GamerGate

[Ultimate Paragon]

Ah, got to the bottom of this. 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:

Cfeara ‏@Cferra1227 · 5h5 hours ago
@Dutchtica @ShadowTodd I believe Justin would have said "Yeah...No....

And:

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.

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!

Then why didn't he condemn the anti-GamerGaters using his memory?  And why did he do it himself?

Huh?

We've moved past that.

[I am lizard]

Ah, got to the bottom of this. 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:

Cfeara ‏@Cferra1227 · 5h5 hours ago
@Dutchtica @ShadowTodd I believe Justin would have said "Yeah...No....

And:

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.

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!

Then why didn't he condemn the anti-GamerGaters using his memory?  And why did he do it himself?

Huh?

We've moved past that.

Oh, never mind then. (I will point out I was asking out of confusion)

[Cloud3514]

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.

(click to show/hide)

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.

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 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.

[Ultimate Paragon]

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.

(click to show/hide)

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.

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 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'll agree with you, that is censorship, and I disagree with it.

But as for your second point, GamerGate doesn't need to be an organized movement to call out the bad apples in its ranks.  Therefore, those against GamerGate have no excuse.

[Sigmaleph]

You don't need an organized movement, but you do need a movement of some sort. You can't call out the bad apples in your ranks if you don't have ranks.

Suppose X thinks a large majority of the rhetoric against GG is stupid, but there are in fact good reasons to dislike GG. What can X do? They can say "yo, guys, stop saying that", but assume people disagree re: stupid. Should X abandon the "anti-GG movement"? No, because no such thing exists. There's only people who dislike GG, and X still dislikes GG.

Now consider the converse scenario. Y thinks a majority of the GG rhetoric is stupid, but there are in fact good reasons to think we need to reform gaming journalism. Y can also talk to fellow GG'ers and say "yo, guys, stop saying that", but they could also just ignore that complaint. Now here's the difference: Y can abandon GG without abandoning criticism of gaming journalism. GG is an actual, if decentralised, movement. If one felt that for some reason or another they don't want to associate with the other people using the name "GamerGate", they can stop using the hashtag or identifying as a gamergater.

Should they? That's a personal decision. I'm not telling you that you in particular should stop associating with GamerGate, this is just an exercise in hypotheticals. My point is just that the situation is asymmetrical. By declaring affiliation to a name, you give power to the group under that name, and thus you can take that power away by denying that same affiliation. So, someone who declares themselves pro-GG has one resource to police their own group that someone who doesn't like GG intrinsically does not.

[Cloud3514]

There's a reason that one of the things I keep telling people is that I'm all for discussion of ethics in the gaming press and feminism in gaming, but I neither need nor want GamerGate to be a part of it.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

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.

(click to show/hide)

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.

Ah - by what metric do you measure the "occult-supernatural" level of something?

I don't see this as any less subjective than the Polygon review, it just confines it's subjective criteria into neat little boxes.

As to the whole Gamergate, anti Gamergate thing...GamerGate is more of a political/social belief, it's a belief system. Some ascribe to it, some do not. A Gamergater is just someone who says they believe in the overall goals and positions of that belief system, people opposed to these beliefs can come from a whole spectrum of philosophical viewpoints and are united insofar as they don't buy Gamergate's overall goals or positions on things related to the Gamergate controversy/ies.

Then there are probably a whole lot more people who are undecided or couldn't give a rats arse about Gamergate!

[ironbite]

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.

[Ultimate Paragon]

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.

[ironbite]

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.

Keep telling yourself that sunshine and maybe it'll come true through sheer repetition.

[mythbuster43]

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.

[Art Vandelay]

It's a crying shame we can no longer mention how fucking stupid it is that this drama has lasted over two months by doing nothing more than going around in circles. I know the intention of those rules is to stop exactly that and hopefully have a meaningful discussion, but it's pretty clear now that it's just not going to happen. The only thing anyone really has to say that's not far too vague to be useful is just yet more pissing contests over which side has the biggest assholes. You just can't have a meaningful discussion when there's nothing of value to work with in the first place.

[Ultimate Paragon]

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.

Haven't you seen the mountains of evidence?

[Cerim Treascair]

Calling for a vote to lock this thread, as it's no longer anything even approaching useful, tangible discussion.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

EDIT: -Deleted.

OK, that was provocative-no point just stirring the pot here.