Jump to content
TrueNeutral

Journalism and Bias in the Gaming Industry

Recommended Posts

Is it not valid because you wish it wouldn't happen? Because it is what's going to happen.


The sky had never seemed so sky, the world had never seemed so world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As if distancing would help. People would just throw "no true scotsman" at it.

What does it matter what others say? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the issues with this discussion around GG is that there are extremists on both sides who effectively prevent meaningful dialogue on both sides

Oh the problem is much sillier than that. The problem is you have two groups who believe that they are so counter to each other that they WON'T have meaningful dialogue about issues that are not mutually exclusive.

 

You could want ethics in journalism AND be for getting the most talented people in game development regardless of race/gender/sexual orientation/religion/musical taste/genetic predisposition for family obesity/whatever AND be against harassment/doxxing/death threats of anyone online.   There's no way those concepts are mutually exclusive or even vaguely opposed to each other - beyond the obvious which is that the "other side took that one and now we must fight to the death against it".

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, online wars, got to love them :)


Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As if distancing would help. People would just throw "no true scotsman" at it.

What does it matter what others say? 

 

 

What's the point of distancing yourself from something in the first place, then? Distancing is a public thing. I know I don't agree with i.e. Milo's views on gender dysphoria, the only reason for me to distance myself from him here or in another public place would be to make others aware of that. In this case, people would just call "no true scotsman" and say you may not agree, but he still represents GG to the public.


The sky had never seemed so sky, the world had never seemed so world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What, like his view that Europe is already dead because women have more rights here and his assertions that women have it worse now because they are no longer required to be stay-at-home moms? His defense against being called racist being referring to a black author as " we recognize she is human, but not fully civilized" and a referring to people like her being "savages attacking white people"? I've read his 'writing' and taking him out of context often makes him look better.

 

I'm not going to source them for you, especially because you tell me that I have to to. He is a reprehensible bastard and I do not nor will I ever owe you anything. He is allowed his opinions, and in return I am allowed to think he is one of the world's most massive ****.

 

...and how this cannot be translated into an hilariously entertaining interview is beyond me. Get your popcorn already!

 

Who cares about PR anyway, GG is KKK, ISIS and every other hate group combined in the eyes of mainstream media.

 

 

I care in the sense GG is starting to become the sort of collectivized group think that it was once criticizing.

 

Leave him be and give him a pass because he's "one of us?" **** that, burn his ass too if he deserves it.

 

Gotta be honest, I rarely frequent KotakuInAction these days because the amount of idiots going around downvoting anyone who doesn't fit the main narrative is frustrating as hell. May seem small now because by no means do such people represent the majority, but that's the EXACT kinds of people and attitudes GG was trying to stand against.

 

It reminds me of how growing up in Oklahoma while not being a Christian was difficult at times because a lot of people there will absolutely refuse to speak to you if you're not Christian. And if they do speak to you? It's to try and shove their religion down your throat and force you to convert so they can "save" you. They'd acknowledge how ridiculous they were being but at the same time say it was justified because their religion was "the right one." I legit had some guy refuse to leave me alone and insist he would follow me home once we got off the bus until I agreed to say the Lord's Prayer. I was smart and just played along and tried to hide my lack of a belief system as much as possible, lest I lose any degree of a social life. Some other people though would rebelliously proclaim themselves as athiests so everyone knew.

  Sad part is this: you'd think I'd be happy to encounter an athiest, as that'd be someone I could openly discuss religion with and they wouldn't care. NOPE. Problem was the athiests of that community learned all the wrong lessons. They were just as forceful and dickish about their beliefs (or lack thereof) as the Christians themselves. They'd spend their days trying to explain to the Christians why religion is bullcrap, insisting their constant discussion of the topic was justified because they were infact right about there being no God. Sound familiar? Good job idiot, you've become what you hated. The same guys would also try and insist to me I wasn't being firm enough or I was being ridiculous if I preferred to think of myself as agnostic instead.

 

 

 

Point is that childish behavior, group think and other such problems are not exclusive to either side. If GG becomes relaxed with self-criticism and just champions anyone on their side, then it'll quickly devolve into the same dog-piling group-think crap a lot of the SJWs are guilty of, where anyone who raises counter points just gets shouted down and "allies" of the movement are praised no matter how ridiculous or stupid they are. You've never visited GamerGhazi and found it absurd that those people legitimately like, trust and believe every word spoken by Wu and Sarkeesian...? (or maybe they don't, but cannot admit it out of fear of being shouted down and outcasted) I have, and the moment GamerGate is doing the same just on the principle that someone's on our side, that's the moment I stop bothering with GG.

 

 

 

 

What's the point of distancing yourself from something in the first place, then? Distancing is a public thing.

 

 

It's not for the purpose of improving GG's image. It's for the purpose of improving GG itself. GamerGate supporters need a reminder it's not a sin to speak out against another supporter of GamerGate and say you don't like them or throw them under the bus. Remember when KiA used to have front page posts about whether having Milo represent GG was a good idea or not? Opponents of GamerGate would've referred to Milo regardless of what the collective thought, but seeing GamerGate be critical of itself and it's members was good for GamerGate.

 

When was the last time you saw GamerGate be critical of itself? I remember the last time I saw it: TotalBiscuit said KiA can be full of ****lords sometimes. They flipped out and harassed him til he apologized.

Edited by Longknife
  • Like 4

"The Courier was the worst of all of them. The worst by far. When he died the first time, he must have met the devil, and then killed him."

 

 

Is your mom hot? It may explain why guys were following her ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the point of distancing yourself from something in the first place, then? Distancing is a public thing. I know I don't agree with i.e. Milo's views on gender dysphoria, the only reason for me to distance myself from him here or in another public place would be to make others aware of that. In this case, people would just call "no true scotsman" and say you may not agree, but he still represents GG to the public.

Yes, there are some people who would **** on you no matter what you say. But there're also people who would listen, and i think there's a lot more of them than extrimists. So it is important to actually say things. But at the end of the day, you distance yourself from crazies because they are crazy. I don't think you need any more reasons. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not too sure there's a majority of people who are willing to listen in this, most people are convinced of their side enough to not really be swayed by GG criticizing itself and just see it as a PR move (almost avoided laughing writing that) and then the rest are just fanatics who are on the warpath.


Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What's the point of distancing yourself from something in the first place, then? Distancing is a public thing. I know I don't agree with i.e. Milo's views on gender dysphoria, the only reason for me to distance myself from him here or in another public place would be to make others aware of that. In this case, people would just call "no true scotsman" and say you may not agree, but he still represents GG to the public.

Yes, there are some people who would **** on you no matter what you say. But there're also people who would listen, and i think there's a lot more of them than extrimists. So it is important to actually say things. But at the end of the day, you distance yourself from crazies because they are crazy. I don't think you need any more reasons. :)

Well, fair enough, but that's a whole other ballpark than "What does it matter what others say?" I feel. :p


The sky had never seemed so sky, the world had never seemed so world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What, like his view that Europe is already dead because women have more rights here and his assertions that women have it worse now because they are no longer required to be stay-at-home moms? His defense against being called racist being referring to a black author as " we recognize she is human, but not fully civilized" and a referring to people like her being "savages attacking white people"? I've read his 'writing' and taking him out of context often makes him look better.

 

I'm not going to source them for you, especially because you tell me that I have to to. He is a reprehensible bastard and I do not nor will I ever owe you anything. He is allowed his opinions, and in return I am allowed to think he is one of the world's most massive ****.

Go take Jemisin's posts, her Wiscon speech, and her tweets. Replace every case of white man or derivative thereof with jew, and you get propaganda that Goebbels would be proud of. Hell, toss an email to the guy running the interview to ask Vox the question 'Would you consider Hitler a savage' The answer would certainly be amusing. As for your assertion that he claims Europe is already dead, that was from a 2005 article in which he blames the women's rights movement on the decreasing birth rates in first world countries. He also says, more or less, that it is quickly coming to apply to America. It's certainly an interesting argument, and to my knowledge there have been no good studies that have attempted to determine the cause of said decline in birth rates and what exactly they are attributable to. In any case, he's certainly not saying that women's rights themselves will cause the collapse of European civilization. So, again, not exactly seeing the utter disdain that you treat him with.


"You know, there's more to being an evil despot than getting cake whenever you want it"

 

"If that's what you think, you're DOING IT WRONG."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Vox Day or anyone says something bigoted I have no problem pointing it out. It's the games' journos who've got a problem reporting on both sides.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just look at this thread, one minute we have Zizek talking about racism and a second later we have Vox Day talking about racism. Gamergate embraces everyone! It is love. It is life.


"Some men see things as they are and say why?"
"I dream things that never were and say why not?"
- George Bernard Shaw

"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

 

"The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

- Some guy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What, like his view that Europe is already dead because women have more rights here and his assertions that women have it worse now because they are no longer required to be stay-at-home moms? His defense against being called racist being referring to a black author as " we recognize she is human, but not fully civilized" and a referring to people like her being "savages attacking white people"? I've read his 'writing' and taking him out of context often makes him look better.

 

I'm not going to source them for you, especially because you tell me that I have to to. He is a reprehensible bastard and I do not nor will I ever owe you anything. He is allowed his opinions, and in return I am allowed to think he is one of the world's most massive ****.

Go take Jemisin's posts, her Wiscon speech, and her tweets. Replace every case of white man or derivative thereof with jew, and you get propaganda that Goebbels would be proud of. Hell, toss an email to the guy running the interview to ask Vox the question 'Would you consider Hitler a savage' The answer would certainly be amusing. As for your assertion that he claims Europe is already dead, that was from a 2005 article in which he blames the women's rights movement on the decreasing birth rates in first world countries. He also says, more or less, that it is quickly coming to apply to America. It's certainly an interesting argument, and to my knowledge there have been no good studies that have attempted to determine the cause of said decline in birth rates and what exactly they are attributable to. In any case, he's certainly not saying that women's rights themselves will cause the collapse of European civilization. So, again, not exactly seeing the utter disdain that you treat him with.

 

You have a very charitable reading of it that argument, since that certainly is what he is saying. As for what Jemisin said, I don't care. Her feminist propoganda nonsense is no excuse for him to be a racist jerk. As for him blaming the women's rights movement for decreasing birthrate, that is again either a charitable reading or gross misrepresentation. The point he's making with that isn't that the birthrate decreased in first world countries, it's that feminism is responsible for female infanticide in china and india. Which is of course ridiculous. The man is a fool and fools like this are why MRA is considered a punchline. The only saving grace for that is that feminist is quickly reaching the same status.


The sky had never seemed so sky, the world had never seemed so world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What, like his view that Europe is already dead because women have more rights here and his assertions that women have it worse now because they are no longer required to be stay-at-home moms? His defense against being called racist being referring to a black author as " we recognize she is human, but not fully civilized" and a referring to people like her being "savages attacking white people"? I've read his 'writing' and taking him out of context often makes him look better.

 

I'm not going to source them for you, especially because you tell me that I have to to. He is a reprehensible bastard and I do not nor will I ever owe you anything. He is allowed his opinions, and in return I am allowed to think he is one of the world's most massive ****.

Go take Jemisin's posts, her Wiscon speech, and her tweets. Replace every case of white man or derivative thereof with jew, and you get propaganda that Goebbels would be proud of. Hell, toss an email to the guy running the interview to ask Vox the question 'Would you consider Hitler a savage' The answer would certainly be amusing. As for your assertion that he claims Europe is already dead, that was from a 2005 article in which he blames the women's rights movement on the decreasing birth rates in first world countries. He also says, more or less, that it is quickly coming to apply to America. It's certainly an interesting argument, and to my knowledge there have been no good studies that have attempted to determine the cause of said decline in birth rates and what exactly they are attributable to. In any case, he's certainly not saying that women's rights themselves will cause the collapse of European civilization. So, again, not exactly seeing the utter disdain that you treat him with.

 

You have a very charitable reading of it that argument, since that certainly is what he is saying. As for what Jemisin said, I don't care. Her feminist propoganda nonsense is no excuse for him to be a racist jerk. As for him blaming the women's rights movement for decreasing birthrate, that is again either a charitable reading or gross misrepresentation. The point he's making with that isn't that the birthrate decreased in first world countries, it's that feminism is responsible for female infanticide in china and india. Which is of course ridiculous. The man is a fool and fools like this are why MRA is considered a punchline. The only saving grace for that is that feminist is quickly reaching the same status.

 

That is quite possibly the oddest interpretation possible for that article. Although not really surprising as the article in a lot of ways is a stream of consciousness mess. Apparently WND has no editors. In any case the sex selection problem in China and India came about long before early sex identification for embryos. It was a problem around the turn of the century. As in 1900. The cultures over there are highly biased towards male children in terms of status. Thus girl children were generally killed after birth or when ultrasound first became available fairly late in the process. Early sex selection has merely accelerated the process. His point was that WRA's rather hypocritically have to argue against rather arbitrary choice in why to have an abortion and was almost certainly a direct response to this study and any surrounding discussion. Once again, context saves the Day. Heh, I made a pun.


"You know, there's more to being an evil despot than getting cake whenever you want it"

 

"If that's what you think, you're DOING IT WRONG."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an example of my frustration with GamerGate lately:  Valve and Bethesda capitalizing on mods.

 

Are Valve and Bethesda taking a large cut of the income? Yes.

Is it bound to shake up the modding community quite a bit? Yes.

Is it frustrating to watch Valve and Bethesda take this step? Hell yes.

 

 

Does this have **** all to do with corruption and collusion in journalism? NOPE. Infact, it's legally really tight, nor is it anything new. Valve has long taken user-created content for Team Fortress 2 for example, picked out the popular ones, and made them official content that the creator gets a cut of. I wish I remembered the exact number, but I merely recall the creator getting a modest cut just like here, AKA for every $400 the created item earns for Valve, the creator gets 100$ of that or so.

  But GamerGate is outraged because they, understandably, don't like it. That's great and all guys, but unless you're highlighting something Valve or Bethesda is blatantly doing wrong, then this is meaningless effort. Big businesses are stingy and ruthless when it comes to cash. No ****? It's the same sort of no **** situation like when GamerGate was trying to blame Obsidian for even CONSIDERING talking to Firedorn about changing the limerick. I get it: it's heart-shattering to realize businesses are devoid of any moral compass and only adhere to whatever brings them profit, but this is how the world works. Until you can find a working method to change that, whining about it accomplishes nothing. Trust me, I went through heartbreak realizing companies are money-grubbing jerks too and I would be more than happy to welcome a system that could change this, but I am not intelligent enough to pull such a system out of thin air, nor do I think gamer outrage over a change in the modding community will change the system either.

 

 

   All it is is hopeful whining. It's whining about how Bethesda and Valve are jerks for taking such a large cut and making a move to make modded content become less free. Sucks for us, but are they in their rights to do this? Absolutely. You're in your right to boycott these companies if you don't like the gesture, too.

 

But this has nothing to do with corruption in games media. Corruption in games media? Those are instances where journalists are dangerously close to breaking the law, or were doing so and had been getting away with it. (yay Gawker)

 

 

I care about GamerGate because I care about proper journalism and because I stand against the doctrines and ways of thought exhibited by the SJW clique. This news of modding has jack all to do with that.

 

If someone wanted to create a movement focused towards finding a way to diminish the extent to which big name corporations use their clout to get the majority share of profit? Please by all means, sounds like an interesting and good cause, albeit extremely difficult to work out. Do I expect such genius from GamerGate? Absolutely not, and I believe that if GamerGate attempted to pursue this, it's merely expanding it's goals too much, spreading itself too thin, forgetting it's purpose and losing focus.


"The Courier was the worst of all of them. The worst by far. When he died the first time, he must have met the devil, and then killed him."

 

 

Is your mom hot? It may explain why guys were following her ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

What, like his view that Europe is already dead because women have more rights here and his assertions that women have it worse now because they are no longer required to be stay-at-home moms? His defense against being called racist being referring to a black author as " we recognize she is human, but not fully civilized" and a referring to people like her being "savages attacking white people"? I've read his 'writing' and taking him out of context often makes him look better.

 

I'm not going to source them for you, especially because you tell me that I have to to. He is a reprehensible bastard and I do not nor will I ever owe you anything. He is allowed his opinions, and in return I am allowed to think he is one of the world's most massive ****.

Go take Jemisin's posts, her Wiscon speech, and her tweets. Replace every case of white man or derivative thereof with jew, and you get propaganda that Goebbels would be proud of. Hell, toss an email to the guy running the interview to ask Vox the question 'Would you consider Hitler a savage' The answer would certainly be amusing. As for your assertion that he claims Europe is already dead, that was from a 2005 article in which he blames the women's rights movement on the decreasing birth rates in first world countries. He also says, more or less, that it is quickly coming to apply to America. It's certainly an interesting argument, and to my knowledge there have been no good studies that have attempted to determine the cause of said decline in birth rates and what exactly they are attributable to. In any case, he's certainly not saying that women's rights themselves will cause the collapse of European civilization. So, again, not exactly seeing the utter disdain that you treat him with.

 

You have a very charitable reading of it that argument, since that certainly is what he is saying. As for what Jemisin said, I don't care. Her feminist propoganda nonsense is no excuse for him to be a racist jerk. As for him blaming the women's rights movement for decreasing birthrate, that is again either a charitable reading or gross misrepresentation. The point he's making with that isn't that the birthrate decreased in first world countries, it's that feminism is responsible for female infanticide in china and india. Which is of course ridiculous. The man is a fool and fools like this are why MRA is considered a punchline. The only saving grace for that is that feminist is quickly reaching the same status.

 

That is quite possibly the oddest interpretation possible for that article. Although not really surprising as the article in a lot of ways is a stream of consciousness mess. Apparently WND has no editors. In any case the sex selection problem in China and India came about long before early sex identification for embryos. It was a problem around the turn of the century. As in 1900. The cultures over there are highly biased towards male children in terms of status. Thus girl children were generally killed after birth or when ultrasound first became available fairly late in the process. Early sex selection has merely accelerated the process. His point was that WRA's rather hypocritically have to argue against rather arbitrary choice in why to have an abortion and was almost certainly a direct response to this study and any surrounding discussion. Once again, context saves the Day. Heh, I made a pun.

 

 

 

And women’s-rights advocates are now finding themselves in an ironic intellectual bind, as the onset of sex selection technology has them arguing that while a woman has a right to choose abortion, she can only do so for approved reasons.

 

This is because scientists are estimating that there are 100 million women missing from India and China and as the technology becomes cheaper and more widespread, this rate of loss is increasing. A U.N. official named Khalid Malik has warned that at present birth rates, with only 826 girls born per 1,000 boys, China will be missing 60 million more women within a decade. And in India, when a family already has two girls, a third pregnancy results in 78 percent of unborn girl babies being aborted.

 

This seems like a fairly clear cause and effect statement to me, but I may be reading it wrong  Like you said, it's a very oddly written piece. Either it's a stream of consciousness mess, or he's using obfuscating language to make it seem less offensive. He did a lot of that in his "reply" to the black author whose name I forgot too. :shrugz:


The sky had never seemed so sky, the world had never seemed so world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Take your child murderin' god and shove his him up his own ass."-Volorun

 

"...the vote of a black redhead disabled homosexual transsexual Jew should probably be worth the same as at least a hundred white heterosexual Christians."-Rostere

 

"i can think of many women i would gladly sleep with, but not a single one that i would want as a girlfriend/wife... neither real nor fictional."-teknoman2

 

"I'm all for killing dogs in film." - algroth

 

"Iselmyr is the one who did GOMAD... Aloth is lactose intolerant" -ShadySands

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhDPFJENqBc#!

 

It's hilarious how touchy GGer's are. Just read the comments. Pakman's a jerk and a weasel because he didn't praise our lord and saviour GamerGate. TYT and Cenk are literally Fox News because they were mean to their hero Karen... Are those grown up people or a bunch of children? I mean come on... Though to be fair to GG, they're not the only ones. Other side is equally ridiculous. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. I didn't realize how biased Pacman really was. At least she was citing facts. He was the one speculating and trying in vain to interject his own views.

And we don't want people to do that, don't we? :) They should keep their stupid opinions to themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhDPFJENqBc#!

 

It's hilarious how touchy GGer's are. Just read the comments. Pakman's a jerk and a weasel because he didn't praise our lord and saviour GamerGate. TYT and Cenk are literally Fox News because they were mean to their hero Karen... Are those grown up people or a bunch of children? I mean come on... Though to be fair to GG, they're not the only ones. Other side is equally ridiculous. :)

 

Weren't you just complaining about this sort of thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Weren't you just complaining about this sort of thing?

What?

Edited by Sakai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What?

 

Weren't you one of the people who had an issue with us picking on random nobodies in the other thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weren't you one of the people who had an issue with us picking on random nobodies in the other thread?

I don't see the connection. Pointing out that some people act ridiculously and targeting specific people on twitter is not the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wow. I didn't realize how biased Pacman really was. At least she was citing facts. He was the one speculating and trying in vain to interject his own views.

And we don't want people to do that, don't we? :) They should keep their stupid opinions to themselves.

 

 

As an interviewer it's his job and he emphasized it time and again when he was covering GG. At the end he did state his personal opinion in a special episode. Here, was being rather biased and playing contrarian. that's not what a good interviewer does. In his personal life he can say whatever the hell he wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...