BruceVC

...How exactly are you expecting any good-faith discussion to ensue when you're literally incapable of not assuming the worst of the people sitting on the other side of the table? I don't think either side is capable of not assuming the worst of the people across the table. That's how "ethics in journalism" and "anti-harassment" and "better/more positive/more inclusive representation" and "disclosure of areas of potential bias in news articles" end up being opposing concepts (when there's nothing inherent in one that precludes the others other than the sides have drawn their lines in the sand). Lets not degrade both sides to the lowest closest denominator...GG is still worse than anti-GG at the end of the day if you look at everything that occurred ? When two groups fight in the mud, don't both get dirty? You cute with your diplomacy that builds at times to irrefutable logic....but not when I''m on the receiving end like when you called me despicable about the Hogan incident....it was true that's what bothered me and my code made it mandatory to accept I was wrong I can easily dispute emotion and invective....in fact I thrive on it but not hard facts

that is simply false and have been tried times and times again, especially by those that want GG to die. What is false? That if the Ethics Brigade had re-organized themselves under a different hashtag, it probably would have been harder to paint them as harrassers? I have a hard time accepting "this is false because reasons" as an answer, especially since the method hasn't been tried, therefore the conviction that it is, indeed, false, seems misplaced. "Maybe it would have worked but it's been decided that it's a slim chance, and comes with associated risks we're not willing to take" sounds vaguely more honest and less like outright accusing the other party of having ulterior motives is all I'm saying. What. I mean, "divide" I get, but how exactly can you get "conquered"? It's not like the group's been represented in a manner members saw as "fair" by media outlets that aren't manned by opportunistic ****bags (looking at you, Milo). Worst case scenario, instead of an amorphous blob that prides itself on being incoherent, you'd get two amorphous blobs, working ostensibly for the same goal, hopefully with a little less harrassment from one blob. ...How exactly are you expecting any good-faith discussion to ensue when you're literally incapable of not assuming the worst of the people sitting on the other side of the table? ...I'm shocked, shocked to discover that a splinter group centered solely on mockery instead of meaningful dialogue and an exploration of issues in journalistic integrity has failed to become a baggage-free bastion of enlightened discourse regarding ethics. You don't see a splinter-group as weakening GG? Weeding out the "bad" elements? Maybe a leader or group deciding what should be in or not? Kicking Milo because people do not like him? No dividing? lol, you're not even trying. GG has its cause(s) and that's it. Its existence should not, and will not be dependent on the approval of those that hate it. Oh, i did forget one thing, there is meaningful dialogue with the Society of Professional Journalists already: Meshugger I understand why you are trying to defend GG...you may actually believe it but please trust me its misplaced You have made your point about things that annoyed you like the Alexander article and even won some battles but now its time to move on..what do you gain by this "GG has its causes " ...do you even have an end goal?

...How exactly are you expecting any good-faith discussion to ensue when you're literally incapable of not assuming the worst of the people sitting on the other side of the table? I don't think either side is capable of not assuming the worst of the people across the table. That's how "ethics in journalism" and "anti-harassment" and "better/more positive/more inclusive representation" and "disclosure of areas of potential bias in news articles" end up being opposing concepts (when there's nothing inherent in one that precludes the others other than the sides have drawn their lines in the sand). Lets not degrade both sides to the lowest closest denominator...GG is still worse than anti-GG at the end of the day if you look at everything that occurred ?

It's very kind of you to say that, but I'm afraid that's not true, and claiming such isn't really doing the quality of the debate any favors. Sorry but I didn't say that to flatter you. I never do that, but its true. There will always be someone who is clever than you in a debate but knowing that actually helps you work out how to engage with them properly

In all fairness, if the people who have been serious about having a discussion regarding ethics had ditched the "gamergater" label at the point when it became irrevocably associated with harrassment, their opposition would probably have had a harder time making the "ethics is just a smokescreen" charge stick. He who lies down with pigs, etcetera etcetera. Sorry i have to butt in here, but that is simply false and have been tried times and times again, especially by those that want GG to die. Not only it's a classic divide & conquer method, it puts the acceptance of new group A in the hand of those that originally hated GG to begin with. There will be always the fallback-argument of "toxic foundations" and so on, so no. Besides it was even an experiment to do so (see http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/gamergate#pizzagate) which pretty much went as expected. Nah he is right, I know you guys don't like to hear this but there never was a way to win. The movement was corrupted right in the beginning you just didn't realize it. Its not anyone's fault, lets be honest I know most of you guys mean well but to get onto mainstream media as a " sexist and abusive " organisation you have to realize how utterly outclassed you were due to the support people like Anita will always receive Don't see it as a victory or loss...see is something you believed in and supported. No shame in having conviction in something

Yes that's right, that is what DIY means So I thought that's what you did for fun...you know like renovate the bathroom for fun instead of reading ?

Gfted1 do you read...I thought you did DIY only ?

You know you social justice type really like being **** contrary to your belief that everyone should be good. The original point was about the disparity in how despite both groups being very similar there is only one that has been demonized. As for which site, first it was 4chan /v/ and /pol/ boards and more recently a series of subreddits following an attempt to clean up their image not because of any illegal actions in those places. So you're saying that you only know half the story and won't believe the other side. Glad to know where you stand, that way I can pretty safely assume that this conversation is pointless as you won't accept any other viewpoint. After all, you believe you know. Orog you guys always make me laugh when you end up having debates with Alum....and you know why ? They always generally end the same way, Alum is basically smarter than the rest of us, I know that annoys certain people but its true. That's not to say he is never wrong but its not like having a debate with me..he is very analytical and you cannot " win " unless you are certain of facts and lets be honest most of our discussions are not about facts but more based on emotion

Freudian slip? Anyway, it wasn't saying something about SJ that got him made fun of. It was his gleeful statement that he didn't know anything about things that someone who claims to be a video game journalist should know about. I think that he could have gotten away with not knowing about these thing but it was the dismissive tone with which he said it. For a lot of people games are a passion and a labor of love, it kind of ****s on them when people undermine them. Look lets be honest here, Moosa in this case is simply a causality of the " GG vs SJW war " that rages seemingly interminably on several forums and websites I see intransigence on both sides and strange and irrational reactions from people. For example why do you guys get irate about articles on sites like Polygon? You don't even like them and generally treat what they say with contempt..yet what they say bothers you ? I don't get it? And people like Moosa seem tasked to just find any SJ inconsistency and lambaste the game, it can be frustrating ....of course this is going to annoy people and as I mentioned he must be prepared to face criticism It's a matter of direction, both sides seem to want the games industry to turn into different things while both are distrustful of each other's intentions. That said, I can't think of an industry that would tolerate a worker that blatantly proclaims to not care about the subject of their work...Maybe the fast food industry. What makes you think that they are tasked with finding SJ inconsistencies? The're games journalists, not social justice journalist and not culture critics. So why would it be their job to make sure that a game is politically correct? Well unfortunately for some people this whole thing has gone too far...now some people are defined by there ideological views and the core subject seems to sometime get lost So take Moosa and his article of W3, he lambasted the game on the lack of racial integration....the actual game gets lost in all the diatribe. If I was Moosa I would have considered where CDPR comes from and the previous Witcher games and then considered if this type of criticism was necessary. Its pushing USA values and expectations to Poland...probably not the right time to do it. Its like the call to remove Hookers from GTAV, its well meaning but utterly misplaced and inconsistent And more importantly it just adds more to the pointless " divide " between gaming journalists and the GG crowd Your post brings hope to my heart and a tear to my eye...which is starting to hurt; you know, like when you haven't used your tear ducts in a while and it just hurts when you do. I have spent some time understanding where the SJ movement in the gaming industry is perhaps making mistakes and exacerbating the problem and divide

Freudian slip? Anyway, it wasn't saying something about SJ that got him made fun of. It was his gleeful statement that he didn't know anything about things that someone who claims to be a video game journalist should know about. I think that he could have gotten away with not knowing about these thing but it was the dismissive tone with which he said it. For a lot of people games are a passion and a labor of love, it kind of ****s on them when people undermine them. Look lets be honest here, Moosa in this case is simply a causality of the " GG vs SJW war " that rages seemingly interminably on several forums and websites I see intransigence on both sides and strange and irrational reactions from people. For example why do you guys get irate about articles on sites like Polygon? You don't even like them and generally treat what they say with contempt..yet what they say bothers you ? I don't get it? And people like Moosa seem tasked to just find any SJ inconsistency and lambaste the game, it can be frustrating ....of course this is going to annoy people and as I mentioned he must be prepared to face criticism It's a matter of direction, both sides seem to want the games industry to turn into different things while both are distrustful of each other's intentions. That said, I can't think of an industry that would tolerate a worker that blatantly proclaims to not care about the subject of their work...Maybe the fast food industry. What makes you think that they are tasked with finding SJ inconsistencies? The're games journalists, not social justice journalist and not culture critics. So why would it be their job to make sure that a game is politically correct? Well unfortunately for some people this whole thing has gone too far...now some people are defined by there ideological views and the core subject seems to sometime get lost So take Moosa and his article of W3, he lambasted the game on the lack of racial integration....the actual game gets lost in all the diatribe. If I was Moosa I would have considered where CDPR comes from and the previous Witcher games and then considered if this type of criticism was necessary. Its pushing USA values and expectations to Poland...probably not the right time to do it. Its like the call to remove Hookers from GTAV, its well meaning but utterly misplaced and inconsistent And more importantly it just adds more to the pointless " divide " between gaming journalists and the GG crowd

Yeah on my trips to Vegas we have done things like shooting guns, trips to the grand canyon, helicopter rides, strip club visits ( a must ) watching the numerous live performances like Cirque du Soleil, magician acts , shopping, visiting the cheese shops and of course gambling

Because so far they haven't really shown that they can handle a project of that size. Sure, I could say they haven't been given a chance really but if they have battled this much with EE you right its probably not a good bet to think they could deliver on such a massive undertaking like BG3

Sorry I meant to ask you this yesterday, what do you mean by " like, South Africa conditions " I should have been more direct, parts of South Africa are in bad condition, people suffer there. There's almost nothing ( nil ) there to support these people. I, for one, would not enjoy it beyond the artistry. You mean people live and die in poverty and survive on social grants. Yeah that's true, one of the indictments of most countries on the African continent But we do what we can to help

Freudian slip? Anyway, it wasn't saying something about SJ that got him made fun of. It was his gleeful statement that he didn't know anything about things that someone who claims to be a video game journalist should know about. I think that he could have gotten away with not knowing about these thing but it was the dismissive tone with which he said it. For a lot of people games are a passion and a labor of love, it kind of ****s on them when people undermine them. Look lets be honest here, Moosa in this case is simply a causality of the " GG vs SJW war " that rages seemingly interminably on several forums and websites I see intransigence on both sides and strange and irrational reactions from people. For example why do you guys get irate about articles on sites like Polygon? You don't even like them and generally treat what they say with contempt..yet what they say bothers you ? I don't get it? And people like Moosa seem tasked to just find any SJ inconsistency and lambaste the game, it can be frustrating ....of course this is going to annoy people and as I mentioned he must be prepared to face criticism

Sorry I meant to ask you this yesterday, what do you mean by " like, South Africa conditions "

A civilized man, a professional acting man. Meshugger I'm going to give you my understanding of what s13ep is trying to say because I have been through all of this with my gay friends and its hard to understand if you don't spend time breaking down the big issues Oh and this doesn't necessarily apply s13ep..this is what I realized about my gay friends and long discussions with them Its only been the last 10-12 years or so (?) that gay rights have really been respected in many Western countries. Previously members of the LGBT community were and are still discriminated against on different levels in society. This has lead to many gay people from different generations who don't like to draw attention to themselves and paradoxically are overly critical of other gay peoples behavior...particularly the more flamboyant personalities So for them Pride is an embarrassment because they see it as drawing too much attention and generally too much criticism. I understand this can be based on a jaded view around the fact they don't think society will ever truly accept them and also its a defensive mechanism I respect that decision but I think its misplaced as there are many places in the world that are really becoming more progressive and I firmly believe in supporting the LGBT cause

Freudian slip? Anyway, it wasn't saying something about SJ that got him made fun of. It was his gleeful statement that he didn't know anything about things that someone who claims to be a video game journalist should know about. Fair enough...he annoyed loads of people,I get it

If you work in customer service dealing with angry customers comes with the job, its not just helping people but putting up with their ****. If you're a journalist, reviewer on the internet then you have to deal with people making angry comments. It comes with the job, what I don't get is this fascist liberal notion that people should be good. Yet despite that they believe in freedom of choice, just not every choice apparently. There is a very ivory tower disconnect with every that demands that people; other people, change rather than learning oneself to deal with bad people. I have been thinking about this whole Moosa incident and I have changed my mind. He is someone that must be aware of the controversial nature and reaction to his comments and reviews . He really needs to understand that criticism is the price you pay when it comes to making certain SJ points...its part of the job He needs to man up or not take things so personally. I just feel he could use Twitter to his advantage

Good lord is there a giant [citation needed] hanging over that one. The people who can't deal with it are the problem, not the people who do it. Really? But we have to walk into social circles that judge us by our immediate image ( as in interviews ), our immediate image is stupidity... All this multicolored tint stuff going about right now is going to annoy me, if it wasn't for the good speech from someone smart, it wouldn't have turned out so great for homosexuals. I'd have to walk among jokes, the pressures have been explained before by me ( it was a house at the time, now it's ruins ), it's not so easy to tackle pressures and there are arguments saying most psychological problems are social born. Do you think the people who dress up at events like Pride would act the same way in an interview for example ? What do you mean by "it wouldn't have turned out so great for homosexual "

If you think that argument bit more you find that it really don't hold any closer scrutiny. And even if we leave all sense, logic and decently behind us, how do you even begin to plan actual isolation of population group which members can born to any family in any social, economical, ethnic, religious, cultural, etc. group that there are and they don't have any visible marks or clear test that would reveal their sexual orientation. And in this your isolation system do bisexual had to decide between living with other people or living isolation or is it based on some random system? I don't think it's possible, but if they stopped advertising this rainbow low caliber clothing 'style of gay', and forcing down our throats with sad stories and aggressive feminine ( but from a male ) attitudes, making us all look like an abomination. I'd have no problem, not even patronizing homosexuality, if the majority of them stopped being this stupid. They can live happily without a lisp, they can live happily without feminine acting. It's not a thing that comes with gay, feminine acting and general sexual stupidity ( promoting it like porn in daylight - "I'm here in daylight because I have sex with men, and there's hundreds of us, you should join in" ). To be honest, all emotions aside for a second, it's unnecessary and making us look weak and abnormal, begging for combat. It's also provocative for a lot of people are homophobic and it's even broadcast now. They get so much attention, they've reached the peak now surely. I would HATE to see it carry on from this point, gay-pride, but sure be gay. Out of curiosity, how many gay people have you actually met in person? Because I've met a couple handfuls and none of them acted like the popular TV / pride parade stereotype. In fact, most of them hated the stereotype much more vehemently than you do. My uncle is homosexual and I'm bisexual, and I've met straight acting gays. I don't mean to be insulting, as bad as it sounds... Gay pride causes problems for people who want to be civil and normal, unique, acting, who perhaps have, what I find peace calling, "abnormal sexuality". Okay fair enough...but I still don't get your objection to Pride? Are you saying people don't like Gay Pride because of the all the theatrics and people acting silly ? Yes. My second reason is that gay is educated ( which I can't confirm, but take over "there is no answer", with all the other answers ). Interesting enough I use to have this exact same debate with a good gay friend of mine who refused to go to Pride..he said he felt the gay people made a mockery of themselves and all it did was great homophobia because people would look at the TV and see all these weird people in wedding dresses acting stupid I felt he was wrong and said to him that anyone who sees Pride on TV and judges the gay people are homophobic anyway so there is no need to worry about those people ...Pride is about the symbolism that it is okay to be gay..and we should celebrate it due to all the homophobia in the world

If you think that argument bit more you find that it really don't hold any closer scrutiny. And even if we leave all sense, logic and decently behind us, how do you even begin to plan actual isolation of population group which members can born to any family in any social, economical, ethnic, religious, cultural, etc. group that there are and they don't have any visible marks or clear test that would reveal their sexual orientation. And in this your isolation system do bisexual had to decide between living with other people or living isolation or is it based on some random system? I don't think it's possible, but if they stopped advertising this rainbow low caliber clothing 'style of gay', and forcing down our throats with sad stories and aggressive feminine ( but from a male ) attitudes, making us all look like an abomination. I'd have no problem, not even patronizing homosexuality, if the majority of them stopped being this stupid. They can live happily without a lisp, they can live happily without feminine acting. It's not a thing that comes with gay, feminine acting and general sexual stupidity ( promoting it like porn in daylight - "I'm here in daylight because I have sex with men, and there's hundreds of us, you should join in" ). To be honest, all emotions aside for a second, it's unnecessary and making us look weak and abnormal, begging for combat. It's also provocative for a lot of people are homophobic and it's even broadcast now. They get so much attention, they've reached the peak now surely. I would HATE to see it carry on from this point, gay-pride, but sure be gay. Out of curiosity, how many gay people have you actually met in person? Because I've met a couple handfuls and none of them acted like the popular TV / pride parade stereotype. In fact, most of them hated the stereotype much more vehemently than you do. My uncle is homosexual and I'm bisexual, and I've met straight acting gays. I don't mean to be insulting, as bad as it sounds... Gay pride causes problems for people who want to be civil and normal, unique, acting, who perhaps have, what I find peace calling, "abnormal sexuality". Okay fair enough...but I still don't get your objection to Pride? Are you saying people don't like Gay Pride because of the all the theatrics and people acting silly ?

If you think that argument bit more you find that it really don't hold any closer scrutiny. And even if we leave all sense, logic and decently behind us, how do you even begin to plan actual isolation of population group which members can born to any family in any social, economical, ethnic, religious, cultural, etc. group that there are and they don't have any visible marks or clear test that would reveal their sexual orientation. And in this your isolation system do bisexual had to decide between living with other people or living isolation or is it based on some random system? I don't think it's possible, but if they stopped advertising this rainbow low caliber clothing 'style of gay', and forcing down our throats with sad stories and aggressive feminine ( but from a male ) attitudes, making us all look like an abomination. I'd have no problem, not even patronizing homosexuality, if the majority of them stopped being this stupid. They can live happily without a lisp, they can live happily without feminine acting. It's not a thing that comes with gay, feminine acting and general sexual stupidity ( promoting it like porn in daylight - "I'm here in daylight because I have sex with men, and there's hundreds of us, you should join in" ). To be honest, all emotions aside for a second, it's unnecessary and making us look weak and abnormal, begging for combat. It's also provocative for a lot of people are homophobic and it's even broadcast now. They get so much attention, they've reached the peak now surely. I would HATE to see it carry on from this point, gay-pride, but sure be gay. So you say people should stop publicly liking, practicing or exercising anything they like because some other people don't necessary like how they behave, like for example people should not wear fan shirts, symbols, flags, bandanas, religious symbols etc., go concerts, conventions, exhibitions, religious events, sporting events, etc.. Gay prides are only events where people celebrate something in their lives and make public demonstration that they have people like them exist and they have right to exists. I also would point out that your premise that they promote one style of gay is absolute wrong, and that feminine acting don't have anything to do being gay and association of such trait to gays is actually product of media (movies and tv-series) that more often than not give such behavior for their gay characters when there is one in the movie/tv-series. So feminine acting is trait that our society demands from the gays so that they can be gays. If you think that argument bit more you find that it really don't hold any closer scrutiny. And even if we leave all sense, logic and decently behind us, how do you even begin to plan actual isolation of population group which members can born to any family in any social, economical, ethnic, religious, cultural, etc. group that there are and they don't have any visible marks or clear test that would reveal their sexual orientation. And in this your isolation system do bisexual had to decide between living with other people or living isolation or is it based on some random system? I don't think it's possible, but if they stopped advertising this rainbow low caliber clothing 'style of gay', and forcing down our throats with sad stories and aggressive feminine ( but from a male ) attitudes, making us all look like an abomination. I'd have no problem, not even patronizing homosexuality, if the majority of them stopped being this stupid. They can live happily without a lisp, they can live happily without feminine acting. It's not a thing that comes with gay, feminine acting and general sexual stupidity ( promoting it like porn in daylight - "I'm here in daylight because I have sex with men, and there's hundreds of us, you should join in" ). To be honest, all emotions aside for a second, it's unnecessary and making us look weak and abnormal, begging for combat. It's also provocative for a lot of people are homophobic and it's even broadcast now. They get so much attention, they've reached the peak now surely. I would HATE to see it carry on from this point, gay-pride, but sure be gay. Wow, I don't think you very informed about Gay Pride I go every year to the one in Johannesburg..... have you ever been to Gay Pride? Do you spend hours watching the event if you don't go ? What do you mean by "forcing down our throats with sad stories and aggressive feminine" ....are we forced to watch Gay Pride ?

Nah, I'm sure I've said more disingenuous things in the past...I must have ? Please don't get mad with me, you are the one who has to live in this new Internet where people get bullied into silence by people more belligerent and vociferous than them That's politics and the world in general and that's how we got to this point already, by letting noisy crusaders make others believe that they were a chorus. When both sides are mirroring each other it feels kind of pointless to just say that one is the guilty party. I agree but lets not deny this situation with Moosa is not something we should condemn?

Nah, I'm sure I've said more disingenuous things in the past...I must have ? Please don't get mad with me, you are the one who has to live in this new Internet where people get bullied into silence by people more belligerent and vociferous than them

The Federal government needs to find an efficient and resounding way to put this to rest....we really need consistency and reasonableness on this issue