Journalism and bias in the gaming industry

[Meshugger]

 

 

I still do not get your point. I already stated that inequality is tolerated to a certain degree as long there is little to no inequity.

 

 

 

My point is that your original complaint - ie. "SJWs are wrong because they confuse inequality with inequity" - is pretty much arguing over semantics instead of engaging with what they're talking about.

 

Because they are two different things. Everybody is unequal to a certain degree since we all have unique traits, strengths and weaknesses. But that doesn't matter since 1) it is a part of human nature and will be tolerated in any society. However, with inequity people will live by different rules compared to the rest and the end result is revolution or bloodbath. This is not something new, all social animals have these dynamics.

 

What these SJWs seems to be confused about is that inequality has to be erased through methods that will in the end lead to inequity, because you cannot create a totally equal society without dealing great injustice on pretty much everyone.

[Meshugger]

Meanwhile in Sci-Fi and fantasy. Eerily familiar.

 

http://edwardwillett.com/2015/04/thoughts-on-the-hugo-awards/

 

Jesus

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Meanwhile in Sci-Fi and fantasy. Eerily familiar.

 

http://edwardwillett.com/2015/04/thoughts-on-the-hugo-awards/

 

 

For some reason, I don't find it surprising at all that the actually most numerous camp of people who take issue with the Sad Puppies selection - ie. those who think that the majority of the nominees are utterly talentless hacks - gets ignored in this post in favor of ascribing all sorts of scheming and politicized motives to them.

 

 

 

 

 

I still do not get your point. I already stated that inequality is tolerated to a certain degree as long there is little to no inequity.

 

 

 

My point is that your original complaint - ie. "SJWs are wrong because they confuse inequality with inequity" - is pretty much arguing over semantics instead of engaging with what they're talking about.

 

Because they are two different things. Everybody is unequal to a certain degree since we all have unique traits, strengths and weaknesses. But that doesn't matter since 1) it is a part of human nature and will be tolerated in any society. However, with inequity people will live by different rules compared to the rest and the end result is revolution or bloodbath. This is not something new, all social animals have these dynamics.

 

What these SJWs seems to be confused about is that inequality has to be erased through methods that will in the end lead to inequity, because you cannot create a totally equal society without dealing great injustice on pretty much everyone.

 

 

...You didn't seem to object earlier when I suggested that you're arguing over semantics and when they say "inequality", they really mean "inequity". Which renders your point about the erasure of inequality necessarily leading to inequity completely moot. So what are we talking about?

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I still do not get your point. I already stated that inequality is tolerated to a certain degree as long there is little to no inequity.

 

 

 

My point is that your original complaint - ie. "SJWs are wrong because they confuse inequality with inequity" - is pretty much arguing over semantics instead of engaging with what they're talking about.

 

Because they are two different things. Everybody is unequal to a certain degree since we all have unique traits, strengths and weaknesses. But that doesn't matter since 1) it is a part of human nature and will be tolerated in any society. However, with inequity people will live by different rules compared to the rest and the end result is revolution or bloodbath. This is not something new, all social animals have these dynamics.

 

What these SJWs seems to be confused about is that inequality has to be erased through methods that will in the end lead to inequity, because you cannot create a totally equal society without dealing great injustice on pretty much everyone.

 

 

...You didn't seem to object earlier when I suggested that you're arguing over semantics and when they say "inequality", they really mean "inequity". Which renders your point about the erasure of inequality necessarily leading to inequity completely moot. So what are we talking about?

 

 

There's gotta be some language-barrier here or we are talking about two different things. I just do not understand what you're trying to prove here. I'll leave it at that.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

There's gotta be some language-barrier here or we are talking about two different things. I just do not understand what you're trying to prove here. I'll leave it at that.

 

 

Just... read back the conversation leading up to this point, would you?

 

You posited that they're idiots for railing about inequality when the issue is inequity. I brought up examples of actual issues they're railing about, which had nothing to do with inequality (as per your definition). I then posited the theory that it's probably a semantics issue, and your disagreement with them might be easily solved by mentally switching out every instance of "inequality" to "inequity" in their parliance.

 

Since you didn't really posit counter-examples where they clearly can only mean inequality itself as undesirable, I think your issue with them trying to "solve" inequality by creating inequity is... unfounded.

Edited April 6, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Nonek]

Who would have thought that a country* that has spent thousands of years trying to advance itself has now reached a position where the majority of its people, men and women, are privileged? Obviously we are, we work hard, pay our taxes, serve our countries, fight for free speech and against censorship, and raise our children properly so that they have a better life. We have fought against outside influences and evils such as Nazi-ism and genocide to maintain our laws, comforts and social advancement, and then foppish, spoiled pseudo intellectual who speak of science and statistics while proving nothing except for their hatred of all humanity try to shape society into their own twisted and sickening image.

 

Never mind the poor white families who have to subsist on hand outs from food banks, a growing problem in the UK. The beggars on the streets who are starving. The prostitutes who are bought and sold for cash. No lets not improve their lot at all, let's argue about triviality and endorse hate speech against the hard working whom support our lazy, shiftless existences.

 

*Any country in the world and its people.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Nonek

[Vaeliorin]

You know, that article about the Hugo Awards mentioned something that I've thought for a while now.

And when I say diversity, I don’t mean diversity as in skin-color and sexual identity. I couldn’t care less about the skin-color and sexual identity of the authors I read, or the characters they write–provided they write, and the characters inhabit, a fascinating, mind-expanding, entertaining fictional world. True diversity is diversity of opinion, of thought, of storytelling style. That’s the diversity that matters within science fiction (and within the world in general).

[Fighter]

"But you like totally misinterpreted my article!"

 

[Luj1]

freak

[Volourn]

She doesn't even make sense there. L0L

[Longknife]

Wait what?

 

The point is that white cishet guys are more likely to acquire class and wealth privilege than, say, black people, or trans people.

 

Based on what?

 

The only significant disadvantage here is that a white family's wealth could stem back to the early 1900's and have been sustained until now, whereas a black family would've likely - at best - began acquiring wealth in the 70's. This does not however change the fact that when they DO acquire wealth (and they need not be as rich as the top 1%. Yes the white family may outpace them, but they've both hit a point it doesn't matter) they are treated with privilege. All you're highlighting is the why of the severe gap between two races, but this does not mean that if a black child is born tomorrow and sets out a path of good grades, a proper education and a well-paying job, that he will not be privileged, and privileged based on his wealth. I have a friend in the USA who recently finished Law school. He's beaner as hell, does anyone care? No, and after a couple big cases followed by investments that paid off, he's acquired $500,000 in about a year's time.

 

  I'd be inclined to agree it could be hard finding acceptance as a transgender individual, but then I remembered something: one of the head doctor's of the hospital of a town I lived in in freaking Oklahoma was transsexual. Of course they talked crap being the person's back, of course they didn't like it. But did they deal with it? Absolutely, because they needed that individual.

 

 

 

The point is that race can only explain why the statistical imbalance between the wealthy whites and the wealthy blacks exists, but that does not mean that a black individual is not fully capable of becoming rich at this day and age. Hate to say it, but much of what causes status quo to remain is cultural: aka black families in America are simply less likely to stress a proper education to their children. There is also a degree of police prejudice that can make things more difficult for a black guy (I say this having grown up in a black neighborhood, and me and a friend quickly learned we could get places faster if I drove the car, simply cause we didn't get pulled over all the time), but it's not something that can be made moot. The privilege then becomes "I as a white male can smoke marijuana or do other less-than-legal activities that harm no one and possibly get away with it," and not so much a privilege that effects every aspect of our lives.

   And again that's how your argument is inobjective. By your logic, asians are often privileged moreso than whites. It has nothing to do with race anymore, it has everything to do with money. The lingering effects you see are cultural, not blatant racism in everything we see and do. The only racism you're gonna encounter will come from the police, but no idiot is gonna deny you a job position as an engineer, lawyer, doctor, scientist or what have you based on your race.

 

 

If you wish to blame other races for black culture in America encouraging an education less, then I dunno what to tell you.

 

I'd also like to point out how shortsighted it would be to discuss race privilege based on American culture alone. Within the context of the USA, sure, but many people within this thread are not American. Racism vs African Americans is especially bad and worse than anything else I've seen in another country (though I've yet to visit France, where I hear it can be quite bad). I mean Turkish people are the minority here in Germany and many of them are right here in my law studies with me, a couple of them wearing the head scarves and believing in traditionalist muslim values. Not gonna stop them so long as they can do the work.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Longknife

[kirottu]

[BruceVC]

Who would have thought that a country* that has spent thousands of years trying to advance itself has now reached a position where the majority of its people, men and women, are privileged? Obviously we are, we work hard, pay our taxes, serve our countries, fight for free speech and against censorship, and raise our children properly so that they have a better life. We have fought against outside influences and evils such as Nazi-ism and genocide to maintain our laws, comforts and social advancement, and then foppish, spoiled pseudo intellectual who speak of science and statistics while proving nothing except for their hatred of all humanity try to shape society into their own twisted and sickening image.

 

Never mind the poor white families who have to subsist on hand outs from food banks, a growing problem in the UK. The beggars on the streets who are starving. The prostitutes who are bought and sold for cash. No lets not improve their lot at all, let's argue about triviality and endorse hate speech against the hard working whom support our lazy, shiftless existences.

 

*Any country in the world and its people.

 

You have raised some good points about why in many Western counties people are privileged. I agree with most of it but that is also the reason why many SJ initiatives are driven from Western countries. And that is also the reason why we need to keep  asking  ourselves how we can become a more fair and equitable society...we need to ask ourselves these types of questions introspectively because there are certain areas we are lacking but improving all the time 

[Fighter]

This is the power outrage squads wield. Journos don't even check their bull before posting. And this is how everyone who disagrees with is made to be a racist misogynist bigot.

 

[kirottu]

This whole Sad Puppies thing is eerily similar to GamerGate. Journalists don't do their job and everyone part of Sad Puppies is a racist misogynist. 

[Blarghagh]

So, essentially what I'm seeing here, if you're a fan of a genre or medium and like good quality, that makes you a racist misogynist because you are a meritocrat. That seem about right?

[Malcador]

People whining about the types of people winning awards always seems a bit off to me as it makes no sense to just choose some for diversity's sake. And attempting to fix the problem at sourcing is again rather dubious and will take a long time anyway (I suppose one could start forcing minority groups to write or what have you).

 

Ahh to be in the first world

[Fighter]

I am just more interested in the tactics here really. If you're not for turning X thing into an affirmative action type thing it must be because you hate women and minorities. Because like we know any deviation from the party line on the social justice issues is unacceptable.

 

Also...

 

The writer for feminist frequency thinks the party approved narrative is more important than facts. Because of course he does.

 

Edited April 7, 2015 by Fighter

[Amentep]

^Anyone who thinks documentaries are the "truth" is deluding themselves.  Anyone familiar with film - as Herzog is - could tell you that all film is biased by the narrative the primary decision maker creates (be it the director, the producer, the writer or the editor).

[Malcador]

Not sure what he means by facts not constituting truth, though, I had assumed he meant to say truth needs more than just facts but then I am not sure what else is needed. The Guardian interview that quote seems to be from is thin, too, meh.

 

But hey, at least McIntosh didn't make it all up

[Fighter]

^Anyone who thinks documentaries are the "truth" is deluding themselves.  Anyone familiar with film - as Herzog is - could tell you that all film is biased by the narrative the primary decision maker creates (be it the director, the producer, the writer or the editor).

 

I am sure that's exactly how documentaries are. But one should still at least declare that they strive to base them in facts.

[Barothmuk]

I suspect most of the discussion surrounding this out-of-context quote is being done by those with little historical knowledge of film theory at the time or Herzog's own beliefs.

[Amentep]

Context for the quote (or some and for those interested in that kind of thing) from a transcript of a video with producers Errol Morris and Werner Herzog talking about the documentary film THE ACT OF KILLING by Joshua Oppenheimer, Christine Cynn, et al
 

ERROL MORRIS:  Movies should have mysteries, and this has many mysteries. Why are people repeating their crimes in front of a camera? To what end? And what does that have to tell us about them and about us?

Was it all a performance? Is it all a sham? Is it all about the lies that we tell ourselves in order to keep going day by day?

Where is the guilt and shame here? I'm not sure I know. What would we like to be inside us as people versus what really is inside of us? Go on and on and on and on as a strange hall of mirrors. What Josh has done is he's kept it in a strange limbo land between fantasy and reality.

WERNER HERZOG: In a way, sometimes, I do believe the borderline between documentary and fiction is sometimes blurred in Joshua's Oppenheimer's film as well. The amount of stylization, the amount of surrealism, the amount of force of very, very strong hand of a movie director is in it.

I believe that documentary filmmaking--and I'm one of the great advocates--has to move away from the pure, fact-based movies, because facts, per se, do not constitute truth. That's a big, big, big mistake. Otherwise, the Manhattan phone directory would be the book of books-- four million entries, every single one factually correct.

Mr. Jonathan Smith-- his address and telephone number can be verified correct. But whether he has nightmares or whether he cries into his pillow each night, we do not know. And that's where filmmaking has to move.

ERROL MORRIS: I got into an argument with one critic about "The Act of Killing" who said that he knew even less about the genocide in Indonesia after seeing the movie than he
did before. And I tried to tell him that whatever documentary is, it's not adult education. Presumably, it's an art form where we are trying to communicate something about the real world. There's a journalistic component, but it's properly considered, to me, journalism plus something more than journalism. You're entering into the idea of something, exploring the idea of something.
 
In this particular instance, what if you commit a terrible crime but you're rewarded for it? What if 40 years pass, and the memories of what you did still
stay with you? They're resident in memory.  What effect does it have on you, if any? Can you commit a terrible crime and pay no penalty? I'm not just simply talking about criminal penalties or legal penalties. I'm talking about psychological penalties. What, ultimately, is the effect that it has on your life, on who you are and how you see yourself, which is really at the heart of this movie, which makes it, to me, great. It makes it really compelling.

WERNER HERZOG: There have been first screenings of the film at festivals, and I think in some theaters, as well. And what I have seen is that much of the attention focus is
on the historical facts, on the historical monstrosity of a crime. But we should not push the film into the corner of a film of political agitation. It could be completely and utterly wrong.
And it wouldn't do the film justice. The film has such an enormous scope and caliber that it would really do damage if we only saw the political issue in it.
And it's much, much, much more. The way of storytelling, silence as music, movie making-- it's great, great movie making.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Amentep

[Meshugger]

 

 

There's gotta be some language-barrier here or we are talking about two different things. I just do not understand what you're trying to prove here. I'll leave it at that.

 

 

Just... read back the conversation leading up to this point, would you?

 

You posited that they're idiots for railing about inequality when the issue is inequity. I brought up examples of actual issues they're railing about, which had nothing to do with inequality (as per your definition). I then posited the theory that it's probably a semantics issue, and your disagreement with them might be easily solved by mentally switching out every instance of "inequality" to "inequity" in their parliance.

 

Since you didn't really posit counter-examples where they clearly can only mean inequality itself as undesirable, I think your issue with them trying to "solve" inequality by creating inequity is... unfounded.

 

 

They're wrong simply because privilege does not mean inequity. They might have a point if they were talking about gay marriage in states/countries where it is outlawed. 

[Meshugger]

More mod leaks from Reddit. There is no grand conspiracy as suspected, just a whole bunch of idiots without any sense of rectitude:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh5nBWY8TKk

 

...and good news everyone! a new study shows that Anita is wrong again 

 

https://twitter.com/CHSommers/status/585443472628391936

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25844719/