century; when it gets to this stage, it never goes anywhere, it's never interesting, and there's never any further insight to be gained by anyone.

My apologies though, I did forget your acknowledgment of the godwin stuff.