"Quinnspiracy" is what kicked off gamergate, but is currently only a small sliver of what the broader movement is about. A new thread is appropriate.Your "facts" and "logic" are meaningless in the face of Ironbite's hate boner for Ultimate Paragon.
I'll ask the same question here I did in the last thread, then:
Are the pro-GamerGate types still trying to claim that games aren't/shouldn't be about fun anymore?
OK, everyone who thinks GamerGate is its own separate topic: mind giving a quick summary of what it's about? Kind of pointless to have a thread to discuss a topic if apparently nobody can agree on what the topic is.
OK, everyone who thinks GamerGate is its own separate topic: mind giving a quick summary of what it's about? Kind of pointless to have a thread to discuss a topic if apparently nobody can agree on what the topic is.
~snipped for length~
OK, everyone who thinks GamerGate is its own separate topic: mind giving a quick summary of what it's about? Kind of pointless to have a thread to discuss a topic if apparently nobody can agree on what the topic is.
~snipped for length~
You miss the point of my question. I know what happened with Quinn. I'm trying to figure out if you can define GamerGate as a movement other than as a reaction to Quinn and Sarkeesian.
I'll ask the same question here I did in the last thread, then:
Are the pro-GamerGate types still trying to claim that games aren't/shouldn't be about fun anymore?
I think you mean the anti-GamerGate types.
Is it really surprising that Game Developers and Game Journalists might have romantic relationships? It is I would have thought a fairly close field where they would be seeing lots of each other. Hardly means that they are exchanging sex for good reviews.
From what little I know about this - I still think its the same topic. Even the explanation of the topic sounds the same to me.
And some say, as he soared into the sun set, that he yelled "IT'SIt's now or never
MY LIFE"
@UP: Alright, fair enough. You can keep this thread active.Ah, okay. Thank you.
@WatermelonRat: I edited your post here (http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6036.msg248215#msg248215). The information in that image could easily be used to trace back the original document. This is not an official mod warning or anything, just a precaution.
(https://40.media.tumblr.com/6474627392f6067623236cca24aa2309/tumblr_namg0k8eC61r0jlbgo1_500.jpg)
This is 2014, people...QuoteSo where's the skepticism towards these people receiving threats?
After all, they can just as easily be faking all of this shit. Even/especially the syringe.
Somebody started trusting random people on Twitter? After all, the evidence may be there for you to see but it doesn't exist unless you acknowledge it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrgpZ0fUixs
Also, stating this again.
You guys started TWO damn threads about this damn thing, you should at least KEEP THE DAMN DRAMA TO THOSE THREADS!
You guys seem to be doing everything in your power to make me hate GamerGate.
You guys started TWO damn threads about this damn thing, you should at least KEEP THE DAMN DRAMA TO THOSE THREADS!I'll second the call to keep this issue to the designated threads. As shown here, inserting the issue into unrelated discussions earns us no friends.
You guys seem to be doing everything in your power to make me hate GamerGate.
If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him.
Sun Tzu says...QuoteIf your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him.
Just remember those words, Magus. They're ones to live by when you're dealing with somebody as slippery as me.
Thank you
I'm pretty sure that's just trolling.Both of those guys are prominent gaming journalists.
All the more reason to suspect trolling.I'm pretty sure that's just trolling.Both of those guys are prominent gaming journalists.
I'm pretty sure that's just trolling.Both of those guys are prominent gaming journalists.
Aren't we all, but somehow I doubt you'd consider that a valid excuse if it were a gamergater going off the rails.I'm pretty sure that's just trolling.Both of those guys are prominent gaming journalists.
Here's a thought: Maybe they're bitter and frustrated by random people telling them they're corrupt and evil with no proof? Maybe they can say things just as motivated by emotion as anyone else?
I'm pretty sure that's just trolling.Both of those guys are prominent gaming journalists.
Atkinson's description says "I studied journalism because I had ideals, I found other work because I have bills" so I assumed he was a part time writer, but now that I look further it does seem I may have been mistaken. He doesn't seem to be a troll, though, given his other tweets going back to 2009.I'm pretty sure that's just trolling.Both of those guys are prominent gaming journalists.
Cite? I can't find anything written by Andrew Ross Atkinson.
Okay, so has anyone bothered to suggest that, possibly, there might be corruption in the gaming journalism industry outside the B-developers? Perhaps even in the triple-As?All of the big review sites are funded through advertising. Given their audience, the people willing to buy ad space (or perhaps the people willing to pay the most for it) are big publishers, often for the purpose of marketing their new game. Effectively, these sites that are supposed to be giving unbiased reviews of the latest big release from EA or Ubisoft or whoever are also at the time getting a hell of a lot of their income from advertising that same game. That's pretty much the standard business model ever since game reviews first became a thing.
Why are those sections of the tweets underlined?To emphasise a point.
Because the average Tweet is just an information overload.Why are those sections of the tweets underlined?To emphasise a point.
TL:DRBecause the average Tweet is just an information overload.Why are those sections of the tweets underlined?To emphasise a point.
Aren't we all, but somehow I doubt you'd consider that a valid excuse if it were a gamergater going off the rails.I'm pretty sure that's just trolling.Both of those guys are prominent gaming journalists.
Here's a thought: Maybe they're bitter and frustrated by random people telling them they're corrupt and evil with no proof? Maybe they can say things just as motivated by emotion as anyone else?
In any case, this was no isolated outburst. They've been at this from the beginning.(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)
Also, Faraci has doxxed people.
Aren't we all, but somehow I doubt you'd consider that a valid excuse if it were a gamergater going off the rails.I'm pretty sure that's just trolling.Both of those guys are prominent gaming journalists.
Here's a thought: Maybe they're bitter and frustrated by random people telling them they're corrupt and evil with no proof? Maybe they can say things just as motivated by emotion as anyone else?
In any case, this was no isolated outburst. They've been at this from the beginning.(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)
Also, Faraci has doxxed people.
Why don't you present some pro-GamerGate stupid, then? You keep acting like I'm going to ignore it when all you've been doing is going "LOOK HOW MEAN THEY ARE!!!" and neither presenting real evidence of corruption and ignoring that both sides are ridiculous and GamerGate has nothing to fight for. Fuck, I should have just stayed quiet. I'm out, again. I'm not going to waste my time with this idiocy.
In other news, now things are going all the way up to the court system:
http://theralphretort.com/reddit-bombshell-zoe-quinn-uses-courts-silence-critic/ (http://theralphretort.com/reddit-bombshell-zoe-quinn-uses-courts-silence-critic/)
I offered a rebuttal to the notion that these were outbursts of pent up emotions rather than part of a consistent pattern of such behavior. You weren't asking for proof of corruption, you were trying to minimize what those guys were saying.Aren't we all, but somehow I doubt you'd consider that a valid excuse if it were a gamergater going off the rails.I'm pretty sure that's just trolling.Both of those guys are prominent gaming journalists.
Here's a thought: Maybe they're bitter and frustrated by random people telling them they're corrupt and evil with no proof? Maybe they can say things just as motivated by emotion as anyone else?
In any case, this was no isolated outburst. They've been at this from the beginning.(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)
Also, Faraci has doxxed people.
Why don't you present some pro-GamerGate stupid, then? You keep acting like I'm going to ignore it when all you've been doing is going "LOOK HOW MEAN THEY ARE!!!" and neither presenting real evidence of corruption and ignoring that both sides are ridiculous and GamerGate has nothing to fight for. Fuck, I should have just stayed quiet. I'm out, again. I'm not going to waste my time with this idiocy.
I would like to point something out.Debatable. If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that even if journalistic impropriety did occur, the outrage over it was fueled by sexism. It's certainly possible that some were particularly angry about it as a result of subconscious sexist biases, but what you need to take into account is that what really ignited the firestorm wasn't the incident itself but the subsequent mass censorship, insults from gaming journalists, and the eleven simultaneous "gamers are dead" articles.
Gamergate didn't start from the well-documented evidence of game companies buying good reviews from review websites.
Gamergate started when a female game developer's ex-boyfriend spread rumors that she was trading sex for good reviews of her game.
Whether or not those rumors are true, the fact remains - Gamergate started in sexism, and whether the pro Gamergate people here like it, it is thus connected to sexism.
Why are those sections of the tweets underlined?
Okay, so has anyone bothered to suggest that, possibly, there might be corruption in the gaming journalism industry outside the B-developers? Perhaps even in the triple-As?All of the big review sites are funded through advertising. Given their audience, the people willing to buy ad space (or perhaps the people willing to pay the most for it) are big publishers, often for the purpose of marketing their new game. Effectively, these sites that are supposed to be giving unbiased reviews of the latest big release from EA or Ubisoft or whoever are also at the time getting a hell of a lot of their income from advertising that same game. That's pretty much the standard business model ever since game reviews first became a thing.
It's pretty much a given that that there's corruption between gaming journalism and AAA publishers.
I would like to point something out.Debatable. If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that even if journalistic impropriety did occur, the outrage over it was fueled by sexism. It's certainly possible that some were particularly angry about it as a result of subconscious sexist biases, but what you need to take into account is that what really ignited the firestorm wasn't the incident itself but the subsequent mass censorship, insults from gaming journalists, and the eleven simultaneous "gamers are dead" articles.
Gamergate didn't start from the well-documented evidence of game companies buying good reviews from review websites.
Gamergate started when a female game developer's ex-boyfriend spread rumors that she was trading sex for good reviews of her game.
Whether or not those rumors are true, the fact remains - Gamergate started in sexism, and whether the pro Gamergate people here like it, it is thus connected to sexism.
Gearbox has been harrassed by Gamergate lately. It is unconfirmed if they are responsible for this. On a similar note, Anita Sarkeesian got a bomb threat in an event she got an award on, around april or so.
Games are srs bsns, guys.
Please...someone defend this.What kind of person would defend a false bomb threat? This is wrong wether it was done by GamerGate/Pro-GamerGate people or by someone else.
Please...someone defend this.What kind of person would defend a false bomb threat? This is wrong wether it was done by GamerGate/Pro-GamerGate people or by someone else.
(Do the GG have a rivalry with Gearbox? This trainwreck has been way too confusing for me to keep up with.)
I did some research on this and you might want to know that the people who threatened Gearbox with this sort of thing were from a group of people called “The Lizard Squad”, the same people responsible for crashing Call of Duty, FIFA, and Destiny servers on a massive scale.
http://attackofthefanboy.com/news/bomb-scare-gearbox-software-headquarters/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/09/29/hacker-group-lizard-squad-takes-down-destiny-call-of-duty-fifa-and-more/
As for the Anita Sarkeesian threat, authorities later confirmed that no bombs were ever there, and whoever made the threat was blowing smoke.
http://www.engadget.com/2014/09/17/anita-sarkeesian-gdc14-bomb-threat/
That is very interesting. However how linked Lizard Squad is to Gamergate is unclear as well:
“They also suggested that a list of games journalists that were part of a shared email list (an issue which became central to the great #GamerGate drama storm) should be SWAT-ed, though it seems nothing became of that.”
Even if no actual bombs exist, bomb threats are acts of terrorism. Hopefully the authorities will find and root out the people behind this, whoever they are.
An update on the Gearbox bomb thing:QuoteI did some research on this and you might want to know that the people who threatened Gearbox with this sort of thing were from a group of people called “The Lizard Squad”, the same people responsible for crashing Call of Duty, FIFA, and Destiny servers on a massive scale.
http://attackofthefanboy.com/news/bomb-scare-gearbox-software-headquarters/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/09/29/hacker-group-lizard-squad-takes-down-destiny-call-of-duty-fifa-and-more/
As for the Anita Sarkeesian threat, authorities later confirmed that no bombs were ever there, and whoever made the threat was blowing smoke.
http://www.engadget.com/2014/09/17/anita-sarkeesian-gdc14-bomb-threat/
And the person's response to this:QuoteThat is very interesting. However how linked Lizard Squad is to Gamergate is unclear as well:
“They also suggested that a list of games journalists that were part of a shared email list (an issue which became central to the great #GamerGate drama storm) should be SWAT-ed, though it seems nothing became of that.”
Even if no actual bombs exist, bomb threats are acts of terrorism. Hopefully the authorities will find and root out the people behind this, whoever they are.
Whoever did this, it's pretty fucked up.
Including the bomb threat towards Sarkeesian. Which, oh look, a death threat that she was confirmed to receive.
NOW do you see why the arbitrary skepticism displayed by a couple of people in this thread is pissing me the hell off?
I would like to point something out.Debatable. If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that even if journalistic impropriety did occur, the outrage over it was fueled by sexism. It's certainly possible that some were particularly angry about it as a result of subconscious sexist biases, but what you need to take into account is that what really ignited the firestorm wasn't the incident itself but the subsequent mass censorship, insults from gaming journalists, and the eleven simultaneous "gamers are dead" articles.
Gamergate didn't start from the well-documented evidence of game companies buying good reviews from review websites.
Gamergate started when a female game developer's ex-boyfriend spread rumors that she was trading sex for good reviews of her game.
Whether or not those rumors are true, the fact remains - Gamergate started in sexism, and whether the pro Gamergate people here like it, it is thus connected to sexism.
Because journalistic impropriety didn't start it. If it did, Gamergate would have started long before Quinn happened.
This is a cold, hard, uncaring fact.
Note that I am not saying that Gamergate is a sexist movement, but it has its roots in sexism. And denying this is placing one's foot solidly into the realm of rewriting history. And I distrust anyone who does this.
Incidentally, I don't excuse the behavior of anti-Gamergate people. I don't excuse the behavior of pro-Gamergate people, either. And if I'm going to apply skepticism to the death threats of one side, I'm going to apply it to the other side, because both sides have just as much reason to lie and deceive people as anyone else.
Of course, things like that are why phrases like "benefit of the doubt" exist. It is entirely within human nature for both sides to be receiving death threats from the other side. It is entirely within human nature for both sides to be lying for attention. As such, I will say that until concrete evidence from unbiased sources comes out, I will believe BOTH sides are receiving death threats. And that includes Quinn and Sarkeesian.
Because seriously, if anyone WOULD be receiving death threats, it WOULD be them, because people on the internet do this to people they dislike.
What is debatable is if those death threats are to be taken seriously, or if Quinn and Sarkeesian are blowing it out of proportion.
ADDENDUM:
(https://31.media.tumblr.com/403bdc8c71e276e3da086c6690b95ff1/tumblr_ncwhio6VJW1qhh4bdo1_500.jpg)QuoteGearbox has been harrassed by Gamergate lately. It is unconfirmed if they are responsible for this. On a similar note, Anita Sarkeesian got a bomb threat in an event she got an award on, around april or so.
Games are srs bsns, guys.
Bolded for emphasis because this may be relevant, but there's no confirmation.
Hi Mrdoh, welcome to the forum.
Question for the mods: Would you prefer that I post images like thisthat relate to gamergate but aren't really relevant to the actual conversation here, or would it be better to post in the worst of social justice/things people say on the internet threads?(click to show/hide)
My current inclination would be to post such things here if it were by prominent individuals, but to post them elsewhere when it's random idiots whose stupidity most would agree is not relevant to the actual debate. On the other hand, I know that some people would be annoyed to see gamergate stuff leaking into other threads, so I thought I'd ask to be sure.
Question for the mods: Would you prefer that I post images like thisthat relate to gamergate but aren't really relevant to the actual conversation here, or would it be better to post in the worst of social justice/things people say on the internet threads?(click to show/hide)
My current inclination would be to post such things here if it were by prominent individuals, but to post them elsewhere when it's random idiots whose stupidity most would agree is not relevant to the actual debate. On the other hand, I know that some people would be annoyed to see gamergate stuff leaking into other threads, so I thought I'd ask to be sure.
I would prefer it if you keep anything GamerGate related in this thread, even if it would reasonably qualify for Things People Say on the Internet/etc. The subject is polarising enough that I'd rather it be contained so that people don't have to come across it if they don't want to.
@mrdoh: Hi, and welcome to FQA. Here's something I've been meaning to ask: Suppose I was looking for an article or website that was entirely on the subject of criticising game journalism without attacking Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian or [random person]. Where would I go looking for something like that?
Just a clarification, GamerGate had nothing to do with those assholes they called themselves The Lizard Squad. We are just looking forward to see the assholes pulling this behind bars as much as the other side.
I highly suggest you search for cases of people like Brad Wardell, Josh Mattingly and Max Tempkins to contrast on how the press handles the Zoe Quinn case.
So no, it doesn't have the roots in sexism, as much as the media would like for you to believe.
Your position is defendable, but only as long as you hold yourself to the same standard and refuse to lump all of your opponents in the same bag. You can't pretend that everyone who has a negative opinion of your movement is siding with the shit-throwing journalists we all love to hate. Nor can you blame said shit-throwing journalists for anti-GG trolling and harassment.
Sorry if I came off as aggressive with my pre-emptiveness, but we all have a tendancy to treat the "enabler" rhetoric as legitimate whenever it suits them, and fallacious whenever it doesn't.
At an early point in the drama, when it was still called Quinnspiracy, I read the comments section of KYM, one of the softer, more mainstream outlets for "Internet culture". Many people were already interpreting the events as an attack on straight males and pushing for a crusade to kick "feminists" out of the gaming community. And it didn't really get any better with time. Do you really want to pretend these people are not representative of the movement and/or deep-cover trolls dispatched by the all-powerful SJW conspiracy?
And then there's the fact that the #GamerGate hashtag was started by bigot extraordinaire Adam Baldwin, in a way that was clearly aimed at publicly shaming Quinn for her whorishness, rather than any of the other, more reasonable cause that you are trying to put forward.
Believe me, my reasons to believe GamerGate is rooted in sexism has nothing to do with the negative media coverage of it. If anything, all those terrible one-sided articles are one of the few issues where I am, technically, mostly "on your side".
Just keep in mind, the press usually bring up Zoe Quinn or Anita as their shield up to deflect criticism throw your way. And there are only a handful of site, some of them smaller more niche site that made articles on this and almost all of them doesn't attack ZQ or AS in any capacity. Just only some mention for context's sake.
At this moment, here's some of the links on the top of my head.
http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/gamergate-an-issue-with-2-sides/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/09/gamergate_explodes_gaming_journalists_declare_the_gamers_are_over_but_they.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/01/the-gamer-is-dead-long-live-the-gamer/
http://techraptor.net/2014/09/30/role-game-journalist/
http://techraptor.net/2014/09/22/examination-game-journalism-professionals/
And here's an interesting series of article looking at the 10 articles attacks that kickstarted Gamergate
http://techraptor.net/2014/09/23/good-morning-orthodoxy-1/
http://techraptor.net/2014/09/24/good-morning-orthodoxy-2/
http://techraptor.net/2014/09/25/good-morning-orthodoxy-3/
http://techraptor.net/2014/09/30/good-morning-orthodoxy-4/
http://techraptor.net/2014/10/01/good-morning-orthodoxy-5/
http://techraptor.net/2014/10/02/good-morning-orthodoxy-6-reflections/
Mrdoh, can you confirm how this whole thing started? From the blog post of Zoe's ex?
Ironbite-because that's the crux of this issue.
Mrdoh, can you confirm how this whole thing started? From the blog post of Zoe's ex?
Ironbite-because that's the crux of this issue.
But it's like if Watergate started in the Democratic Party. B-Developers are the opposite of the problem.
Mrdoh, can you confirm how this whole thing started? From the blog post of Zoe's ex?
Ironbite-because that's the crux of this issue.
There's the Quinnspiracy, which started off with that Zoe Post, in which detail Eron's abuse under Zoe Quinn.
Just a bit of personal comment, i found the double standard involving the Zoe Post to be really infuriating. If their gender reversed people would swarm to Eron and hailing him as "brave" for coming out against an abuser. But nope, since he's a male and she's a female, it is obvious that he's just a bitter ex.
And then there's a GamerGate, took off from Quinnspiracy because of the 11 articles attacks during 28/29 August. The name was an attempt to move as far away from Zoe Quinn as much as possible to focus on the press.
Mrdoh, can you confirm how this whole thing started? From the blog post of Zoe's ex?
Ironbite-because that's the crux of this issue.
There's the Quinnspiracy, which started off with that Zoe Post, in which detail Eron's abuse under Zoe Quinn.
Just a bit of personal comment, i found the double standard involving the Zoe Post to be really infuriating. If their gender reversed people would swarm to Eron and hailing him as "brave" for coming out against an abuser. But nope, since he's a male and she's a female, it is obvious that he's just a bitter ex.
And then there's a GamerGate, took off from Quinnspiracy because of the 11 articles attacks during 28/29 August. The name was an attempt to move as far away from Zoe Quinn as much as possible to focus on the press.
So at the bottom of this is one man's quest to completely smear his ex girlfriend because...he's bitter she cheated.
Ironbite-that's what this pond scum evolved from.
But it's like if Watergate started in the Democratic Party. B-Developers are the opposite of the problem.
Well, it is not B-developers. #gamergate discovered a literal cabal of colluding journalists, corruption within 2 notable independent game festival (you know, the scene that everyone often rave about how pure it is compare to the big AAA corps out there) and a PR firm that tied everything together.
So no, i don't think your comparison is good.
But it's like if Watergate started in the Democratic Party. B-Developers are the opposite of the problem.
Well, it is not B-developers. #gamergate discovered a literal cabal of colluding journalists, corruption within 2 notable independent game festival (you know, the scene that everyone often rave about how pure it is compare to the big AAA corps out there) and a PR firm that tied everything together.
So no, i don't think your comparison is good.
So we've got a conspiracy theory on our hands here.
That's not much better, in all honesty.
But it's like if Watergate started in the Democratic Party. B-Developers are the opposite of the problem.
Well, it is not B-developers. #gamergate discovered a literal cabal of colluding journalists, corruption within 2 notable independent game festival (you know, the scene that everyone often rave about how pure it is compare to the big AAA corps out there) and a PR firm that tied everything together.
So no, i don't think your comparison is good.
So we've got a conspiracy theory on our hands here.
That's not much better, in all honesty.
One of #gamergate's chief complaints is that there are collusion between the gaming journalists (ie the 11 articles). And the mailing list proved that just that. I'm not fan of conspiracy theory, but if you are telling me back in August we would discovered a mailing list with journalists from sites like Kotaku, Ars Technica, and Polygon I'd laugh you out of the room and never mention GamerGate again.
Which 11 articles are these?
That's just bog standard clickbait. That kind of thing has been how these sites generate views and therefore ad revenue since review sites first became a thing. It's just the online equivalent of sensationalist bullshit. Granted, the co-ordination between writers, assuming it's true, is new. But really, if you had any trust whatsoever left in these sites for this sort of thing to destroy, well, you're a fucking idiot.
Funny you say it's moved past Quinn, but post a wall of text about her.
The thing is, as I've said multiple times on this topic, I don't fucking CARE about Quinn, but that doesn't stop the root of the issue being an ex-boyfriend's comments (that were purely on his word and no one else's). It also doesn't change the fact that you outright stated that isn't about Quinn, then immediately followed it up with a post about Quinn.
That's just bog standard clickbait. That kind of thing has been how these sites generate views and therefore ad revenue since review sites first became a thing. It's just the online equivalent of sensationalist bullshit. Granted, the co-ordination between writers, assuming it's true, is new. But really, if you had any trust whatsoever left in these sites for this sort of thing to destroy, well, you're a fucking idiot.
Funny you should say that, because apparently all the "idiots" that's from other sites like Engadget, The Mary Sue and other non-game websites trusted the narratives and have been running with it ever since. They caught the false narrative hook, line and sinker. It is not the readers that trusting their bullshits, it is their own journalists friends.
That's just bog standard clickbait. That kind of thing has been how these sites generate views and therefore ad revenue since review sites first became a thing. It's just the online equivalent of sensationalist bullshit. Granted, the co-ordination between writers, assuming it's true, is new. But really, if you had any trust whatsoever left in these sites for this sort of thing to destroy, well, you're a fucking idiot.
Funny you should say that, because apparently all the "idiots" that's from other sites like Engadget, The Mary Sue and other non-game websites trusted the narratives and have been running with it ever since. They caught the false narrative hook, line and sinker. It is not the readers that trusting their bullshits, it is their own journalists friends.
Right, so that a bunch of journalists simultaneously had the same response to a fairly sexist phenomenon is more corrupt than cash-for-comment 100/100 scores for triple-A rated games. Go after the little guy.
GamerGate does have a lot of baggage that keeps it down, but just look at all we've accomplished so far:
>Escapist & Defy Media reviewed their ethics policy and made it public, issued an apology for Wizardchan, and took a pro-gamer stance in the "Gamers are dead" thing with the "Gaming über alles" special
>Polygon reviewed their ethics policy and made it public
>Kotaku revised their ethics policy… for a while at least, and it wasn't completely public
>Destructoid revised their ethics policy to include mandatory disclosures of relationships, but didn't make the whole policy public
>Steam requires curators to disclose whatever compensation they get for making a game recommendation
>Twitch now requires Twitch-centered campaigns to disclose sources of compensation
>Aussie ex-journalist uncovered a hacking incident where 40k account details had been compromised on EA forums, which EA-friendly journalists refused to cover, and EA confirmed this following his statement, which also contained some other allegations that as far as we know still remain unconfirmed
>Whatever anyone says, journalists sleeping with people from an industry they cover is completely wrong, as is journalists writing about their landlords
So how much more do we really need to do? We have made the world a better place already. If that's not good enough, shit, we even saved a feminist organisation by bringing it the publicity it needed and donated more than 5000 to suicide prevention. Holy fucking shit, if people would just stop giving us shit and saying we're woman-haters, what couldn't we accomplish?
You know what? I have lost any ability to give a damn about gamergate. I'm just gonna be over here playing my video games and not caring about the rest of this shit.
Why?
QuoteGamerGate does have a lot of baggage that keeps it down, but just look at all we've accomplished so far:
>Escapist & Defy Media reviewed their ethics policy and made it public, issued an apology for Wizardchan, and took a pro-gamer stance in the "Gamers are dead" thing with the "Gaming über alles" special
>Polygon reviewed their ethics policy and made it public
>Kotaku revised their ethics policy… for a while at least, and it wasn't completely public
>Destructoid revised their ethics policy to include mandatory disclosures of relationships, but didn't make the whole policy public
>Steam requires curators to disclose whatever compensation they get for making a game recommendation
>Twitch now requires Twitch-centered campaigns to disclose sources of compensation
>Aussie ex-journalist uncovered a hacking incident where 40k account details had been compromised on EA forums, which EA-friendly journalists refused to cover, and EA confirmed this following his statement, which also contained some other allegations that as far as we know still remain unconfirmed
>Whatever anyone says, journalists sleeping with people from an industry they cover is completely wrong, as is journalists writing about their landlords
So how much more do we really need to do? We have made the world a better place already. If that's not good enough, shit, we even saved a feminist organisation by bringing it the publicity it needed and donated more than 5000 to suicide prevention. Holy fucking shit, if people would just stop giving us shit and saying we're woman-haters, what couldn't we accomplish?
I also see that Cloud has risen to troll bait, thus proving my opinion of their intelligence and common sense.
Have fun with that.
Anyway, MrDoh, I think you'll have to excuse me for not wanting to even try to skim though over 500 pages on The Escapist. Also, the 8Chan link doesn't seem to want to work for me at the moment.
Can't hear you, too busy sticking my dick in a blender.
I found IronBite's response to my the Zoe Post.....post to be rather amazing.
I was talking about the double standard involving it, and Ironbite basically just confirmed my thoughts.
I also see that Cloud has risen to troll bait, thus proving my opinion of their intelligence and common sense.
I also see that Cloud has risen to troll bait, thus proving my opinion of their intelligence and common sense.
Thank you for basically confirming the mentality of the average Gamergater
This whole thing is stupid. Utterly stupid. And the more MrDoh posts and tries to justify this madness, the more stupid I see it is.
Forgive me if I don't engage in debate, but CLoud's right. MrDoh may be interested in civil debate, but the vast majority of Gamergaters aren't interested in that, they're interested in shoving their opinions down your throat until you swear allegience to their flag, and will hurl terrible abuse at you if you so much as refuse to take a side.
So let me say this. On the merits of Gamergaters alone, I am now anti-Gamergate. Congratulations, people, your arrogance and snide remarks have effectively done more harm to your cause than the entirety of your detractors' comments combined.
I also see that Cloud has risen to troll bait, thus proving my opinion of their intelligence and common sense.
Thank you for basically confirming the mentality of the average Gamergater
This whole thing is stupid. Utterly stupid. And the more MrDoh posts and tries to justify this madness, the more stupid I see it is.
Forgive me if I don't engage in debate, but CLoud's right. MrDoh may be interested in civil debate, but the vast majority of Gamergaters aren't interested in that, they're interested in shoving their opinions down your throat until you swear allegience to their flag, and will hurl terrible abuse at you if you so much as refuse to take a side.
So let me say this. On the merits of Gamergaters alone, I am now anti-Gamergate. Congratulations, people, your arrogance and snide remarks have effectively done more harm to your cause than the entirety of your detractors' comments combined.
You know I'd like to point out something.
We've all been idiots over this petulant flaccid argument that has led to jackshit conversation on the important issues and ad hominem galore. Thus, I am suggesting that Sigmaleph lock the shit out of this pile of worm feces and we forget this happen all together, while establishing a general purpose thread for discussing women's issues and gaming where civility can hopefully assert itself.
Perhaps I should have clarified. Women's issues in relationto gaming.
I'm sorry, you're one to talk.
The Gamergate movement has been nothing but lumping other people into something they aren't, and pretending they're above other people simply because of disagreement.
This is the kinda shit I've seen from people in this thread.
Acknowledge the assholes in your own movement.
Call them out for being assholes.
Stop trying to drive away everyone who disagrees with you then cry martyr because they went away.
Deal with the misogynists. Call them out.
Deal with the people who are sending death threats to anti-Gamergate people or people who are simply neutral.
Deal with the people who commit acts of terrorism instead of instantly saying "They're not with us!"
Deal with the obsession with Quinn and Sarkeesian that you and many other Gamergaters have. This includes the smear campaign, which I have noticed. Believe me, it's not hard to miss.
And don't deny they exist, either.
Because you drove me away. Gamergaters, and especially you, mrdoh. And until you take responsibility for YOUR actions, and until Gamergate takes responsibility for all who call themselves a part of it, I will refuse to debate with people who consistently demonize the other side.
Bearing in mind, I'm not pretending anti-Gamergate people aren't assholes, despite what you and many other Gamergaters like to paint people as believing. They are assholes. And as far as I'm concerned, you are exactly like them, and pretending you're not.
Time to lay the cards on the table so to speak. Remember how I called Gamergate pond scum? That's because it evolved from single celled amoebas that was the Quinnspiracy. The reason why I harp on and on about how this isn't about collusion in the gaming journalism industry is because none of you idiots are going after the big triple A developers. All I hear about is how you guys go after the small fish like Zoe Quinn because....why? Because she cheated on her boyfriend? Something we have had no collaboration on from anyone? That's the bottom line, that's the patient zero here. Zoe cheated on her boyfriend. And you guys can go on and on about how it's moved on from that but has it? Not from where I sit.
Ironbite-a place called Idon'tgiveafuckistan.
Time to lay the cards on the table so to speak. Remember how I called Gamergate pond scum? That's because it evolved from single celled amoebas that was the Quinnspiracy. The reason why I harp on and on about how this isn't about collusion in the gaming journalism industry is because none of you idiots are going after the big triple A developers. All I hear about is how you guys go after the small fish like Zoe Quinn because....why? Because she cheated on her boyfriend? Something we have had no collaboration on from anyone? That's the bottom line, that's the patient zero here. Zoe cheated on her boyfriend. And you guys can go on and on about how it's moved on from that but has it? Not from where I sit.
Ironbite-a place called Idon'tgiveafuckistan.
At the bare bones of it...yes. If we lived in gender swapped versions of ourselves, yes I would. Because I have seen 0 evidence that Zoe received any form of coverage for her game even after allegedly sleeping with this dude. Nothing but this Eron's word that she did the do and got something for it.
Ironbite-but as I said, I live in Idon'tgiveafuckstan so my opinion is utterly bumpkiss in the scheme of things. Kinda like Gamergate.
Facts about Zoe Quinn not about what is essentially the status quo in video games.
Ironbite-so far....it's still all about Zoe.
Haven't been here in a while, but my two cents.
The whole thing is the biggest masturbatory wank nontroversy since Benghazi! All that's been established is that at least one person had sex, which is important because the private sexual lives of other people are totally our fucking business! The idea of someone fucking someone else for positive coverage of a free game is a pathetic fantasy that wouldn't make it past the editor of Penthouse Letters. The business about Zoe DDOSing a charity is horseshit because firstly, the "charity" itself denied it (http://archive.today/loNHR) and secondly all she did to the FYC is criticise them. Also they are the Fine Young Capitalists, if you are in it for the $,£,€ or ¥ then you aren't doing it selflessly for the good of humankind, you are a business. Nothing wrong with that, but call yourself a business.
The fact that Zoe is not a perfect human being is irrelevant, the fact that some pro-Zoe people have also been acting like dicks does not detract from the fact that Firefly star Adam Baldwin created (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/new-chat-logs-show-how-4chan-users-pushed-gamergate-into-the-national-spotlight/) the Gamergate hashtag specifically to draw attention to Zoe Quinns supposed sexual antics and Anita Sarkeesian's nasty feminism neither of which have a fucking thing to do with video game journalism! I don't care who the "sides" are in the debate, I care that people think that threatening to rape and kill people who disagree with you is an ethical debating tactic, and I can quite consistently call out the misogynist horde of cowardly scum who threatened Quinn and Sarkeesian under the "Gamergate" banner and declare those who threaten gamergaters in the same way to be also equally fucked!
You what would be a good focus for the Gamergaters, how about the set of circumstances that led to the creation of Giant Bomb, what about the atrocious conditions people in the gaming industry are forced to work under from the factory floor all the way up to the developers offices? But no, they have to go on babbling about other peoples sex lives like the front page of some supermarket tabloid. Yes, other people are fucking. Not your concern, would you like me sitting by your bedside taking notes while you get intimate? If the answer is yes I'm not avaliable, I'm playing Wasteland 2.
I fully understand that there are some gamergaters who are genuinely concerned about ethics in gaming journalism, I have no problem with that cause but call it something else. Gamergates origins are inextricably tied in with the worst kinds of gossip, slut shaming and intimidation that exist on the internet. It was a tag invented to slut shame. That well has been well and truly poisoned, build a new one!
I would like to reiterate that we all ought to be civil.
...*Golf claps* Bravo, that's a well-written post. There's just one tiny problem: literally everything you said is demonstrably wrong to one degree or another.
You know what, fuck that. I'd started answering to mrdoh, but that was WAY too much time and effort to spend on such a pointless task. As he said to his dudebros, he came here to shill, not to argue.
Him and UP know very well that, consciously or not, the movement as a whole is using the allegations of corruption as a pretext... by the way of conflating them with the one issue that really started GamerGate. The one that precedes it, transcends it, and made it mainstream. The only one most GamerGaters ultimately care about. The perception that their boy's club is under siege.
This is a culture war. Gaming culture is only place where the rules are made by people they can relate to, and approve of ; where girls, jocks,parents and little siblingspeople from the wrong generations are tolerated, but only if they follow their customs and respect their internal hierarchy without question or complaints. And they feel that this place is being threatened. By shitty journalists spouting their vitriol against the community and rejoicing over its alleged death, but also evil temptresses, feminist criticism, people who do not find anything funny in GTA's offensiveness, complaints about female character design, casual games, romanceable male characters in RPGs, and so on.
Good luck trying to get them to admit that, though. Sure, they recognize that it was the articles from Leigh Alexander & co. that pushed GamerGate into the mainstream. But for them to fully grasp that, by vocally demonstrating that "gamers are not dead", they actually proved these assholes RIGHT about the nature of the gaming community... we can only dream.
I'm just sick of this shit. Not just Gamergate. Not just the gaming community. Culture wars. Moral panics. Appropriation of a hobby, a skill, an aspect of oneself, by a subgroup of narrow-minded jackasses. Fanatic defense of the ingroup against imaginary threats. Aren't these the things we are supposed to turn into derision while we still can, until a very real, very unfunny war strikes our own land and we feel the full weight of human stupidity?
So TotalBiscuit repeats talking points we've heard a million times. I'm SO CONVINCED NOW!!!
EDIT: To clarify, I like TotalBiscuit. I also happily acknowledge that he and other well-meaning supporters of GamerGate have their hearts in the right places. They want the change and discussion that they're campaigning for, but that doesn't mean that everyone involved does, not does it change the baggage that GamerGate carries with it.
So TotalBiscuit repeats talking points we've heard a million times. I'm SO CONVINCED NOW!!!
EDIT: To clarify, I like TotalBiscuit. I also happily acknowledge that he and other well-meaning supporters of GamerGate have their hearts in the right places. They want the change and discussion that they're campaigning for, but that doesn't mean that everyone involved does, not does it change the baggage that GamerGate carries with it.
So TotalBiscuit repeats talking points we've heard a million times. I'm SO CONVINCED NOW!!!
EDIT: To clarify, I like TotalBiscuit. I also happily acknowledge that he and other well-meaning supporters of GamerGate have their hearts in the right places. They want the change and discussion that they're campaigning for, but that doesn't mean that everyone involved does, not does it change the baggage that GamerGate carries with it.
There are Radfems involved with the feminist movement. Does that mean that feminism as a movement should be abandoned because there are utter and complete dicks who call themselves feminists? Because I could use your comment and replace GG with feminism and TB with a feminist and make the exact same point.
I saw that thread on escapist, its over 500 pages long.
Gamers that care about things amuse me
To start off, a pathetic fantasy you say, but it happened. Nathan Grayson wrote 2 articles with positive mention of Zoe Quinn. That's fact.Positive mention in article =/= Review. That’s a fact!
And also, you are grossly overestimate what the hell is Kotaku. They are the king of clickbait article. I'd wager that Penthouse letters still had better integrity than Kotaku.Yeeah, I don’t think the same people who dogpiled on Quinn were ever fond of Gawker Media. Not since they made it microscopically harder to access creepshots for about a picosecond!
And nobody cared about her sleeping with 5 different guys either…Nothing but scuttlebutt, sordid gossip and the whining of her whiny ex suggests she did!
…but the questions arised (sic) when there was massive censorship and the fact that in those 5 guys list there was Nathan Gray (A journalist), her married boss (Joshua Boggs) and 2 fellow indie devs that happened to be judges of 2 independent game festivals that her game won. If you don't find that fishy, the best i could offer is a shrug and walkaway.Shrug and walk then because speculation isn’t a smoking gun or the Twin Towers were bombed by Royal Reptillians!
…Of course, the initial story had a very big gossipy elements to it, and some trolls decided to get on with it.The initial story was, and is, 100% uncut gossip and trolling was the point!
… But you know, that doesn't make it a shield to deflect whatever questions the readers had. And if you are talking her "doxx", then i can actually supply you some evidence that point to the fact that she might fake it herself. But you know, that's unless you ask me too, otherwise you are gonna blame me for victim blaming (and i'm not, just merely pull out facts that supports my argument)The caveat “might” is telling!
…Secondly, read this interview later on from TFYC. There's a reason why you had to use that archive page. They took it down. Why? Because ZQ tried to backstab them again. She tried to bribed them as well. This is after all the criticism, the doxxing, her twitter followers that befall TFYC because she didn't agree with their ran-by-a-lawyer transsexual policy. If it wasn't for 4chan to raise them up from the grave, they would be dead.The Fine Young Capitalists retract a statement, get a ton of money from people who hate Zoe Quinn and then change their story with a new tale based entirely on unverifiable scuttlebutt.
…And for all the nitpicking of their name, most of the profited from the project will be donate to charity. And they never said anything about them not being a business. It just happen that in this case they also used it to get some money to donate to charity. What's wrong with that?The “Fine” Young Capitalists have a habit of putting their foot in their mouths and then deleting it, but again, the internet remembers! (https://archive.today/jJu66)
TFYC is not a charity, that was the point. It was about people backing an idea that a woman had, so they could get a part of the profits. The profits were given to charity, but honestly if there was a way to dump the profits from the game into the backers Steam account so they could buy more games we totally would have done that. I'm tired of women not being able to monetize their actual games and being relegated to doing PR in the industry. And I honestly feel no sadness when men give money to women because they expect a return on their investment.About as “charitable” as Gordon Gecko, Ayn Rand and Darth Sidious in a ménage à trois!
…Also, again the Adam Baldwin "coined the hastag to shame Zoe Quinn". I already linked this interview, but it seemed like no one read it. In this interview he simply stated that he came up with GamerGate because of....Watergate (how simple of a reason is that i wonder). I wonder who the hell are you guys reading to come to that conclusion. Verge?Because the name “Watergate” is associated with “Big Scandal”; Baldwin’s tweet had a link to a video about Burgers and Fries, do you imagine the scandal he had in mind involved the beef industry or potato farmers?
…And for all your talk about the conditions of the gaming press and sex lives, should i point to you the cases of Josh Mattingly, Max Tempkin and Brad Wardell? You know, the people that the press that used their personal life to smear left and right for their clicks? Brad Wardell got slapped with a bullshit sexual harassment trial, and guess what the press did? Ben Kuchera decided that a few facebook posts were "damning evidence". Thus everyone and their mothers dogpiled on him. And when the trial is dismissed with prejudice, the woman had to formally apologize to Brad, where the fuck was the press? Nobody apologize to him. Ben quickly changed his initial article to "heavy allegation" but the damage had been done. His family was threaten, he got email of people threaten to sodomize his kid and rape his wife, and he got a stain on his profile forever because of the witch hunt the press put him through, even though it wasn't his fault.That would be an actual case where someone got hurt, and that’s bad. That aside as long as it doesn’t involve kids, unwilling participants, dead people or animals I honestly couldn’t give a toss who’s fucking who! If it is some scumbag is fucking any of the above they belong in a cell, also if someone threatens to rape someone’s wife and kid they also belong in a cell!
…And you do realized the fact that GamerGate was an effort to break out of the initial Zoe Quinn focused story right?THAT’S what Baldwin had in mind when he brought up that video about Burgers and Fries, sneaky bastard!
…Additionally, Anita Sarkeesian had nothing to do with GamerGate. The only reason she got bought in because of the fact that the press used her and Zoe Quinn's sexes as a shield. She wasn't even a part of the initial debacles until the press themselves bought her up with their "misogyny" and "sexism" shield.Yep, initially she didn’t have anything to do with it. The one who connected the (imaginary) dots between her and the GamerGate was the “Internet Aristocrat” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqJCCnued6c)Vlogger, who…was expanding on the Burgers and Fries theory to include Sarkeesian in some sort of bizzare porno plot to…protect women?
…And GamerGate frequently police our own and call out when there are dicks among us. We tried to do the best of our ability, but there are always the fringe elements. And we acknowledge that. I'm sure i can poke some more holes into your response, but this is just for now.Well, given that the dicks amongst you have forced one, possibly two women from their homes with threats to them, their friends and family I sincerely hope none of you are currently working in, or considering, a career in law enforcement. Your policing needs work!
If you want to campaign against corruption in video game journalism, fantastic! You've chosen the most luxurious righteousness on Earth. But joining #gamergate is like marching under Sauron's flag because you're worried about Minas Tirith's feudal inheritance of rulership. Even if you're claiming more enlightened motivations, you're charging with a stinking mob intent on ruining everything, unleashed by a raging asshole. (http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-ways-gamergate-debate-has-made-world-worse_p2/#ixzz3FS3u562Q)QFMFT!
Well, the amount of strawmen you raised during that response is kind of amazing, really.
Well, the amount of strawmen you raised during that response is kind of amazing, really.
Not Strawmen. Fact.
Believe it or not, some of us have been paying attention since BEFORE Gamergate was founded.
We saw the misogyny that this spawned from.
And we haven't forgotten that fact.
And quite frankly, the whitewashing pisses us off.
And I have little reason to believe that you came here for any reason other than to shove your agenda down our throats. And every post you make just cements that belief.
So believe me, if you came here as a representative of Gamergate, you've done more to convince me that I'm right about it than you've done to convince me that I'm wrong.
Well, the amount of strawmen you raised during that response is kind of amazing, really.
Not Strawmen. Fact.
Believe it or not, some of us have been paying attention since BEFORE Gamergate was founded.
We saw the misogyny that this spawned from.
And we haven't forgotten that fact.
And quite frankly, the whitewashing pisses us off.
And I have little reason to believe that you came here for any reason other than to shove your agenda down our throats. And every post you make just cements that belief.
So believe me, if you came here as a representative of Gamergate, you've done more to convince me that I'm right about it than you've done to convince me that I'm wrong.
Why the hell do you think this stemmed from misogyny?
Well, the amount of strawmen you raised during that response is kind of amazing, really.
Not Strawmen. Fact.
Believe it or not, some of us have been paying attention since BEFORE Gamergate was founded.
We saw the misogyny that this spawned from.
And we haven't forgotten that fact.
And quite frankly, the whitewashing pisses us off.
And I have little reason to believe that you came here for any reason other than to shove your agenda down our throats. And every post you make just cements that belief.
So believe me, if you came here as a representative of Gamergate, you've done more to convince me that I'm right about it than you've done to convince me that I'm wrong.
Why the hell do you think this stemmed from misogyny?
Because it all started when an ex-boyfriend spread rumors that his ex-girlfriend was trading sex for good reviews, and the internet believed it on his word alone.
Because Gamergate has an obsessive smear campaign against Quinn and Sarkeesian, as mrdoh and you have eloquently demonstrated on this forum. This is while simultaneously claiming that the other side bringing them up is "diverting the discussion."
Because Gamergate is using its own minorities to shield itself from criticism, just like it accuses journalists of doing (though this accusation bears some merit.)
And for reasons that have been stated repeatedly in this thread. Try to keep up.
Well, the amount of strawmen you raised during that response is kind of amazing, really.
Not Strawmen. Fact.
Believe it or not, some of us have been paying attention since BEFORE Gamergate was founded.
We saw the misogyny that this spawned from.
And we haven't forgotten that fact.
And quite frankly, the whitewashing pisses us off.
And I have little reason to believe that you came here for any reason other than to shove your agenda down our throats. And every post you make just cements that belief.
So believe me, if you came here as a representative of Gamergate, you've done more to convince me that I'm right about it than you've done to convince me that I'm wrong.
I'm still kind of puzzled about this. Zoe Quinn slept with a bunch of guys who happen to work in the same field as she does. Quel Surprise! Those same guys might have given her game a positive review. That doesn't mean they traded sex for good reviews. I wonder how many rockstars have slept with music journalists. I bet they even got good reviews. But no one has ever accused Mick Jagger of trading sex for good reviews.
1. They weren't just rumors, Zoe herself admitted to the affairs.
2. "Obsessive smear campaign"? Again, this isn't about them anymore. We're going after other, bigger targets, like Nathan Grayson, Ben Kuchera, Leigh Alexander, and Devin Faraci.
3. Many women and minorities are prominent in GamerGate. Christina Hoff Sommers, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Jason Miller are just the tip of the iceberg.
And slandering GamerGate as misogyny erases the women involved in it.
>calling Hof mere human scumI saw that thread on escapist, its over 500 pages long.
Gamers that care about things amuse me
Because we are human like you.
Personally, I'm simply amazed that it's been almost two months since Quinn's little dalliances and yet this moronic drama is still going strong. That has to be some kind of record.Well the thing is that it really did grow out to be about more than just Quinn.
Oh lordy, now we are finally reaching to the "internalized misogyny" stage of the talk.
And what kind of logic are you guys using by the way? If we don't bring it up you guys gonna kafkatrapping us (see! You don't want to talk about it therefore you are guilty of it!), but if we defend yourself you are gonna condemn us anyway (see! You keep talking about it therefore you are guilty of it!). It is damn if you do, damn if you don't.
Maybe, though Quinn is still a major part of it. If only because both sides are now arguing over whether or not it's still about Quinn (as this thread has so helpfully demonstrated). When it comes down to it, large amounts of poo are still being flung over Quinn's promiscuity.Personally, I'm simply amazed that it's been almost two months since Quinn's little dalliances and yet this moronic drama is still going strong. That has to be some kind of record.Well the thing is that it really did grow out to be about more than just Quinn.
Oh lordy, now we are finally reaching to the "internalized misogyny" stage of the talk.
And what kind of logic are you guys using by the way? If we don't bring it up you guys gonna kafkatrapping us (see! You don't want to talk about it therefore you are guilty of it!), but if we defend yourself you are gonna condemn us anyway (see! You keep talking about it therefore you are guilty of it!). It is damn if you do, damn if you don't.
Part of the problem is that you insist on going on about what GamerGate is or isn't about instead of putting your money where your mouth and actually talk about the issues. And please, stop inviting me to go talk about them over at The Escapist. I've skimmed parts of that thread and it's largely the same conversation that's going on here. They're talking about GamerGate. They're not talking about corruption, ethics, women, journalism, games or whatever the fuck you claim GamerGate is about this week, they're talking about GamerGate. And that's my biggest point of contention.
When you point out big names like TotalBiscuit supporting your "movement," all you're doing is saying that because a famous person agrees with you, we should too. When you feel the need to point out how diverse GamerGate is, you're just deflecting criticism because if these accusations were as baseless as you claim, you wouldn't need to point out GamerGate's diversity. It's a red herring. It doesn't matter who is involved in GamerGate because the people behind it aren't the issues.
That Twitter screencap above? More proof of your "us vs. them" mentality. You keep pointing these things out as if we weren't aware of them and go "look how wrong they are! We're the diverse ones" instead of ignoring the idiots and doing something. You're so focused on telling everyone about GamerGate that you ignore the issues that you're supposedly fighting for. GamerGate isn't about those issues, it's about itself.
Furthermore, while I'm not going to call you or even most GamerGaters misogynists, racists or whatever type of bigotry you're denying this week because it's probably not true and it doesn't matter anyway, it doesn't change the fact that it was built on a campaign to attack a woman for her personal life. That's what started it and instead of actually dealing with that, you insist that it isn't about that anymore in a vain attempt to deflect criticism. It doesn't matter what you want it to be about, the root of it is still misogyny and until GamerGate deals with that, and I highly doubt it will, trying to tell us what it is or isn't won't do shit.
...you are the one doing the white washing by ignore all the females, gays, trans, minorities that is participating in this campaign. As if like we are all a bunch of "misogynerds". I am an Asian, born under the communist country of Vietnam and currently resided at Australia for educational purposes. And trust me, I know what is like to be oppressed.
Just a thought: is it me or a white knighting a woman actually reinforce the patriarchy? Think about it. If that you think that woman needed to be protect, it implied that you perceive the woman as being weak and cannot fend for themselves. Isn't that the patriarchy model for years already?
So what does Anita Sarkeesian have to do with Gamergate?
So what does Anita Sarkeesian have to do with Gamergate?
Running With Scissors announces that they are fully behind #GamerGate.How many script kiddies would that take to pull off?
Running With Scissors is now being DDOSed.
I really hate the fact that this doesn’t surprise me in the least.
Running With Scissors announces that they are fully behind #GamerGate.How many script kiddies would that take to pull off?
Running With Scissors is now being DDOSed.
I really hate the fact that this doesn’t surprise me in the least.
Would I even need to remove my shoes and socks?
Between the GIFT theory and the number of people involved, it is almost a statistical certainty that this would happen... and that the same thing would happen if the situation is reversed.
I guess that some amount of skepticism is healthy, as long as it doesn't cross the line into denialism.Running With Scissors announces that they are fully behind #GamerGate.How many script kiddies would that take to pull off?
Running With Scissors is now being DDOSed.
I really hate the fact that this doesn’t surprise me in the least.
Would I even need to remove my shoes and socks?
Between the GIFT theory and the number of people involved, it is almost a statistical certainty that this would happen... and that the same thing would happen if the situation is reversed.
I have to wonder if some of these DDoS or harassment against Gamergate people are not from supposed "SJWs" but from those within the file and ranks of Gamergate orchestrating these attacks in order to make the "SJWs" look bad.
Running With Scissors announces that they are fully behind #GamerGate.How many script kiddies would that take to pull off?
Running With Scissors is now being DDOSed.
I really hate the fact that this doesn’t surprise me in the least.
Would I even need to remove my shoes and socks?
Between the GIFT theory and the number of people involved, it is almost a statistical certainty that this would happen... and that the same thing would happen if the situation is reversed.
I have to wonder if some of these DDoS or harassment against Gamergate people are not from supposed "SJWs" but from those within the file and ranks of Gamergate orchestrating these attacks in order to make the "SJWs" look bad.
We have evidence that it was a false flag.Running With Scissors announces that they are fully behind #GamerGate.How many script kiddies would that take to pull off?
Running With Scissors is now being DDOSed.
I really hate the fact that this doesn’t surprise me in the least.
Would I even need to remove my shoes and socks?
Between the GIFT theory and the number of people involved, it is almost a statistical certainty that this would happen... and that the same thing would happen if the situation is reversed.
I have to wonder if some of these DDoS or harassment against Gamergate people are not from supposed "SJWs" but from those within the file and ranks of Gamergate orchestrating these attacks in order to make the "SJWs" look bad.
Yeah but that only gets the benefit of the doubt when it's other people doing it. Zoe Quinn of course doxxed herself because of reasons.
Ironbite-cause you know...it's what she does.
Yeah, because giving your personal details out to an internet lynchmob is what people do for shits and giggles these days. ::)
A lot of the 'Gater responses sound a lot like your old school victim-blaming reactions to rape victims, she's lying or she asked for it!
When people are hyperskeptical about others claiming they were abused I question the motives of the hyperskeptic, sounds extraordinarily like motivated reasoning to me!
And that "evidence" is sketchy at best.
I'll let Anita (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah8mhDW6Shs#t=286) speak for herself on this one.
So you have evidence that the 4Chan chat logs talking about "Going Blackhat" (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/137293-Exclusive-Zoe-Quinn-Posts-Chat-Logs-Debunking-GamerGate-4Chan-and-Quinn-Respond), the IRC channel conversations discussing cracking her emails (http://www.bustle.com/articles/40867-gamergate-trolls-harassed-zoe-quinn-for-weeks-but-she-says-she-wont-stop-fighting) or the harassing phone calls (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NqU4_k4wrQ) on Zoe were faked?
Or do you just not want to believe any of this stuff is true because it doesn't fit into your favoured narrative?
Notice I haven't gone hyperskeptical on your tales of GamerGaters getting harassed. That is absolutely plausible, generally when someone says they are being harassed or threatened I give them the benefit of the doubt. I'm eccentric that way!
4chan released the chatlog of a chatroom that hey have no control over mere 2 hours after she put up her leaks. I don't know about you...but:
+The IRC is a public chatroom
+Anyone can join in and shit talking
+It is not 4chan's creation.
+The mere logic that somehow a campaign that have had 1 millions+ tweet, going strong into its 8th weeks is coordinated by 5 guys in a public chatroom is absurd. That's some Illuminati level of PR right there.
And also, do you feel a bit off that only The Escapist reached out to 4chan and the channel themselves to see what they had to say about "her" leak?
4chan showed no fear in releasing them. So you have to ask yourself "do they have anything to hide?"
If you were any more transparent you'd be made of oxygen!
If you were any more transparent you'd be made of oxygen!
Might as well extend the analogy there and say that trying to reason with GamerGate is like talking to dead air.
On a similar topic:I guess that some amount of skepticism is healthy, as long as it doesn't cross the line into denialism.Running With Scissors announces that they are fully behind #GamerGate.How many script kiddies would that take to pull off?
Running With Scissors is now being DDOSed.
I really hate the fact that this doesn’t surprise me in the least.
Would I even need to remove my shoes and socks?
Between the GIFT theory and the number of people involved, it is almost a statistical certainty that this would happen... and that the same thing would happen if the situation is reversed.
I have to wonder if some of these DDoS or harassment against Gamergate people are not from supposed "SJWs" but from those within the file and ranks of Gamergate orchestrating these attacks in order to make the "SJWs" look bad.
Do you think it's possible that a lot of the grosser anti-gamergate tweets you post are just from the same few people sockpuppeting?
I meant the same few Anti-gamergate people.Do you think it's possible that a lot of the grosser anti-gamergate tweets you post are just from the same few people sockpuppeting?
Yeah, again if someone says they are being harassed/stalked/abused I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.
If evidence arises that they are crying wolf then I'll judge it on it's merits. So it's possible, but a lot of things are possible-however possible =/= true.
If you were any more transparent you'd be made of oxygen!
Might as well extend the analogy there and say that trying to reason with GamerGate is like talking to dead air.
As opposed to all of that live air we have floating around.
I always thought "dead air" referred to pregnant pauses where nothing was said, or at the very least a bunch of "ums" and "ahs" that weren't communicating anything coherent that were a bad thing in radio because you were wasting airtime.
I'd say I'm sorry for the double post but if UP can get away with quadruple posts, so can I.And if you don't want to be associated with this petulant, thuggish, mysoginist dickery ditch the fucking GamerGate label!
This is the face of your movement Gaters. These outer fringe idiots who nobody has done any effort to curtail. You're a faceless, leaderless, headless mob of proto-slime who seems really cool with women being run out of their homes because what, a dudebro got his feelings hurt because his ex decided to sleep around on him? And for what? A competition? A little glowing praise of an otherwise mediocre game? You're not about game journalism, you're not about double standards. What you are about is terrorism.
Ironbite-and you should be treated as such.
This is the face of your movement Gaters. These outer fringe idiots who nobody has done any effort to curtail.I was there to see the thread where Brianna Wu was doxxed, and it was overwhelmingly denounced. Just like every other time someone posts something of that nature.
And if you don't want to be associated with this petulant, thuggish, mysoginist dickery ditch the fucking GamerGate label!What good would that do? Any alternate label that got big enough to supplant gamergate would promptly be attacked and stigmatized by the gaming journalists and their allies and we'd end up right back where we started.
This is the face of your movement Gaters. These outer fringe idiots who nobody has done any effort to curtail.I was there to see the thread where Brianna Wu was doxxed, and it was overwhelmingly denounced. Just like every other time someone posts something of that nature.(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)Just what kind of "effort to curtail" do you want? We already make it very clear that we do not approve of such behavior and actively condemn it when we see it. Beyond that, what can we do? Do you expect us to revoke their gamergate membership cards or something?(click to show/hide)And if you don't want to be associated with this petulant, thuggish, mysoginist dickery ditch the fucking GamerGate label!What good would that do? Any alternate label that got big enough to supplant gamergate would promptly be attacked and stigmatized by the gaming journalists and their allies and we'd end up right back where we started.
"Rational"Wiki is far from infallible. And that article in particular is deeply, deeply flawed.This is the face of your movement Gaters. These outer fringe idiots who nobody has done any effort to curtail.I was there to see the thread where Brianna Wu was doxxed, and it was overwhelmingly denounced. Just like every other time someone posts something of that nature.(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)Just what kind of "effort to curtail" do you want? We already make it very clear that we do not approve of such behavior and actively condemn it when we see it. Beyond that, what can we do? Do you expect us to revoke their gamergate membership cards or something?(click to show/hide)And if you don't want to be associated with this petulant, thuggish, mysoginist dickery ditch the fucking GamerGate label!What good would that do? Any alternate label that got big enough to supplant gamergate would promptly be attacked and stigmatized by the gaming journalists and their allies and we'd end up right back where we started.
It would allow you to concentrate on gaming without being associated with epic shitlords that threaten to rape and murder people. It would also lose the association with a mountain of bullshit that has nothing to do with computer games (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gamergate)!
That's what's behind all of your deep passion isn't it, gaming?
Agreed. That article is the single issue wank of one particular editor, who reminds me of Rome Viharo."Rational"Wiki is far from infallible. And that article in particular is deeply, deeply flawed.This is the face of your movement Gaters. These outer fringe idiots who nobody has done any effort to curtail.I was there to see the thread where Brianna Wu was doxxed, and it was overwhelmingly denounced. Just like every other time someone posts something of that nature.(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)Just what kind of "effort to curtail" do you want? We already make it very clear that we do not approve of such behavior and actively condemn it when we see it. Beyond that, what can we do? Do you expect us to revoke their gamergate membership cards or something?(click to show/hide)And if you don't want to be associated with this petulant, thuggish, mysoginist dickery ditch the fucking GamerGate label!What good would that do? Any alternate label that got big enough to supplant gamergate would promptly be attacked and stigmatized by the gaming journalists and their allies and we'd end up right back where we started.
It would allow you to concentrate on gaming without being associated with epic shitlords that threaten to rape and murder people. It would also lose the association with a mountain of bullshit that has nothing to do with computer games (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gamergate)!
That's what's behind all of your deep passion isn't it, gaming?
This is the face of your movement Gaters. These outer fringe idiots who nobody has done any effort to curtail.I was there to see the thread where Brianna Wu was doxxed, and it was overwhelmingly denounced. Just like every other time someone posts something of that nature.(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)Just what kind of "effort to curtail" do you want? We already make it very clear that we do not approve of such behavior and actively condemn it when we see it. Beyond that, what can we do? Do you expect us to revoke their gamergate membership cards or something?(click to show/hide)And if you don't want to be associated with this petulant, thuggish, mysoginist dickery ditch the fucking GamerGate label!What good would that do? Any alternate label that got big enough to supplant gamergate would promptly be attacked and stigmatized by the gaming journalists and their allies and we'd end up right back where we started.
For one, why do you need a label? The idea that you need a label to put on yourself is ridiculous and, frankly, counterproductive to your alleged cause. For two, maybe if you'd talk about the issues instead of feeling the need to defend yourself at every fucking step.1 - Convenience. It's a simple way to collectively refer to a big movement.
This is the face of your movement Gaters. These outer fringe idiots who nobody has done any effort to curtail.I was there to see the thread where Brianna Wu was doxxed, and it was overwhelmingly denounced. Just like every other time someone posts something of that nature.(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)Just what kind of "effort to curtail" do you want? We already make it very clear that we do not approve of such behavior and actively condemn it when we see it. Beyond that, what can we do? Do you expect us to revoke their gamergate membership cards or something?(click to show/hide)It would allow you to concentrate on gaming without being associated with epic shitlords that threaten to rape and murder people. It would also lose the association with a mountain of bullshit that has nothing to do with computer games (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gamergate)!We're going to be "associated" with them one way or another. Don't you remember the eleven "gamers are dead" articles? They weren't talking about gamergate, they were smearing gamers in general. If I sent a message to one of those game journalists or posted on an anti-gg site about corruption without ever mentioning gg, do you think for a second that they wouldn't try to attach me to those "epic shitlords"?
That's what's behind all of your deep passion isn't it, gaming?
I'm mostly counting the minutes until GamerGate declares Wu being driven out of her home a false flag, just like they did with Sarkeesian and Quinn.
It was the Reptilian NWO SJWs maaaaan, she prolly doxxed herself.
This is how these deranged people think. They'd rather believe a conspiracy theory than a woman. (https://twitter.com/frankcifaldi/status/520753444219392001)
And dear people, if one obscure Wiki editor was the only reason for calling out GamerGate’s origins as a mountain of bullshit you might have something, this is not the case!Agreed. That article is the single issue wank of one particular editor, who reminds me of Rome Viharo."Rational"Wiki is far from infallible. And that article in particular is deeply, deeply flawed.This is the face of your movement Gaters. These outer fringe idiots who nobody has done any effort to curtail.I was there to see the thread where Brianna Wu was doxxed, and it was overwhelmingly denounced. Just like every other time someone posts something of that nature.(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)Just what kind of "effort to curtail" do you want? We already make it very clear that we do not approve of such behavior and actively condemn it when we see it. Beyond that, what can we do? Do you expect us to revoke their gamergate membership cards or something?(click to show/hide)And if you don't want to be associated with this petulant, thuggish, mysoginist dickery ditch the fucking GamerGate label!What good would that do? Any alternate label that got big enough to supplant gamergate would promptly be attacked and stigmatized by the gaming journalists and their allies and we'd end up right back where we started.
It would allow you to concentrate on gaming without being associated with epic shitlords that threaten to rape and murder people. It would also lose the association with a mountain of bullshit that has nothing to do with computer games (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gamergate)!
That's what's behind all of your deep passion isn't it, gaming?
Ironbite dared you to defend this assholery, you didn’t disappoint!No one defended it.
Except that constantly denying someone elses experience of abuse is absolutely defending the perpetrators. Something the Roman Catholic church perfected decades before #notyourshield and GamerGaters started doing it. It's a nasty, sleazy tactic that isn't too far from straight up gaslighting.
I wonder if any #notyoushielders grasp the bitter irony of that name!
And whenever Madman pops by to remind us that he's serenely floating above all of this unseemliness like an internet Jesus, take the bottle!Exactly! Now you're doing it! Come on, everyone!
Ironbite dared you to defend this assholery, you didn’t disappoint!No one defended it.
I'm beginning to wonder if this thread is getting to heated that I'll have to lock it.
But then somebody will make another thread on this subject.
Madman, if you have nothing to contribute other than being snide, then don't comment here at all.
We only deny instances of harassment and abuse when we have evidence to suggest they didn't happen. One thing Zoe, Anita, and Brianna have in common is that, due to the holes that can be found in their stories and their own histories of dishonesty, we have little reason to believe them.
And let me point out that I posted evidence against her claim, but you turned around and called me a conspiracy theorist. Did you even look at what I posted? Look at the timestamps, you jackass!
The Gamergate thread drinking game! Take a shot:
- Whenever Paragon or Watermelon posts a social media excerpt.
- Whenever I comment about the lovely box they've put themselves into for me.
- Whenever Tolpuddle uses a exclamation point, because he's a really angry guy whose voice must be heard.
- Whenever Ironbite shows up to comment on the subject at hand.
- Take a couple million for each ad hominem attack.
Congratulations! You now have several forms of liver cancer, which can also be used to describe the endless void of bitch fighting that is this thread. Now as you rip out your liver and put it into a box where it will never be found, remember to pay me for each shot you took.
Congratulations! You are now as bankrupt financially as you are of common sense. Now, you may feel the urge to beat to death with my own dick but I assure those feelings will pass in time. And by "in time", I mean never.
We only deny instances of harassment and abuse when we have evidence to suggest they didn't happen. One thing Zoe, Anita, and Brianna have in common is that, due to the holes that can be found in their stories and their own histories of dishonesty, we have little reason to believe them.
And let me point out that I posted evidence against her claim, but you turned around and called me a conspiracy theorist. Did you even look at what I posted? Look at the timestamps, you jackass!
Your "gotcha" talking points on the timestamps of Death to Brianna's tweets are unverifiable as, strangely enough, that Twitter account no longer exists. Or it could be that some lowlife created a Twitter account called Death to Brianna and threatened Brianna with death and afterwards a loyal gamergater got onto photoshop to "inform" the masses that the evil woman had doxxed herself with the level of honesty and transparency we have come to expect from the 4chan/8chan regulars that brought you #EndFathersDay (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/endfathersday).
As I said, when someone says they have been threatened, abused or hurt by someone I give them the benefit of the doubt because telling someone who's just had that happened to them that you'd rather believe that they are lying or delusional is kind of a dick move.
Paragon is right on the timestamps. You can check them on Google's cache.
However, as far as I can tell, her original tweet saying she'd been doxxed meant that the information was put on 8chan (which it was, according to the people there, but I can't find a way to time precisely when that happened. It's since been deleted). The specific tweet threatening her that happened a few minutes later was not the doxxing, but a threat using that information.
If she did fake it, she's at least not a complete idiot.
Ironbite dared you to defend this assholery, you didn’t disappoint!No one defended it.
Except someone did and I'll explain when I have access to a real computer
Ironbite-watch the skies
Ironbite-from a certain point of view it almost looks like this isn't about games journalism at all!
Yep, harassment is bad. Thank you for the walls of snips from social media. Links do the job too, and take up less space!
Doesn't detract from the fact that the GamerGate and notyourshield "causes" stem from an angry mans pillow talks about the people his former girlfriend allegedly slept with when he and her were "on a break" and an urban myth about a sometimes-charity getting ddosed by Zoe Quinn.
Also given that harassment is bad it would be nicer if certain persons spent less time and energy trying to say that the other "sides" claims of harassment didn't happen while wildly speculating in the paranoid "false flag" language of nutzoids who believe the CIA blew up the Twin Towers!
Harassment of GamerGater's is just as bad, this does not detract from the fact that GamerGate is a storm in a teacup over essentially, nothing. Nothing to do with gaming in any case.
1.See #notyourshield.
2.So her own, undoctored admission wasn't proof? I found it amazing that people still claimed that there aren't proofs when Eron proved that the logs weren't doctored, there are pictures that showed Nathan Grayson and her was hanging out much earlier than what Stephen Totilo trying to said, and her boss' wife who she slept with actually RAILED at her and ZQ's response was "sorry for your man to sleep with me". If you flip Eron and ZQ's gender around you'd outrage at ZQ for her action. But nope. He's just obviously a jilted ex who recently got hanged by a Kangaroo court so badly that his lawyer in a fit of rage decided to do his trial pro-bono.
3. And urban myth about TFYC getting DDOS? Should i pull out the actual 40+ tweets she talked how fucked up TFYC is and ended with her and Legobutts boasting about "accidentally" DDOS them? And what about this TFYC interview then?
http://apgnation.com/archives/2014/09/09/6977/truth-gaming-interview-fine-young-capitalists
We believe that games are an art form that should be allowed to flourish and evolve naturally and freely; and should thus be protected from the dogmatic rhetoric of a clique of totalitarian ideologues who seek only to reign over an intellectually monolithic empire
We believe that the free flow of ideas and information is necessary for an informed, free democratic society to function;
and condemn all attempts to use disinformation, censorship and bullying to disrupt free discussion.
We believe that a Fifth Estate worthy of that name needs to be ethical, transparent, free from conflicts of interests and aiming to inform rather than preach; to merit the trust of the public, the real and only source of it's legitimacy.
We denounce the mercantilization of debased social justice, and thus believe it's our responsibility to inform sponsors and partners, of the moral corruption they implicitly endorse through their advertisements.
We refuse to forego our legitimate right to think for ourselves, and resist those who wants us to serve as a passive, obedient, subservient audience whose only function is to "listen and believe" the propaganda of culture war profiteers and patented gurus who prey on the gullibles.
We reject harassment, threats, abuse; and the use of those terms to mislabel questions, dissent and criticism; which are all essential parts of in any rational, logical, respectful social discussion.
We reject the Industry of Outrage and it's guilt-based economic model, which parades fabricated martyrs and calculated victim hood to distract from it's own sins, while panhandling for the sympathy of the morally manipulated masses.
We reject the ideological megaphones who perpetually parrot their prejudiced hate,which they attempt to masquerade as progressive political preferences, to disguise their own ethically bankrupt behavior.
We reject the meticulous and deliberate manufacturing of self-fulfilling prophecies, by self-aggrandizing and recognition-starved academics, who have neither knowledge nor care for games, devs and garners.
We believe that misogyny exists, is toxic, and that trivializing it's true gravity by throwing the term around as a ready-made decoy to stonewall any constructive dialogue; is intellectually dishonest and immoral.
We believe that we are humans first; and that the use of our gender, sexual orientation, religious or ethnic identities
as mere commodities, to be traded on the mediatic market, in return for ideological brownie points; is pure objectification and dehumanizing to us all.
We are of all genders, skin colors, sexual orientations, cultures, creeds, ages, education levels and social classes.
To you, those things should divide us. Yet here we stand, united. Because we are not divided by those identities we didn't choose.
We are united by the one identity we did choose. We are Garners. We are alive.
There’s a new game out, called Koala Fighters XVII. It’s a game about an elite squadron of fighter pilots, who are taking on the menace of the invading koala hordes. In it, throughout, are cutscenes showing bare-breasted women being kidnapped by the evil koalas, threatened with torture and death, to be rescued by the amazing gang of pilot men. The game is, obviously, brilliantly well made, featuring some of the best koala shooting action ever seen in a game. However, when reviewing this game, gaming site Poltaku comments on how the nudity and sexual stereotypes are disappointing. Meanwhile, Sensible Gaming Reviews, leaving the politics out of games coverage, doesn’t say anything of the sort, not seeing the feature necessary to mention. GameBros4Ever, meanwhile, reviews the game and comments on how brilliantly the breasts are animated, and how great it was to feel like a powerful man in the cockpit of the plane.
All three reviews are inherently political. Choosing to mention this specific feature of the game is a political decision, whether to condemn or celebrate. And crucially, choosing not to mention it is a political decision too. Not thinking it worth mentioning, also, is born of a political position on the matter. Indifference to something of importance to others is, of course, a political position. You cannot “leave the politics out of games coverage”. Politics are inherent. What is instead meant by this demand is, by its nature, “Leave politics I don’t adhere to out of games coverage.”
...What?
Why can't you just say that SOME games are art. Games can be deep. Games can be a metaphor for something. Games can make you think. ...But games can just be silly games. Tetris does not have to be deep and meaningful, it can just be a simple enjoyable game.
Most people agree that movies are art but aside from the Three colours trilogy by Kieslowsky we also have Rob Schneider "comedies." There is Chindler's list, A beautiful mind and many other movies that are concidered art but we also have Uwe Boll movies.
Just because a platform can be used to make art it does not mean that every single creation on that platform is art and must be seen through an ideology.
Bull fucking shit. If you want to state that per say, Half Life can be only examined via addressing a ideology, I'd laugh in your face and tell you to go away. That's the thing, Tolpuddle. Art, by nature, is apolitical.
...What?
Why can't you just say that SOME games are art. Games can be deep. Games can be a metaphor for something. Games can make you think. ...But games can just be silly games. Tetris does not have to be deep and meaningful, it can just be a simple enjoyable game.
Most people agree that movies are art but aside from the Three colours trilogy by Kieslowsky we also have Rob Schneider "comedies." There is Chindler's list, A beautiful mind and many other movies that are concidered art but we also have Uwe Boll movies.
Just because a platform can be used to make art it does not mean that every single creation on that platform is art and must be seen through an ideology.
Bull fucking shit. If you want to state that per say, Half Life can be only examined via addressing a ideology, I'd laugh in your face and tell you to go away. That's the thing, Tolpuddle. Art, by nature, is apolitical.
You can't just say that some games are art while others are "just games" because that opens up a completely new can of worms on what art even is. You don't look at music and say "well, this band are artists, but that pop singer is just music." It would be absurd to say that. The only medium that people try to separate works as "art" or "not art" to this extent is video games.
By the way, here's something I think helps explain one of the roots of this debacle.(click to show/hide)
All I read that as was this.On Tumblr, they communicate largely in buzzwords and gifs/macroes. Maybe you'll have a better time over there, seeing as reading more than a sentence or two at a time is just oh so difficult for you.
(http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/bootface_7608.jpg)
Seriously, put your points in something that isn't text wall.
Yeah. Attention span is hard. Eh, I'm just glad that at least this time Madman gazed at the page long enough to not call me out on something that Cloud said and I didn't.
tl;dr version for the 140 character minimum peeps. Don't blame the media if asshats in your group are asshats. Blame the asshats, they got the medias attention and the media does what media does!
Yeah. Attention span is hard. Eh, I'm just glad that at least this time Madman gazed at the page long enough to not call me out on something that Cloud said and I didn't.
tl;dr version for the 140 character minimum peeps. Don't blame the media if asshats in your group are asshats. Blame the asshats, they got the medias attention and the media does what media does!
Don't you think you're contradicting yourself? In one breath, you criticize Madman for not taking the time to read your post. Granted, that's a legitimate criticism, but then you turn around and say we shouldn't blame the media for being even more lazy in their reporting.
Oh, and we do blame the asshats. The problem, however, is that the media chooses to ignore that. It's just like how they focus on the vocal minority of fanatical Muslims.
And I have a couple questions. How do you expect us to police a massive movement with no real organization or hierarchy? And why shouldn't we expect anti-GamerGate to do the same thing?
I have no problem with games attempting to tackle social issues. What I do have a problem with is those games being judged by that instead of (rather than in addition to) other, more important factors. And it's a crying shame. Indie games are some the most creative and interesting games we’ve had in years. But when the powers that be reward those who focus solely on social issues instead of time, effort, and skill, it could turn the indie game market into the gaming equivalent of PSA comic booksEh, that sound a bit overdramatic, I doubt SJW's will ever gain enough power to have significant power.
I have no problem with games attempting to tackle social issues. What I do have a problem with is those games being judged by that instead of (rather than in addition to) other, more important factors. And it's a crying shame. Indie games are some the most creative and interesting games we’ve had in years. But when the powers that be reward those who focus solely on social issues instead of time, effort, and skill, it could turn the indie game market into the gaming equivalent of PSA comic books
I have no problem with games attempting to tackle social issues. What I do have a problem with is those games being judged by that instead of (rather than in addition to) other, more important factors. And it's a crying shame. Indie games are some the most creative and interesting games we’ve had in years. But when the powers that be reward those who focus solely on social issues instead of time, effort, and skill, it could turn the indie game market into the gaming equivalent of PSA comic books
The Tropico 5 review by polygon is the most prominent recent example in my mind. The reviewer praised the graphics and gameplay, but because they found the premise objectionable, they gave it a score of 6.5.I have no problem with games attempting to tackle social issues. What I do have a problem with is those games being judged by that instead of (rather than in addition to) other, more important factors. And it's a crying shame. Indie games are some the most creative and interesting games we’ve had in years. But when the powers that be reward those who focus solely on social issues instead of time, effort, and skill, it could turn the indie game market into the gaming equivalent of PSA comic books
How often does this actually happen with reviewers? If you want people to believe this actually happens, you need to provide proof and examples. Furthermore, you need to get the idea that reviews can be objective out of your head because "objective review" is completely absurd.
The Tropico 5 review by polygon is the most prominent recent example in my mind. The reviewer praised the graphics and gameplay, but because they found the premise objectionable, they gave it a score of 6.5.I have no problem with games attempting to tackle social issues. What I do have a problem with is those games being judged by that instead of (rather than in addition to) other, more important factors. And it's a crying shame. Indie games are some the most creative and interesting games we’ve had in years. But when the powers that be reward those who focus solely on social issues instead of time, effort, and skill, it could turn the indie game market into the gaming equivalent of PSA comic books
How often does this actually happen with reviewers? If you want people to believe this actually happens, you need to provide proof and examples. Furthermore, you need to get the idea that reviews can be objective out of your head because "objective review" is completely absurd.
We denounce the mercantilization of debased social justice, and thus believe it's our responsibility to inform sponsors and partners, of the moral corruption they implicitly endorse through their advertisements.
QuoteWe reject the meticulous and deliberate manufacturing of self-fulfilling prophecies, by self-aggrandizing and recognition-starved academics, who have neither knowledge nor care for games, devs and garners.
I suppose some academics are self aggrandizing and attention starved, also plenty of academics probably know sod all about games but which academics are we talking about and which academics cooked up these manufactured self fulfilling prophecies?
Fair enough.
Well, what could we do about product placement, pay-to-play, advertising, AAA bias, a lack of criticism for sequels? I suggest: more women.
Fair enough.
Well, what could we do about product placement, pay-to-play, advertising, AAA bias, a lack of criticism for sequels? I suggest: more women.
The Tropico 5 review by polygon is the most prominent recent example in my mind. The reviewer praised the graphics and gameplay, but because they found the premise objectionable, they gave it a score of 6.5.I have no problem with games attempting to tackle social issues. What I do have a problem with is those games being judged by that instead of (rather than in addition to) other, more important factors. And it's a crying shame. Indie games are some the most creative and interesting games we’ve had in years. But when the powers that be reward those who focus solely on social issues instead of time, effort, and skill, it could turn the indie game market into the gaming equivalent of PSA comic books
How often does this actually happen with reviewers? If you want people to believe this actually happens, you need to provide proof and examples. Furthermore, you need to get the idea that reviews can be objective out of your head because "objective review" is completely absurd.
The Tropico 5 review by polygon is the most prominent recent example in my mind. The reviewer praised the graphics and gameplay, but because they found the premise objectionable, they gave it a score of 6.5.I have no problem with games attempting to tackle social issues. What I do have a problem with is those games being judged by that instead of (rather than in addition to) other, more important factors. And it's a crying shame. Indie games are some the most creative and interesting games we’ve had in years. But when the powers that be reward those who focus solely on social issues instead of time, effort, and skill, it could turn the indie game market into the gaming equivalent of PSA comic books
How often does this actually happen with reviewers? If you want people to believe this actually happens, you need to provide proof and examples. Furthermore, you need to get the idea that reviews can be objective out of your head because "objective review" is completely absurd.
Apparently there's also something going on with the treatment of Bayonetta 2 right now, but that's outside my sphere of interest so I can't really comment on it.
I fail to see the problem here. As I said, a review is little more than an educated opinion. The reviewer was not happy about the premise of the game and his opinion reflected that. They addressed the fact that Tropico is a series about being a despot because it is an important part of the game and it hurt their experience with the game, which is exactly what they should be talking about in a review.To a certain extent I would agree. Personal experience on games are certainly subjective, and if aspects of a game rub a person the wrong way, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to mention that. On the other hand, when mechanics, graphics, gameplay, storyline, and so on are treated as being of secondary importance, I think a disservice is done to everyone involved, especially when the reviewer's problem seems to be with the premise rather than content. Knocking Tropico for being about dictators is like giving a war-themed game a bad rating because people get killed in it.
Anything that affects the reviewer's experience is worth mentioning. How the game affect's the reviewer's emotions, their emotional state going into the game, their expectations and so on and so forth. Even something that seems irrelevant like how they were having a shitty day until they started playing the game is worth mentioning because it affects their opinion of the game.
I can fill you in a little. Polygon writer Arthur Gies wrote a review of Bayonetta 2. From what I can tell, there are four major problems with it.
1. He took a lot of points off the game because he thought Bayonetta was too sexual.
Less positive is the same exaggerated sexualization that hung heavy around the last game's neck. I'll forgive the high heels and the exaggerated proportions, if only because there's so many other things to criticize. Bayonetta's new outfit delivers bold new developments in revealing clothing with the introduction of diamond cutouts on the ass of her jumpsuit, creating what I can only refer to as "under-butt" cleavage. When standing in place her shoulders are bent back to point her chest at ... whatever.
But even this is minor compared to the game's camera, which zooms in on Bayonetta's parts like they're products being sold in a commercial. There are enough gratuitous ass-shots, cleavage jokes and spread legs to fill an hours long super cut. The camera doesn't look at Bayonetta — it leers at her.
2. This ignores the fact that Bayonetta's sexuality is dominant and empowering. If you're going to criticize her, then why don't you criticize Kratos while you're at it? I thought you were for equality!
3. His claims of "misogyny" rang more than a little hollow because Bayonetta's character designer, Mari Shimakazi, is a woman.
This is frequently provided as an implicit reward for doing well. For anyone who didn't play the first game, here's a bit of premise: Much of Bayonetta's supernatural power is tied into her hair. Her clothing is actually composed of this hair magic, and as she performs more powerful attacks, more of this hair magic is diverted from covering her to compensate. Put simply, Bayonetta's strongest attacks result in her clothes flying off. For more intense quicktime sequences, she'll even do a sexy pose as it flies off, with the absolute barest minimum covered.
4. And all this comes from a Suicide Girls fan. Hypocrite, much?
Lolwut?(click to show/hide)
Lolwut?(click to show/hide)
I fail to see the problem here. As I said, a review is little more than an educated opinion. The reviewer was not happy about the premise of the game and his opinion reflected that. They addressed the fact that Tropico is a series about being a despot because it is an important part of the game and it hurt their experience with the game, which is exactly what they should be talking about in a review.To a certain extent I would agree. Personal experience on games are certainly subjective, and if aspects of a game rub a person the wrong way, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to mention that. On the other hand, when mechanics, graphics, gameplay, storyline, and so on are treated as being of secondary importance, I think a disservice is done to everyone involved, especially when the reviewer's problem seems to be with the premise rather than content. Knocking Tropico for being about dictators is like giving a war-themed game a bad rating because people get killed in it.
Anything that affects the reviewer's experience is worth mentioning. How the game affect's the reviewer's emotions, their emotional state going into the game, their expectations and so on and so forth. Even something that seems irrelevant like how they were having a shitty day until they started playing the game is worth mentioning because it affects their opinion of the game.
I'm just going to leave this here:Quote"listen i know women are getting harassed and threatened on a daily basis in this industry and it gets worse every day and that’s really bad but can we talk about corruption in games journalism" who fucking cares
who. fucking. cares.
who fucking cares if companies are buying off reviews? shit, we already know they do. we’ve known it since the start. we already know they’ve expended money to buy reviews, ads, good press. be it directly handing money, or spending exorbitant amounts of money on press event parties, flying people in on their own expense and everything. we’ve known this shit for awhile. jeff gerstmann got fired for not rolling with this shit, but, notably, people didn’t explode over “ethics” in games journalism back them.
and, notably, they aren’t targeting AAA publishers. they target indie game developers and smalltime journalists and critics - pretty consistently women, or anybody who speaks up in defense of those women.
all this for “ethics in games journalism”. obviously just a very tiny slice of games journalism, since they don’t attack the people with money to actually do things.
but honestly.
who fucking cares.
ea could spend 5 million dollars tomorrow to buy one single review. who fucking cares? you can read steam reviews, gamefaqs reviews, metacritic user reviews, and most of all, you can WATCH ACTUAL GAMEPLAY on youtube. hours of it! on day of launch! you can download demos! you have more access to judging whether you will like a game or not on your own than ever before. you don’t have to rely on print mags giving you a limited array of screenshots and a review score anymore. you have a WEALTH of resources to decide if you’ll like a game or not before purchasing it. up to and including even outright pirating it! it’s easier than ever before!
and despite the ongoing, daily fucking harassment, the death threats, and most of all, just the bubbling culture that’s always been there that hates women, that hates anyone from outside their “norm” and derides and mocks them and holds an astounding amount of anger in their hearts over them, that culture that’s always fucking been there but gets dismissed with “that’s trolls, ignore them” or “that’s just how it is, people are assholes”, what they want to focus on is “ethics in games journalism”, which to them, comes down solely apparently to fucking review scores.
they care more about that than fucking anything else in the world.
fuck gamergate. fuck people who care more about whether or not bayonetta 2 got a 10/10 across the board than the hideous disgusting culture of hate that surrounds them and they seem to willingly inhabit with and just go “not us, though”
Except that's wrong. GamerGate has gone after big publishers. The Cynical Brit has gone after the Shadows of Mordor debacle.
And bringing up harassment is against the rules of this thread, unless that was changed and I didn't know about it.
Quite.
As we are attempting to address issues here as opposed to people I'd appreciate it if UP or one of the other pro Gamergate people would address what look to me like an innate contradiction in the demands of their movement. That being the call for free speech coupled with a desire to see less said in gaming joudnalism about agendas relating to feminism and other social justice issues. I don't see how the two platforms can be coherently reconciled.
Help me understand this.
Protip: Reviews are meant to protect the consumers, not spread your political views. This is criticism 101, kids.
Except that's wrong. GamerGate has gone after big publishers. The Cynical Brit has gone after the Shadows of Mordor debacle.
And bringing up harassment is against the rules of this thread, unless that was changed and I didn't know about it.
No that hasn't changed if there are more talks about harassment then I or another mod will lock this thread.
I apologize for making that post. At the time I was not aware that there were special rules for this thread regarding mentions of harassment.
Protip: Reviews are meant to protect the consumers, not spread your political views. This is criticism 101, kids.Handy tip. Not all consumers are identical and some might actually be interested in this stuff. Also, if a review isn't to your liking find another. There are plenty.
Some facts are open to interpretation as I stated about that Bayonetta review, particularly when discussing hot button social, moral and political issues. We all come with our biases.Quite.
As we are attempting to address issues here as opposed to people I'd appreciate it if UP or one of the other pro Gamergate people would address what look to me like an innate contradiction in the demands of their movement. That being the call for free speech coupled with a desire to see less said in gaming joudnalism about agendas relating to feminism and other social justice issues. I don't see how the two platforms can be coherently reconciled.
Help me understand this.
The way I see it, part of the problem is that they're letting their agendas color the facts. Quite a few reviewers I like have panned guilty pleasures of theirs, so it shouldn't be too hard for them to praise games they disagree with. In my book, it's perfectly alright for Mr. Gies to think Bayonetta 2 is sexist. However, he's not judging the game based on that, but on other factors. If he wants to talk about that, he's perfectly welcome to discuss it on his blog or something. It's also okay for him to mention it in passing in his review.
Perhaps you like to read a review with plenty of nice little weasel words in it, but I prefer to know whether the hell the product I'm buying is worth my money.
Perhaps you like to read a review with plenty of nice little weasel words in it, but I prefer to know whether the hell the product I'm buying is worth my money.
No, I wish that the author of said review keeps his political opinions out of the review. It's akin to a conservative reviewer hating the (sadly cancelled) Rainbow Six: Patriots because of it's subject matter.
Protip: Reviews are meant to protect the consumers, not spread your political views. This is criticism 101, kids.
Fruit Simulator 2014 is a fresh take on simulation games 9/10 - Eddoscapistmagazine.
This game is bananas 11/10 - IGraNada.
The melons were a bit large, but gameplay is solid. 8/10 - Kiwitaku
The underlying tones of misogyny became apparent about halfway through when bananas sold for 15% more than peaches. I felt triggered. 7.5/10 - Papayagon.
A part of me thinks that this is stupid, random, and nonsensical. Another part thinks it's the greatest idea ever.(click to show/hide)
To quotes someone on the escapist who made it even funnier:QuoteFruit Simulator 2014 is a fresh take on simulation games 9/10 - Eddoscapistmagazine.
This game is bananas 11/10 - IGraNada.
The melons were a bit large, but gameplay is solid. 8/10 - Kiwitaku
The underlying tones of misogyny became apparent about halfway through when bananas sold for 15% more than peaches. I felt triggered. 7.5/10 - Papayagon.
I think we're ignoring something important: the idea that sexism in vidya can somehow cause sexism in real life. I'd say that's as absurd as saying mass shootings are caused by video games.Okay, this doesn't have anything to do with are previous topic, but I suppose we could argue about Anita.
In other words: congratulations, Anita! You're the new Jack Thompson.
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/847/915/d6d.png)
I think we're ignoring something important: the idea that sexism in vidya can somehow cause sexism in real life. I'd say that's as absurd as saying mass shootings are caused by video games.Okay, this doesn't have anything to do with are previous topic, but I suppose we could argue about Anita.
In other words: congratulations, Anita! You're the new Jack Thompson.
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/847/915/d6d.png)
If it helps, most Anita supporters don't agree with everything she says, for instance I strongly disagree with how she shames feminine character and she often doesn't elaborate enough on things she finds objectionable.I think we're ignoring something important: the idea that sexism in vidya can somehow cause sexism in real life. I'd say that's as absurd as saying mass shootings are caused by video games.Okay, this doesn't have anything to do with are previous topic, but I suppose we could argue about Anita.
In other words: congratulations, Anita! You're the new Jack Thompson.
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/847/915/d6d.png)
It's not really about Anita herself, per se, it's about the doublethink that's all too common in gaming journalism.
Agreed. We need legitimate dialogue.If it helps, most Anita supporters don't agree with everything she says, for instance I strongly disagree with how she shames feminine character and she often doesn't elaborate enough on things she finds objectionable.I think we're ignoring something important: the idea that sexism in vidya can somehow cause sexism in real life. I'd say that's as absurd as saying mass shootings are caused by video games.Okay, this doesn't have anything to do with are previous topic, but I suppose we could argue about Anita.
In other words: congratulations, Anita! You're the new Jack Thompson.
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/847/915/d6d.png)
It's not really about Anita herself, per se, it's about the doublethink that's all too common in gaming journalism.
Also, let's avoid having another flame war.
I wouldn't call this drama. More of an amusing offshoot to lighten the mood.A part of me thinks that this is stupid, random, and nonsensical. Another part thinks it's the greatest idea ever.(click to show/hide)
To quotes someone on the escapist who made it even funnier:QuoteFruit Simulator 2014 is a fresh take on simulation games 9/10 - Eddoscapistmagazine.
This game is bananas 11/10 - IGraNada.
The melons were a bit large, but gameplay is solid. 8/10 - Kiwitaku
The underlying tones of misogyny became apparent about halfway through when bananas sold for 15% more than peaches. I felt triggered. 7.5/10 - Papayagon.
So here again we have moar drama surrounding personalities in the ongoing soap opera hiding under a spoiler tag.
Got anything about actual gaming, or gaming journalism-you know, anything actually substantial to contribute?
I think we're ignoring something important: the idea that sexism in vidya can somehow cause sexism in real life. I'd say that's as absurd as saying mass shootings are caused by video games.Don't even mention Anita. She's irrelevant to our goals at this point and talking about her is only good for derailing and feeding her martyr complex. Just leave her completely alone.
In other words: congratulations, Anita! You're the new Jack Thompson.
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/847/915/d6d.png)
And let's not forget the fact that her producer Jonathan McIntosh harps a ton on how he hates violent video games and has tweeted several times how they "cause violence". But I don't see any gaming sites talking about him the way they talked about Thompson.Well, for one his anti-violent video game stance is much less publicized, plus he's done more things than just complain about violent video games, and is also not as well known, so I wouldn't say it's because of some SJW agenda or anything, unless they agree with his more "out-there" opinions.
You can compare two people's arguments without comparing everything else about them, y'know. One of the arguments Anita Sarkeesian uses is, in fact, entirely analogous to the one Jack Thompson used. The argument was bad when Thompson used it and it's bad when she uses it, and it's interesting to note the different reception they get.
This does not mean that Sarkeesian is wrong about everything, or her goals are the same as Thompson's. It means she used a bad argument and should stop using it.
Few things annoy me more than the "You compared A to B on one aspect, so you must be comparing them on every aspect!" argument. That's not how comparisons work.
And I'd also like to say that maybe I was right in calling them "Minijust".Them?
(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BxcuYwVCEAAONMQ.jpg)
"Listen and believe". I can't be the only one getting alarm bells from that.
It her XOXO audience. Not sure what the point there is.
Also, here's some irony, as Jim Sterling points out from time to time, Sarkeesian was a nobody before misogynist assholes started attacking her. The abuse and harassment are what launched into the eyes of gamers in the first place when, had she been left alone, she would have continue to be a nobody.
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/847/915/d6d.png)
And here we are off topic again. Isn't the GamerGaters that insist that Sarkeesian isn't relevant, despite Paragon bringing her up?
The topic had strayed somewhat.
Anita has been known to make controversial statements before, with her stance on Mattie Ross being a exemplar. Ross is a feminist character, and Anita's reasons are straight out of Carol Gilligan'sbullshitwork.
As you might have told from my statement, I'm not very fond of difference feminism.
And here we are off topic again. Isn't the GamerGaters that insist that Sarkeesian isn't relevant, despite Paragon bringing her up?
You can compare two people's arguments without comparing everything else about them, y'know. One of the arguments Anita Sarkeesian uses is, in fact, entirely analogous to the one Jack Thompson used. The argument was bad when Thompson used it and it's bad when she uses it, and it's interesting to note the different reception they get.
This does not mean that Sarkeesian is wrong about everything, or her goals are the same as Thompson's. It means she used a bad argument and should stop using it.
Few things annoy me more than the "You compared A to B on one aspect, so you must be comparing them on every aspect!" argument. That's not how comparisons work.
Do you really think that's how they intended it? While you make a good point, the entire point of that comparison is to say that Sarkeesian is just as bad as Thompson.
If I didn't feel like they were drawing a false equivalency, I wouldn't have called it that. They aren't trying to show the weakness of Sarkeesian's arguments, they're trying to say that she's the same as Jack Thompson.
I don't think that "reinforce stereotypes" and "cause violence" are even remotely the same thing. Saying that video games cause violence is laughable-hell they keep young men at home making it less likely that they'll want to punch each other. I'd wager that if Call of Duty existed in 1964 in England the mods and rockers would have stayed at home and mashed keypads instead of participating in mass brawls and mashing faces.
Claiming that media, any media can reinforce stereotypes is a completely different beast. A constant background noise of what is and considered normal and acceptable has a completely different effect, it's the reason different cultures are different. It's the constant reinforcement of what's normal and what's not.
The topic had strayed somewhat.
Well, you strayed it. But it's an interesting topic regardless.Anita has been known to make controversial statements before, with her stance on Mattie Ross being a exemplar. Ross is a feminist character, and Anita's reasons are straight out of Carol Gilligan'sbullshitwork.
As you might have told from my statement, I'm not very fond of difference feminism.And here we are off topic again. Isn't the GamerGaters that insist that Sarkeesian isn't relevant, despite Paragon bringing her up?
The way in which Sarkeesian analyses texts does go to the heart of a lot of the anxiety gamergaters have about about certain feminist outlooks affecting gaming. I do think that they way overemphasize the effect one essayist can have on the gaming media. I highly doubt that Sarkeesian was the first to note gender stereotypes in gaming, she's just the best known. I also think that the reviewers and journalists who agreed with some or all of her work are quite able to think for themselves, it's not as if Sarkeesian suddenly changed all of them to true believers in her thesis.
Sarkeesian is an essayist, Madman critiquing her body of work when he criticises her analysis of Mattie Ross as a feminist character and Sarkeesians literary influences is, at least the right way to critique this. If we are going to bring up Sarkeesian we're better off looking at her body of work, the arguments she makes, the evidence she brings to the table and how she interprets it as opposed to lambasting or idolizing her as a person.
Why don't you take a look at this article:Yeah, we can look but not really say much about it as most of what she says revolves around the harrassment stuff.
http://theflounce.com/tits-gtfo-editorial-gamergate-notyourshield/ (http://theflounce.com/tits-gtfo-editorial-gamergate-notyourshield/)
I can rescind that particular rule if you all think you can stop the thread from devolving into "pro-GG did this!" "Yeah? anti-GG did this!". A serious discussion of the harassment involved is a necessary part of the conversation and I don't like limiting the topic. But I also don't like pointless pissing contests.
I was aware if the threat but not that. More information?
It's kinda nice to see people acting like adults in this conflict.I was aware if the threat but not that. More information?
Sure! Here:(click to show/hide)
It's kinda nice to see people acting like adults in this conflict.I was aware if the threat but not that. More information?
Sure! Here:(click to show/hide)
You don't need to apologize, I myself contributed to this conflict, originally on the anti-GG side to (now I'm neutral). And I didn't mean to imply you weren't acting like an adult.It's kinda nice to see people acting like adults in this conflict.I was aware if the threat but not that. More information?
Sure! Here:(click to show/hide)
Lizard, I feel very strongly about this issue and I know I was a contributor to the flame war by ranting and taking a very accusatory and hostile tone. I apologize to all and sundry for that.
That said, the issues aren't really about whether there are good people in GamerGate who do the right thing, or women in GamerGate, or pick your minorities or whatever. My issue is with this entire internet phenomenon is really rooted in it's ideology.
I just don't think it's possible to be simultaneously for rigorous, ethical and open journalism and opposed to people writing about games in ways people don't like, making games people don't like or even writing about GamerGate as a phenomenon in ways that people don't like. I think it's fine to be critical but it's not to demand that people stop talking about uncomfortable subjects because it doesn't suit you.
People's articles, games, essays what have you should be open to criticism, sure-but go after the substance of what they say not the person. Play the ball not the player as they say in Aussie football.
That's how you have an adult discussion about these things!
So, GamerGate rooted out the person that threatened to kill Sarkeesian. K. Now why are they happily doxxing Quinn tonight with 8chan refusing to delete the thread? It just shows 1) a continued obsession with Quinn, 2) a continued lack of focus on the issues that they are claiming to fight for and 3) a continued failing to deal with harassment in GamerGate.
It's great that they actually did something about some of the threats, but they still happened. If GamerGate's critics had as little reason to be critics, then why does this still happen?
EDIT: I also love how you continue to act like "anti-GamerGate" is some sort of counter movement to GamerGate. To say that is like saying that anyone who criticizes the KKK must have joined the Black Panthers.
EDIT 2: I'd like to reiterate that my personal stake in this has to do with journalism and considering that it's what GamerGate is ostensibly about, I think it's fascinating that we were only talking about it when Sigma outright banned discussion of GamerGate's behavior.
EDIT 3: Cut out knee-jerk personal attack.
So, GamerGate rooted out the person that threatened to kill Sarkeesian. K. Now why are they happily doxxing Quinn tonight with 8chan refusing to delete the thread? It just shows 1) a continued obsession with Quinn, 2) a continued lack of focus on the issues that they are claiming to fight for and 3) a continued failing to deal with harassment in GamerGate.
It's great that they actually did something about some of the threats, but they still happened. If GamerGate's critics had as little reason to be critics, then why does this still happen?
EDIT: I also love how you continue to act like "anti-GamerGate" is some sort of counter movement to GamerGate. To say that is like saying that anyone who criticizes the KKK must have joined the Black Panthers.
EDIT 2: I'd like to reiterate that my personal stake in this has to do with journalism and considering that it's what GamerGate is ostensibly about, I think it's fascinating that we were only talking about it when Sigma outright banned discussion of GamerGate's behavior.
EDIT 3: Cut out knee-jerk personal attack.
Where are they doxxing Quinn? Are there screen caps?
I want to say something about this whole thing but I am drugged up now and have to get to bed.
I think this may interest you: Anita received a shooting threat, and members of GamerGate found out who did it.
Now, it's my contention that Gamergate demands are stupid. Prove me wrong.Do they actually have any specific demands? All I've heard aside from the usual MRA/SJW poo flinging match over Zoe Quinn is complaints that games journalism is corrupt. No actual concrete ideas or demands that they believe will fix it, just rather vague complaints that it's corrupt (along with a hell of a lot more complaints about reviews that they don't like for entirely subjective reasons, but I digress).
Now, it's my contention that Gamergate demands are stupid. Prove me wrong.Do they actually have any specific demands? All I've heard aside from the usual MRA/SJW poo flinging match over Zoe Quinn is complaints that games journalism is corrupt. No actual concrete ideas or demands that they believe will fix it, just rather vague complaints that it's corrupt (along with a hell of a lot more complaints about reviews that they don't like for entirely subjective reasons, but I digress).
Now, it's my contention that Gamergate demands are stupid. Prove me wrong.Do they actually have any specific demands? All I've heard aside from the usual MRA/SJW poo flinging match over Zoe Quinn is complaints that games journalism is corrupt. No actual concrete ideas or demands that they believe will fix it, just rather vague complaints that it's corrupt (along with a hell of a lot more complaints about reviews that they don't like for entirely subjective reasons, but I digress).
Now, it's my contention that Gamergate demands are stupid. Prove me wrong.Do they actually have any specific demands? All I've heard aside from the usual MRA/SJW poo flinging match over Zoe Quinn is complaints that games journalism is corrupt. No actual concrete ideas or demands that they believe will fix it, just rather vague complaints that it's corrupt (along with a hell of a lot more complaints about reviews that they don't like for entirely subjective reasons, but I digress).
Maybe UP can clue us in?
I've seen screencaps, but I didn't bother to save them.
Here we are:(click to show/hide)
As well as 8chan higherups giving them a green light:(click to show/hide)
I have personally verified that the thread is still there. It's in an unlisted board. I have also seen the post from Finlandia.
I've seen screencaps, but I didn't bother to save them.
Here we are:(click to show/hide)
As well as 8chan higherups giving them a green light:(click to show/hide)
I have personally verified that the thread is still there. It's in an unlisted board. I have also seen the post from Finlandia.
Just a bit of an aside me and a lot of other people have no idea why it happened. I know that other day when some asshole decided to post her doxx on 8chan it was got sage'd by efforts of many people. Keep in mind though is that 8chan is a hybrid of reddit and 4chan where people can create their own board and be their own king in their own kingdom. It leaves an interesting possibility of a false flag and some people's murmur indicated that it is WHOIS info at best, but personally I digress. Even right now we trying our best to police ourselves over at twitter, which multiple accounts getting reported and such.
I do however have an interesting storify about an anti GamerGate actually calling out bad behaviors, opinion about GG being victim of false flag attacks and other stuffs from other anti GG people, weird twitter or Something Awful Goons (which weirdly enough all tied back to Zoe Quinn one way or another - she's a known goon and a weird twitter user). So it is not totally out of the realm of possibility.
https://storify.com/LadyFuzztail/gamergate-may-be-a-victim-of-a-false-flag-operati
As for the goals of GG? Like UltimateParagon said, we are pretty diffuse and diverse in term of "specific" goal, but as far as general goal goes what we looking for is a reform of gaming journalism, with added bonus push back of unhealthy agenda that is trying to invade the medium. That's really a gist of it. The Escapist was the first one that did their reform and everyone loves it....except for anti GG who sneered at it. Heck, anti GG tried to throw a firestorm over the Escapist interviewed where several males developers expressed their approval of GamerGate.
And yes, UltimateParagon dragged me back here. Let's hope we don't get to do shitslinging again.
Did you seriously just say that Quinn dox has the "possibility" of being a false flag? Do you seriously lack so much self-awareness that you don't realize that by saying it didn't happen, you're defending it. It doesn't fucking matter that it got flooded off the board last time, it's there. The mods support it and have said it will be stickied if they try to spam it away again. You're doing NOTHING about it when all you're doing is shouting "I DON'T CONDONE THIS" and pointing out that it's possibly a false flag.
I just checked 8chan. Finlandia's post is still there. It's been edited, so now doxxing has to use Pastebin, but it is still condoned. You don't stand next to the guy pointing a gun at someone and agree with his demands while shouting "I DON'T CONDONE THIS" because that's what you're doing.
Sometimes I wonder why I even bother.
MrDoh, I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed this post (http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6036.msg250400#msg250400) detailing the new moderation standards for this thread. Go read it now. And stop bringing up Quinn.
First you champion 8chan as a place to talk about GamerGate, but now they just host it and don't represent GamerGate. But GamerGate is an unorganized group so anyone can claim to be a part of it, but it also doesn't condone harassment and the harassers aren't with GamerGate.
Do you not see what I'm saying? You're changing your story constantly to deflect criticism. Like I said, all you're doing is standing next to the guy with the gun, supporting his demands while screaming "I DON'T CONDONE THIS."
Furthermore, you have completely failed to address the hypocrisy of being skeptical of everything GamerGate's critics say, but taking everything the supporters say at face value. In this thread there are Twitter screencaps of people claiming to lose their jobs over supporting GamerGate posted by Paragon and taken at face value. Where's the skepticism of that? I'd wager you're not skeptical of it because it fits what you want GamerGate to be.
You go on about dealing with the threats against Sarkeesian, but then you play up a victim complex by pointing out that it might have been a false flag against you. What was the point of that if it wasn't to spin those threats into an attack on GamerGate?
You can scream about how you don't condone harassment all you want, but that doesn't mean that GamerGate is actually doing anything about it.
Now, it's my contention that Gamergate demands are stupid. Prove me wrong.Do they actually have any specific demands? All I've heard aside from the usual MRA/SJW poo flinging match over Zoe Quinn is complaints that games journalism is corrupt. No actual concrete ideas or demands that they believe will fix it, just rather vague complaints that it's corrupt (along with a hell of a lot more complaints about reviews that they don't like for entirely subjective reasons, but I digress).
Maybe UP can clue us in?
Well, GamerGate's a diffuse, decentralized movement, so I can't speak for us all. However, I think the main thing most of us would like to see is more ethical game journalism. You see the reaction to The Escapist adopting a new ethics policy? It was pure joy. Every pro GGer loved it. Let's see the other sites do this. It's honestly stunning to me that this entire movement could start to "die" down if other sites just said "eh, fuck it, here is our ethics policy and we are sticking to it". We would all keep a close eye on them, but that right there would really "stopgamergate2014".
The positive reaction towards such a policy adoption also goes to show that people saying the primary motivator for GG being some kind of terrible sexism and misogyny is ridiculous.
As for the goals of GG? Like UltimateParagon said, we are pretty diffuse and diverse in term of "specific" goal, but as far as general goal goes what we looking for is a reform of gaming journalism, with added bonus push back of unhealthy agenda that is trying to invade the medium.
Do you think the Escapist was unethical before this change? I guess it's positive to have the renewed emphasis on disclosure of conflicting interests, but what matters is really the effect in practice.
Do you think better ethical guidelines at a AA player like the Escapist will end the blatant corporate whoring at the AAAs? Clearly it isn't going to solve the problem entirely. What else are you trying, or are you too busy trying to keep the industry men-only?As for the goals of GG? Like UltimateParagon said, we are pretty diffuse and diverse in term of "specific" goal, but as far as general goal goes what we looking for is a reform of gaming journalism, with added bonus push back of unhealthy agenda that is trying to invade the medium.
Goal 1: What do you mean by reform? How are you trying to force that reform on, say, PC Powerplay? Or Game Informer? Or Game Pro?
Goal 2: Obviously this is totally illegitimate.
Do you think the Escapist was unethical before this change? I guess it's positive to have the renewed emphasis on disclosure of conflicting interests, but what matters is really the effect in practice.
Do you think better ethical guidelines at a AA player like the Escapist will end the blatant corporate whoring at the AAAs? Clearly it isn't going to solve the problem entirely. What else are you trying, or are you too busy trying to keep the industry men-only?As for the goals of GG? Like UltimateParagon said, we are pretty diffuse and diverse in term of "specific" goal, but as far as general goal goes what we looking for is a reform of gaming journalism, with added bonus push back of unhealthy agenda that is trying to invade the medium.
Goal 1: What do you mean by reform? How are you trying to force that reform on, say, PC Powerplay? Or Game Informer? Or Game Pro?
Goal 2: Obviously this is totally illegitimate.
Strictly speaking, The Escapist wasn't unethical. Their only sin was the whole Wizardchan thing.
But yet they are the most aggressive in term reform themselves in the face of criticism. They talked to a lot of GGers and listen. Now, it isn't gonna solve the problem with the whole AAA corporate whoring. But this is one step at a time here. And to divert GG's aim to AAA is misguided at best (Erik Kain) or just downright disingenuous in an attempt to steer the spearhead away from the corrupt press.
As for the second goal, yes it will sounded a bit bonker to some people, but there are evidences point to it. The SilverString Media and Jonathan McIntosh/Anita Sarkeesian duo is seemed to be behind most of it. Remember how the press kept pushing Anita's video while never pay a dime when somebody tried to put up a criticism or refutation of her points? It is one of them. Another example i could think of is the recent Polygon review of Bayonetta where they scored the game 7.5 because of it being "sexist". Meanwhile the author of the review had an account as Suicide Girl with 90+ models in check. So i guess Bayonetta wasn't neon-haired or tattoo'd enough. It is almost like the press tried to be something "enlightened" to educated the "unwashed" masses. Of course, this is only my pure opinion on what I've seen, as i'm more of a gaming-journalism-is-shit-and-we-will-burn-it-down guy.
The irony of a man (Jonathan McIntosh) behind a feminist critic (Anita Sarkeesian) however, is just too much.
As I said, speaking as someone who has studied journalism, you no fucking clue what journalism or journalistic ethics even are.
Edit: as the review itself has been addressed in depth until Paragon brought up Sarkeesian (thought she had nothing to do with this mess), you call him a hypocrite for calling Bayonetta sexist despite being a Suicide Girls fan. Absolutely beautiful ad hominen there.
Strictly speaking, The Escapist wasn't unethical. Their only sin was the whole Wizardchan thing. But yet they are the most aggressive in term reform themselves in the face of criticism. They talked to a lot of GGers and listen. Now, it isn't gonna solve the problem with the whole AAA corporate whoring. But this is one step at a time here. And to divert GG's aim to AAA is misguided at best (Erik Kain) or just downright disingenuous in an attempt to steer the spearhead away from the corrupt press.
Just a bit of heads up im catching an emergency plane back home, so i wont be able to reply for at least a day or two.
However, with the phone in my hand i can at least sum up the problem with Anita. She's only tangibly related to GG at best due to her background with SilverString media. But a lot of gamers' gripe with her is that she's very intellectually dishonest in her critique of games, and the fact of how the press championed her without a second thoughts. One of the most notable example of her flaws is the Hitman example.
If you notice her femfreq twitter these days you can notice a lot of tweets that aimed at GamerGate, blaming GG for canceling her Utah speech (false) and claiming that a lot of notable people in GG also the same ones that harassed her (which is a baseless claim). That doesnt stop her from telling people and have them believes her like a saint. This goes back to her SilverString Media ties with other notable people within the company that is under heavy scrutiny with the IGF/IndieCade Racketeering Ring.
Multiple specific threats made stating intent to kill me & feminists at USU. For the record one threat did claim affiliation with #gamergate
Before this damn plane fly up the air, there is a FEMALE 6 years pro AAA Dev (pro GG as well) doing an AMA in r/KotakuInAction. Cant link with my phone. But a lot of insights in there, and of course like other AAA Devs she practically shat on Brianna Wu's diatribe (who is just an indie dev that somehow claim the industry needed a reform from the top....really).
As for the Escapist, lets just say that their Editor in Chief Greg Tito back then during the Wizardchan saga took the motto "listen and believe" a bit too literally.
Before this damn plane fly up the air, there is a FEMALE 6 years pro AAA Dev (pro GG as well) doing an AMA in r/KotakuInAction. Cant link with my phone. But a lot of insights in there, and of course like other AAA Devs she practically shat on Brianna Wu's diatribe (who is just an indie dev that somehow claim the industry needed a reform from the top....really).
As for the Escapist, lets just say that their Editor in Chief Greg Tito back then during the Wizardchan saga took the motto "listen and believe" a bit too literally.
Oh for fucks sake. Nobody cares what is between the legs of people simpatico to your cause, no one cares about the abundance or lack of melanin they have, no one cares if they struggle with disability or they don't and no one gives a fuck what their sexual preference is!
What matters is what they actually say.
To sincerely care about ethics precludes any involvement in #GamerGate, a movement that is singularly defined by its utter lack of any ethics whatsoever. But, and I’ll explain in a moment why, it’s also physically impossible to care specifically about ethics in journalism and have any reaction to #GamerGate outside of thorough and complete denunciation, because it is a movement against ethics in journalism. It’s just pretending to be otherwise, because bigots generally pose as moral crusaders. It’s their favorite costume...
And so #GamerGate claims to be about ethics in journalism, when in fact it is about the opposite: Bullying gaming journalists until they get in line with a corporate-friendly agenda of uncritically marketing “games pitched at the intellectual and emotional level of a 16-year-old suburban masturbator“. Anyone who actually tries to talk about anything interesting or intellectually engaging, particularly if female, will be drilled out with harassment. (bolding added by mwah)
Despite my name often being attached to the conspiratorial "gate" suffix, I've never been a big fan of the term. So when "GamerGate" rose up to cover over a campaign of harassment with a veneer of concern for the ethics of games journalism, it more or less set off every single disgust alarm I have. Though I'm sure some good people have been roped into this mess under this guise, the ethical concern portion of all this is largely a farce, a fallacy. But the string-pullers at the core of this mess have managed to rope in some number of unsuspecting players who do, in fact, think that this thing starts and stops with outrage over perceived ethical violations in the game journalism industry.
I honestly think Gamergate lost this battle when Anita had to call off her talk at USU. At that point, the mainstream media picked up on this and took a look and the results...aren't pretty. New York Times ran a front page article on this with the leaders of Gamergate consciously absent. Of course as Gamergate has no leadership but is an amorphous blob of points and counter-points, its what I expected.
THEN THERE'S THIS! (https://storify.com/ShadowTodd/why-i-do-not-believe-that-gamergate-actually-conde) A great way for Gamergate to change their tone, get some PR, and completly show everyone what they actually are about and...they fail. Badly. Just...badly. This has never been about gaming journalism ethics, such as they are. It's been cloaked in that. A very badly torn cloak with holes the size of beach balls in it. The true core is just that. Harassment of anyone who they find disagrees with their stated goals. Or what they say are their stated goals.
Ironbite-kinda pathetic if you ask me.
Sorry UP, but is this really anything else than different strokes for different folks?
Is it ok with you if she makes her game and people enjoy it even if you don't?
3. Are you seriously suggesting we fund our ideological enemies?
1.snortsI honestly think Gamergate lost this battle when Anita had to call off her talk at USU. At that point, the mainstream media picked up on this and took a look and the results...aren't pretty. New York Times ran a front page article on this with the leaders of Gamergate consciously absent. Of course as Gamergate has no leadership but is an amorphous blob of points and counter-points, its what I expected.
THEN THERE'S THIS! (https://storify.com/ShadowTodd/why-i-do-not-believe-that-gamergate-actually-conde) A great way for Gamergate to change their tone, get some PR, and completly show everyone what they actually are about and...they fail. Badly. Just...badly. This has never been about gaming journalism ethics, such as they are. It's been cloaked in that. A very badly torn cloak with holes the size of beach balls in it. The true core is just that. Harassment of anyone who they find disagrees with their stated goals. Or what they say are their stated goals.
Ironbite-kinda pathetic if you ask me.
1. Gamers have been demonized by the mainstream media before. We haven't lost yet, not by a longshot.
2. That article in the New York Times was admirably neutral, actually.
3. Are you seriously suggesting we fund our ideological enemies? And Todd's not exactly an unbiased figure. His girlfriend is one of Anita's friends. Oh, and Todd, we do fight against harassment! We tracked down the guy who threatened to shoot Anita. And we should have already proved that we don't hate women when we funded The Fine Young Capitalists!
Dammit Todd, I like you, but that post was full of bullshit.
1. Gamers have been demonized by the mainstream media before. We haven't lost yet, not by a longshot.
2. That article in the New York Times was admirably neutral, actually.
3. Are you seriously suggesting we fund our ideological enemies? And Todd's not exactly an unbiased figure. His girlfriend is one of Anita's friends. Oh, and Todd, we do fight against harassment! We tracked down the guy who threatened to shoot Anita. And we should have already proved that we don't hate women when we funded The Fine Young Capitalists!
Balance a suspect's right to a fair trial with the public's right to know. Consider the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges.
In other news, Todd has decided to use his dead friend as a weapon:
https://archive.today/kHvpl (https://archive.today/kHvpl)
In other news, Todd has decided to use his dead friend as a weapon:
https://archive.today/kHvpl (https://archive.today/kHvpl)
It's quite clear from the content of that tweet that he was responding to someone else presuming to speak for the dead friend in question, if speaking for the dead is considered uncouth then you have to wonder what was said in Justin Carmical's name to provoke the tweet you are linking to!
Wow. Just wow. You just...oh wow do I need a full keyboard
The entire movement needs to be rebuilt from the ground up before I even consider throwing my hat in, if you ask me. Ditch the Breitbart dipshit and throw his arse to the side.
When addressing the pronoun "you" it's safe to say that person was probably responding to someone else-even if not in the form of a linked conversation thread. He's referred to a singular "you", presumably referring to someone who believes that the individual in question would have supported gamergate.
When addressing the pronoun "you" it's safe to say that person was probably responding to someone else-even if not in the form of a linked conversation thread. He's referred to a singular "you", presumably referring to someone who believes that the individual in question would have supported gamergate.
Then why didn't he name him/her?
When addressing the pronoun "you" it's safe to say that person was probably responding to someone else-even if not in the form of a linked conversation thread. He's referred to a singular "you", presumably referring to someone who believes that the individual in question would have supported gamergate.
Then why didn't he name him/her?
That's what pronouns are for, they are used in lieu of proper nouns when applied in a conversation.
Cfeara @Cferra1227 · 5h5 hours agoAnd:
@Dutchtica @ShadowTodd I believe Justin would have said "Yeah...No....
Cfeara @Cferra1227 · 5h5 hours ago
@ShadowTodd He would indeed be ashamed of this mess and would not want any part of it. Some people are tasteless.
Ah, got to the bottom of this (https://archive.today/ebFQ8#selection-3005.0-3055.102). Todd said he was being flooded with responses from gamergaters, some of which had JewWario's hat on them which he personally found offensive. A pro gamergate twitter user, with a JewWario avatar later tweeted that:Then why didn't he condemn the anti-GamerGaters using his memory? And why did he do it himself?QuoteCfeara @Cferra1227 · 5h5 hours agoAnd:
@Dutchtica @ShadowTodd I believe Justin would have said "Yeah...No....QuoteCfeara @Cferra1227 · 5h5 hours ago
@ShadowTodd He would indeed be ashamed of this mess and would not want any part of it. Some people are tasteless.
The tweet where he said he knew Justin "JewWario" Carmical and our anonymous "you" occurred later that day, all tweets are still up and none have been deleted.
So-it was a pro gamergater that presumed to speak for the dead initially that prompted him to respond in the way he did!
Yeah-this shit is a distraction.
My bad, shouldn't have engaged.
I thought we weren't supposed to have any more pissing contests over which side has the biggest assholes.I'm very glad you mentioned that. I almost got sucked into that trap just now.
Yeah-this shit is a distraction.
My bad, shouldn't have engaged.
Edit: UP, just decided in the interests of keeping the thread open and not annoying the mods that I'm not going to engage with this particular issue on who tweeted what with respect to JewWario-you win the round. It's a sideshow and ultimately it doesn't matter, I'm not going to waste any more time on it.
You win this one.
You say that as if Paragon had more to contribute to the thread than sideshows.
I thought we weren't supposed to have any more pissing contests over which side has the biggest assholes.I'm very glad you mentioned that. I almost got sucked into that trap just now.
Yeah-this shit is a distraction.
My bad, shouldn't have engaged.
Edit: UP, just decided in the interests of keeping the thread open and not annoying the mods that I'm not going to engage with this particular issue on who tweeted what with respect to JewWario-you win the round. It's a sideshow and ultimately it doesn't matter, I'm not going to waste any more time on it.
You win this one.
Okay.
But anyway, let's talk about what anti-GamerGate considers censorship.
Censorship- asking companies to pull their advertisements
Not Censorship- shadowbans, fake DMCA takedowns, editing users' posts, and other bullshit.
Glad you didn't, I shouldn't have.These arguments are like drugs, aren't they? You get a rush at first, feeling like you can take on anything, then you start to feel irritable and on edge, until finally you just crash and feel like crap. And then, after you've had some time to recover, you crave a little more...
Glad you didn't, I shouldn't have.These arguments are like drugs, aren't they? You get a rush at first, feeling like you can take on anything, then you start to feel irritable and on edge, until finally you just crash and feel like crap. And then, after you've had some time to recover, you crave a little more...
Huh?Ah, got to the bottom of this (https://archive.today/ebFQ8#selection-3005.0-3055.102). Todd said he was being flooded with responses from gamergaters, some of which had JewWario's hat on them which he personally found offensive. A pro gamergate twitter user, with a JewWario avatar later tweeted that:Then why didn't he condemn the anti-GamerGaters using his memory? And why did he do it himself?QuoteCfeara @Cferra1227 · 5h5 hours agoAnd:
@Dutchtica @ShadowTodd I believe Justin would have said "Yeah...No....QuoteCfeara @Cferra1227 · 5h5 hours ago
@ShadowTodd He would indeed be ashamed of this mess and would not want any part of it. Some people are tasteless.
The tweet where he said he knew Justin "JewWario" Carmical and our anonymous "you" occurred later that day, all tweets are still up and none have been deleted.
So-it was a pro gamergater that presumed to speak for the dead initially that prompted him to respond in the way he did!
Huh?Ah, got to the bottom of this (https://archive.today/ebFQ8#selection-3005.0-3055.102). Todd said he was being flooded with responses from gamergaters, some of which had JewWario's hat on them which he personally found offensive. A pro gamergate twitter user, with a JewWario avatar later tweeted that:Then why didn't he condemn the anti-GamerGaters using his memory? And why did he do it himself?QuoteCfeara @Cferra1227 · 5h5 hours agoAnd:
@Dutchtica @ShadowTodd I believe Justin would have said "Yeah...No....QuoteCfeara @Cferra1227 · 5h5 hours ago
@ShadowTodd He would indeed be ashamed of this mess and would not want any part of it. Some people are tasteless.
The tweet where he said he knew Justin "JewWario" Carmical and our anonymous "you" occurred later that day, all tweets are still up and none have been deleted.
So-it was a pro gamergater that presumed to speak for the dead initially that prompted him to respond in the way he did!
Oh, never mind then. (I will point out I was asking out of confusion)Huh?Ah, got to the bottom of this (https://archive.today/ebFQ8#selection-3005.0-3055.102). Todd said he was being flooded with responses from gamergaters, some of which had JewWario's hat on them which he personally found offensive. A pro gamergate twitter user, with a JewWario avatar later tweeted that:Then why didn't he condemn the anti-GamerGaters using his memory? And why did he do it himself?QuoteCfeara @Cferra1227 · 5h5 hours agoAnd:
@Dutchtica @ShadowTodd I believe Justin would have said "Yeah...No....QuoteCfeara @Cferra1227 · 5h5 hours ago
@ShadowTodd He would indeed be ashamed of this mess and would not want any part of it. Some people are tasteless.
The tweet where he said he knew Justin "JewWario" Carmical and our anonymous "you" occurred later that day, all tweets are still up and none have been deleted.
So-it was a pro gamergater that presumed to speak for the dead initially that prompted him to respond in the way he did!
We've moved past that.
I can't believe I'm citing a Christian-themed gaming site as a positive example, but they seem to have found decent way to include their political/moral views on the game without knocking the graphics, gameplay, and so on.Granted, I'm not sure if everybody would like breaking it down into sections as opposed to having a single score, but I like the idea.(click to show/hide)
I can't believe I'm citing a Christian-themed gaming site as a positive example, but they seem to have found decent way to include their political/moral views on the game without knocking the graphics, gameplay, and so on.Granted, I'm not sure if everybody would like breaking it down into sections as opposed to having a single score, but I like the idea.(click to show/hide)
You have still not explained WHY Polygon's review is unethical. Why is it bad for the review to talk about the content of the game beyond gameplay? It's part of the game and, whether you like it or not, a part of the experience. Anything that affects the experience is noteworthy to the review. The fact that Polygon's reviewer's biggest point of contention with it is the portrayal of the title character is neither wrong nor unethical.
This is why I say that GamerGate has no fucking clue what journalistic ethics are. They look at a perfectly ethical review and cry about it somehow pushing some agenda when the reality is that this is the kind of review that Polygon editors believe their readers want. Polygon is just as much a business as any other outlet. They have an audience that they are catering to. You call it pandering, but the reality is that it's strictly business.
Believe it or not, but letting politics pepper a review is perfectly ethical because a review is a type of opinion piece. You don't get upset over opinion pieces posted in your local paper do you? It's the same for any outlet.
But let's focus on the review itself. Would you get upset if an album review complained about racist lyrics? Or a movie review that complained about a homophobic film? What makes games different that potentially offensive content should be ignored in a review? Anything that affects the reviewer's opinion is noteworthy. It doesn't mean that you have to agree with it.
Paragon:
I'm going to leave this here (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0A3e0HIcAA6mXY.png:large) for my first point. Like I said the first time I posted it: Nothing says journalistic ethics and wanting free press like trying to censor an outlet for a review you disagree with.
This is censorship, plain and simple. They're trying to starve Polygon for posting a review that they didn't like even though they are well within their rights to not just ignore Polygon's review, but to seek out reviews that are more in line with what they wish.
For my second point: Anti-GamerGate is not, never has been and never will be an organized movement. No one who opposes GamerGate is a part of any such counter movement. You keep crying hypocrisy at us for calling out GamerGate's failures to deal with harassment, but not dealing with anti-GamerGate's. Here's the thing: anti-GamerGate doesn't exist. There is no group to represent. Just because we think GamerGate is fucking stupid doesn't mean that we've joined some counter movement.
The only side to sign up for any movement is yours. You don't have to join the Black Panthers to call out the asshattery of the KKK.
I can't believe I'm citing a Christian-themed gaming site as a positive example, but they seem to have found decent way to include their political/moral views on the game without knocking the graphics, gameplay, and so on.Granted, I'm not sure if everybody would like breaking it down into sections as opposed to having a single score, but I like the idea.(click to show/hide)
If you want to actually create a movement against Gamergate, I guess all you have to do is make a hashtag that supporters use. But seeing as how the anti-Gamergate people are just people trying to call out people for using the cloak of "ethical gaming journalism" to doxx, harass, threaten, and ruin people's lives, I doubt that'll happen.
Ironbite-sad state of affairs all over the place.
If you want to actually create a movement against Gamergate, I guess all you have to do is make a hashtag that supporters use. But seeing as how the anti-Gamergate people are just people trying to call out people for using the cloak of "ethical gaming journalism" to doxx, harass, threaten, and ruin people's lives, I doubt that'll happen.
Ironbite-sad state of affairs all over the place.
Telling the same lie over and over again doesn't magically make it true.
If you want to actually create a movement against Gamergate, I guess all you have to do is make a hashtag that supporters use. But seeing as how the anti-Gamergate people are just people trying to call out people for using the cloak of "ethical gaming journalism" to doxx, harass, threaten, and ruin people's lives, I doubt that'll happen.
Ironbite-sad state of affairs all over the place.
Telling the same lie over and over again doesn't magically make it true.
If you want to actually create a movement against Gamergate, I guess all you have to do is make a hashtag that supporters use. But seeing as how the anti-Gamergate people are just people trying to call out people for using the cloak of "ethical gaming journalism" to doxx, harass, threaten, and ruin people's lives, I doubt that'll happen.
Ironbite-sad state of affairs all over the place.
Telling the same lie over and over again doesn't magically make it true.
Paragon seems to be projecting, like many members of GamerGate. And like a lot of fundies.
Calling for a vote to lock this thread, as it's no longer anything even approaching useful, tangible discussion.
However what I would like UP, or any other gamergaters present to do is have a look at this:
Paragon, direct question if I may-do you think this code of ethics reflects what Gamer Gaters are referring to when they speak of journalistic integrity and ethics?
Yes. It is one of the most cited example of what we want out of our journalist, actually.
– Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage.
Yes. It is one of the most cited example of what we want out of our journalist, actually.
How fascinating!
So, you see now contradiction between your movements attempts to deter sponsors away from websites that do not provide favorable content to Gamer gate and this?Quote– Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage.
Because I certainly do. It's a blatant attempt to apply external pressure to influence coverage. The very thing ethical journalists are supposed to resist.
That's the letter of the law, asshole. The spirit of the law is quite different.
Okay.
But anyway, let's talk about what anti-GamerGate considers censorship.
Censorship- asking companies to pull their advertisements
Not Censorship- shadowbans, fake DMCA takedowns, editing users' posts, and other bullshit.
You really have no sense of irony do you?
Here, let me remind you of what your comrade in arms Ultimate Paragon said a few posts ago.Okay.
But anyway, let's talk about what anti-GamerGate considers censorship.
Censorship- asking companies to pull their advertisements
Not Censorship- shadowbans, fake DMCA takedowns, editing users' posts, and other bullshit.
See-Gamergaters do cry censorship when they are banned from forums, when their posts are edited on sites that are not their own but you don't think that it is censorship to ask that a company pressure a website to stop a writer from writing their opinion!
In any case, you didn't answer my question-it wasn't about censorship it was about ethics. Aren't journalists supposed to resist the sort of external pressure to influence coverage that was applied to Gamasutra by gamergate as a matter of ethics?
There's a clear difference. And i very doubt it is just "opinion" considering at this point it is a coordinate PR attack. The press are reaching their nuclear option with the mainstream media and there's still no notable slowdown. But I digress.
As for the censorship and the coverage argument, it is not censorship or putting external pressure on them when the customers to ask the advertisers to say "hey, those websites you are advertise on is being a dick to me. I think it is bad for your business to continue to do it". Advert money are earned from good will, from people visiting and clicking on your website. It is not just there for granted. It is FROM the consumers. Also, you are forgetting the part where the writers of those website are still FREE to write or publish whatever they want. They are still pretty much free to slander us and they had been continue doing that since 28/29 of August in the face of Operation Disrespectful Nod. We only utilize our power as a consumer (our only weapon mind you) to tighten their revenue stream because of them being a dick to us. It is not putting a tape over their mouth as much as tighten the noose around their neck because they wasted their good will and they don't deserved OUR ad money anymore. TotalBiscuit put it best on the later part of the Erik Kain's stream. Keep in mind his conclusion came from running a StarCraft team and very much understanding what the consumer's power have.
Although, if you think what we are doing is "censorship", then what do you purpose what we should do as a consumer to fight against the corrupt press? You can suggest that we bury our head into the ground and not clicking on them, but that's only putting oneself in a position to ignore the blatant corruption rather than fight against it.
That's the letter of the law, asshole. The spirit of the law is quite different.
You really have no sense of irony do you?
Here, let me remind you of what your comrade in arms Ultimate Paragon said a few posts ago.Okay.
But anyway, let's talk about what anti-GamerGate considers censorship.
Censorship- asking companies to pull their advertisements
Not Censorship- shadowbans, fake DMCA takedowns, editing users' posts, and other bullshit.
See-Gamergaters do cry censorship when they are banned from forums, when their posts are edited on sites that are not their own but you don't think that it is censorship to ask that a company pressure a website to stop a writer from writing their opinion!
In any case, you didn't answer my question-it wasn't about censorship it was about ethics. Aren't journalists supposed to resist the sort of external pressure to influence coverage that was applied to Gamasutra by gamergate as a matter of ethics?
There's a clear difference. And i very doubt it is just "opinion" considering at this point it is a coordinate PR attack. The press are reaching their nuclear option with the mainstream media and there's still no notable slowdown. But I digress.
As for the censorship and the coverage argument, it is not censorship or putting external pressure on them when the customers to ask the advertisers to say "hey, those websites you are advertise on is being a dick to me. I think it is bad for your business to continue to do it". Advert money are earned from good will, from people visiting and clicking on your website. It is not just there for granted. It is FROM the consumers. Also, you are forgetting the part where the writers of those website are still FREE to write or publish whatever they want. They are still pretty much free to slander us and they had been continue doing that since 28/29 of August in the face of Operation Disrespectful Nod. We only utilize our power as a consumer (our only weapon mind you) to tighten their revenue stream because of them being a dick to us. It is not putting a tape over their mouth as much as tighten the noose around their neck because they wasted their good will and they don't deserved OUR ad money anymore. TotalBiscuit put it best on the later part of the Erik Kain's stream. Keep in mind his conclusion came from running a StarCraft team and very much understanding what the consumer's power have.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmosgPNXmNc
Although, if you think what we are doing is "censorship", then what do you purpose what we should do as a consumer to fight against the corrupt press? You can suggest that we bury our head into the ground and not clicking on them, but that's only putting oneself in a position to ignore the blatant corruption rather than fight against it.
Ok, this is all the time i had for now. I will be back later with some installments of the essay i promised. Cheers.
*snip**snip*
snip
And no, we are not starving their outlet for content. We are displaying to them that we felt insulted about their content and we want the advertisers to know about it. That's boycott 101. Boycott is protest, not censorship. We are starving the outlet of the money, the money that came directly from our clicks, from displaying ad. We as a consumers feel that we needed to put our money elsewhere (since we are dead, remember?). We are running with a focus on smaller sites with our Promotion of the Day, while at the same time restricting the flow of money into these big corrupted sites with Boycott of the Day. This is not a mean to silencing their voice. To put it mildly, we are taking away their podium. Remember, this is an asymmetrical war, where the websites had the advantages in voices and media, while the only thing that the consumers have is numbers and our opinion. And we are putting it to good use. Bury our heads in the sand to focus on smaller sites is doing nothing to the corruption we had unearthed.
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other such entities.
I will let you know though is that Arthur Gies had a Suicide Girls account (alternative porn, if you will) where he had 90+ models in his account. I'm guessing that he didn't like Bayonetta because she doesn't have neon hair or tattoo on her body. That whole thing kinda make his stance about Bayonetta being sexist and shits is a tad hypocritical, if you will.
^Just a bit of note, GoodGamers is actually where i volunteering. At the moment however it is suffering from terrible, terrible management from the EIC. We are talking about 2 or 3 days without an article running. There are murmur of other start up, but as far as i know we are the only site that is actually still running somewhat
And no, we are not starving their outlet for content. We are displaying to them that we felt insulted about their content and we want the advertisers to know about it. That's boycott 101. Boycott is protest, not censorship. We are starving the outlet of the money, the money that came directly from our clicks, from displaying ad. We as a consumers feel that we needed to put our money elsewhere (since we are dead, remember?). We are running with a focus on smaller sites with our Promotion of the Day, while at the same time restricting the flow of money into these big corrupted sites with Boycott of the Day. This is not a mean to silencing their voice. To put it mildly, we are taking away their podium. Remember, this is an asymmetrical war, where the websites had the advantages in voices and media, while the only thing that the consumers have is numbers and our opinion. And we are putting it to good use. Bury our heads in the sand to focus on smaller sites is doing nothing to the corruption we had unearthed.
And Gamasutra as much as a dev site it is, actually had a large hardcore fans following to read on it. So yeah, it is definitely a consumer site.
As for the Operation Bayonetta 2, i will say it outright that I didn't really care for it except the fact that it was incite because of Arthur Gies' review. My feeling is very indifferent, so i can't really comment about it. I do say though that the Polygon article did rubbed people the wrong way due to the fact that it unfairly docked points because of the developer's artistic vision differ from the reviewer (this is kind of ties in to the whole agenda-in-review thing i will talk later), not because of its gameplay or content.
I will let you know though is that Arthur Gies had a Suicide Girls account (alternative porn, if you will) where he had 90+ models in his account. I'm guessing that he didn't like Bayonetta because she doesn't have neon hair or tattoo on her body. That whole thing kinda make his stance about Bayonetta being sexist and shits is a tad hypocritical, if you will.
@MrDoh: You don't get to disclaim your abuses of the rules. Your post has been edited. If you like, feel free to post it again on the Quinnspiracy thread. Not here.
If you ever feel like a post needs to happen against the rules, ask me first. Next time this happens I'll issue a ban.
snip
snip
snip
Regarding Cracked, again let me stress that it is what i think happened based on the info that came across to me, and not my personal opinion. I didn't care when Cracked basically turned half of its fan base away for being deliberately click baiting with their GamerGate coverage, and i won't care now. As someone who came monitor a lot of information and communication channel i couldn't really careless when one click bait site decided to go even more clickbaity. I do take a bit of comfort in the fact that it just created more people for us, really. But again, i cannot control what people want to do. If they are doing what you said you are doing, then they are idiots. Plain and simple. I'd suggest them to use their outrage energy to do something else, like try to convince people, but i digress. My reach can only extend so far.
For now though i will drop this this interview by a site. They interviewed 2 people, one pro GG and one anti GG. I will let the interview speak for itself
http://mangotron.com/pro-vs-anti-gamergate-two-interviews/
You see a conspiracy, I see comedy writers dealing with tragedy the best way they know how-by laughing about it!
GamerGate made themselves topical, they turned the spotlight on themselves-according to Cracked authors of those articles pro GamerGaters actually asked them to cover GamerGate and cover they did. Isn't it more parsimonious to imagine that your movement just basically pissed them off and their pissed-off-against-gamergate articles were a reflection of that?
Also-when will you guys stop pretending you are the fanbase of every publication that has blown raspberries at you? Gamergate is new, put the type of keyboard warriors who are GamerGaters are not and I don't think Gamasutra, Cracked or Polygon were ever trying to cater to the GamerGater demographic.
As I pointed out in the other article I sent you, gamers aren't one neatly defined demographic-it's a hobby. It attracts all types. Not even your "hardcore" or "dedicated" gamers are all peas in a pod. In that sense Leigh Alexander was right, gaming is changing and the old stereotype of the gamer is less relevant.
You think you represent gamer but that just plain isn't true now if it ever was, I'm a gamer-you sure as hell don't represent me!
Gaming is a verb, you can't pitch your flag on a verb and claim ownership of it. If that were possible Nike would be charging you royalties for sprinting after the 8:25 bus.
Regarding the GoodGamers, the mismanagement is not about the journalistic issue, btw. It is because a large amount of editors simply went "yup, sorry, have real life shits cannot do this", and basically left me and a bunch of writers articles left in the purgatory. Personally i have 1 article that is stuck in editing purgatory for at least 1 month now and no sign of it will be passing anytime soon. And the fact that our EIC doesn't seemed to actually care about running her site doesn't help either.
For the contacting advertiser, i will give you this simple set of bullet points:
+Press start out as a voice
+The press got their money from clicks and advertisements because the consumer feels like the voice representing their views
+So they have a podium built on the consumer's good will and money
+Now the press decided to use their podium to slander the consumers
+Now the consumers are pissed
+So they are actively working to remove the podium that they built themselves because the consumer feels like the press don't deserve their money anymore
That's Operation Disrespectful Nod in a nutshell
Now, keep in mind with the sites we are boycotting we don't even clamor them to give us balance coverage or by any means silencing their opinion. With their 28/29 attacks, it had been clear that they aren't interested in that.
Also, if anyone remember the Chick Fil A boycott with the whole kerfuffle with their stance on gay marriage, the same dynamic is happening here. I can't remember anyone was telling other people they were censored Chick Fil A's opinion :/ This is a rather common boycott technique given the asymetrical nature of it.
And regarding the Bayonetta 2, i'm not a blind idiot. All i said is that i didn't pay enough attention to it to give it my two cents. I only know what happened and why it happened, but that's about it. My post above is not my opinion as much as what passed through my lens as someone who constantly paying attention on 5 different sites at once. So yelling at me for giving account on what i saw some GGers doing is not particularly helpful.
Lastly, yes, it is an ad hominem attack. This is merely a taste of what GGers had been getting for the last 2 months. Getting attack by shits that barely related to the issue at hand.
For now though i will drop this this interview by a site. They interviewed 2 people, one pro GG and one anti GG. I will let the interview speak for itself
http://mangotron.com/pro-vs-anti-gamergate-two-interviews/
Eh no. We aren't actually censor anyone, by the way. The part you are talking about is about unhealthy agenda driven journalism. A topic that I will touch on this later. However, I will give you my two cents on that, and this is a sentiment that more than just a few GamerGator agree.
Video Games will never be art until the press stopped trying to appoint themselves as moral guardian, the enlightened of the gaming sphere whose duty is to heard the sheeps that is the gamers into the age of enlightenment.
That's not you being enlightened, it is you being a huge twat with a Lenin complex.
Why? If you want to cultivate freedom of artistic expression or diversity or whatever the buzzwords is, IT SHOULD BE GROW ORGANICALLY. It should be encourage, for sure. WHAT IS NOT cultivating the medium is by bombarding developers with bad press simply because their views and artistic vision aren't in line with what the press want to push. What resulted in that is either stifled creativity or developers like Bioware trying to ham handedly be "inclusive" at the cost of the real quality of their product.
If you want further example, look up the Hotline Miami 2 controversy, or the kerfuffle about Kingom Come: Deliverance. That's outright using press to attack a developer's vision because it make the press "unconfortable". That's the REAL censorship.
Give me one example where a medium grow because of the press bombarding the devs with such shit. I will wait.
Eh no. We aren't actually censor anyone, by the way. The part you are talking about is about unhealthy agenda driven journalism. A topic that I will touch on this later. However, I will give you my two cents on that, and this is a sentiment that more than just a few GamerGator agree.
Video Games will never be art until the press stopped trying to appoint themselves as moral guardian, the enlightened of the gaming sphere whose duty is to heard the sheeps that is the gamers into the age of enlightenment.
That's not you being enlightened, it is you being a huge twat with a Lenin complex.
Why? If you want to cultivate freedom of artistic expression or diversity or whatever the buzzwords is, IT SHOULD BE GROW ORGANICALLY. It should be encourage, for sure. WHAT IS NOT cultivating the medium is by bombarding developers with bad press simply because their views and artistic vision aren't in line with what the press want to push. What resulted in that is either stifled creativity or developers like Bioware trying to ham handedly be "inclusive" at the cost of the real quality of their product.
If you want further example, look up the Hotline Miami 2 controversy, or the kerfuffle about Kingom Come: Deliverance. That's outright using press to attack a developer's vision because it make the press "unconfortable". That's the REAL censorship.
Give me one example where a medium grow because of the press bombarding the devs with such shit. I will wait.
First of, I will say though is that twitter is a terrible place to be hold any discussion about this. The 140 character format lend itself to insulting each other and quips rather than actual discussion (even if i have had good discussion about it). If anything, i am invite you to either r/KotakuInAction (http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/) or even my own personal hideout #gamergate@freenode.net (if you don't have irc cilent use this instead http://webchat.freenode.net/, channel is #gamergate). The format of a reddit and chatroom lend itself much better to debate about this. And no, we won't gang up on you.
As for the alternative, NicheGamer, and TechRaptor is quickly becoming one of those alternative, because of their quality product. We are being the changes here, make no mistake.
http://www.nichegamer.net/2014/10/on-gamers-culture-and-gamergate/
http://www.nichegamer.net/2014/10/gamergate-interview-reviewing-the-reviewers-double-time-edition/
As for the constant talk of reform, keep in mind that the press had been constantly refused to talk to us. It had been radio silence since the GJP leak until the recent kerfuffle. It took two to dance, and no one is willing to take a dance here. We are talking about holding streams and openly invite any anti GG to come in, and all we got is an idiot that was left out to dry by literally everyone else.
At least recently Brian Crecente is crowdsourcing the policy of Polygon, so if anything there are progress of reform. So telling me that there's no reform is just a bit ignorant on the subject.
As for Bayonetta 2 thing, i think you are unfairly nitpicking my point. I meant as in people were up in arm because they thought that Polygon unfairly docked points off Bayonetta 2 (again, i'm not a native English speaker so if i made you misunderstood it my apology).
And as you can see, it never gain any traction, cooler heads prevailed. This proved my point about GamerGate being an organic, leaderless movement where good ideas will float up and shit ideas will be cosigned to the trash like it is.
For the rest of the point you raised though, it deserved to be discuss much better in depth. Me on my own does not represent GamerGate as a whole adequately. Hence again i will extend my invite (to anyone in here that is interested, really) to either r/KotakuInAction or my chatroom at #gamergate @freenode.net. Contact link are above
snip
snip
So i'm guessing you are content to just believe what you believe and ad hominem attack instead? Well then. My work is cut half then.
My invite are already there. And there are plenty of former anti GG who after a discussion at r/KotakuInAction (uncensored discussion btw) decide to defect. If you want your beliefs to be unchallenged and be in your echo chamber, please go ahead. And no, i'm not running. Keep in mind here's me in what is technically enemy territory talking to you and Cloud. That's not the behavior of someone who just want to be left in their own little hugbox to trust what they are feed in.
If you want your beliefs to be unchallenged and be in your echo chamber, please go ahead.
I addressed the whole "come to my side" idiocy when you first showed up.
As for the contradictory claim that you didn't say this is an echo chamber, I'll let you speak for yourself:QuoteIf you want your beliefs to be unchallenged and be in your echo chamber, please go ahead.
Back up a bit. I was talking first and foremost about the Tropico review, not Bayonetta. With the Tropico review, the actual quality of the game was largely ignored, and that is what drew contention from me. I'm not sure I'd call it a matter of ethics, but I would consider it to be a failure in professionalism. That Tropico review was akin to making a car review focused entirely on the leather seating and barely giving the fuel efficiency and performance a passing mention. Preachiness is annoying, but in my mind it only becomes a problem when useful review information is sidelined in favor of it. If the reviewer had done a proper review of the technical and artistic aspects and then made an article where they wagged their finger at the concept, I'd have rolled my eyes, but it wouldn't be within the scope of gamergate for me.I can't believe I'm citing a Christian-themed gaming site as a positive example, but they seem to have found decent way to include their political/moral views on the game without knocking the graphics, gameplay, and so on.Granted, I'm not sure if everybody would like breaking it down into sections as opposed to having a single score, but I like the idea.(click to show/hide)
You have still not explained WHY Polygon's review is unethical. Why is it bad for the review to talk about the content of the game beyond gameplay? It's part of the game and, whether you like it or not, a part of the experience. Anything that affects the experience is noteworthy to the review. The fact that Polygon's reviewer's biggest point of contention with it is the portrayal of the title character is neither wrong nor unethical.
However what I would like UP, or any other gamergaters present to do is have a look at this:A big portion of it, certainly. The ones that stuck out to me as being particularly relevant are:(click to show/hide)
Paragon, direct question if I may-do you think this code of ethics reflects what Gamer Gaters are referring to when they speak of journalistic integrity and ethics?
Back up a bit. I was talking first and foremost about the Tropico review, not Bayonetta. With the Tropico review, the actual quality of the game was largely ignored, and that is what drew contention from me. I'm not sure I'd call it a matter of ethics, but I would consider it to be a failure in professionalism. That Tropico review was akin to making a car review focused entirely on the leather seating and barely giving the fuel efficiency and performance a passing mention. Preachiness is annoying, but in my mind it only becomes a problem when useful review information is sidelined in favor of it. If the reviewer had done a proper review of the technical and artistic aspects and then made an article where they wagged their finger at the concept, I'd have rolled my eyes, but it wouldn't be within the scope of gamergate for me.
And thus ends the FQA Gamergate saga
So Hideyi Kamiya, the creator Bayonetta, tweeted that he would block anyone who mentioned Gamergate to him. [1] (https://twitter.com/PG_kamiya/status/523007556696813568) [2] (https://twitter.com/PG_kamiya/status/516765474692939776)
Um, I have a question? Why are we banning people by request? If they don't want to post, well it's not hard. By banning him he will go back to wherever he came from saying, FQA couldn't deal with my truth and banned me. Rather than him quitting, which is what happened.
You know how to get a requested ban: "Don't fucking post."
Um, I have a question? Why are we banning people by request? If they don't want to post, well it's not hard. By banning him he will go back to wherever he came from saying, FQA couldn't deal with my truth and banned me. Rather than him quitting, which is what happened.Well, as I mentioned before, this topic can be like a drug. He may have just wanted to cut himself off completely to avoid being tempted to come back.
You know how to get a requested ban: "Don't fucking post."
And thus ends the FQA Gamergate sagaThat statement may be premature. Quinn may be making tentative peace overtures, but most of the issues with the gaming press remain in place. That said, if this really is indicative of a new tone being set for dialogue, it is probable that things will cool down significantly in the coming months.
You know, maybe I should take a break from GamerGate.I'm telling ya: drugs.
You know, maybe I should take a break from GamerGate.(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/Nbu67ys5-Hr9S4q1pBqhEwttEHwtHW9SIb0v0iZzvoQGU_Py_SwaewODjwQB3lrUaobDeNE-tKGFcUmjIPdYKNzyUtvLeYJuzDslw_EdD3v-6keL0U_lZfPJA9ktqE_9hX66aw-PYh--2EWbcRHKsYKrp99kTfeSwsw5=w570-h358-nc)
Um, I have a question? Why are we banning people by request?
If they don't want to post, well it's not hard. By banning him he will go back to wherever he came from saying, FQA couldn't deal with my truth and banned me. Rather than him quitting, which is what happened.
You know how to get a requested ban: "Don't fucking post."
Though, I will say this, Paragon, please find a source that isn't Mundane Matt. You talk about wanting journalistic ethics and then you basically grab the Rush Limbaugh of GamerGate.What did Mundane Matt do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7mRhhQkq3c
Holy fuck, this is disgusting!
Though, I will say this, Paragon, please find a source that isn't Mundane Matt. You talk about wanting journalistic ethics and then you basically grab the Rush Limbaugh of GamerGate.What did Mundane Matt do?
I should note when I asked that I meant "who is mundane Matt" thankfully you answered both questions.Though, I will say this, Paragon, please find a source that isn't Mundane Matt. You talk about wanting journalistic ethics and then you basically grab the Rush Limbaugh of GamerGate.What did Mundane Matt do?
First, as a disclaimer, I'm not trying to pretend that people aren't being idiots and trying to connect the shooting with GamerGate. It is, like I said, a special kind of crazy and I'd there are stupid enough people for OR against GamerGate to do that.
That said, Mundane Matt is, along with Internet Aristocrat, one of the Youtube pundits that's been on GamerGate since the initial incident involving Quinn. Internet Aristocrat is the guy who created the "Five Guys" thing and Mundane Matt has been doing the same kind of talk radio style punditry.
Like any other pundits, they're biased and do not try to be neutral, which is why they're bad choices if you're looking for a neutral viewpoint. And no, I'm not just saying this because I'm critical of GamerGate. Pundits in general tend to be pretty damn unethical, whether it's because they're trying to be entertainers, they're trying to push an agenda or they just don't know any better (and considering that most Youtubers generally started Youtubing because it was easy to jump into without knowing proper journalism...).
So after about two months of not knowing WTF this GamerGate was all about, I finally read up on it. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's said this, but really? All this over rumors that some game designer may have had an affair to boost game reviews? Even if that is true, and she did sleep around, how the fuck does any sane person think that it warrants a fraction of the hatred she received? (even if she was the mega bitch her ex said she was)
You see there is a difference between admitting to sleeping with blokes and admitting to sleeping with blokes to get good reviews. You must pick up that distinction UP? Surely?
You see there is a difference between admitting to sleeping with blokes and admitting to sleeping with blokes to get good reviews. You must pick up that distinction UP? Surely?
The problem is that it's a serious breach of journalistic integrity.
On March 31, God King of the Evil Gawker Empire published the only Kotaku article he's written involving The Great Beast of the Apocalypse. It was about Game Jam, a failed reality show that The Great Beast of the Apocalypse and other developers were upset about being on. At the time, God King of the Evil Gawker Empire and The Great Beast of the Apocalypse were professional acquaintances. He quoted blog posts written by The Great Beast of the Apocalypse and others involved in the show. He has not written about her since. the God King of the Evil Gawker Empire never reviewed The Great Beast of the Apocalypse's game Emasculate All Games for the Glory of the Coming Gynotopia, let alone gave it a favorable review. (http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times-about-a-pos-1624707346)
To clarify what Tol said, I'd like to reiterate, for, what? The 400th time? That the onus of a conflict of interest is on the journalist, not the person that he allegedly slept with in exchange for good press.
Jesus fuck if you're going to demand ethical journalism, do some fucking research first. I'm kinda tired of explaining the shit they teach you in the first reporting class you take.
To clarify what Tol said, I'd like to reiterate, for, what? The 400th time? That the onus of a conflict of interest is on the journalist, not the person that he allegedly slept with in exchange for good press.
Jesus fuck if you're going to demand ethical journalism, do some fucking research first. I'm kinda tired of explaining the shit they teach you in the first reporting class you take.
We are focusing on the journalists. And I only brought up LW because rageaholic misunderstood some stuff and mentioned her in the first place.
So Felice Day posts a blog post about how much she wants to speak out against Gamergate and how toxic it is but can't because she fears being doxxed and...she gets doxxed.
Ironbite-but Gamergate is about journalism
So Felice Day posts a blog post about how much she wants to speak out against Gamergate and how toxic it is but can't because she fears being doxxed and...she gets doxxed.
Ironbite-but Gamergate is about journalism
No true Scotsman in one.So Felice Day posts a blog post about how much she wants to speak out against Gamergate and how toxic it is but can't because she fears being doxxed and...she gets doxxed.
Ironbite-but Gamergate is about journalism
That was a troll who probably wasn't involved in GamerGate.
Hey look, UP is ignoring me. This is clearly shown by him using the very fallacy I expected from his gaming culture warrior ilk, with no hint of irony or self-awareness whatsoever.Even if the troll was involved in GamerGate, it means nothing about the movement as a whole. And rest assured, we're working on finding that troll.
That's just adorable.
Even if the troll was involved in GamerGate, it means nothing about the movement as a whole. And rest assured, we're working on finding that troll.
The SCP Foundation.Even if the troll was involved in GamerGate, it means nothing about the movement as a whole. And rest assured, we're working on finding that troll.
Who's "we"?
Even if the troll was involved in GamerGate, it means nothing about the movement as a whole. And rest assured, we're working on finding that troll.
Who's "we"?
[DATA EXPUNGED]Even if [REDACTED], it means nothing about the movement as a whole. And rest assured, we're working on finding ███ ███.
Who's "we"?
You....you.....oh wow.
Ironbite-*goes to find a universe to sit down in *
Felica Day: Doxxed within 50 minutes of posting a blog post about her fears of being doxxed by someone affiliated by Gamergate if she dares speak out against Gamergate.
Chris Kluwe: Still hasn't been doxxed by Gamergate despite direct critism amid a scathing editorial. We're going on about a week since the original post.
Ironbite-come on...tell me this is about ethics in video game journalism. Go on.
You....you.....oh wow.
Ironbite-*goes to find a universe to sit down in *
I'll give you some time to rationalize this, Ironcunt.
50 minutes. Not hours. 50 minutes.
Ironbite-meanwhile an ex-NFL kicker writes a hit piece and narry a peep.
What does it mean to be doxxed?
What does it mean to be doxxed?
What does it mean to be doxxed?
Yes, there are some misogynistic assholes in the movement. But we're dealing with them. Try searching "#GamerGate Harassment Patrol" on Twitter.
What does it mean to be doxxed?
Having your personal details (such as your home phone number, your address, where you work, and so forth) released to the public so that they are allowed to harass you, threaten you, deliver threatening things to you, and basically ruin your life.Yes, there are some misogynistic assholes in the movement. But we're dealing with them. Try searching "#GamerGate Harassment Patrol" on Twitter.
Anyone else reminded of how police investigate themselves and generally find no fault?
What does it mean to be doxxed?
Having your personal details (such as your home phone number, your address, where you work, and so forth) released to the public so that they are allowed to harass you, threaten you, deliver threatening things to you, and basically ruin your life.Yes, there are some misogynistic assholes in the movement. But we're dealing with them. Try searching "#GamerGate Harassment Patrol" on Twitter.
Anyone else reminded of how police investigate themselves and generally find no fault?
Must I remind you of how we may have tracked down the guy who was threatening to shoot Anita?
That was an entirely different threat.What does it mean to be doxxed?
Having your personal details (such as your home phone number, your address, where you work, and so forth) released to the public so that they are allowed to harass you, threaten you, deliver threatening things to you, and basically ruin your life.Yes, there are some misogynistic assholes in the movement. But we're dealing with them. Try searching "#GamerGate Harassment Patrol" on Twitter.
Anyone else reminded of how police investigate themselves and generally find no fault?
Must I remind you of how we may have tracked down the guy who was threatening to shoot Anita?
Must I remind you how, very shortly before, you were denying that Anita was even threatened, and even claimed that she was faking it for attention?
You have NO credibility with me good sir. Own up to your own damn actions, and I do mean YOU, not the entirety of Gamergate.
Wow. You threw out one bad apple. Try the rest of the barrel next time.
Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow.
Ironbite-you just aren't ever gonna admit your movement has some very dangerous individuals.
Must I remind you of how we may have tracked down the guy who was threatening to shoot Anita?
That was an entirely different threat.What does it mean to be doxxed?
Having your personal details (such as your home phone number, your address, where you work, and so forth) released to the public so that they are allowed to harass you, threaten you, deliver threatening things to you, and basically ruin your life.Yes, there are some misogynistic assholes in the movement. But we're dealing with them. Try searching "#GamerGate Harassment Patrol" on Twitter.
Anyone else reminded of how police investigate themselves and generally find no fault?
Must I remind you of how we may have tracked down the guy who was threatening to shoot Anita?
Must I remind you how, very shortly before, you were denying that Anita was even threatened, and even claimed that she was faking it for attention?
You have NO credibility with me good sir. Own up to your own damn actions, and I do mean YOU, not the entirety of Gamergate.
Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow.
Ironbite-you just aren't ever gonna admit your movement has some very dangerous individuals.
What about anti-GamerGate Nazi sympathizer Ian Miles Cheong?
(http://theralphretort.com/wp-content/uploads/HITLERCHEONG.png)
It's gettin' all guilty by association up in this thread.
It's gettin' all guilty by association up in this thread.
Hey, if Ultimate Paragon can't take his own medicine, maybe he shouldn't be dishing it out. ;D
Not all gamergaters are nazis, women haters or whatever. I've said as much all along, also some people opposed to gamergate are terrible people, also uncontroversial.
But if you want to respond to someone saying there are dangerous people in your movement by showing a naughty person who's opposed to gamergate then you are epically missing the point and also leaving yourself open to the accusation that your movement also has terrible supporters and it's trivially easy to show!
...And we're back to yet another "which side has the biggest fuckwits" pissing contest. I guess anything Gamergate related really is an "all roads lead to Rome" situation.
Still, it's amazing that we're fast approaching the three month mark of nothing but going around in circles, and yet both sides are happily flinging poo at one another with the same enthusiasm as when this nonsense first became a thing. At this rate, bronies will no longer be the most insufferable thing that the internet's rather numerous manchild population has ever spawned. I never thought I'd ever see the day.
Not all gamergaters are nazis, women haters or whatever. I've said as much all along, also some people opposed to gamergate are terrible people, also uncontroversial.
But if you want to respond to someone saying there are dangerous people in your movement by showing a naughty person who's opposed to gamergate then you are epically missing the point and also leaving yourself open to the accusation that your movement also has terrible supporters and it's trivially easy to show!
The difference is, we deal with harassment by our evil teammates. Has anybody against GamerGate called Leigh Alexander out for her racism?
...And we're back to yet another "which side has the biggest fuckwits" pissing contest. I guess anything Gamergate related really is an "all roads lead to Rome" situation.
Still, it's amazing that we're fast approaching the three month mark of nothing but going around in circles, and yet both sides are happily flinging poo at one another with the same enthusiasm as when this nonsense first became a thing. At this rate, bronies will no longer be the most insufferable thing that the internet's rather numerous manchild population has ever spawned. I never thought I'd ever see the day.
Not all gamergaters are nazis, women haters or whatever. I've said as much all along, also some people opposed to gamergate are terrible people, also uncontroversial.
But if you want to respond to someone saying there are dangerous people in your movement by showing a naughty person who's opposed to gamergate then you are epically missing the point and also leaving yourself open to the accusation that your movement also has terrible supporters and it's trivially easy to show!
The difference is, we deal with harassment by our evil teammates. Has anybody against GamerGate called Leigh Alexander out for her racism?
...And we're back to yet another "which side has the biggest fuckwits" pissing contest. I guess anything Gamergate related really is an "all roads lead to Rome" situation.
Still, it's amazing that we're fast approaching the three month mark of nothing but going around in circles, and yet both sides are happily flinging poo at one another with the same enthusiasm as when this nonsense first became a thing. At this rate, bronies will no longer be the most insufferable thing that the internet's rather numerous manchild population has ever spawned. I never thought I'd ever see the day.
It's far from "going around in circles". GamerGate has achieved quite a bit.
You do realize that by posting this, you've subjected yourself to being just as damn cyclical as this entire argument, if not moreso because that's pretty much the only thing you've posted?
Says a whole lot more about you than it does anyone else. That and the fact that you could just, you know, not click on the thread.
You do realize that by posting this, you've subjected yourself to being just as damn cyclical as this entire argument, if not moreso because that's pretty much the only thing you've posted?I know I've said it a lot. Doesn't mean it's not true.
Says a whole lot more about you than it does anyone else. That and the fact that you could just, you know, not click on the thread.If only trainwreck syndrome weren't a thing...
...And we're back to yet another "which side has the biggest fuckwits" pissing contest. I guess anything Gamergate related really is an "all roads lead to Rome" situation.
Still, it's amazing that we're fast approaching the three month mark of nothing but going around in circles, and yet both sides are happily flinging poo at one another with the same enthusiasm as when this nonsense first became a thing. At this rate, bronies will no longer be the most insufferable thing that the internet's rather numerous manchild population has ever spawned. I never thought I'd ever see the day.
It's far from "going around in circles". GamerGate has achieved quite a bit.
Go on.
GamerGate has achieved quite a bit.
-The Escapist has changed their ethics policy.
-Gawker is losing advertisers.
-The Fine Young Capitalists have been fully funded.
-Some charities have been given more money.
-Alternate gaming websites are gaining popularity.
-The Escapist has changed their ethics policy.One outlet, but yep it happened in the wake of gamergate-so one positive.
-Gawker is losing advertisers.This counts as an achievement? Your little neo-Mcarthyist campaign has hurt a media outlet for honestly and fearlessly reporting. That is the opposite of backing journalistic ethics.
-The Fine Young Capitalists have been fully funded.You gave money to a for profit business, essentially to spite your critics. Well done you <sarcasm>
-Some charities have been given more money.Well, that's broad enough to drive a truck through-next.
-Alternate gaming websites are gaining popularity.Broad enough to drive a steamboat through.
Need I go on?This is more of a want than a need on your part, I suspect you will.
You do realize that by posting this, you've subjected yourself to being just as damn cyclical as this entire argument, if not moreso because that's pretty much the only thing you've posted?I know I've said it a lot. Doesn't mean it's not true.
Says a whole lot more about you than it does anyone else. That and the fact that you could just, you know, not click on the thread.If only trainwreck syndrome weren't a thing...
-The Escapist has changed their ethics policy.
-Gawker is losing advertisers.
-The Fine Young Capitalists have been fully funded.
-Some charities have been given more money.
-Alternate gaming websites are gaining popularity.
Need I go on?
(http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/embedded_full/public/2014/10/24/gamergatetargets.jpg?itok=laZDFX3H)
Twitter users have tweeted at Quinn using the #GamerGate hashtag 10,400 times since September 1. Grayson has received 732 tweets with the same hashtag during the same period. If GamerGate is about ethics among journalists, why is the female developer receiving 14 times as many outraged tweets as the male journalist?
Oh? So you admit that your complaints apply to yourself as well, then?Only if my actual point flies right over your head. Let's recap. My complaint is that this drama is nothing but a pissing match that always turns into a "which side as the bigger cunts" contest because there's nothing of actual substance to discuss, yet people keep coming back to it time and time again despite this.
Only if my actual point flies right over your head. Let's recap. My complaint is that this drama is nothing but a pissing match that always turns into a "which side as the bigger cunts" contest because there's nothing of actual substance to discuss, yet people keep coming back to it time and time again despite this.
I guess you could say that my complaint applies to me as well if you assume that engaging in a pointless, two and a half month and still going poo flinging contest is the same thing as calling people out for being moronic enough to engage is said pointless, two and a half month and still going poo flinging contest, but that would be utterly retarded for reasons I should hope for all our sakes are quite obvious.
Honestly, I'm not so sure why you're taking such offense to this. Are you actually invested in this "discussion of ethics in games journalism", or are you just offended that I insulted the bronies?
There's a golden mean fallacy hidden in here that suggests that there are indeed two factions, as Cloud has pointed out you don't have to be a member of the black panthers to make a public statement against the KKK.
Also, for me this has never been about which people are the nastier. Yeah-I do have an opinion on that but it's not my core concern. My concern here is the way an anonymous group has been used as a cudgel against progressive voices and the outlets that give them space.
This isn't about which side has the bigger assholes, that's like saying an argument over McCarthyism is all about who's the bigger asshole, Joseph McCarthy or Joseph Stalin. It's nothing of the sort, my concern with gamergate is with the chilling effect the movement has on free speech and that's a considerably larger concern than which "side" has the most nice or nasty people!
I didn't say there's two official factions, I said that this thread is pretty much just one big pissing contest over whether the biggest assholes involved are "pro-gamergate" or "anti-gamergate". That's exactly what was happening before I posted. Well, not entirely, there's also a lot of folks insisting it's not one big wank but rather it's actually about free speech or journalistic ethics or whatever, though any actual discussion of those things is even rarer than a good Kotaku article.
If the thread annoys you that much, don't look. No one is forcing you.As others have said, it tends to spill over into the rest of the site. Not to mention, gamergate as a whole has kind of taken over the internet right now.
If the thread annoys you that much, don't look. No one is forcing you.As others have said, it tends to spill over into the rest of the site. Not to mention, gamergate as a whole has kind of taken over the internet right now.
That Newsweek article is very easy to debunk:(click to show/hide)
Wait, so most tweets were neutral? Doesn't that go against Wofford's narative of Gamergate as a group that is primarily interested in harrasing women?
Brandwatch found most tweets were neutral in sentiment. And tweets directed at Grayson and Totilo were, on average, more negative than those directed at Quinn, Wu or Sarkeesian. But Quinn, Wu and Sarkeesian were on the receiving end of more negative tweets overall than Grayson, Totilo and Kotaku, which suggests that, contrary to its stated goal, GamerGate spends more time tweeting negatively at game developers than at game journalists—a fact Intel, Mercedes, and Adobe should have researched before they pulled ads from news sites.
So assuming that there were no tweets that contained simultaneous mentions of both Sarkeesian
and WU, the highest possible number of tweets directed at these women is 74,140 , of which at most
only 8% were negative. This means that o f the 500,000 tweets analyzed, there were at best 5,931 negative tweets total. Time to do some "Math":
Only 1.19% o f all Gamergate tweets analyzed were attacks on the most statistically significant women alleged t o be targets of harassment.
GamerGate just dealt with another harasser:(click to show/hide)
QuoteBrandwatch found most tweets were neutral in sentiment. And tweets directed at Grayson and Totilo were, on average, more negative than those directed at Quinn, Wu or Sarkeesian. But Quinn, Wu and Sarkeesian were on the receiving end of more negative tweets overall than Grayson, Totilo and Kotaku, which suggests that, contrary to its stated goal, GamerGate spends more time tweeting negatively at game developers than at game journalists—a fact Intel, Mercedes, and Adobe should have researched before they pulled ads from news sites.
But, the anonymous author of this MS paint screed thinks he/she still has a "gotcha"
QuoteSo assuming that there were no tweets that contained simultaneous mentions of both Sarkeesian
and WU, the highest possible number of tweets directed at these women is 74,140 , of which at most
only 8% were negative. This means that o f the 500,000 tweets analyzed, there were at best 5,931 negative tweets total. Time to do some "Math":
Except that this person has either missed the point or is deliberately ignoring it, what the graph shows is that people in favor of Gamergate spend more time bellyaching, positively, negatively or neutrally about She Who Must Not be Named (developer), Sarkeesian (essayist), Wu (developer) and Alexander (opinion writer) than they do about Grayson (journalist) and Totilo (Editor). They do spend a statistically high amount of time bellyaching about Kotaku but there is nothing in the data to suggest that this is journalism related-and not nearly as much time as they do talking about Sarkeesian who isn't a journalist at all. It's almost as if journalism wasn't their primary concern!
QuoteOnly 1.19% o f all Gamergate tweets analyzed were attacks on the most statistically significant women alleged t o be targets of harassment.
Except that attack is not synonymous with negative tweet so this is Not Even Wrong! There isn't any point drawing a conclusion from your math if you deliberately or accidentally misinterpret the numbers in the first place.
The rest is just random tweets where the author they don't like allegedly said naughty things and completely irrelevant furphies like the author complaining about getting a traffic ticket. This isn't a debunking, it's a trainwreck-I've yet to determine whether those have a correlative or causative relationship with Gamergate conspiracies!.
Sidenote: If the UP really wants to imagine that Ironbite and Lt Fred are somehow co conspirators I'll allow him that rather amusing fantasy. Being opposed to something does not a faction make, otherwise we should all rest uneasy in our beds fretting about what the great People who Dislike Corduroy party is planning against the Folks Who Can't Stand Jeans brigade!
Having actually looked at the image that Paragon posted, they actually managed to make reporting an asshole into a statement going "THEY'RE WRONG ABOUT US!!!" while also managing to shout no true Scotsman. That's fucking amazing. GamerGate's complete lack of self-awareness is unrivaled.
If they were dealing with the harassers for any reason other than to go "look how wrong THEY are," why do they feel the need to make MSPaint images like that? This is actually one of the consistent criticisms of GamerGate. The people dealing with harassment aren't doing it because harassment is shitty or to actually prove that GamerGate doesn't condone harassment, they're doing it to make "anti-GamerGate" look bad.
QuoteBrandwatch found most tweets were neutral in sentiment. And tweets directed at Grayson and Totilo were, on average, more negative than those directed at Quinn, Wu or Sarkeesian. But Quinn, Wu and Sarkeesian were on the receiving end of more negative tweets overall than Grayson, Totilo and Kotaku, which suggests that, contrary to its stated goal, GamerGate spends more time tweeting negatively at game developers than at game journalists—a fact Intel, Mercedes, and Adobe should have researched before they pulled ads from news sites.
But, the anonymous author of this MS paint screed thinks he/she still has a "gotcha"
There's a major problem with that: He'd already picked his side, so I have every reason he deliberately chose tweets that furthered his agenda.
I never saw any denial that the asshole was involved in GamerGate. GamerGate as a whole condemns harassment and threats.
And you can speculate about their motives all you like, but the fact remains that a potentially dangerous individual was dealt with. France didn't care about the ideals of the American Revolution, they just wanted to hurt Britain. And yet none of the Founding Fathers complained about their motives.
#GamerGate beat Brianna Wu to reporting Penis Affiliate and they are removed, but we are totally the ones seding (sic) death/rape threats. Totally.
There's a major problem with that: He'd already picked his side, so I have every reason he deliberately chose tweets that furthered his agenda.
Then again, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he's less biased in his reporting than I thought. But if that's the case, there's one thing he overlooked: Quinn, Sarkeesian, and Wu have been in the media spotlight far more than, say, Nathan Grayson or Ben Kuchera. It seems likely that many of those tweets came from somebody who stumbled on the controversy by reading about it in the New York Times or watching CNN.
See above. And as for Leigh Alexander, I think the publicity about the Intel boycott might have something to do with it.
So, you can distinguish between criticism and harassment.
And those tweets aren't irrelevant, they were brought up to demonstrate that the author had already chosen his side.
I have no reason to believe they're co-conspirators, they're just on the same wavelength. And don't worry, I'll try to stop implying that everybody against GamerGate is in one group.
He's literally just not responding to anything now.
And now...a comic.(click to show/hide)
Ironbite-thank you for your consideration.
And now...a comic.(click to show/hide)
Ironbite-thank you for your consideration.
Thank you for your ridiculous strawman. GamerGate has actively prevented harassment.
Wow. Points just pass right over your head now don't they?On the bright side, it shows that your comic was spot-on.
And now...a comic.(click to show/hide)
Ironbite-thank you for your consideration.
Thank you for your ridiculous strawman. GamerGate has actively prevented harassment.
Wow. Points just pass right over your head now don't they?On the bright side, it shows that your comic was spot-on.
Wow. Points just pass right over your head now don't they?On the bright side, it shows that your comic was spot-on.
Which is pretty sad
The point just keeps sailing over his head don't it?
Detail I missed in the first go but there's another woodland animal who got beat up before the rabbit. Indicates the rabbib said the same thing as the rat before being beat up.
Ironbite-clever
So I've said this before but as I have UP on ignore, he's still not getting the point of the comic is he?Nope. I like the whistling sound it makes as it wizzes over UP's head.
While I think you are well within your rights to dislike the comic it's not the authors job to find positive things to say about Gamergate.Detail I missed in the first go but there's another woodland animal who got beat up before the rabbit. Indicates the rabbib said the same thing as the rat before being beat up.
Ironbite-clever
No, the word you're looking for is "stupid".
And I can't help but notice the fact that it makes no reference to victims in GamerGate.
(Also, this is my only serious post in this thread. The rest will be me laughing as people flail about like they're having an epileptic fit.)Thank you, that was a rather good summary of the comic.
*Rant*
Excuse me while I borrow this, Ironbite... *drops mic*
This one is for you, Madman.
http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2jykfj/hiya_im_an_antigg_ama/clgbtvt (http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2jykfj/hiya_im_an_antigg_ama/clgbtvt)
Gamergate is nothing more than a culture war against the "Social Justice" invasion, ie a xenophobic tantrum against those who dare say negative things about their subculture. "Journalistic ethics" is but a pretext, something to make themselves look good and attract the gullible to use them as a shield.
If I could bother checking this guy's history, I'm sure I would find him complaining about "forced" minority inclusion in HIS entertainment, and trying to prove that video games/comics/whatever are more objectifying against men than women.
This kind of attitude right here is why I abhor Gamergate as a whole, not just "the minority of harassers among them". And it's absolutely everywhere, even though most Gamergaters aren't as frank and direct (and honest about themselves) about it.
Paragon, Imma break this down real simple for you, since the metaphors used in the comic seem to be absolutely, completely, and nigh-irrevocably beyond your ken...
The "fries" are a metaphor for your constant talk of "journalistic ethics," when the arguments being made have absolutely fuck all to do with journalistic ethics, thus turning your argument into a complete non-sequitur. We are talking about some GamerGaters (notice that word "some," or I'll carve it into your forearm) who attack, belittle, denigrate, and generally humiliate people they feel are "attacking" them, when what they're actually doing is discussing the problems in your little clique. Sit the fuck back, chill the fuck out, and realize that when we point out that SOME GamerGaters are, and this is a motherfucking FACT not even you can deny, viciously, and unnecessarily, attacking people who criticize them, we are not attacking all of you. That was another point in the comic that flew so far past your head, it deorbited. The regular, reasonable people who are GamerGaters are just fine. We only care about the ones being insufferable douchebags, we want you to acknowledge them. We do not, as Zack pointed out, want you to immediately disown them. Own up to your group's fucking problems and stop just othering the douchebags like a god damned coward.
Excuse me while I borrow this, Ironbite... *drops mic*
(Also, this is my only serious post in this thread. The rest will be me laughing as people flail about like they're having an epileptic fit.)
There's a way to be a part of Gamergate without being a raging douchebag or excusing the actions of being a raging douchebag. It is as follows.
1. Don't pat yourself on the back when douchebags in the movement are "stopped".
2. Don't excuse verbal abuse because it is directed at your "ideological opponents"
3. When the worst elements of your movement are exposed...
3a. Do not other them, saying that they aren't really part of the movement, or don't represent the movement, because you are making excuses for them.
3b. Do not say "We're dealing with them, we're dealing with them!", because that isn't addressing the criticism, that is dismissing your own responsibility in the matter.
3c. DO apologize for their actions and explain that you do not agree with their methods and admit that they are a bad element of your movement. This is how you show that you are a responsible part of the movement. This is how you show that there are mature elements to the movement. This is how you show that your movement is more than the worst element of it. And it's your responsibility to point this out.
4. And don't go "BUT YOUR SIDE IS DOING IT TOO" because that's just childish.
You want to prove Gamergate is a force for good? Then actually be something good for a change. And patting yourself on the back because a few Gamergaters dealt with ONE death threat is NOT doing something good - it's self-serving and egotistical.
Notice how, in this thread, not one person, not even Ironbite, has said that Gamergate deserves all the abuse it gets. We don't agree with bullying, or death threats, or anything of the sort. Ideologically, Gamergate has some good points about journalism, but they won't allow criticism of their own talking points, and instead resort to circle-jerking and massive bashing and, if you're a woman, most likely being doxxed.
Gamergate has become precisely what it claims to want to end.
Yeah, keep on drinking that Kool-Aid. You're really not doing your side any favors, you know that?
Yeah, keep on drinking that Kool-Aid. You're really not doing your side any favors, you know that?
First: whose Kool-Aid? The mediatic consensus seems to be that Gamergaters are specifically motivated by hatred of women, and guilty by association of the harassment campaigns against the "literally whos". This is not what I'm saying.
Second. You do realise that the phrase "drinking the Kool-Aid", along with "taking the red pill", has become a dead horse in most sane environments due to its severe overuse in... certain communities? The very kind of communities you adamantly deny Gamergate has any links with?
Third: can we at least agree that this guy in particular is exemplifying the tendencies I'm condemning inside Gamergate?
Fourth: "my side". I won't even point out what's wrong with this, because you know it already.
So you stop harassment? How much more harassment--stopped or not--has occurred because of GamerGate? Has any harassment been outright prevented by your movement, and is that greater than the amount that would never have occurred without GamerGate?
That some gamergaters are good people has never been in doubt, at least for me but attempts to rid this movement of harrassers are never going to work completely because at its core gamergate is about shutting down discussion, not ethics in videogame journalism and this is why you are always going to have the harrassment problem with gamergate.
Some people will try to stop discussion by shouting it down, others by trying to force media outlets to bend to their will with boycotts but some will just resort to old fashioned methods like threatening to pummle people until they stop talking.
That some gamergaters are good people has never been in doubt, at least for me but attempts to rid this movement of harrassers are never going to work completely because at its core gamergate is about shutting down discussion, not ethics in videogame journalism and this is why you are always going to have the harrassment problem with gamergate.
Some people will try to stop discussion by shouting it down, others by trying to force media outlets to bend to their will with boycotts but some will just resort to old fashioned methods like threatening to pummle people until they stop talking.
Wait, so boycotts are censorship now?
This one is for you, Madman. Reading the goddamn thread and figuring out that I realized this was needless issue corpse-fucking long ago would certainly help. But then again, I'm but a figment of your base desires..
http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2jykfj/hiya_im_an_antigg_ama/clgbtvt Ah, yes. The almighty Reddit has and will be always a reliable source of information.
Gamergate is nothing more than a culture war against the "Social Justice" invasion, ie a xenophobic tantrum against those who dare say negative things about their subculture. "Journalistic ethics" is but a pretext, something to make themselves look good and attract the gullible to use them as a shield. See opening statement. At this point, this is something like a grand pissing contest of first problems the like I've never seen. I bet you ten bucks somebody somewhere is performing ritual genital mutilation, and all the while third-wavers like you are getting into a hissy fit over this issue corpse.
If I could bother checking this guy's history, I'm sure I would find him complaining about "forced" minority inclusion in HIS entertainment, and trying to prove that video games/comics/whatever are more objectifying against men than women. ...Who? I told you, I don't give a shit.
This kind of attitude right here is why I abhor Gamergate as a whole, not just "the minority of harassers among them". And it's absolutely everywhere, even though most Gamergaters aren't as frank and direct (and honest about themselves) about it. For somebody who seems to have a utter morgue hate-on for me, you sure can't do the goddamn research. I at least did that for your F&B thread, Murdoch Spawn. Why can't you reciprocate my hate?
That some gamergaters are good people has never been in doubt, at least for me but attempts to rid this movement of harrassers are never going to work completely because at its core gamergate is about shutting down discussion, not ethics in videogame journalism and this is why you are always going to have the harrassment problem with gamergate.
Some people will try to stop discussion by shouting it down, others by trying to force media outlets to bend to their will with boycotts but some will just resort to old fashioned methods like threatening to pummle people until they stop talking.
Wait, so boycotts are censorship now?
That some gamergaters are good people has never been in doubt, at least for me but attempts to rid this movement of harrassers are never going to work completely because at its core gamergate is about shutting down discussion, not ethics in videogame journalism and this is why you are always going to have the harrassment problem with gamergate.
Some people will try to stop discussion by shouting it down, others by trying to force media outlets to bend to their will with boycotts but some will just resort to old fashioned methods like threatening to pummle people until they stop talking.
Wait, so boycotts are censorship now?
What is the purpose of the boycotts? Is it because they want a better alternative? They want unbiased press? No, it's because they want the press to bend to their desires and be biased in THEIR favor. So, in this case, yes, boycotts are censorship.
You know, Murdoch Spawn, using the words culture war in a negative sense is kinda a odd move considering you used culture war in a positive sense for your crusade against Daddy / "Gaming Culture" / windmills. Of course, using the invalid language of Pat Buchanan already makes me shit all over your opinions.
But, then again. You'd have to put it in big shiny lights for me to give a shit about your heaving thighs about this non-issue.
Shillgate necrophile, you and those heaving thighs need to learn something about the internet: shit happens. So for this occasion and all other times I get replies from you, I speak in a language you can understand: Green text. This one is for you, Murdoch Spawn.QuoteThis one is for you, Madman. Reading the goddamn thread and figuring out that I realized this was needless issue corpse-fucking long ago would certainly help. But then again, I'm but a figment of your base desires..
http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2jykfj/hiya_im_an_antigg_ama/clgbtvt Ah, yes. The almighty Reddit has and will be always a reliable source of information.
Gamergate is nothing more than a culture war against the "Social Justice" invasion, ie a xenophobic tantrum against those who dare say negative things about their subculture. "Journalistic ethics" is but a pretext, something to make themselves look good and attract the gullible to use them as a shield. See opening statement. At this point, this is something like a grand pissing contest of first problems the like I've never seen. I bet you ten bucks somebody somewhere is performing ritual genital mutilation, and all the while third-wavers like you are getting into a hissy fit over this issue corpse.
If I could bother checking this guy's history, I'm sure I would find him complaining about "forced" minority inclusion in HIS entertainment, and trying to prove that video games/comics/whatever are more objectifying against men than women. ...Who? I told you, I don't give a shit.
This kind of attitude right here is why I abhor Gamergate as a whole, not just "the minority of harassers among them". And it's absolutely everywhere, even though most Gamergaters aren't as frank and direct (and honest about themselves) about it. For somebody who seems to have a utter morgue hate-on for me, you sure can't do the goddamn research. I at least did that for your F&B thread, Murdoch Spawn. Why can't you reciprocate my hate?
Shitpost
That some gamergaters are good people has never been in doubt, at least for me but attempts to rid this movement of harrassers are never going to work completely because at its core gamergate is about shutting down discussion, not ethics in videogame journalism and this is why you are always going to have the harrassment problem with gamergate.
Some people will try to stop discussion by shouting it down, others by trying to force media outlets to bend to their will with boycotts but some will just resort to old fashioned methods like threatening to pummle people until they stop talking.
Wait, so boycotts are censorship now?
What is the purpose of the boycotts? Is it because they want a better alternative? They want unbiased press? No, it's because they want the press to bend to their desires and be biased in THEIR favor. So, in this case, yes, boycotts are censorship.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Webcomic_xkcd_-_Wikipedian_protester.png)
That some gamergaters are good people has never been in doubt, at least for me but attempts to rid this movement of harrassers are never going to work completely because at its core gamergate is about shutting down discussion, not ethics in videogame journalism and this is why you are always going to have the harrassment problem with gamergate.
Some people will try to stop discussion by shouting it down, others by trying to force media outlets to bend to their will with boycotts but some will just resort to old fashioned methods like threatening to pummle people until they stop talking.
Wait, so boycotts are censorship now?
What is the purpose of the boycotts? Is it because they want a better alternative? They want unbiased press? No, it's because they want the press to bend to their desires and be biased in THEIR favor. So, in this case, yes, boycotts are censorship.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Webcomic_xkcd_-_Wikipedian_protester.png)
Well why are Gamergate boycotting Kotaku, Polygon, Cracked and Gamasutra if not to demand that they change the way in which they write about games and gamers in general and Gamergate supporters in particular?
The purpose of a boycott is to apply pressure for change, who acted first is irrelevant. The boycott against Apartheidt South Africa in the 80s was to pressure the regime to stop treating nonwhites as second class citizens.That some gamergaters are good people has never been in doubt, at least for me but attempts to rid this movement of harrassers are never going to work completely because at its core gamergate is about shutting down discussion, not ethics in videogame journalism and this is why you are always going to have the harrassment problem with gamergate.
Some people will try to stop discussion by shouting it down, others by trying to force media outlets to bend to their will with boycotts but some will just resort to old fashioned methods like threatening to pummle people until they stop talking.
Wait, so boycotts are censorship now?
What is the purpose of the boycotts? Is it because they want a better alternative? They want unbiased press? No, it's because they want the press to bend to their desires and be biased in THEIR favor. So, in this case, yes, boycotts are censorship.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Webcomic_xkcd_-_Wikipedian_protester.png)
Well why are Gamergate boycotting Kotaku, Polygon, Cracked and Gamasutra if not to demand that they change the way in which they write about games and gamers in general and Gamergate supporters in particular?
Yes, how dare gamers be offended at websites demonizing their subculture!
Fact is, in each case those websites struck the first blow. Now they're dealing with the consequences of their actions.
That some gamergaters are good people has never been in doubt, at least for me but attempts to rid this movement of harrassers are never going to work completely because at its core gamergate is about shutting down discussion, not ethics in videogame journalism and this is why you are always going to have the harrassment problem with gamergate.
Some people will try to stop discussion by shouting it down, others by trying to force media outlets to bend to their will with boycotts but some will just resort to old fashioned methods like threatening to pummle people until they stop talking.
Wait, so boycotts are censorship now?
What is the purpose of the boycotts? Is it because they want a better alternative? They want unbiased press? No, it's because they want the press to bend to their desires and be biased in THEIR favor. So, in this case, yes, boycotts are censorship.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Webcomic_xkcd_-_Wikipedian_protester.png)
Hahahahahahaha...Anita Sarkeesian is gonna be on the Colbert Report.
Ironbite-AHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Hahahahahahaha...Anita Sarkeesian is gonna be on the Colbert Report.
Ironbite-AHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Hahahahahahaha...Anita Sarkeesian is gonna be on the Colbert Report.
Ironbite-AHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Oh please, Colbert remembers how her ilk tried to get his show cancelled. I'm sure she'll be completely humiliated.
Hahahahahahaha...Anita Sarkeesian is gonna be on the Colbert Report.
Ironbite-AHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Oh please, Colbert remembers how her ilk tried to get his show cancelled. I'm sure she'll be completely humiliated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M
Which you, like all of your claims, leave completely unsourced.
UP-"feminists" aren't a monobloc, even less so than 'Gaters in fact.
Which you, like all of your claims, leave completely unsourced.
You want a sauce?
http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/81710508559/by-now-online-conflagrations-seem-to-burn-with-an (http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/81710508559/by-now-online-conflagrations-seem-to-burn-with-an)
And that had nothing to do with declaring support for CancelCobert. It was about the disproportionate retribution that reactionary idiots like the people involved in GamerGate tried to pull on Park. Is it safe to say that Sarkeesian supported CancelColbert? I dunno. She probably did, to be honest, but considering that you have again proven that you're probably not reading the links getting posted, not even your own, you fail to realize that this is not even close to hard evidence.
Furthermore, consider a few things:
1. CancelColbert is old news. While Colbert is not a journalist, his show still emulates a pundit style news commentary show. If he was going to talk about CancelColbert, he would have done so when it was relevant... and he did. Furthermore, to entertain the idea that he'd talk to Sarkeesian to spite CancelColbert is to assume that Colbert is an unprofessional hack.
2. Sarkeesian tweeted about being on Colbert. After it was recorded. And she didn't indicate being upset and was encouraging people to watch the show. Does that sound like something someone who's embarrassed would do?
3. Stephen Colbert is a feminist. No, really (http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/stephen_colbert_the_unlikely_feminist_20140320). Considering that GamerGate is quite anti-feminist, it's probably a safe assumption that Colbert isn't going to agree with them.
1. Have you checked the tags of that post?
2. I was only saying that I find it unlikely Colbert would go easy on Anita.
3. No. But it does make her a hypocrite. Besides, Colbert might have made jabs against Anita she didn't notice.
4. I don't give a shit if Colbert's a feminist. More power to him. But I have a question for you: if GamerGate is anti-feminist, why are feminists joining the movement?
And that had nothing to do with declaring support for CancelCobert. It was about the disproportionate retribution that reactionary idiots like the people involved in GamerGate tried to pull on Park. Is it safe to say that Sarkeesian supported CancelColbert? I dunno. She probably did, to be honest, but considering that you have again proven that you're probably not reading the links getting posted, not even your own, you fail to realize that this is not even close to hard evidence.
Furthermore, consider a few things:
1. CancelColbert is old news. While Colbert is not a journalist, his show still emulates a pundit style news commentary show. If he was going to talk about CancelColbert, he would have done so when it was relevant... and he did. Furthermore, to entertain the idea that he'd talk to Sarkeesian to spite CancelColbert is to assume that Colbert is an unprofessional hack.
2. Sarkeesian tweeted about being on Colbert. After it was recorded. And she didn't indicate being upset and was encouraging people to watch the show. Does that sound like something someone who's embarrassed would do?
3. Stephen Colbert is a feminist. No, really (http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/stephen_colbert_the_unlikely_feminist_20140320). Considering that GamerGate is quite anti-feminist, it's probably a safe assumption that Colbert isn't going to agree with them.
1. Have you checked the tags of that post?
And that had nothing to do with declaring support for CancelCobert. It was about the disproportionate retribution that reactionary idiots like the people involved in GamerGate tried to pull on Park. Is it safe to say that Sarkeesian supported CancelColbert? I dunno. She probably did, to be honest, but considering that you have again proven that you're probably not reading the links getting posted, not even your own, you fail to realize that this is not even close to hard evidence.
Furthermore, consider a few things:
1. CancelColbert is old news. While Colbert is not a journalist, his show still emulates a pundit style news commentary show. If he was going to talk about CancelColbert, he would have done so when it was relevant... and he did. Furthermore, to entertain the idea that he'd talk to Sarkeesian to spite CancelColbert is to assume that Colbert is an unprofessional hack.
2. Sarkeesian tweeted about being on Colbert. After it was recorded. And she didn't indicate being upset and was encouraging people to watch the show. Does that sound like something someone who's embarrassed would do?
3. Stephen Colbert is a feminist. No, really (http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/stephen_colbert_the_unlikely_feminist_20140320). Considering that GamerGate is quite anti-feminist, it's probably a safe assumption that Colbert isn't going to agree with them.
1. Have you checked the tags of that post?
Do you understand how tags work? Hint: they label a discussion by topic.
Speaking about #CancelColbert is not the same as speaking in favour of #CancelColbert. Hell, she's used the #gamergate tag before, should that be taken as support for GamerGate?
I've been checking and several GG sources quote that post, but nothing else. Apparently that's really all they could find on the subject.
And that had nothing to do with declaring support for CancelCobert. It was about the disproportionate retribution that reactionary idiots like the people involved in GamerGate tried to pull on Park. Is it safe to say that Sarkeesian supported CancelColbert? I dunno. She probably did, to be honest, but considering that you have again proven that you're probably not reading the links getting posted, not even your own, you fail to realize that this is not even close to hard evidence.
Furthermore, consider a few things:
1. CancelColbert is old news. While Colbert is not a journalist, his show still emulates a pundit style news commentary show. If he was going to talk about CancelColbert, he would have done so when it was relevant... and he did. Furthermore, to entertain the idea that he'd talk to Sarkeesian to spite CancelColbert is to assume that Colbert is an unprofessional hack.
2. Sarkeesian tweeted about being on Colbert. After it was recorded. And she didn't indicate being upset and was encouraging people to watch the show. Does that sound like something someone who's embarrassed would do?
3. Stephen Colbert is a feminist. No, really (http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/stephen_colbert_the_unlikely_feminist_20140320). Considering that GamerGate is quite anti-feminist, it's probably a safe assumption that Colbert isn't going to agree with them.
1. Have you checked the tags of that post?
Do you understand how tags work? Hint: they label a discussion by topic.
Speaking about #CancelColbert is not the same as speaking in favour of #CancelColbert. Hell, she's used the #gamergate tag before, should that be taken as support for GamerGate?
I've been checking and several GG sources quote that post, but nothing else. Apparently that's really all they could find on the subject.
Probably because the people in the movement are grasping at straws, looking for any reason to demonize her.
And unfortunately, the rest of the movement supports it because she's their "ideological enemy."
And if it ISN'T anti-feminist, why is it so focused on women that aren't even journalists? Why haven't Jim Sterling, Chris Kluwe, Todd in the Shadows, Kyle Kalgren, Nash Bozard, Joss Wedon or Wil Wheaton been attacked? Why is it that the vast majority of GamerGate's efforts are to spite women? Why are their big name male critics ignored?
Fact is, she made herself our enemy. Nobody in GamerGate cared about her until she blamed us for some threats.
1. Because there are some misogynists who have unfortunately latched on to the movement. Why is it that everybody in GamerGate is like the asshole who threatened to shoot Anita, but not everybody against GamerGate is a racist bully like Leigh Alexander?
2. No, they aren't. We funded The Fine Young Capitalists.
3. They're not. They may not be outright harassed, at least as much, but they are heavily criticized. Ask Phil Fish. Ask Jonathon McIntosh. Ask Nathan Grayson, Ben Kuchera, or Ian Miles Cheong.
And that had nothing to do with declaring support for CancelCobert. It was about the disproportionate retribution that reactionary idiots like the people involved in GamerGate tried to pull on Park. Is it safe to say that Sarkeesian supported CancelColbert? I dunno. She probably did, to be honest, but considering that you have again proven that you're probably not reading the links getting posted, not even your own, you fail to realize that this is not even close to hard evidence.
Furthermore, consider a few things:
1. CancelColbert is old news. While Colbert is not a journalist, his show still emulates a pundit style news commentary show. If he was going to talk about CancelColbert, he would have done so when it was relevant... and he did. Furthermore, to entertain the idea that he'd talk to Sarkeesian to spite CancelColbert is to assume that Colbert is an unprofessional hack.
2. Sarkeesian tweeted about being on Colbert. After it was recorded. And she didn't indicate being upset and was encouraging people to watch the show. Does that sound like something someone who's embarrassed would do?
3. Stephen Colbert is a feminist. No, really (http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/stephen_colbert_the_unlikely_feminist_20140320). Considering that GamerGate is quite anti-feminist, it's probably a safe assumption that Colbert isn't going to agree with them.
1. Have you checked the tags of that post?
Do you understand how tags work? Hint: they label a discussion by topic.
Speaking about #CancelColbert is not the same as speaking in favour of #CancelColbert. Hell, she's used the #gamergate tag before, should that be taken as support for GamerGate?
I've been checking and several GG sources quote that post, but nothing else. Apparently that's really all they could find on the subject.
Probably because the people in the movement are grasping at straws, looking for any reason to demonize her.
And unfortunately, the rest of the movement supports it because she's their "ideological enemy."
Fact is, she made herself our enemy. Nobody in GamerGate cared about her until she blamed us for some threats.
QuoteAnd if it ISN'T anti-feminist, why is it so focused on women that aren't even journalists? Why haven't Jim Sterling, Chris Kluwe, Todd in the Shadows, Kyle Kalgren, Nash Bozard, Joss Wedon or Wil Wheaton been attacked? Why is it that the vast majority of GamerGate's efforts are to spite women? Why are their big name male critics ignored?
1. Because there are some misogynists who have unfortunately latched on to the movement. Why is it that everybody in GamerGate is like the asshole who threatened to shoot Anita, but not everybody against GamerGate is a racist bully like Leigh Alexander?
2. No, they aren't. We funded The Fine Young Capitalists.
3. They're not. They may not be outright harassed, at least as much, but they are heavily criticized. Ask Phil Fish. Ask Jonathon McIntosh. Ask Nathan Grayson, Ben Kuchera, or Ian Miles Cheong.
1. Because there are some misogynists who have unfortunately latched on to the movement. Why is it that everybody in GamerGate is like the asshole who threatened to shoot Anita, but not everybody against GamerGate is a racist bully like Leigh Alexander?
The difference is, again, as explained far more often than I really think needs to be explained, GamerGate is a group. "Anti-GamerGate," again, doesn't exist. You claim affiliation with assholes like Vox Day, Cernovich, Yianoppolis and the harassers by claiming affiliation with GamerGate. No one against GamerGate claims affiliation with Alexander simply by being against GamerGate. There is no group fighting against GamerGate.
Quote2. No, they aren't. We funded The Fine Young Capitalists.
And, as stated before, AGAIN, you funded a for profit company to spite Quinn.
Quote3. They're not. They may not be outright harassed, at least as much, but they are heavily criticized. Ask Phil Fish. Ask Jonathon McIntosh. Ask Nathan Grayson, Ben Kuchera, or Ian Miles Cheong.
Actually, that's what I'm referring to. The amount of shit slung at GamerGate's male enemies is NOTHING compared to the amount of shit slung at their female enemies. And because I probably have to spell it out for you because you're going to accuse me otherwise, I'm not telling you to go harass these people, nor am I excusing any harassment they've received, but the fact is that GamerGate has been attacking Sarkeesian, Quinn, Wu and Day FAR more than they've done ANYTHING to the men that criticize them.
Hell, I gave you PROOF that GamerGate barely gives a shit about Greyson, which you happily ignored to try to accuse the Newsweek writer of pushing anti-GamerGate propaganda.
Hmm... Think of it in terms of theists and atheists. Just because two people believe in a god, that doesn't make them a unified group. Same goes for "anti-gamergate" and gamergate.
What the flying fuck does that have to do with anything??
But he female opposition is outright harrased.
Still haven't addressed the part where you haven't proven that Anita was involved with Cancel Colbert or whatever.
And you're still making excuses by othering what you call the "misogynistic trolls". Face it. They're a part of Gamergate, and they are the face of Gamergate, whether you want them to be or not. Deal with it.
(Also, I would like to point out that Gamergate was attacking Anita LONG before Gamergate was Gamergate. YOU made HER your enemy, not the other way around.)
oh, for fuck's sakes. Round and round we go. I'm breaking out the booze and going to do something more productive with my time.Are you doing that thing where you post on an internet argument how much better you are than us mere mortal peasants?
oh, for fuck's sakes. Round and round we go. I'm breaking out the booze and going to do something more productive with my time.Are you doing that thing where you post on an internet argument and proclaim how much better you are than everyone?
Fact is, she made herself our enemy. Nobody in GamerGate cared about her until she blamed us for some threats.
Oh thank god, I hate the "pfft, silly mortals" comments.oh, for fuck's sakes. Round and round we go. I'm breaking out the booze and going to do something more productive with my time.Are you doing that thing where you post on an internet argument and proclaim how much better you are than everyone?
No, I'm doing that thing where I'm taking a hiatus from the forums due to the actions of one poster, because they're that aggravating and adding to my stress.
GamerGate's not an organized group either. And quit playing the guilt by association card.
No, we did it to undo the damage she did.
Again, you're focusing on the misogynistic trolls, which only form a tiny minority that we regularly deal with.
We funded a feminist group designed to get women into gaming.
And yet certain individuals insist on calling us misogynists.
By misogynistic trolls looking for an excuse. And Phil Fish was also harassed. Unless he came out as trans* and I didn't know about it, I'm pretty sure he's not a woman.
I reckon this should be real easy for UP.
Here's a good sentence, I think a pro gamergate person can use it and still be in favor of gamergate.
"Some gamergaters are assholes, some gamergaters doxx, some harrass women-but I don't agree with those gamergaters because they are assholes even if they are part of gamergate."
Any problem with that sentence UP?
So, GamerGate is a group when it necessary, but when they need to be held responsible they're "not organized." It doesn't fucking matter. You're claiming association with GamerGate, which means you're associated with the assholes. You don't stand next to a murderer with a gun and scream "I don't condone this, but I agree with what he wants," but you're doing it anyway.
Spin it all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you funded a for profit company as a "fuck you" to Quinn. Not to mention that neither Quinn nor TFYC have anything to do with journalism.
And, again, you keep crying about how you're "dealing with them" without actually proving it. If GamerGate was dealing with them, and no, I'm not talking about the cherry picked examples that are used to point at "anti-GamerGate" and brag how "wrong" they are, they wouldn't have HALF of the image problem they have. The perception is that GamerGate is a hate movement. The facts and numbers point to GamerGate being a hate movement, but yet you're sitting here screaming "we're dealing with them" when it keeps happening. Go to 8chan or r/KotakuInAction and step away from your bias for a moment. Read these places. These are the "headquarters" of GamerGate. You know what the vast majority of discussion on those venues are about? SJWs. Women. Feminists. They're not talking about ethics, they're talking about exactly what they're being criticized for talking about.
You funded a for profit company.
And this is why. You don't do anything because it fits with your goals or because it's the right thing. You do it to spite your critics. You do it to brag about how wrong they are. TFYC were funded to spite Quinn. Every time a harasser is dealt with, GamerGate brags about it and brags about how wrong their critics are.
These are the same tactics Republicans use to make Democrats look bad. Your lack of self-awareness is mind blowing.
Phil Fish has a LONG history of being harassed that started long before GamerGate. Bullies love using the guy as a chew toy because he always makes a very public spectacle of himself that they find hilarious and justifies in their minds that their harassment of him is justified.
That's great UP but gamergate's core problem is that it's a movement dedicated to silencing subjects they find impolitic. Being a diverse movement only compounds the problem, the diversity of approaches to achieving this goal is the problem. With no central leadership you'll never stop people congergating under the gamergate banner from employing harrassment. It's not a bug-it'a feature!
We are not pro censorship
I reckon this should be real easy for UP.
Here's a good sentence, I think a pro gamergate person can use it and still be in favor of gamergate.
"Some gamergaters are assholes, some gamergaters doxx, some harrass women-but I don't agree with those gamergaters because they are assholes even if they are part of gamergate."
Any problem with that sentence UP?
No.
*continued, purposeful ignorance of anything but the sound of his own voice*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsdIHK8O5yo
"WAAAAAAH WE'RE BEING ATTACKED TOO!!!"
Seriously. You have made that point countless times. You keep making it. NO ONE speaks for some opposing group to GamerGate because there is NO opposing group to GamerGate. Stupid people e-mail some dude that you claim is neutral without actually proving that he's neutral and use it as evidence that "they" are wrong. Every fucking time.
Do I care that this guy is allegedly neutral? Not at all. I couldn't give less of a shit because that's not relevant. You keep telling us that it's not about harassment and about ethical journalism, but yet all you fucking talk about is harassment. You had a chance to take a fresh start with this when Sigma unlocked the thread and the first fucking thing you do is cry about how "anti-GamerGate" is harassing someone.
FUCK YOU.
People say it's about ethics in games journalism, but barely an hour after being unlocked, this thread is back to pointing at people you (general "you", here) disagree with being assholes. The only part of this that's surprising is that it took this long to go right back to flinging ad homs around.
I wasn't the one flinging around those attacks.
And literally the next post after denying any ad hominen is an ad hominen. Beautiful. Fucking beautiful.
So how about those ethics in that there game journalism, eh? No? Yeah, I thought not.
So how about those ethics in that there game journalism, eh? No? Yeah, I thought not.
Okay then. Let's get on the subject.
There's some good news on that front. IGN and Gamespot seem to have improved their ethics policies.
And literally the next post after denying any ad hominen is an ad hominen. Beautiful. Fucking beautiful.
That's not an ad hominem. I was debunking his logic.
And literally the next post after denying any ad hominen is an ad hominen. Beautiful. Fucking beautiful.
That's not an ad hominem. I was debunking his logic.
You were attacking him for his opinion of Bayonetta, which is not just pointless because, you know, it's an opinion, but completely and totally irrelevant to what you claim GamerGate is all about. His opinion of Bayonetta has absolutely fuck all to do with journalism, but yet you still felt the need to bring it up. That's ad hominem.
Tell me, what the hell does any of this have to do with journalism? How is what assholes and stupid people do relevant to ethics? Why do you keep talking about these things if GamerGate is about ethical journalism? Oh, right, you really haven't. Hell, in response to Art, you told HIM to start the discussion when you're allegedly the one who wants that discussion.
There's some good news on that front. IGN and Gamespot seem to have improved their ethics policies.
In what way?
Editor’s Note: Two former IGN employees worked on Daylight’s development. To ensure an impartial review, we selected a reviewer who joined IGN after both had departed.
And literally the next post after denying any ad hominen is an ad hominen. Beautiful. Fucking beautiful.
That's not an ad hominem. I was debunking his logic.
You were attacking him for his opinion of Bayonetta, which is not just pointless because, you know, it's an opinion, but completely and totally irrelevant to what you claim GamerGate is all about. His opinion of Bayonetta has absolutely fuck all to do with journalism, but yet you still felt the need to bring it up. That's ad hominem.
Tell me, what the hell does any of this have to do with journalism? How is what assholes and stupid people do relevant to ethics? Why do you keep talking about these things if GamerGate is about ethical journalism? Oh, right, you really haven't. Hell, in response to Art, you told HIM to start the discussion when you're allegedly the one who wants that discussion.
Okay, so. Don't talk about anything but journalistic ethics. If we literally only ask questions about journalistic ethics he can't ignore them. Do not talk about extraneous stuff like this. Above all do not talk about doxxing.
You are aware that such disclosure is not deemed necessary by pretty much ANY major outlet? Or just about any outlet in general? Why are games outlets so untrustworthy that specific, thorough and constant disclosure is a necessity? And why does it matter if the outlet is ethical in the first place?
You are aware that such disclosure is not deemed necessary by pretty much ANY major outlet? Or just about any outlet in general? Why are games outlets so untrustworthy that specific, thorough and constant disclosure is a necessity? And why does it matter if the outlet is ethical in the first place?
You are aware that such disclosure is not deemed necessary by pretty much ANY major outlet? Or just about any outlet in general? Why are games outlets so untrustworthy that specific, thorough and constant disclosure is a necessity? And why does it matter if the outlet is ethical in the first place?
It's partly because gaming journalism is sponsored by the very industry it's critiquing. Open a gaming magazine or look at a gaming website, and you'll see advertisements for video games. This can create an obvious conflict of interest. Jeff Gerstmann, for example, was fired from Gamespot for panning Kane & Lynch: Dead Men, a game its publisher Eidos had been heavily promoting on the site. It's suspicious, to say the least.
Another problem is that individuals involved in game journalism all too often have close personal ties to game developers. If a journalist reviews a game produced by one of his or her friends, how do we know they'll be honest? Once again, there's a definite conflict of interest there. Danielle Riendeau gave Gone Home a perfect score. The problem is that the game's music composer, Chris Remo, is a close friend of hers.
And sometimes, it goes beyond doing favors for friends. There may be actual fraud and racketeering going on in the indie scene. Turns out Phil Fish might be a criminal. Some FEZ investors were also judges at both IGF and IndieCade.
Why does it matter if gaming journalism is ethical? Because gaming journalism should be for the consumer. This is something people spend money on, and devote a large portion of their lives to. And to borrow from MLK, corruption anywhere is a threat to honesty everywhere.
It's also something that could pose a threat to people. 40,000 users of the Firemonkeys forum had their personal information compromised by hackers. And Kotaku helped EA cover it up.
And after we cut our teeth on game journalism, maybe we can go after mainstream journalism. This could be the start of something big. After all, Rome began as a city of outcasts.
There's some good news on that front. IGN and Gamespot seem to have improved their ethics policies.
In what way?
But back to my point. Here's an example from Game Informer. In their CoD: Advanced Warfare review they do disclose that, yes the reviewer in question was invited to an Activision party promoting the game, but specifying that during said party no incentives were given to said reviewer to increase their score.
And as for IGN?
http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/04/29/daylight-review (http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/04/29/daylight-review)QuoteEditor’s Note: Two former IGN employees worked on Daylight’s development. To ensure an impartial review, we selected a reviewer who joined IGN after both had departed.
You are aware that such disclosure is not deemed necessary by pretty much ANY major outlet? Or just about any outlet in general? Why are games outlets so untrustworthy that specific, thorough and constant disclosure is a necessity? And why does it matter if the outlet is ethical in the first place?
It's partly because gaming journalism is sponsored by the very industry it's critiquing. Open a gaming magazine or look at a gaming website, and you'll see advertisements for video games. This can create an obvious conflict of interest. Jeff Gerstmann, for example, was fired from Gamespot for panning Kane & Lynch: Dead Men, a game its publisher Eidos had been heavily promoting on the site. It's suspicious, to say the least.
The Gerstmann incident is a good reason on why the discussion of ethics should be happening, but disclosure of where the review copy came from wouldn't have prevented that incident.
Here's the kicker though: Accepting ad revenue from a company that you're covering is not a conflict of interest.
It's how newspapers have gotten by for literally centuries.
QuoteAnd after we cut our teeth on game journalism, maybe we can go after mainstream journalism. This could be the start of something big. After all, Rome began as a city of outcasts.
For one, you need to prove that game journalism is half as corrupt as you allege. For two, let me introduce you to someone named Jayson Blair, former New York Times reporter. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair)
In short, Blair was found to plagiarize information and fabricate sources. The New York Times, wanting to deal with this breach of their ethics policy, made an almost disproportionate effort to apologize for Blair's actions. You'll be hard pressed to find people who care more about journalistic ethics than journalists.
You are aware that such disclosure is not deemed necessary by pretty much ANY major outlet? Or just about any outlet in general? Why are games outlets so untrustworthy that specific, thorough and constant disclosure is a necessity? And why does it matter if the outlet is ethical in the first place?
It's partly because gaming journalism is sponsored by the very industry it's critiquing. Open a gaming magazine or look at a gaming website, and you'll see advertisements for video games. This can create an obvious conflict of interest. Jeff Gerstmann, for example, was fired from Gamespot for panning Kane & Lynch: Dead Men, a game its publisher Eidos had been heavily promoting on the site. It's suspicious, to say the least.
The Gerstmann incident is a good reason on why the discussion of ethics should be happening, but disclosure of where the review copy came from wouldn't have prevented that incident.
Here's the kicker though: Accepting ad revenue from a company that you're covering is not a conflict of interest. It's how newspapers have gotten by for literally centuries. Go to movie websites and they're covered in ads for movies, anime websites are filled with ads for anime and so on and so forth. It's smart business. Game publishers are going to advertise on game outlets because gamers are going to be reading those outlets.
Does it excuse when conflicts of interest DO happen? Of course not, but to blanket ad revenue as bad outright is laughable. How do you think the journalists get paid for their work? The onus of a conflict of interest is on the editors and the writers, not on the people selling ads.
QuoteAnother problem is that individuals involved in game journalism all too often have close personal ties to game developers. If a journalist reviews a game produced by one of his or her friends, how do we know they'll be honest? Once again, there's a definite conflict of interest there. Danielle Riendeau gave Gone Home a perfect score. The problem is that the game's music composer, Chris Remo, is a close friend of hers.
I fail to see the issue with the Gone Home review unless you have reason to question it. While these kinds of relationships CAN lead to conflicts of interest, it doesn't mean that they WILL. Again, not an issue that disclosure will solve. Professionally accepted ethical standards do not say that a journalist can't talk about a subject that involves a friend. They do say that the editor should be aware of any potential conflict of interest and needs to keep an eye on the situation, but saying "X writer is friends with Y developer" isn't going to do anything other than encourage a bias that some readers already have.
QuoteAnd sometimes, it goes beyond doing favors for friends. There may be actual fraud and racketeering going on in the indie scene. Turns out Phil Fish might be a criminal. Some FEZ investors were also judges at both IGF and IndieCade.
IGF and IndieCade are not journalistic outlets. That's a whole different can of worms that I couldn't give less of a shit about, so I'm not even going to touch it. I'll let someone who DOES care deal with that one. However, to say that IGF and IndieCade should be subject to the same ethical standards as journalists is laughable.
Also, unless you have some actual proof of the allegations of Fish's fraud, you're committing libel, which is a crime.
QuoteWhy does it matter if gaming journalism is ethical? Because gaming journalism should be for the consumer. This is something people spend money on, and devote a large portion of their lives to. And to borrow from MLK, corruption anywhere is a threat to honesty everywhere.
Way to put words in my mouth. I asked why disclosure matters if an outlet is ethical, not why ethics matter.
QuoteIt's also something that could pose a threat to people. 40,000 users of the Firemonkeys forum had their personal information compromised by hackers. And Kotaku helped EA cover it up.
CITATION NEEDED. Unbiased citation, that is.
QuoteAnd after we cut our teeth on game journalism, maybe we can go after mainstream journalism. This could be the start of something big. After all, Rome began as a city of outcasts.
For one, you need to prove that game journalism is half as corrupt as you allege. For two, let me introduce you to someone named Jayson Blair, former New York Times reporter. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair)
In short, Blair was found to plagiarize information and fabricate sources. The New York Times, wanting to deal with this breach of their ethics policy, made an almost disproportionate effort to apologize for Blair's actions. You'll be hard pressed to find people who care more about journalistic ethics than journalists.
Not that I want to be part of this debate in any way, but didn't you earlier state that anyone who applies the GamerGate label, no matter how terrible a person they may be, is a true GamerGate member?
I was talking about the more egregious stuff like the scandal's background. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
Or they could assign the review to somebody who doesn't have personal ties. And reviewers having personal ties automatically makes it suspect.
Why, exactly, is that laughable? Why shouldn't judges be detached?
And here's my question: have you ever speculated that George Zimmerman might a murderer? Because if you did, you've committed a crime too.
Okay, sorry I misunderstood you. But disclosure leads people to trust you more.
Okay, it wasn't Kotaku. I got a few details mixed up. But there was an Australian publication that refused to report on it.
As for the citation? I'll get back to you on that. Just let me find a source that fits your criteria.
That's another reason why GamerGate is necessary. They're completely unrepentant about their censorship, corruption, and collusion.
And I don't think the media is as honest as it should be.
I'm not sure that you know what a conflict of interest is. All journalists have an interest in maintaining their job, which they can achieve by doing it well. They may have a second interest - for instance, a financial interest - in fucking up. This is said to be a "conflicting" interest. It is not necessary that they actually fuck up for them to have a conflicting interest. For instance, I might live with a person and report that they are a paedophile. Now I need to find a new place to live (or a new housemate). You can see how it would be in my interest to fuck up. But I might do it anyway. Doesn't matter. I still had to make that mental calculation.
Obviously, if your job relies upon you fucking up a story - because an advertiser has done something wrong - then you have a conflicting interest.
Modern advertising is slightly less than 100 years old, as are most things that are "literally centuries" old.
This is nonsense. The mainstream press is shockingly unethical. Seen Killing the Messenger? How many people lost their jobs over the media's cover-up of the CIA's involvement in the cocaine trade? Is it none? It's none.
Let me just show you this:
*Pakman JAQing off*
But of course, in their minds, he's "the enemy". I guess in the same way Woodward and Bernstein were enemies of Richard Nixon.
As to why I believe you are feeding into this and creating more issues rather than solving them is that you are taking the Fox News approach to climate change with this issue. You are presenting it as two sides of an argument that exists, rather than an angry, illogical mob and it’s very real victims. When you ask Zoe Quinn or Brianna Wu for an interview, you are asking them to explain why they were harassed. This is not acceptable behaviour, and I don’t feel is generally indicative of you or your show. You are giving credence to the excuses that a mob makes for its criminal behaviour, and in doing so ignoring a significant amount of truth.
I'm not sure that you know what a conflict of interest is. All journalists have an interest in maintaining their job, which they can achieve by doing it well. They may have a second interest - for instance, a financial interest - in fucking up. This is said to be a "conflicting" interest. It is not necessary that they actually fuck up for them to have a conflicting interest. For instance, I might live with a person and report that they are a paedophile. Now I need to find a new place to live (or a new housemate). You can see how it would be in my interest to fuck up. But I might do it anyway. Doesn't matter. I still had to make that mental calculation.
Obviously, if your job relies upon you fucking up a story - because an advertiser has done something wrong - then you have a conflicting interest.
QuoteThis is nonsense. The mainstream press is shockingly unethical. Seen Killing the Messenger? How many people lost their jobs over the media's cover-up of the CIA's involvement in the cocaine trade? Is it none? It's none.
And? The thing is, you can't just lump every outlet together. That's ridiculous. Unfortunately, all you can really do is sift through what you can and scrutinize everything. That's the very basics of being a smart consumer. Remember, media outlets are still businesses and run by businessmen.
That doesn't make ad revenue inherently a conflict of interest. The fact that ads often come with a stipulation of how the press should cover the advertisers is an issue. I never said and never will say it isn't. But you're trying to tell me that ad revenue is inherently a conflict of interest.
Believe it or not, but the press is more diverse and open today than it ever has been
I think this person (http://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2lkicf/email_i_sent_to_the_david_pakman_show_explaining/) speaks for me in this regard.
I think this person (http://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2lkicf/email_i_sent_to_the_david_pakman_show_explaining/) speaks for me in this regard.
I find it really annoying when an opponent of Gamergate claims that every person related to it is actively and willingly taking part in an harassment campaign. The fact is that most of them sincerely do not approve of this kind of action. Sure, a depressing number of them are only doing so in order to protect their PR, but assimilating Gamergate to some kind of crime syndicate is just... it's such an incredibly unfair and inflammatory abortion of an argument, really.
This is just as bad as claiming that everyone should judge Gamergate on TotalBiscuit's actions and words and his alone - as TB himself seems to believe. Yes, Gamergate did help uncover some actual examples of corruption in the gaming industry, among the countless false and/or irrelevant claims targeted at real or imaginary SJWs - and even then, most of the actual effort towards this goal can be traced to the initiative of one individual. But from my point of view as a gaming enthusiast, the entire "muh gamin' kultur" shitstorm is having a much bigger, and much more lasting impact that everything GG might have been doing in the name of a "good cause".(click to show/hide)
Remember when "Internet culture" still had some self-awareness to go with its general dickishness? Those were the g... somewhat less shitty times.
It's also worth noting that Gamergaters also tried to spin Michael Morhime as pro-Gamergate.
While bashing the woman who transcribed his words as anti-Gamergate.
It's also worth noting that Gamergaters also tried to spin Michael Morhime as pro-Gamergate.
While bashing the woman who transcribed his words as anti-Gamergate.
I think this person (http://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2lkicf/email_i_sent_to_the_david_pakman_show_explaining/) speaks for me in this regard.
I find it really annoying when an opponent of Gamergate claims that every person related to it is actively and willingly taking part in an harassment campaign. The fact is that most of them sincerely do not approve of this kind of action. Sure, a depressing number of them are only doing so in order to protect their PR, but assimilating Gamergate to some kind of crime syndicate is just... it's such an incredibly unfair and inflammatory abortion of an argument, really.
You know what would impress me with Gamergate? If all the decent people in the movement who honestly believe it's about ethics in gaming journalism is leave the movement and start their own. Leave the sexist, misoginistic idiots behind, the people who continue to doxx people for any reason whatsoever(the latest we'll get to in a second), and just start their own movement. Seriously the label cannot be that attractive to people.
So remember when I said "doxx people for any reason whatsoever"? The woman who runs the Wowhead liveblog was liveblogging what was going on. She transcribed Michael Morhaime's opening speech at Blizzcon, which had a part in it where he spoke out against Gamergate's policy of doxxing and harassment and urged people to take the good vibes and feelings from the weekend forward, and she got death threats for it. Let me repeat. She got death threats for basically repeating what this man was saying as he said it.
Ironbite-I say it again, leave the label behind and get a new one
That's actually a fair point, not every Gater is a harasser and some are primarily interested in the issues. I don't agree with their take on the issues but that's another topic. I do think that it started with harassment, the gamergate tags origins are evidence enough of this.
Actually, about that getting Intel to pull ads from Gamasutra thing (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/11231892/Intel-reinstates-advertising-on-Gamasutra-after-Gamergate-campaign.html)...
Seems more and more companies are not wanting to buy into the GamerGate drama at all, that is if they aren't coming out and flat out saying they are opposed to GamerGate.
Here's my question: why doesn't the Social Justice movement call itself something different as well? After all, one could easily argue that its image has been tainted by the radflakes.
Here's my question: why doesn't the Social Justice movement call itself something different as well? After all, one could easily argue that its image has been tainted by the radflakes.
Here's my question: why doesn't the Social Justice movement call itself something different as well? After all, one could easily argue that its image has been tainted by the radflakes.
Argue it, then.
Here's my question: why doesn't the Social Justice movement call itself something different as well? After all, one could easily argue that its image has been tainted by the radflakes.Actually, about that getting Intel to pull ads from Gamasutra thing (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/11231892/Intel-reinstates-advertising-on-Gamasutra-after-Gamergate-campaign.html)...
Seems more and more companies are not wanting to buy into the GamerGate drama at all, that is if they aren't coming out and flat out saying they are opposed to GamerGate.
The Telegraph cites an anonymous “spokesperson”…
I’m skeptical. Even assuming The Telegraph isn’t being had, this whole thing has shown how corrupt and biased a lot of the MSM is.
Anyone about to say “The Telegraph is a 160 year-old mainstay of the British press”, remember…
News of the World was 170 years-old, and we all know how that ended.
Oh yes, and plenty of companies are supporting GamerGate. It's just that they're not proclaiming it to the world, for completely understandable reasons.
So Gamergate has an investigation arm. And what are they investigating you ask? Weather or not a game dedicated to a dying kid who's going through cancer which one a few awards is being backed by the people who give out said awards.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2sUSwwIgAAkAQa.png:large)
When I saw this on twitter this morning I had to ask the question of what were they going to do if it turns out that this was the case. I never got an answer but a bunch of Gaters stopped by and decided to "educate" me on why this is such a bad thing but never answered my question about what they were going to do.
Ironbite-I suggested harass the parents but I don't think they got it.
No pew pee pew? No kewl powas? No BEWBZ!!!
CORRUPTION, COLLUSION, SHILLZ
No pew pee pew? No kewl powas? No BEWBZ!!!
CORRUPTION, COLLUSION, SHILLZ
The hell is the context for that?
Funny how Gaters frame this as profiting from tragedy but they don't make the same observation about every game based on a real war ever!
Well, it's like they say: one death is a tragedy, a million is just a statistic.Often misattributed to Josef Stalin. He’ll make an appearance later.
The hell is the context for that?Context (https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/534846325943046144).
That last one looks like the follow up sequel NO MOVEMENT (because someone might get hurt).It's quite a funny picture. Not exactly accurate in any way, but quite funny.(click to show/hide)
Well, it's like they say: one death is a tragedy, a million is just a statistic.“They” being Josef Stalin. He’ll make an appearance laterThe hell is the context for that?Context (https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/534846325943046144).One censor is a tragedy, one on our side is based!(click to show/hide)That last one looks like the follow up sequel NO MOVEMENT (because someone might get hurt).It's quite a funny picture. Not exactly accurate in any way, but quite funny.(click to show/hide)
Here’s a Totally Objective Review™ to go with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMU1_-_4WKg
And there's some debate in the community as to whether we should work with Jack Thompson.
And there's some debate in the community as to whether we should work with Jack Thompson.
And there's some debate in the community as to whether we should work with Jack Thompson.
You didn't. I was making a statement about what Gamergate did.
Ironbite-take it down a notch there bro.
You didn't. I was making a statement about what Gamergate did.
Ironbite-take it down a notch there bro.
No, some individuals who may or may not be part of GamerGate did that.
By the way, speaking of unlikability, Sam Biddle has no problems with animal cruelty:
https://archive.today/D2cNC (https://archive.today/D2cNC)
You didn't. I was making a statement about what Gamergate did.
Ironbite-take it down a notch there bro.
No, some individuals who may or may not be part of GamerGate did that.
By the way, speaking of unlikability, Sam Biddle has no problems with animal cruelty:
https://archive.today/D2cNC (https://archive.today/D2cNC)
How many times have you played the "they're assholes, too" card and cried no true Scotsman because you just did both of those.
I have no fucking clue who this Sam Biddle is and I couldn't give less of a fuck if he's an asshole. The thing is, as explained to you countless times before, crying about assholes who disagree with you does nothing for me except tell me that there are two assholes in the room.
And saying that the people who drove Wu out of her house "may or may not be GamerGate" is almost a textbook no true Scotsman.
Gamergate's absence of a membership roll. Their ever reliable get out of jail free card. ::)
Except that absolutely no one buys that BS except Gamergate.
So going off Tol, UP's arguing that you can't tell who's in Gamergate and who's not so it's best to just say they're not in Gamergate unless they say so? Cause I'm pretty sure that only works -1 times before bullshit can be smelt.But if they say they are Gater and another Gater denies it does that make them a Gater or a faker Gater??
When you have actual evidence that they were involved in GamerGate, then you can talk to me about "No True Scotsman".
When you have actual evidence that they were involved in GamerGate, then you can talk to me about "No True Scotsman".
And now you're trying to shift the burden of proof. I've lost count of the fallacies I've seen from you. Unless you have proof that they AREN'T GamerGate, it doesn't fucking matter. The perception is that they ARE, whether they are or not in actuality. GamerGate, by it's very nature, is losing the PR war. And that is a war they can't afford to lose if they have any legitimate points to make.
Either of you feel like substantiating that with actual evidence? Personal impressions are unreliable, since they are heavily biased by the sort of people you typically hang out with.
You want "legitimate" points? Fine. Here's one:It fits the criteria of a misunderstanding of the process (http://igf.com/2014/09/igf_statement_re_judging_proce.html), with a conspiracy theory thrown in for good measure!
http://gamesnosh.com/fez-investors-outed-judges-2011-igf-award/ (http://gamesnosh.com/fez-investors-outed-judges-2011-igf-award/)
Does that fit your criteria?
Crikey! If GamerGate continues on that steady downwards trajectory hipsters are going to start wearing their gear ironically.Either of you feel like substantiating that with actual evidence? Personal impressions are unreliable, since they are heavily biased by the sort of people you typically hang out with.Sure. Here:
http://topsy.com/analytics?q1=%23gamergate&via=Topsy (http://topsy.com/analytics?q1=%23gamergate&via=Topsy)
Such a long list without a substantive example of a single one of them.
Besides, you've used plenty of fallacies yourselves.(click to show/hide)
But I'm truly sorry about my use of fallacies.
Crikey! If GamerGate continues on that steady downwards trajectory hipsters are going to start wearing their gear ironically.
QuoteCrikey! If GamerGate continues on that steady downwards trajectory hipsters are going to start wearing their gear ironically.
"Steady downwards trajectory"? Look again. It has ebbs and flows like any movement. If we really were "losing the PR battle", we'd be hemorrhaging members.
QuoteCrikey! If GamerGate continues on that steady downwards trajectory hipsters are going to start wearing their gear ironically.
"Steady downwards trajectory"? Look again. It has ebbs and flows like any movement. If we really were "losing the PR battle", we'd be hemorrhaging members.
QuoteCrikey! If GamerGate continues on that steady downwards trajectory hipsters are going to start wearing their gear ironically.
"Steady downwards trajectory"? Look again. It has ebbs and flows like any movement. If we really were "losing the PR battle", we'd be hemorrhaging members.
Wrong. The PR battle is the battle over the minds of people who are not GamerGate. Showing a relatively stable interest on the subject is certainly a useful statistic for some purposes, but it tells us very little about how the average person who has heard of GG feels. You can have the same people tweeting the same amount for ten years, but if the typical reaction to "GamerGate" is "Who, those misogynistic nerds that are always sending death threats?", then you lose. Nobody who isn't already part of the movement will want to work with you.
QuoteCrikey! If GamerGate continues on that steady downwards trajectory hipsters are going to start wearing their gear ironically.
"Steady downwards trajectory"? Look again. It has ebbs and flows like any movement. If we really were "losing the PR battle", we'd be hemorrhaging members.
Conservatives make the same argument about climate change data, they look at an ebb going in the direction they want and declare global cooling to be a thing. The overall trajectory points down!
The media is reporting on things as they happen, it's not their job to be your PR reps.
Also, Sommers-really?
The media is reporting on things as they happen, it's not their job to be your PR reps.
Also, Sommers-really?
What, is she not feminist enough for you?
And the fact is, they gave Wu a lot more respect than they gave her.
The media is reporting on things as they happen, it's not their job to be your PR reps.
Also, Sommers-really?
What, is she not feminist enough for you?
And the fact is, they gave Wu a lot more respect than they gave her.
Yeah-the MRA's favourite "feminist". She's a feminist in the same sense that my Prime Minister Tony Abbott is an environmentalist. Just calling yourself a name means zip if your words and actions go in diametrically the opposite direction.
Shill for the American Enterprise Institute and right-wing polemicist, who-like Yiannopoulos knows a gaggle of useful idiots when she sees them!
OK, so Sommers is a feminist is a feminist activively working against the interests of women. Better?
She's like a Scotsman proudly working to make his countrymen second class citizens.
And Abbott is an environmentalist who just happens to believe that burning coal at our current rate can't harm the environment and also that global warming is "crap".
But far be it from me to stop people calling themselves whatever they want to!
But Tol, we all know that real Gamergaters wouldn't threaten, harass, or send death threats to women. I mean we've got a leader of Gamergate right here!
Ironbite-and he's been telling us so without a shred of evidence to back it up so it must be so!
Disputing the existence of rape culture thereby encouraging it's continued existence to go on unquestioned would be a good start!
Also downplaying the very real threats against female targets of gamergate, like in the very clip you showed!
But you like this sort of stuff Paragon, arguing about who has the worse individuals-because it detracts from the supreme amount of suck that Gamergate has as a movement and what it stands for.
That's what you've been trying to do since you started this thread!
So, because she questioned some of your talking points, that automatically makes her a traitor to her sex? The fact is, these kinds of things have to be questioned. As the Chinese say, "genuine gold fears no fire".
And I love how you refer to them as "targets", when GamerGate is trying to focus on more important things than dishonest ideologues and people who make shitty indie games.
AEI's Christina Hoff Sommers called rape culture a "panic where paranoia, censorship and false accusations flourish," saying "conspiracy feminists" have "persuaded many young women that what they might have dismissed as a foolish drunken hookup was actually a felony rape." False accusations are, in fact, not common at all. (http://mic.com/articles/102094/a-conservative-think-tank-has-some-really-bizarre-roofie-advice)
Accusing a consumer revolt of being "full of suck". How progressive of you. GamerGate stands for ethics. What's so objectionable about that?
You two hitting the same walls over and over again is quite hilarious.Was there any point to saying this?
Please continue.
So, because she questioned some of your talking points, that automatically makes her a traitor to her sex? The fact is, these kinds of things have to be questioned. As the Chinese say, "genuine gold fears no fire".
And I love how you refer to them as "targets", when GamerGate is trying to focus on more important things than dishonest ideologues and people who make shitty indie games.
Targets because they were targeted, quite literally.
QuoteAEI's Christina Hoff Sommers called rape culture a "panic where paranoia, censorship and false accusations flourish," saying "conspiracy feminists" have "persuaded many young women that what they might have dismissed as a foolish drunken hookup was actually a felony rape." False accusations are, in fact, not common at all. (http://mic.com/articles/102094/a-conservative-think-tank-has-some-really-bizarre-roofie-advice)
You weren't really raped sweetie, it was those nasty gender feminists that put that silly idea in your head. I'm a feminist, I totally work for the interests of women, now clean out your snatch and don't drink so much booze!
Accusing a consumer revolt of being "full of suck". How progressive of you. GamerGate stands for ethics. What's so objectionable about that?
Pigs arse they stand for "ethics", they have the same ethical worldview as a two year old. If they don't get what they want they have a tanty.
Gamergate are unethical-their operations aimed at making burner twitter accounts are evidence of that, they encourage others to be unethical. Misrepresenting themselves to fool companies into punishing their critics is evidence for that.
Gamergate isn't an ethical movement, it's a reactionary tantrum by a bunch of infants who are pissy that they'll have to share their playground with other people!
You two hitting the same walls over and over again is quite hilarious.Was there any point to saying this?
Please continue.
Tod and Bite should probably stop encouraging UP, he's clearly just gonna keep reminding you both that Actually, it's about ethics in video game journalism.You two hitting the same walls over and over again is quite hilarious.Was there any point to saying this?
Please continue.
Tod and Bite should probably stop encouraging UP, he's clearly just gonna keep reminding you both that Actually, it's about ethics in video game journalism.You two hitting the same walls over and over again is quite hilarious.Was there any point to saying this?
Please continue.
Because it is.
Making burner twitter accounts are evidence of that, they encourage others to be unethical. (https://archive.today/OCrlS)
Misrepresenting themselves to fool companies (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F9icbZbVXbl1-BJ0EsPJn2jIMplqrgLJCBEi4SG4ntw/edit) into punishing their critics is evidence for that.
Citation goddamn given!
Making burner twitter accounts are evidence of that, they encourage others to be unethical. (https://archive.today/OCrlS)
Misrepresenting themselves to fool companies (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F9icbZbVXbl1-BJ0EsPJn2jIMplqrgLJCBEi4SG4ntw/edit) into punishing their critics is evidence for that.
Citation goddamn given!
The burner accounts are done to prevent them from being traced, doxxed, and harassed. Taking precautions is hardly "unethical".
And could you point me to the "misrepresentation"? The document's thirty-five pages long.
DO NOT TYPE “GAMERGATE” ANYWHERE IN YOUR EMAIL, USE GAMERGATE ONLY ON TWITLONGER TITLE. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F9icbZbVXbl1-BJ0EsPJn2jIMplqrgLJCBEi4SG4ntw/edit)
Because it is.
Right,(click to show/hide)
Ethics!
It's so bloody ethical it's gone into self parody now.
Making burner twitter accounts are evidence of that, they encourage others to be unethical. (https://archive.today/OCrlS)
Misrepresenting themselves to fool companies (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F9icbZbVXbl1-BJ0EsPJn2jIMplqrgLJCBEi4SG4ntw/edit) into punishing their critics is evidence for that.
Citation goddamn given!
The burner accounts are done to prevent them from being traced, doxxed, and harassed. Taking precautions is hardly "unethical".
And could you point me to the "misrepresentation"? The document's thirty-five pages long.
Of course they are, that they make doxxing and harassing easier is merely coincidental! ::)
It's on page four, in caps.QuoteDO NOT TYPE “GAMERGATE” ANYWHERE IN YOUR EMAIL, USE GAMERGATE ONLY ON TWITLONGER TITLE. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F9icbZbVXbl1-BJ0EsPJn2jIMplqrgLJCBEi4SG4ntw/edit)
It's almost as if they didn't want the company to know that they were representing a special interest group.
Of course you're all special snowflakes and the moment any one of you says something dumb you can insta-disown them.
That's how you can claim that GamerGate is nothing but sweetness and light and still keep a straight face. ;D
Wonder why those doxxed by people using burner accounts aren't laughing along with Bender?
Yeah there's diversity in your movement, the ones who were openly trolling and harrassing from the start and the useful idiots who got suckered in with the bullshit "ethics" cover and now have too much hubris to just let it go!
Also bullshit, if you are too ashamed to mention the cause you represent your cause by name then maybe there's something wrong with your cause.
Nah-persecution complexes and raging entitlement, all too human.
Also-wow you've got Einstein and Orwell on your side?
Except really you don't-weren't you arguing with that little graph of yours that GamerGate was on the side of popularity?
Or are you an oppressed minority now-whichever is more convenient at any given moment I guess!
Who's "our"?
You'll disown any individual the moment they go south, so who the hell is this "our" you are talking about?
So apart from the 2011 game, harrasing a game developer and harrasing a critic. What has happened about ethics in gaming journalism. Obviously the last bastion of important journalism. Along with ethics in car magazine journalism and ethics in travel journalism.
A website was started on the internet, revolutionary!
You claim that gamergate "as a whole" which like Soylent Green is people isn't losing any PR battles. Aside from Christina spruiking for you on telly which PR battles have you won, specifically?
Who's "our"?
You'll disown any individual the moment they go south, so who the hell is this "our" you are talking about?
I mean GamerGate as a whole.
Also, I can't help but notice the fact that you said the opposition Anita got meant she was on to something, while the opposition GamerGate gets is used as evidence that we're wrong.
(http://wemeantwell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/hypocrisy.jpg)
A website was started on the internet, revolutionary!
You claim that gamergate "as a whole" which like Soylent Green is people isn't losing any PR battles. Aside from Christina spruiking for you on telly which PR battles have you won, specifically?
What about the advertisers leaving Gawker?
Who's "our"?
You'll disown any individual the moment they go south, so who the hell is this "our" you are talking about?
I mean GamerGate as a whole.
Also, I can't help but notice the fact that you said the opposition Anita got meant she was on to something, while the opposition GamerGate gets is used as evidence that we're wrong.
(http://wemeantwell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/hypocrisy.jpg)
Where and when?
Also it pays to keep in mind the type of opposition, not all opposition is equal. Opposition to Gamergate has been in the form of the media reporting on harassment, opposition to Anita has been in the form of discussions about Anita devolving into examples of Anita's Irony (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Feminist_internet_laws#Anita.27s_Irony) and discussion of feminism devolving into examples of more general examples of Lewis's Law.
A website was started on the internet, revolutionary!
You claim that gamergate "as a whole" which like Soylent Green is people isn't losing any PR battles. Aside from Christina spruiking for you on telly which PR battles have you won, specifically?
What about the advertisers leaving Gawker?
Your attempts to censor your critics are a PR victory?
Gawker is still up, if anything Gamergate made it more popular.
I can't help but notice the fact that you said the opposition Anita got meant she was on to something, while the opposition GamerGate gets is used as evidence that we're wrong.
Didn't say I was cheering, just saying you hadn't knocked them down-complete non sequitur Mr I Love My Fallacies!
I can't help but notice the fact that you said the opposition Anita got meant she was on to something, while the opposition GamerGate gets is used as evidence that we're wrong.
Also, you claim I said something-you still haven't cited exactly what it was I said, care to enlighten me?
Again notice, no one is weaving bat crappingly crazy conspiracy theories about GamerGaters faking their harassment. It’s much more parsimonious to suggest that yes, someone angry at GamerGate took things waaay too far and made an ass of themselves!
Well, for one, we started our own website:
http://www.goodgamers.us/ (http://www.goodgamers.us/)