Blarghagh

Did you vote for Ron Swanson?

TotalBiscuit responded to the Arthur Chu interview and was subsequently accused of being unethical: Anyway, I'll probably respond to Tale if he responds to me but overall I'm going to try and put less time into this. I've spent too much time for too little return and at this point I don't think the conversation can be had until this thing dies down and it's been a giant distraction from things I should be doing. If I start monologueing in this thread again, please call me on it.

Yeah, I think rebranding as a unity is a bad idea. There's already too much of it. GamerGate should have been the name for the scandal that's being discussed, not the name for the people doing it. I suppose I'm guilty of that as well, I got swept up in the "we can change the industry" thing again, like I did with when Kickstarter really blew up. (Also I think your response was in the wrong spot.)

I get that it's not organized, which in my opinion makes the claims that it's a hate group much more unpalatable. And I disagree that the impetus was built on deception. Like Nonek points out, it hasn't been debunked at all. Nathan Grayson may have not reviewed the game in question (and I never claimed he did), but he did publicize it without disclosing his relationship, informing his editor, or recusing himself. This has created at the least the appearance of impropriety. It's debatable whether or not he went too far, but the appearance of impropriety is enough to be considered a breach of trust and since then many more breaches of trust have happened (for example, the fact that game news websites didn't publicize TFYC or the IndieCade scandal involving Polytron). I'm not seeing deception - at the very worst, it's misinterpretation. Regarding kicking those guys out, I wrote a lengthy post about that before. What control does GG have over anonymous internet trolls and threats that other people don't have? There are numerous and ongoing attempts to do so from a large majority, from figureheads to ground level grunts who just "retweet" something and really, there is nothing GG can do. It's been three months and the clearest call from GamerGate is "we denounce harassment". I can't tell you how much time I've spent reporting twitter accounts this week alone. It. Does. Not. Work. These guys get one account locked, they make four more by proxy. We once discussed this regarding trolls that banning them just gives you more problems, and that's been extremely true. Your point of it not being organized very much applies here. And even then every attempt GG makes to get rid of the trolls is undermined by the opponents continually signal boosting them. We are powerless and they are giving them power. Of course, the people responsible are the trolls. But that doesn't mean I can't blame their enablers for the things they do to give the trolls power. Why don't they ever signal boost someone denouncing harassment? Because it doesn't get clicks. I don't believe for a second that it comes down to "large swathes" of the movement because I've been following this from day one and that's simply not what I've seen. Edit Addendum: What about the people getting harassed by those against GamerGate? People losing their jobs, getting syringes or knives in the mail, getting swatted or the fire department sent to their house, people having to deal with false plagiarism claims and losing royalties to their books, it literally destroying their livelihoods and ten year old boys being doxxed? Who is reporting those? Who is kicking those out? Why am I or any other GamerGater responsible for trolls on my side when nobody gives a hoot about those guys? Why am I compelled, almost forced, to pointlessly waste my time dealing with trolls when they don't actually have anything to do with what I want to talk about and have my efforts wasted because some "progressive" personality will paint another target for trolls to hit by giving them attention, when they don't have to denounce anyone? When most of those, in fact, approve of that harassment, such as the case of people like Chu or Movie Bob or Leigh Alexander or Devin Faraci. Because my "side" has a label, a word put on it, suddenly it's different? Fringe lunatics are fringe lunatics. I don't have to distance myself from muslim terrorists because they are air breathers like I am. As for focusing on indies, I get your point but you're overstating it. It's not a focus on those developers, it is the fact that the breach of trust happened in regards to these independant developers. I think it's a false equation to bullying. Nobody wants to shut independent developers down, but we CAN make journalists accountable for how they cover them. We can't make journalists accountable for how they cover AAA developers, because the journalists are not the ones controlling that balance, and there's not much anyone thought we could do about it and also, journalists have talked about these things themselves! Like I pointed out, when Jeff Gerstwinn got fired journalists smelled blood in the water and where is Gamespot now? They used to be the biggest games website on the web! There hasn't been a situation where a consumer revolt could step in and also needed to. I mean, GG is now focusing on places like Gawker. What the hell is Gawker compared to something like EA or ActiVision? I believe after this, GG will definitely try to take them on. But baby steps, man. I don't actually focus on those specific indie developers at all - the only time when I bring them up is because I understand how they became involved and whenever someone brings up the argument that "why not get pissed when this happened?" to provide context which is what I've done here. It's how journalists step out of line when dealing with indies that is the problem. In fact, a majority of GamerGate doesn't engage them. These people are referred to not by name most of the time, the accepted response inside the hashtag to posts bringing them up as "literally, who?" because GG doesn't want to bring them back into a conversation they have no place in. It looks like GG focuses on indies because those jerks (likely a significant part of which is GNAA like trolls rather than actually invested in it) are the ones getting publicized. It's simply not true. It's like the claim that Brianna Wu is getting harassed the most on Twitter yet 95% of the tweets to her using the #GamerGate hashtag are neutral or supportive? It's nonsense.

Cool, thanks.

Can I ask what America was voting for? I saw a million tweets saying "I voted" but nobody actually saying what they voted for.

This was delivered to me from GG as a "public service announcement". https://screamingdoktor.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/weve-lost-our-way-gamergate/

While I agree with your point, I think this version looks absolutely hideous and impractical and I think if it should say something about their character it should say something more than "my character designer was bonkers".

Man, I got suckered in and wrote a huge YouTube comment as a reponse to the Chu interview (some of it sourced from here) and now I feel stupid because nobody reads Youtube comments. So I'm going to share it here so I don't feel like such a failure for it: I'm sorry, but David is the one giving a platform to trolls? That's nonsense. Everytime a journalist or a blogger or a YouTube personality goes "this is just about misogyny", they are giving a platform to trolls. They, as Arthur_Chu has, literally go on and say "if you harass women, I'll make you famous with my siginificant follower base". At the same time, the people who are genuinely concerned about journalistic ethics are ignored under the guise of "we can't have this conversation because harassment happens", giving those trolls unethical control over what conversations we are or not allowed to have. Then when it comes to not attacking the AAA industry, there are several reasons why that is. One, it's a status quo. People are angry about it, but it's been that way since magazines in the 80's and these companies are too big to take on. The anger is subdued because it's become accepted. We knew all along we couldn't trust games journalists regarding AAA titles, but we thought we could trust them with indie games. Whether the allegations are true, there was perceived impropriety and breach of trust. The anger has flared up. For example, when Jeff Gerstwinn got fired in 2007 the entire internet freaked out as much as the start of GamerGate. The difference here is that other games journalists ate Gamespot like sharks, because they were in competition. It was highly publicized and people were allowed to discuss it. Another example Chu mentions is the Shadows of Mordor scandal. It's very easy to explain why gamers didn't blow up over that - because the majority of large YouTubers either condemned it or disclosed it. TotalBiscuit was much more critical of it than any games journalist was (and that you are), and he's one of the most famous YouTubers there is (an argument could be successfully made that he's long supplanted traditional games journalism). Do you see the key differences here? No breach of trust, competition, no censorship and disclosure, and criticism. Rest assured that, having seen how much power they can wield against large corporations, AAA publishers aren't safe from scrutiny after this is over. Not censorship and ignoring scandals because "friends are involved". Here's the reason they're "defending AAA developers", oh wait. I can't find a single instance of this happening. I guess there's Bayonetta 2? That wasn't defended over being AAA, that was defended because it was created and designed by WOMEN and is a celebration of female empowerment and it was falsely accused of being sexist. (Even if creating "sexy" characters was sexist, in this case the argument against Bayonetta is false AND heterosexist.) Speaking of TotalBiscuit, I hope he certainly adresses the accusation by Mr Chu that he is guilty of harassment, because that is literally what Mr Chu said here. Since the accusation is that you gave a platform to harassers, when you only gave a platform to TotalBiscuit and Jennie Bharaj. This is slander, plain and simple and Mr Chu has to answer for this. Then there's the idea that GamerGate is going after indie developers as a whole. This is simply not true. In fact, I'd contend GamerGate to be pro-Indie developers as a whole. One of the major points of contention is the amount of awards and press Depression Quest was given. Many GamerGate proponents believe that it didn't deserve this attention, and was only given these awards because of a combination of social politics over its subject and (debatable) being part of a clique with the journalists rather than the quality of the game (although I thoroughly condemn the treatment of its developer as the problem here is the journalists and not her). The complaint says that indie developers, who need exposure much more than AAA developers, shouldn't have to get friendly or add anvilicious morals to get exposure but rather should make good games. And I agree with this. I also condemn many of these games journalists for appropriating power over other peoples careers. The malicious slandering of the creators of "Hatred" as neo-nazis proves this point - they didn't like the game and printed outrageous lies because it fit with their narrative and they didn't even look into whether it was true. They just wanted it shut down. But ignoring those factors, here's the thing: Even if what happened really is that misogynist jerks really just made outlandish stuff up and thousands upon thousands of people actually bought into that, then those people must have already felt very alienated and distrustful towards game journalists and it is in their best interest to adress that. Engage those people, listen to what they have to say and do your best to convince them otherwise. Continually acknowledging trolls while ignoring them is only going to make you look more guilty. Especially when doing it means marginalising and downplaying thousands upon thousands of voices, many of whom are minorities (I don't believe for a second that more than a tiny fraction of #NotYourShield is bots or that they are just stupid people who internalized discrimination) and many of whom are good people who just want things to get better and are completely willing to put their money where their mouth is by donating to charities and women game jams like TFYC. It takes either a worldview so cynical that I'm not comfortable even thinking about it (a worldview that Mr Chu obviously has, and I condemn him for it) or an ulterior motive to do so. It's been written that the journalists involved can very easily stop this in two steps. Adopt an ethics policy > Adhere to it. It's very simple: Disclose friendships, financial ties etc. (or better yet, recuse yourself) and seperate consumer advocacy (reviews) and culture criticism (op ed) as much as possible, or at least properly explain it. There's been a lot of praise heaped upon a Christian game news site because they seperated the consumer advocacy and culture criticism simply by adding a morality score, or better yet, do away with scoring alltogether. Maybe an apology or two, since there are hurt feelings involved. These are simple changes, and if they get implemented I can guarantee the majority of what is now GamerGate will instantly join in condemning the leftover reactionaries and their harassment. Because yes, there are reactionaries in the movement. But that is just a tiny minority. I wouldn't even call it a vocal minority. The reason they are perceived as the majority isn't that they are numerous, it's because they are the ones that get publicized. It's very self-fullfilling for these journalists to call those the vocal ones when they are the ones giving them a voice. I condemn these harassers, I condemn everyone who has harassed Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu even though I do not agree with everything they've said and done. (For the record, I also condemn those who harassed Boogie2988, KingofPol, Milo, Christina Sommers, GG Feminist and Cindy Wu even though I do not agree with everything they have said either, such as that I condemn Milo's statements about transgenderism). But I also condemn the journalists who give power to the harassers and in fact contribute to the harassment by throwing its victims under the bus for sake of not having to actually address (perceived or otherwise) allegations of misconduct. The argument about misogyny is bunk anyway, because plenty of men have been harassed, including Mr Chu himself! More men have been harassed than women. Phil Fish got chased out of the industry, and it's not because he "stood up for" one of the other victims as she posited, because Phil Fish left the industry and flipped out over getting harassed far before GamerGate was even a thought in anyones mind. The simple fact is that the women getting harassed gets more publicity for the clicks journalists so seek and they are completely willing to throw these women under the bus for clicks. None of them reported on Phil Fish getting harassed. Why? Because nobody would care and it might lead some people to look and find the IndieCade scandal they ignored because it didn't fit their story. Then there's the fact that plenty of women are championed by GG - in fact, I'd say a significant part of the ground level figureheads ARE women, such as Jennie Bharaj. That is a lot more women than the "GameJournoPros" had, showing an impressive gender gap of 1 out of 10! What hurts me most is that people like Mr Chu don't realize how badly they're harming inclusivity. The constant publicizing of a handful of trolls making the game industry seem like a terrible place for women is driving women away when we were making enormous strides in closing the gender gap, which meant more voices would represent women in game development. The constant attacks on games as "sexist" or "racist" or anything else when those games are not is making developers afraid to add anything but the most sanitized minorities in their games out of fear of being blacklisted, if they decide adding minorities is worth the hassle at all. They're setting progress and inclusivity back by decades. All inclusivity problems like female representation in games would have solved itself, but now that's going to take longer. David, if you're looking for more intelligent voices on GamerGate, I'd suggest Erik Kain. He's an intelligent, neutral party with various insights about it. In closing, here's a quote from TotalBiscuit regarding the supposed "keeping women out of the industry and away from our toys": If that were true, why on earth would the targets be a controversial Youtube critic and two practically unknown indie developers? Wouldn't people be trying to drive out women of note in the industry who work at major studios and have real influence over the direction of games? If this is a harassment campaign aimed at driving women out of gaming, it is the single most unsuccessful one in the history of mankind. EDIT: Man, if I put half as much effort into my professional life as I did arguing on the internet to nobody in particular I would be rich by now. Maybe I need to step away.

So someone created a blocking bot to block GamerGate supporters on Twitter. So far there's over 15'000 accounts on it. Apparently it's not even close to all, because I've tweeted at least one GamerGate related thing using the hashtag per day for the last month and I'm not on it. I thought we were supposed to be a tiny group of like 300 idiots? EDIT: Arthur Chu interview is up. EDIT EDIT: Holy ****, did Arthur Chu just say TotalBiscuit is a harasser? He said Pakman was giving a platform to the harassers when nobody he interviewed is implicated in harassment!

Check his twitter. The interview isn't up yet I think. It's a pre-emptive meltdown.

"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." - C.S. Lewis

- TotalBiscuit.

Interesting bit about idealogical splintering that also mentions GamerGate around the end.

My gay friend had a conversation with an anti-GG white, cis man and he said that my friend was sexist by default because being gay means you don't like women.

Did Gotham just kinda grow the beard? I really liked this episode, I want more focus on the gang wars and the politics. I hope it's going to be more of that from now on.

Reeeeaaaaally hoping that silly lightsaber handguard isn't really in the movie.

That link takes me to the October 10th interview in the series of interviews. Did you mean there was a new one? Hey, why would I put effort in myself if I have you to do it for me? I did briefly look for it but I was more thinking along the lines of word replacement then that specific set of words. Thanks anyway!

Wow, did that really happen? I didn't even hear about this one. Yup. Where's his TV-spot? Between a Kardashian selfie and some rich people telling the poor what to do. And yes, KoP was sent a knife and had the fire department called to his residence due to a claim of him being suicidal. See, it's things like this that make it a lot harder to denounce the harassment coming from GG because the other side is just as bad, if not worse. It's like harassment is the goddamn status quo and that pisses me the hell off. Replaces SJW with Skeleton. Some sort of incredibly passive aggressive extension for browsers - used for other things I imagine. Oh haha! Neat. What plugin is it? I want it.

Wow, did that really happen? I didn't even hear about this one.

Point is conceded, GamerGate has a major PR problem in that there are some very vocal idiots involved. I don't believe the majority of GG is like that, however and I also believe that a lot of this has to with the fact that those vocal idiots are consistently favored when the media discusses it over the people who actually have legitimate bones to pick and I'm pretty sure that's a strategic ploy to keep the focus on them so nobody has to deal with possibly industry shifting changes. It's pretty self-fullfilling to call the idiots the most vocal when journalists are the ones giving them a voice. Thankfully, this has started to change slowly with voices like John Bain (Total Biscuit) and Erik Kain and even Jennie Bharaj (even though she's obviously inexperienced at interviews) getting into the spotlight to actually discuss those things. I have huge respect for David Pakman and his show over this because his show is incredibly progressive and yet he had no problem looking at GGs perspective. I've pointed this out before, but if what happened really is that misogynist jerks really just made outlandish stuff up and thousands upon thousands of people actually bought into that, then those people must have already felt very alienated and distrustful towards game journalists and it is in their best interest to adress that. Engage those people, listen to what they have to say and do your best to convince them otherwise. Continually acknowledging trolls while ignoring them is only going to make you look more guilty. Especially when doing it means marginalising and downplaying millions of voices, many of whom are minorities (I don't believe for a second that more than a tiny fraction of #NotYourShield is bots or that they are just stupid people who internalized discrimination) and many of whom are good people who just want things to get better and are completely willing to put their money where their mouth is by donating to charities and women game jams like TFYC. It takes either a worldview so cynical that I'm not comfortable even thinking about or an ulterior motive to do so. Just my two cents. That video was hilarious, by the way. Guess what it does? Even when I realized this, my interpretation of this angle of the debate is unchanged. Tilting at windmills. What does it do? I don't know it. EDIT: What is wrong with me today? I am like some kind of typo machine.

That's just begs the question of why do you bother?You won't break the 'misogyny' narrative. Might as well have GG embrace harassment. Hell no. I condemn harassment and personal threats, so does most of GamerGate. Their narrative doesn't define me, it doesn't define GamerGate and we certainly shouldn't prove it right. EDIT: Ninja'd, so added quote.

Yes, funny. Hmm... not entirely correct. GamerGaters are fighting against those who slander and attack them. Part of the reason journos and media are corrupt is because they got inflitrated by SJW's. So Brianna, Anita and Zoe - they have impacted us by crying "mysogony" and spinning their narrative. A narrative the media was too quick to jump on to. The 3 are a symptom of a problem, and technically small fish. But make no mistake in thinking we're just fighting against game journos. Even if we were to win, the SJW's won't stop attacking us. GamerGate is about ethics in game journalism - this may be the only reason *some* GGers joined. But not all. Don't get me wrong, I fight for ethics and professionalism in the media (ALL media) too, but to me personally, the main fight is against SJW's. The game journos are just the fist fight. Once they are taken care off, we can move onto other targets. "Infiltrated" by SJWs? TrashMan, you're currently running on the same "terror organisation" nonsense they use against GG. "SJWs" are not a institution, it's at most a label for people who are moral authoritarians, but it's not even a very good label. I've spent a fair amount of time just on this forum talking about how I feel game developers should put more effort into stopping toxicity, especially toxicity towards women (because it does happen, it's fine to say "trolls just attack your weakness" but it's telling that the "weakness" they're attacking is that they're female) in game communities and that was enough for some to label me as an SJW. And you know what? If caring about getting rid of toxicity and sexism at all makes you an SJW? ****, slap it on me. That doesn't mean I'm goddamn infiltrating anything, it means I care about something. This is about ethics in games journalism, and if it isn't for you then no offense but you can just **** right off as far as I'm concerned. It's true I used the term SJW early on this debate, but only out of shorthand for GamerGate opponents. The justification for games journalists to speak out about the toxicity of games commentary towards women was really quite clear-- they and friends of theirs experienced it first-hand, they decided that it wasn't the kind of thing they couldn't continue to abide silently, and they made a statement against it. They did this with no clear financial incentive (other than the normal "I get paid to write a column" stuff), and in doing so risked alienating a portion of their audience and attracting the ire of those hateful **** at the core of the problem. Is that "dictating a narrative"? I dunno. Columnists are paid for their opinion, and they delivered it. It seems to bother you that their opinion didn't bubble up from the folks you consider "average gamers." I'm not sure where you're getting that most gamers are or should be up in arms about all this. In reality, most people who play games are ambivalent. Sure, if you press them, they'd say that folks who comment on gender politics in games don't deserve the abuse they have historically gotten for speaking their mind, and that reviewers shouldn't allow their work to be affected by the ads that games publishers buy on their employers' site. But if those beliefs influence them to change their behavior at all, it's only to avoid reading comments and twitter replies to certain articles and to develop their opinions of games from sources outside paid games media. Ultimately, the stakes on the GG'er side are so low that the people who appear to care intently about the cause all either look pretty weird, or are motivated by opportunism (drawing attention/clicks/follows by ratifying the views of supporters) or hateful tribalism (see Trashman's "I'm really in this because I hate SJWs" post above). This is why "actually, it's really about ethics in games journalism" has become a laugh line-- anybody who cites that as a basis for the kind of emotional intensity you see from much of the GG crowd either has humorously bizarre priorities or is lying to you (possibly deliberately, possibly because he lacks the self-awareness to understand his own motivations). Nice negging in your last line there. I do really care about ethics in games journalism. I also welcome cultural critique. The problem is that games websites are offering cultural critique under the guise of consumer advocacy. They didn't write columns or editorials to say. 90% of the original articles that sparked this nonsense was in the NEWS sections of their respective sites. Similarily, there is a difference between a review and a critique. A review is consumer advocacy, a critique is something else. They're scoring these games for the consumer, yet they're saying "we're not doing consumer advocacy, we're doing cultural critique", well you can't have ****ing both at the same time because they're completely different things. Reviews affect different things than cultural critique does. If they were being seperated, we would not have this mess. It's like what Longknife points out about the Christian Gamer site. Nobody has a problem with that, because they seperate the consumer focused portion from the cultural critique and promoting things for their morals or because they're friends with the creators, and if other games journalists did that everything would be fine. Hell, I'd be bloody fine if they added a seperate "morality" score but you can't lower consumer advocacy grades like gameplay because "the cutscenes pandered to make gaze imo" (an argument that is heterosexist in the first place). Also, they saw their friends getting harassed and said "this has to stop"? I don't believe a single article told anyone to stop anything. Nope, they just said "hey guys, you're terrible human beings for having this hobby". They didn't even say "we want to adress toxicity in gamer culture and see if we can fix it", they just straight up went "gamers are a lost cause and they should piss off". Maybe that's not what they meant, like Bruce points out ad nauseum, but they didn't redefine the term Gamers so that's the received message. Death of the Author and everything, any interpretation is a valid interpretation and intended message is generally not the perceived message. For the record, I believe it to be the intended message as well. The constant use of "consumer" as a slur in those articles clinches it for me. The fact that these people are our consumer advocates but they absolutely hold no respect for consumers is problematic in itself. Also, "They did this with no clear financial incentive and in doing so risked alienating a portion of their audience and attracting the ire of those hateful **** at the core of the problem." Which is exactly what happened to turn GG in what it is today? So you're saying this is the risk they took but you're against it actually happening? I'm not sure what the point is you're making. It's very clear that not all of GG is good. You need not point it out, we all know. Yes, there are misogynists and abusive jerks and people co-opting it for their own purposes and politics. It sucks. Yes, there is a clear correlation between GG and the inherent disagreement with libertarians and authoritarians. But it is, for most people, about consumer advocacy and ethics in games journalism. It's why people like TotalBiscuit are in it. And you know what? Saying my efforts to talk about my opinion about journalis is defined by these bad parts? Well, you're just wrong. Guilt by association is not a thing. It will never be a thing. Especially when that association is as flimsy as using a freaking hashtag. The presence of abusive **** does not dictate what I can or cannot talk about. Letting them dictate the conversation, whether in or against their favour, is ridiculous and unethical and I won't do it. I think there needs to be changes in games journalism and the fact that some other people who also say that are **** isn't relevant. Anyway, I've already written at length as to why I'm in this so I will just link it http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/69052-journalism-and-sexism-in-the-games-industry/?p=1528850 (for the record, that developer that was made out to be a "drama queen" earlier on in this thread has had his concerns validated over and over in his worries just in the last few weeks when games journalists lied about and slandered the developers of "Hatred" as being an organisation of Neo-Nazis simply because they didn't like the game, good luck getting over an accusation like that) but there is another problem I have with the "being in GG is bad" argument: You have no other choice if you want to actually talk about journalistic ethics right now. I know because I tried everything I can to change that. At first, someone told me "we can have this conversation if you leave GG". So I did. I left the movement behind, stopped using the hashtag. What you get is endless variants of "if you still want to talk about it, you're still GG" or "we can't talk about it while GG is still here" or even "this is an argument misogynists want to have, if you still want to have it, you're a misogynist". Someone else told me if I wanted to have this conversation, I should denounce harassment. Well, since one of the cornerstones of the movement is "I condemn personal threats", easy. I did that. I got the same arguments back. "Harassment is still happening, can't talk about it while it's still happening and while misogynists are still making the same argument". I pointed out that I had no more ability to stop anonymous internet trolls as they did, but I tried and spent a lot of time reporting trolls and retweeting the harassment patrol. Well, the response to that was even more hostile: "You're a ****ing joke and you're not even trying". I decided to put my money where my mouth is and donated to anti-cyberbullying charities. Apparently, that was just a PR stunt to hide my misogyny? It's a ****ing smokescreen. They made GG into a bigger villain by consistently signal boosting trolls and doing everything except literally saying "if you attack a woman in the game industry we'll give you the attention you so crave" so it can taint the entire conversation. You can't have this conversation outside of GG because of GG, so the only way to have it is strength of numbers and forcing their hand with consumer boycotts and letter writing campaigns.

That's not accurate. They're more easily managed and moderated by us that way and also huge threads have a tendency to get glitchy, especially if quoting is involved in the posts.

Whilst let's be honest here, OJ did it, and there was pretty good evidence that he did it, there wasn't a recording of him getting it done, and he was judged not guilty because the jury was retarded, not because "Poor OJ has been through enough with his wife allegedly hurting him even though there's 0 evidence.". My understanding of it was that the prosecutor was an idiot and ended up not doing the bare minimum his evidence was admissable in court? Granted it's been a while since I've read or watched anything about this but that's what I took away from it.