Journalism and sexism in the games industry

[BladeO]

Ignorance isn't a choice, in that you're ignorant by default, you have to actively choose not to be ignorant to not be ignorant.

 

For someone who appears (from what you've written) to put as little thought into his existence as your grandfather, how could he possibly ever even choose to be ignorant, or to seize being ignorant, when he's probably never even thought about it? The one kind of person I could never possibly bring myself to respect is a spineless coward, I'd have an easier time respecting someone who was essentially evil, which is why I'm saying there's a good chance he's just someone who's got absolutely no thought, as opposed to him being someone with absolutely no spine. It takes spine to fight a war, an ideal footsoldier is supposed to have physical strength, determination, and to not think about things. Whilst a complete lack of reflection and information filtering is nearly as bad a personality trait as a complete lack of a spine, I'd still consider such a person a better overall person, someone without a spine goes along with whatever he's told because he doesn't want to deal with the trouble, someone without critical thinking goes along because it seems right. Someone lacking critical thinking may be just as annoying to deal with as someone lacking a spine, but they really do deserve that tiny inch of respect because, even though it isn't worth anything, for intention's never worth anything, it isn't because they think it's the easier way out that they act the way they do, it's because they simply don't think.

What do you mean by "spineless"? So many people call others spineless, and they are the ones who usually act in the most cowardly ways possible. I myself could be considered spineless because even though I have this political view that I just talked about, I would never EVER say the same **** in real life. I would go with the crowd "**** the nazis herp derp". Not even if you paid me a million dollars would I talk about **** like that to, for example, a group of Americans. Maybe if I had some manner of backup, but I wouldn't ever play the lone preacher and I don't think many people are capable of that.

[Shallow]

What do you mean by "spineless"? So many people call others spineless, and they are the ones who usually act in the most cowardly ways possible. I myself could be considered spineless because even though I have this political view that I just talked about, I would never EVER say the same **** in real life. I would go with the crowd "**** the nazis herp derp". Not even if you paid me a million dollars would I talk about **** like that to, for example, a group of Americans. Maybe if I had some manner of backup, but I wouldn't ever play the lone preacher and I don't think many people are capable of that.

Not being willing to be torn apart by a raging crowd isn't spinelessness, it's just not bravery either, spinelessness is excessive cowardice and a complete lack of standing up for yourself or what you believe in even when it is the sensible choice. I also consider excessive conformity spineless.

[Blarghagh]

http://twodashstash.com/2014/11/opinion-opening-the-gates-and-gamergate/

 

Well sourced and argumented article about a writers journey from neutral to Pro-GamerGate.

[BladeO]

Not being willing to be torn apart by a raging crowd isn't spinelessness, it's just not bravery either, spinelessness is excessive cowardice and a complete lack of standing up for yourself or what you believe in even when it is the sensible choice. I also consider excessive conformity spineless.

When is it the sensible choice? I find that whenever I tried to stand up for myself and what I believe in, it made things a million times worse than they already were. I found that the only way to live is to steer clear of any trouble, to not enter conflicts unless you are one of those extremely charismatic, confident in your superiority type of person or if you have the crowd on your side. Of course if you have the crowd on your side it's kinda not you, but your opponent who is doing the standing up for oneself.

[Shallow]

 

Not being willing to be torn apart by a raging crowd isn't spinelessness, it's just not bravery either, spinelessness is excessive cowardice and a complete lack of standing up for yourself or what you believe in even when it is the sensible choice. I also consider excessive conformity spineless.

When is it the sensible choice? I find that whenever I tried to stand up for myself and what I believe in, it made things a million times worse than they already were. I found that the only way to live is to steer clear of any trouble, to not enter conflicts unless you are one of those extremely charismatic, confident in your superiority type of person or if you have the crowd on your side. Of course if you have the crowd on your side it's kinda not you, but your opponent who is doing the standing up for oneself.

 

Directly standing up is sensible when you won't be hurt (physically, economically, or people trying to frame you for stuff) for saying/doing what you're gonna do, when that is not the case I still believe you should fight for what you believe in, but I'm not gonna blame anyone for just wanting to get on with their lives in peace, and there are still roads I personally wouldn't go down even though I believe I'd be in the right, because the consequences would be severe, and the effects of not putting up a fight are minor.

[Namutree]

I argue for capitalism in person just as much as over the internet.

[Longknife]

 

Not being willing to be torn apart by a raging crowd isn't spinelessness, it's just not bravery either, spinelessness is excessive cowardice and a complete lack of standing up for yourself or what you believe in even when it is the sensible choice. I also consider excessive conformity spineless.

When is it the sensible choice? I find that whenever I tried to stand up for myself and what I believe in, it made things a million times worse than they already were. I found that the only way to live is to steer clear of any trouble, to not enter conflicts unless you are one of those extremely charismatic, confident in your superiority type of person or if you have the crowd on your side. Of course if you have the crowd on your side it's kinda not you, but your opponent who is doing the standing up for oneself.

 

 

 

 

 

Not being willing to be torn apart by a raging crowd isn't spinelessness, it's just not bravery either, spinelessness is excessive cowardice and a complete lack of standing up for yourself or what you believe in even when it is the sensible choice. I also consider excessive conformity spineless.

When is it the sensible choice? I find that whenever I tried to stand up for myself and what I believe in, it made things a million times worse than they already were. I found that the only way to live is to steer clear of any trouble, to not enter conflicts unless you are one of those extremely charismatic, confident in your superiority type of person or if you have the crowd on your side. Of course if you have the crowd on your side it's kinda not you, but your opponent who is doing the standing up for oneself.

 

Directly standing up is sensible when you won't be hurt (physically, economically, or people trying to frame you for stuff) for saying/doing what you're gonna do, when that is not the case I still believe you should fight for what you believe in, but I'm not gonna blame anyone for just wanting to get on with their lives in peace, and there are still roads I personally wouldn't go down even though I believe I'd be in the right, because the consequences would be severe, and the effects of not putting up a fight are minor.

 

 

 

Ha, knew it wouldn't be long before pro- Longknife's GF supporters began turning on each other and eating each other alive!

[Namutree]

@Longknife:

 

There's no one in the world I respect more than my grandfather. He was great person. Hearing you talk smack about your grandfather makes me glad mine was such an awesome guy.

[Ganrich]

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke

 

Doing the right thing isn't always safe, without conflict, nor without drama. Of course what somebody else sees as "right" isn't universal, but to not fight for it is to allow the opposing viewpoint to go unopposed. I think allowing a small group that I see as radicals to dictate what is politically correct is a detriment to society... Not just games journalism. So I am doing my part. i especially don't think they should be the only voice on what is right in art or entertainment. Which at the moment seems that the games media only has a single point of view.

[Shallow]

 

 

Not being willing to be torn apart by a raging crowd isn't spinelessness, it's just not bravery either, spinelessness is excessive cowardice and a complete lack of standing up for yourself or what you believe in even when it is the sensible choice. I also consider excessive conformity spineless.

When is it the sensible choice? I find that whenever I tried to stand up for myself and what I believe in, it made things a million times worse than they already were. I found that the only way to live is to steer clear of any trouble, to not enter conflicts unless you are one of those extremely charismatic, confident in your superiority type of person or if you have the crowd on your side. Of course if you have the crowd on your side it's kinda not you, but your opponent who is doing the standing up for oneself.

 

 

 

 

 

Not being willing to be torn apart by a raging crowd isn't spinelessness, it's just not bravery either, spinelessness is excessive cowardice and a complete lack of standing up for yourself or what you believe in even when it is the sensible choice. I also consider excessive conformity spineless.

When is it the sensible choice? I find that whenever I tried to stand up for myself and what I believe in, it made things a million times worse than they already were. I found that the only way to live is to steer clear of any trouble, to not enter conflicts unless you are one of those extremely charismatic, confident in your superiority type of person or if you have the crowd on your side. Of course if you have the crowd on your side it's kinda not you, but your opponent who is doing the standing up for oneself.

 

Directly standing up is sensible when you won't be hurt (physically, economically, or people trying to frame you for stuff) for saying/doing what you're gonna do, when that is not the case I still believe you should fight for what you believe in, but I'm not gonna blame anyone for just wanting to get on with their lives in peace, and there are still roads I personally wouldn't go down even though I believe I'd be in the right, because the consequences would be severe, and the effects of not putting up a fight are minor.

 

 

 

Ha, knew it wouldn't be long before pro- Longknife's GF supporters began turning on each other and eating each other alive!

 

I wouldn't say it was a hostile engagement me and BladeO had, but if it was, no big deal, we aren't some organization, we aren't closely tied, we just happened to be fighting the same fight for a minor period of time. We don't have the same goals, we don't have the same arguments, we just happened to be shooting at the same targets for a brief period of time. That's the thing I think the general public really could learn from gamergate, random strangers with different ambitions and goals working together on one issue while simultaneously fighting each other on another.

[JadedWolf]

I think it's an interesting question to consider what exactly doing the right thing means. Just to give an example, during world war II my grandmother from my father's side would distribute forbidden newspapers, hiding them in her little baby daughter's (my aunt) pram. Not a huge deal, you'd think, just a small act of resistance.

 

But considering that her husband was in hiding, and she had children to take care of, it really was a big risk. In theory even such a small thing was an act of resistance and could get you sent off to the camps. And what would've become of her children (my aunts) then? So, an act of bravery, or an act of irresponsibility towards her children? I really can't say.

[BladeO]

I think it's an interesting question to consider what exactly doing the right thing means. Just to give an example, during world war II my grandmother from my father's side would distribute forbidden newspapers, hiding them in her little baby daughter's (my aunt) pram. Not a huge deal, you'd think, just a small act of resistance.

 

But considering that her husband was in hiding, and she had children to take care of, it really was a big risk. In theory even such a small thing was an act of resistance and could get you sent off to the camps. And what would've become of her children (my aunts) then? So, an act of bravery, or an act of irresponsibility towards her children? I really can't say.

You know it's funny, recently I read Octavia Butler's Parable of the Talents and this is basically what it is about. The main character fought for what she believed in, refused a safe life and had to deal with the consequences. It's very awesome, I recommend everyone to check it out.

[Volourn]

"At this point, let me just state: I despise both sides of this argument and wish only the worst on them. I have been reading all these happening somewhat half-heartedly, and none of the two sides seem very nice."

 

Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

 

"Worst" is just a word I used, I don't actually want them to be raped, tortured and murdered"\

 

Look at the coward backtracking. Own what you write or don't write it at all.

[Orogun01]

I think it's an interesting question to consider what exactly doing the right thing means. Just to give an example, during world war II my grandmother from my father's side would distribute forbidden newspapers, hiding them in her little baby daughter's (my aunt) pram. Not a huge deal, you'd think, just a small act of resistance.

 

But considering that her husband was in hiding, and she had children to take care of, it really was a big risk. In theory even such a small thing was an act of resistance and could get you sent off to the camps. And what would've become of her children (my aunts) then? So, an act of bravery, or an act of irresponsibility towards her children? I really can't say.

If nobody does anything the nothing would change and the bad continues.

 

[BladeO]

Look at the coward backtracking. Own what you write or don't write it at all.

I wrote it, I own up to it. I still claim that I didn't mean the "worst" in the rawest sense*. Don't be so upset.

ed: *I don't really like thinking about killing people anyhow, not even my worst enemies. I'm too much of a beta male.

Edited November 28, 2014 by BladeO

[Longknife]

At the risk of continuing what's a bit of a derailment...

 

 

 

 

Ignorance isn't a choice, in that you're ignorant by default, you have to actively choose not to be ignorant to not be ignorant.

 

For someone who appears (from what you've written) to put as little thought into his existence as your grandfather, how could he possibly ever even choose to be ignorant, or to seize being ignorant, when he's probably never even thought about it? The one kind of person I could never possibly bring myself to respect is a spineless coward, I'd have an easier time respecting someone who was essentially evil, which is why I'm saying there's a good chance he's just someone who's got absolutely no thought, as opposed to him being someone with absolutely no spine. It takes spine to fight a war, an ideal footsoldier is supposed to have physical strength, determination, and to not think about things. Whilst a complete lack of reflection and information filtering is nearly as bad a personality trait as a complete lack of a spine, I'd still consider such a person a better overall person, someone without a spine goes along with whatever he's told because he doesn't want to deal with the trouble, someone without critical thinking goes along because it seems right. Someone lacking critical thinking may be just as annoying to deal with as someone lacking a spine, but they really do deserve that tiny inch of respect because, even though it isn't worth anything, for intention's never worth anything, it isn't because they think it's the easier way out that they act the way they do, it's because they simply don't think.

 

While most of the middle stuff is highly debatable, and who you should give what respect is insanely subjective, the first sentence is in this post is still objectively true, ignorance isn't the choice, lack thereof is, and to make that decision it's a requirement that you aren't completely ignorant, for then you couldn't even know that the choice existed.

 

 

Quotes do not always make sense to you immediately, but they can make sense in a certain light or some even have multiple interpretations. I think if you react to that quote by trying to categorically prove or disprove it, you're missing the point entirely and missing what it's trying to say. Statements like that are not trying to be categorically true or false in every scenario, they're attempting to summarize the essence and perfectly describe the truth of some matters in a simple, one sentence quote.

 

Ignorance can indeed be a choice. Want my favorite example? The Iraq war.

 

I don't think I need to go into detail about how it was a choice for the US government itself, but there's more to it. I believe the US actually has a rather ingenius little system of perpetuating the war. Anyone remember how the Iraq war started? Claims the terrorists behind 9/11 were there, counterclaims that that was absolute nonsense with no evidence for it, and then a very controversial war. Yknow what began to happen as the war became a point of debate?

 

Anytime someone spoke out against the war, a moderator or journalist would attack them and say "BUT DO U SUPPORT OUR BRAVE AMERICAN TROOPS OR DO YOU WANT THEM TO DIE AND DO YOU HATE AMERICA?" The discussion derailed from being about if the war is justified or not and became a message of support for the war in the form of "Support our troops," even if you do not support the war. It seems like a simple and rational little idea, no? These kids are just trying to help out their country, they're not responsible for how meaningless the war is. No one in their right mind (in America itself anyways) would needlessly wish ill will upon those guys. They merely signed up to defend our great country!

Wrong. That to me was a very clever and very effective little propaganda tool. Yknow why? Because simultaneously, as the "Support our Troops" mantra is chanted by Republicans and Democrats alike, parroted by proponents of the war alongside with those that oppose it, recruiters were visiting American high schools trying to recruit new troops. The recruiters themselves were given incentive to recruit, whether it be coming home quicker, receiving more money or who knows what. The people they recruited...? They were told all kinds of things, like how much fun it would be or how they'd be serving their country and fighting the good fight, or how they'd get their college tuition paid in full when the war was over and they were back home. The recruiters said anything to recruit, whether it be bribes or tales of glory. ANYTHING. I exaggerate "anything" because I have one ****ing leg and those recruiters still persistently tried to recruit me all the time, insistent I could work some office position or the like and I should just sign their fancy piece of paper.

 

 

So how does "Support our Troops" tie into the recruitment?

 

 

"Support our Troops" effectively absolves the troops of any responsibility for a meaningless war. It has a message that basically claims the corrupt politicians and D.C. are to blame for the meaningless war and all the lives lost, BUT OUR BRAVE YOUNG TROOPS MERELY WANT TO DEFEND OUR COUNTRY AND SHOULD BE CHAMPIONED AS HEROES. It was D.C. blissfully and willingly taking the fall and taking the blame on behalf of the troops. Why? Because it allows the war to happen. No troops = no war. That's simply how it is. There's no draft in place, so if people simply didn't sign up, the war in Iraq might not happen, or at least not to the extent it happened.

 

  But what we got was bribery to young 16+ teens as they were told they'd be heroes, that they'd get money and that they wouldn't be to blame for any innocent lives lost. I consider the last portion of that to be a bold-faced lie to help the troops sleep at night and ensure the American government gets what it wants and has the tools it needs (troops) at it's disposal. But do I buy the narrative that these kids were tricked or had no way of knowing what they signed up for...?

 

 

Ignorance is a choice.

 

 

What happened was the money got too tempting and the rationale that they were heroes too easy to buy into. They stopped asking questions and started buying into the dream. But just open your eyes and look and you can see the blood is on their hands too, and in their own small way they are responsible for the blood shed in that war.

 

 

  And maybe you support the Iraq war? Largely irrelevant, as I merely name this one as an example as I think most would agree the US had no interest in such a war beyond the obvious answer of "yay free oil." It would not be hard to find another war or another example where people sign themselves on for something they don't even believe in, for something they don't even morally support, all due to ignorance. I for one do think the world would be a better place if we did not hug the ignorant and tell them "there there it's ok, it's not your fault, you didn't know" and instead told them "yeah you ****ed up big and you could've quite easily better informed yourself before making such a choice, pls dun do it again."

 

 

 

In short, it takes spine to actually think things through, realize exactly what the meaning is behind your choice and face the facts. It takes spine to be true to yourself and realize you are responsible for your actions and inactions, and this idea that "no it's k not my fault cuz someone else told me to do it and I didn't know" is largely false. Yes, there are times when you truly have absolute zero ways of informing yourself and so something isn't your fault, but the examples I've given and that you've given...? Those are not such cases. Hell, it can take spine to draft dodge aswell. If you were drafted to fight a war you didn't agree with, then honestly I'd consider it more brave to try and draft dodge. That's standing up for what you believe in.

 

 

I mean you said it yourself. "Someone without a spine goes along with whatever he's told because he doesn't want to deal with the trouble." Yes, and then it becomes a much LARGER problem for someone else, someone else who didn't deserve it, all because you couldn't man up and take some responsibility. Suddenly a son finds himself robbed blind to the extent retirement will prove exceedingly difficult, all by his own brother, because you couldn't be assed to put some thought and effort into figuring out who was full of **** when all the tools you needed were right there in front of you. Suddenly you find yourself in a foreign country pointing a gun at some innocent guy all because you couldn't be assed to investigate your own government's claims, and pointing the gun at the innocent unarmed guy seemed easier.

 

 

Ignorance is a choice.

[Zoraptor]

Ignorance is a choice.

 

I think you'll find more people subscribe to "Ignorance is Strength", though.

[Longknife]

 

Ignorance is a choice.

 

 

I think you'll find more people subscribe to "Ignorance is Strength", though.

Yep... :/

[Blarghagh]

I subscribe to at least "ignorance is bliss".

[JadedWolf]

I subscribe to at least "ignorance is bliss".

 

"If ignorance is bliss, then knock the smile off my face..."

[Blarghagh]

I didn't say I'd actively pick ignorance over not knowing, but it is often easier when you're ignorant.

[Meshugger]

[TrashMan]

http://kazerad.tumblr.com/post/103856532318/why-i-side-with-gamergate

[Namutree]

http://kazerad.tumblr.com/post/103856532318/why-i-side-with-gamergate

It's funny how anti-GG posters can be such malicious, harassing, misogynist scumbags while at the same time pretending that they are the pinnacle of righteousness.

[Longknife]

 

http://kazerad.tumblr.com/post/103856532318/why-i-side-with-gamergate

It's funny how anti-GG posters can be such malicious, harassing, misogynist scumbags while at the same time pretending that they are the pinnacle of righteousness.

 

 

 

Anti-GG and the SJW side can be summed up by humble quotes like "your rights end where my feelings begin" or "something upsets me, therefore it dare not exist." These are simply spoiled and self-centered mindset, and I believe Roger Ebert wasn't far off when he called these kinds of people the facists of today. I believe facism is a bit of a loaded word as it carries heavy negative connotation, so it feels inappropriate because often the term is tantamount to evil for people. But Ebert wasn't trying to say these people would spawn a Nazi army if they had free reign, he was simply trying to draw parallels between the fact that facism actively censors discerning opinion and these SJW types of today passively or indirectly censor free speech by trying to claim their comfort or discomfort is more important than one's right to express themselves however they please.