Drama in indy gaming and games journalism

[Oerwinde]

 

 

The bot itself is funny and gave me chuckles. The article, itself, is pure garbage. Only racist sexist pieces of crap nazi wananbes would support the article or the writer of said article. Pure evil.

 

 

"I know I shouldn't be laughing but you guys must admit it is funny when someone gets conned like that under those circumstances"

\

Definitely. Which is why I laugh at the fools who got conned by hateful feminists who hate females. :D

"Pure Evil "

 

 

 

 

And, also, where was all this rage back when it was just AAA developers shoveling money at the IGNs and Gamespots of the world?

I don't know, maybe ask Gamespot how the rage impacted them when they haven't been relevant for years and why Jeff Gerstwinn's Wikipedia page is the second hit when you google them. The difference here is that back then, it was a dog eat dog world and the other publications ate them alive just as much as the gamers did. Now the damn place has cliquefied and there's just a lot of handholding and covering for your friends. I've seen this argument made before but it just doesn't hold water. Significantly larger amount of gamers raged out far, far worse than this over a reviewer standing in front of some mountain dew and doritos product placement. But nobody attacked all gamers as being responsible for those ridiculous fringe morons and nobody claimed credibility due to victimhood over it.

Sorry TN but that's another fallacy about GG and its purpose and I know we don't agree on this one but it is important I raise this again

 

All "gamers " weren't attacked, only gamers who didn't believe in transformation, I can guarantee you if you ask all the people on these forums if they felt the various articles written were about every single gamer there will be several people who will disagree with you and say "no I didn't think that applied to me"

 

So its your own interpretation of the various events to say "all gamers were insulted and verbally attacked "

 

Looking back now I do think it was silly to use the word " gamers" because of all the consternation it caused but it still doesn't change the fact it was taken out of context and used by some as an excuse to push a certain agenda and gain support for that agenda

You can't say "Black people should get out of the country because of all the rape and murder and stealing they do" then when people get outraged say "oh, we didn't mean ALL black people, just the few that do that, I don't see how you could have musunderstood" its stupid. While not as bad, the cencept with the gamer articles is the same.

So let me ask you something, if this was such a direct and obvious insult why is it that people like myself and many others are not insulted? Why is that we believe this wasn't directed at us? And its not because, for example, I am so blindly committed to SJ causes that I wouldn't take offense or choose to ignore someone who was really being really rude and dismissive just because they are a feminist

 

So for example I do find some of the utterances of radical feminists very offensive and idiotic, but why did I not find the Leigh Alexander article problematic ?

My guess its something like how some dwarfs consider the term midget as like calling a black person the n word, while others self identify as midget.

[Shallow]

Bruce, when a movement is moderated and controlled, a small minority can easily take control of it and lead it in another direction, a freeform movement may attract some bad apples, but it can never be lead into directions that significant amounts of it dislike, and it can't be bought off. And proper links have been posted that have been verified, it doesn't need to come from some guy controlling the movement with an iron fist. The whole idea of allowing other people to speak for you is also against some of the general ideals of the movement, it'll also force you to have a big bloody schism if the movement shatters instead of just different people reaching into different directions. Finally, just because there is an "official site" that bans doxxing and threats and harrassment, doesn't mean people still on that site can't do all those things anonymously. All your suggestion does is badly damage the movement in order to put it in a structure normal people have an easier time understanding.

[BruceVC]

Bruce, when a movement is moderated and controlled, a small minority can easily take control of it and lead it in another direction, a freeform movement may attract some bad apples, but it can never be lead into directions that significant amounts of it dislike, and it can't be bought off. And proper links have been posted that have been verified, it doesn't need to come from some guy controlling the movement with an iron fist. The whole idea of allowing other people to speak for you is also against some of the general ideals of the movement, it'll also force you to have a big bloody schism if the movement shatters instead of just different people reaching into different directions. Finally, just because there is an "official site" that bans doxxing and threats and harrassment, doesn't mean people still on that site can't do all those things anonymously. All your suggestion does is badly damage the movement in order to put it in a structure normal people have an easier time understanding.

 

I hear you, but the reality is the complete  anonymity of something like Twitter leads to some  people being even more brazenly vituperative than they would on a forum

 

I just feel a website is a better to manage and dissect all this information, yes there is the potential for the website being hijacked but it would be a pro-GG website anyway  so that would be an established fact. The challenge at the moment is how do you have  a reasonable debate with people who are active on GG without using Twitter?

[Shallow]

I hear you, but the reality is the complete  anonymity of something like Twitter leads to some  people being even more brazenly vituperative than they would on a forum

 

I just feel a website is a better to manage and dissect all this information, yes there is the potential for the website being hijacked but it would be a pro-GG website anyway  so that would be an established fact. The challenge at the moment is how do you have  a reasonable debate with people who are active on GG without using Twitter?

 

Want a reasonable debate, go to 8chan and talk to the people there, hell go anywhere but twitter, twitter wasn't made for reasonable debate, it was made for 149 characters worth of crap. There are also plenty of websites already trying to dissect all the information, and putting out what they find. If there is an "official site" when it gets highjacked (not if, when), it'll badly damage the movement as whatever comes out there will be the "official" gamergate statements, the movement will have to be rebranded and restructered again, at which point it'll either go from "official site 1#" to "official site 2#" and so on, or go right back to being a chaotic mob of anons.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Shallow

[kirottu]

Excellent, Adam Baldwin approved, article:

http://reason.com/archives/2014/10/12/gamergate-part-i-sex-lies-and-gender-gam 

[kirottu]

 

I hear you, but the reality is the complete  anonymity of something like Twitter leads to some  people being even more brazenly vituperative than they would on a forum

 

I just feel a website is a better to manage and dissect all this information, yes there is the potential for the website being hijacked but it would be a pro-GG website anyway  so that would be an established fact. The challenge at the moment is how do you have  a reasonable debate with people who are active on GG without using Twitter?

 

Want a reasonable debate, go to 8chan and talk to the people there, hell go anywhere but twitter, twitter wasn't made for reasonable debate, it was made for 149 characters worth of crap. There are also plenty of websites already trying to dissect all the information, and putting out what they find. If there is an "official site" when it gets highjacked (not if, when), it'll badly damage the movement as whatever comes out there will be the "official" gamergate statements, the movement will have to be rebranded and restructered again, at which point it'll either go from "official site 1#" to "official site 2#" and so on, or go right back to being a chaotic mob of anons.

 

 

Or r/kotakuinaction is also a good place for debate.   

[TrashMan]

 

That is complicated question. If you as manager see man more qualified in job because of preconceived notions that you aren't even aware then you hire man, but if you don't have those notions and see them both as qualified to job you will hire the woman, who asked less pay because of some factors that make her to value her time less than that man.

 

Both options are things that happen in real life and because of first option I have gotten job instead of more qualified woman (at least on paper, who is my friend, which is reason why I know how much she asked and what her qualifications are compared to mine) even though I asked 600€ more per month.

 

 

Does that mean you WERE more qualified?

 

Isn't the entire point of the interview to get an estimate of the person. If the person doing the interview is any good, he/she should be able to tell when someone is good "on paper" and when they are good in practice.

But it's difficult to say. A job interview is basically an apprisal and many things go into that, and the interviewer may have his own biases or priorities. It could be that your friend just didn't leave a good impression. I remember locking up on my first job interview, I fumbled things I knew well.

 

[TrashMan]

I have to say, I'm confused by this whole thing. 

 

It all seems to be an bizarre confluence of two main points that have no clear relation to each other.  Sure, the gaming press has huge conflict-of-interest problems.  (And I'm shocked that there is gambling going on in this establishment!)  How does that have anything at all to do with the would-be-hilarious-if-it-weren't-so-sad "feminism ruins everything" derpfest that appears to be going on? 

 

Because #gamersgate is NOT about one thing. It represents different things to different people.

 

and once the ball started rolling, people jumped on the band wagon with their own agendas.

The second a woman got involved, feminists jumped in. That prompted a response for those fed up with them. Then the SJW's jumped in. Then those who oppose them. Then people of all kinds and stripes.

 

Kinda like that.

There is no true single goal here.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Excellent, Adam Baldwin approved, article:

http://reason.com/archives/2014/10/12/gamergate-part-i-sex-lies-and-gender-gam

I actually stumbled upon this earlier today and almost posted it. It's a pretty good read, even if it doesn't say anything new to those of us who've been around this for a while.

 

If they want to end GanerGate, adopting an ethics policy is a good way to start and finish. Screaming that people need to **** off is probably just going to poss them off.

[BruceVC]

 

Excellent, Adam Baldwin approved, article:

http://reason.com/archives/2014/10/12/gamergate-part-i-sex-lies-and-gender-gam

I actually stumbled upon this earlier today and almost posted it. It's a pretty good read, even if it doesn't say anything new to those of us who've been around this for a while.

 

If they want to end GanerGate, adopting an ethics policy is a good way to start and finish. Screaming that people need to **** off is probably just going to poss them off.

 

 

I don't believe you stumbled on this article KP, sorry. I think you are trying to take credit for some initial stumble but in fact you never stumbled at all

 

If you had stumbled you probably would have told us, so no credit given for false stumbling

[Oerwinde]

Excellent, Adam Baldwin approved, article:

http://reason.com/archives/2014/10/12/gamergate-part-i-sex-lies-and-gender-gam

This is probably the best one I've read yet. Its actually fair.

[Zoraptor]

A symptom of what exactly?  I mean, it sounds like you're arguing that an assortment of pranks and like-minded op-eds amount to a vast media conspiracy to... protect Nathan Grayson?  Protect the huge amount of money they were making from Depression Quest??  Oppress people who like the kind of games that already dominate the marketplace??  (And by "oppress," I mean, "say bad things about.")

 

Just doesn't make any sense-- conspiracies don't form and hold together unless all the conspirators think there is something really important motivating them.  Isn't it much simpler to assume that some publishers decided it was unwholesome (and potentially legally dangerous) to be in the business of promoting a jilted lover's story about an ex, that a few angry people did mean or dishonest things, that some writers came up with the same "hot take" response to the more extreme sexist threats, and that some hosting entities like 4chan and certain subreddits didn't want to be associated with said extreme threats? 

 

 

Nah, they had a mailing list, someone on it even leaked the emails, so it was coordinated. And it is clear from any interaction with SJWs that they really, really, do think their activism is of immense importance. They're exactly the wrong kind of illiberal 'liberal' who have always thought it absolutely critical to tell others how to think, it's just another iteration of it.

 

Gamergate as a 'movement' had little directly to do with ZQ at all, it started a fair bit after that initial controversy, it had more to do with the response to it.

 

And I actually said in the first thread that Grayson cannot be held accountable for a retroactive conflict of interest. Though he's still a terrible writer.

[Enoch]

And it is clear from any interaction with SJWs that they really, really, do think their activism is of immense importance. They're exactly the wrong kind of illiberal 'liberal' who have always thought it absolutely critical to tell others how to think, it's just another iteration of it.

This is the classic excuse, though.  "The conspiracy theory I believe in is reasonable because the people behind it aren't accountable to reason!"  Throw all the "enemies" in a box with a dehumanized acronym label, go on feeling that you belong to the group with the righteous cause, and laugh off those on "your side" who say or do hurtful things. 

 

 

Also, since when do people take things that Adam Baldwin say seriously?  The man never met a wacky conspiracy theory he didn't like. 

[BruceVC]

 

And it is clear from any interaction with SJWs that they really, really, do think their activism is of immense importance. They're exactly the wrong kind of illiberal 'liberal' who have always thought it absolutely critical to tell others how to think, it's just another iteration of it.

This is the classic excuse, though.  "The conspiracy theory I believe in is reasonable because the people behind it aren't accountable to reason!"  Throw all the "enemies" in a box with a dehumanized acronym label, go on feeling that you belong to the group with the righteous cause, and laugh off those on "your side" who say or do hurtful things. 

 

 

Also, since when do people take things that Adam Baldwin say seriously?  The man never met a wacky conspiracy theory he didn't like. 

 

 

Enoch I have to say  its been really refreshing and interesting getting your perspective on this whole matter, I'm really glad you decided to participate in this discussion

 

[TrashMan]

 

This is the classic excuse, though.  "The conspiracy theory I believe in is reasonable because the people behind it aren't accountable to reason!"  Throw all the "enemies" in a box with a dehumanized acronym label, go on feeling that you belong to the group with the righteous cause, and laugh off those on "your side" who say or do hurtful things. 

 

Isn't that EXACTLY what anti-GG'ers (at the very least, those I've seen) are doing?

Edited October 16, 2014 by TrashMan

[Zoraptor]

 

And it is clear from any interaction with SJWs that they really, really, do think their activism is of immense importance. They're exactly the wrong kind of illiberal 'liberal' who have always thought it absolutely critical to tell others how to think, it's just another iteration of it.

This is the classic excuse, though.  "The conspiracy theory I believe in is reasonable because the people behind it aren't accountable to reason!"  Throw all the "enemies" in a box with a dehumanized acronym label, go on feeling that you belong to the group with the righteous cause, and laugh off those on "your side" who say or do hurtful things.

 

 

Please, I'd actually disagree that the hypocrisy and self importance of SJWs is related to whether it's a conspiracy or not, you can have a conspiracy without the unquestioning self belief and you can have the self belief without the conspiracy. Plus, of course, pointing out that both sides do unpleasant things is hardly laughing off.

 

That was just in reply to your "conspiracies don't form and hold together unless all the conspirators think there is something really important motivating them"- I was pointing out that clearly SJWs do consider such things critically important, and clearly there was a 'conspiracy'- your term, not mine- because they had a closed mailing list coordinating the response. Now, you can argue that the mailing list doesn't exist (which it does) or that SJWs don't consider such things important (self evidently incorrect) but you can't really start shifting the goal posts around to using acronyms to 'dehumanise', because everyone does that.

 

The 'conspiracy'- again, your term- is confirmed. That SJWs consider such things important is confirmed. Now, I might dislike SJWs rather a lot and some issue can be taken with using the term, but that wouldn't be why I labelled their actions as coordinated. I labelled them as such because they incontrovertibly were. And really, there isn't any other term other than SJW, I usually use antiGG but that ain't appropriate for events that are before #GG was even a thing.

 

(Nice rhetorical constructs by the way, use of the passive aggressive questions, labelling things yourself ('conspiracy') then criticising based on your own label etc. With any luck Bruce will learn a thing or too, might improve the quality of his trolling to near oby levels.)

Edited October 16, 2014 by Zoraptor

[BruceVC]

 

 

And it is clear from any interaction with SJWs that they really, really, do think their activism is of immense importance. They're exactly the wrong kind of illiberal 'liberal' who have always thought it absolutely critical to tell others how to think, it's just another iteration of it.

This is the classic excuse, though.  "The conspiracy theory I believe in is reasonable because the people behind it aren't accountable to reason!"  Throw all the "enemies" in a box with a dehumanized acronym label, go on feeling that you belong to the group with the righteous cause, and laugh off those on "your side" who say or do hurtful things.

 

 

Please, I'd actually disagree that the hypocrisy and self importance of SJWs is related to whether it's a conspiracy or not, you can have a conspiracy without the unquestioning self belief and you can have the self belief without the conspiracy. Plus, of course, pointing out that both sides do unpleasant things is hardly laughing off.

 

That was just in reply to your "conspiracies don't form and hold together unless all the conspirators think there is something really important motivating them"- I was pointing out that clearly SJWs do consider such things critically important, and clearly there was a 'conspiracy'- your term, not mine- because they had a closed mailing list coordinating the response. Now, you can argue that the mailing list doesn't exist (which it does) or that SJWs don't consider such things important (self evidently incorrect) but you can't really start shifting the goal posts around to using acronyms to 'dehumanise', because everyone does that.

 

The 'conspiracy'- again, your term- is confirmed. That SJWs consider such things important is confirmed. Now, I might dislike SJWs rather a lot and some issue can be taken with using the term, but that wouldn't be why I labelled their actions as coordinated. I labelled them as such because they incontrovertibly were. And really, there isn't any other term other than SJW, I usually use antiGG but that ain't appropriate for events that are before #GG was even a thing.

 

(Nice rhetorical constructs by the way, use of the passive aggressive questions, labelling things yourself ('conspiracy') then criticising based on your own label etc. With any luck Bruce will learn a thing or too, might improve the quality of his trolling to near oby levels.)

 

 

You seem  very defensive today Zora?

 

I suppose it must be very unsettling debating with someone of Enoch's insight, intelligence and reasonableness.

 

 

I wasn't going to mention this but your post made me realize its best I do. Enoch is not someone who has ever particularly espoused SJ values, well at least he hasn't made as many comments as someone like me about any particular SJ issue

 

But now he is raising the same issues that many of us have raised about the nature, creation and motives of GG. And guess what...he is finding the movement lacking in certain areas. Now what are we to do? You can't dismiss his points with the usual "that's just your typical SJW opinion and nonsense ".

 

So I can perfectly understand how this must be  making you question what you think about GG, and do you know what Zora. That's okay, its good to reevaluate our positions in life on certain things, you don't want people to think you are intransigent. So my advice is see this exchange as something positive where you can learn something new

[Fighter]

Good read for those who think video game culture is somehow special or different when it comes to certain kinds of behaviour.

[Malcador]

This is a very good suggestion, GG should be a website that is moderated and  controlled in a way that people can least have  a semblance of a real identity . Or rather a way where proper links can be posted that can be verified and blogs can posted and discussed in a reasonable manner. That would definitely add to the credibility of the GG movement. I do find it interesting that the movement relies on one of the mediums that cannot be accurately monitored, social media

How surprising you're arguing for something to be controlled. Would be interesting to hear who you'd suggest moderate this website, heh.

 

Also, you need to give cheerleader trolling.

 

Wu's hit up a lot of networks. I guess the "terrorists" aren't all that imposing.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Malcador

[BruceVC]

 

This is a very good suggestion, GG should be a website that is moderated and  controlled in a way that people can least have  a semblance of a real identity . Or rather a way where proper links can be posted that can be verified and blogs can posted and discussed in a reasonable manner. That would definitely add to the credibility of the GG movement. I do find it interesting that the movement relies on one of the mediums that cannot be accurately monitored, social media

How surprising you're arguing for something to be controlled. Would be interesting to hear who you'd suggest moderate this website, heh.

 

 

I would say someone with a vested interest in GG but also a moderate, so someone like TN or Orog would probably be the best type of moderator ?

[Ineth]

Would you quit it already with the "conspiracy" strawman, Enoch.

 

It does not take a conspiracy of behind-the-scenes comicbook villains with a grand master plan, to corrupt a community of lay journalists and make them engage in:

• collusion & blindly jumping on bandwagons
• loosing any and all professional distance to some of the subjects of their reporting
• giving favorable coverage to their friends / romantic interests / investees without disclosing their conflict of interest
• giving favorable coverage in return for bribes or favors
• extreme favoritism towards their sociopolitical ingroup
• blackballing & censorship of the outgroup
• disingenuously hiding ideological and ingroup/outgroup based judgments behind a pretense of factual reporting/reviewing

All it takes for such corruption to grow and thrive, is for the community to become dominated by too many too similar people with the same authoritarian worldview¹, holier-than-thou attitude, and a propensity for groupthink. Social dynamics (like people's desire to be part of the ingroup and their vulnerability to tactics like emotional blackmailing), do the rest.

 

----------------

¹⁾ In this case modern left-wing feminism / "SJW"-ism, but it can happen with an authoritarian right-wing worldview as well.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Ineth

[Nonek]

No i'd be against any kind of moderation, free speech is one of the attractive parts of gamergate, and bears a marked contrast to the social justice fascists efforts to censor and stop any free speech that does not attune with their dogma. On the whole gamergate has denounced and asked for any threats or disruptive behaviour to end, unlike the opposition whom are still comfortable criticisng millions and dehumanising any opposition. Free speech is an important pillar of gamergate to my mind, and to society in general, one that the SJF's obviously despise because of their hatred of truth.

 

Edit: Zoe Quinn holds that gamergate is a conspiracy specifically against her because of open, public discussion on 4chan, gamejournopro's coordinated publishing of ten articles on the same theme on the same day, organised on a private chat room is of course purely innocent however. Simple Minds, a great band.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Nonek

[pseudonymous]

Speaking of hatred for the truth, seems that threat against that poor misunderstood woman, Anita Sarkeesian, during her talk at USU wasn't much of a threat.

[Hiro Protagonist]

So someone trolled the USU? Looks like the trolls know how to stop Anita Sarkeesian doing any more speeches. The trolls just send anonymous death threats to any place where there's a public speaking event she'll attend.

[Malcador]

Works for students trying to get out of exams.