Malcador Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Internet flame wars like this have everyone with "Nemo me impune lacessit" as a motto, hardly a surprise and really, not much is lost. Zealots aren't going to listen to one another. Moosa has tangled with the GG crowd before and his flouncing and everything isn't convincing me much of him being a victim. 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
Orogun01 Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 ...Titter...Freudian slip? Anyway, it wasn't saying something about SJ that got him made fun of. It was his gleeful statement that he didn't know anything about things that someone who claims to be a video game journalist should know about. I think that he could have gotten away with not knowing about these thing but it was the dismissive tone with which he said it. For a lot of people games are a passion and a labor of love, it kind of ****s on them when people undermine them. Look lets be honest here, Moosa in this case is simply a causality of the " GG vs SJW war " that rages seemingly interminably on several forums and websites I see intransigence on both sides and strange and irrational reactions from people. For example why do you guys get irate about articles on sites like Polygon? You don't even like them and generally treat what they say with contempt..yet what they say bothers you ? I don't get it? And people like Moosa seem tasked to just find any SJ inconsistency and lambaste the game, it can be frustrating ....of course this is going to annoy people and as I mentioned he must be prepared to face criticism It's a matter of direction, both sides seem to want the games industry to turn into different things while both are distrustful of each other's intentions. That said, I can't think of an industry that would tolerate a worker that blatantly proclaims to not care about the subject of their work...Maybe the fast food industry. What makes you think that they are tasked with finding SJ inconsistencies? The're games journalists, not social justice journalist and not culture critics. So why would it be their job to make sure that a game is politically correct? Well unfortunately for some people this whole thing has gone too far...now some people are defined by there ideological views and the core subject seems to sometime get lost So take Moosa and his article of W3, he lambasted the game on the lack of racial integration....the actual game gets lost in all the diatribe. If I was Moosa I would have considered where CDPR comes from and the previous Witcher games and then considered if this type of criticism was necessary. Its pushing USA values and expectations to Poland...probably not the right time to do it. Its like the call to remove Hookers from GTAV, its well meaning but utterly misplaced and inconsistent And more importantly it just adds more to the pointless " divide " between gaming journalists and the GG crowd Your post brings hope to my heart and a tear to my eye...which is starting to hurt; you know, like when you haven't used your tear ducts in a while and it just hurts when you do. 1 I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"* *If you can't tell, it's you.
BruceVC Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) ...Titter...Freudian slip? Anyway, it wasn't saying something about SJ that got him made fun of. It was his gleeful statement that he didn't know anything about things that someone who claims to be a video game journalist should know about. I think that he could have gotten away with not knowing about these thing but it was the dismissive tone with which he said it. For a lot of people games are a passion and a labor of love, it kind of ****s on them when people undermine them. Look lets be honest here, Moosa in this case is simply a causality of the " GG vs SJW war " that rages seemingly interminably on several forums and websites I see intransigence on both sides and strange and irrational reactions from people. For example why do you guys get irate about articles on sites like Polygon? You don't even like them and generally treat what they say with contempt..yet what they say bothers you ? I don't get it? And people like Moosa seem tasked to just find any SJ inconsistency and lambaste the game, it can be frustrating ....of course this is going to annoy people and as I mentioned he must be prepared to face criticism It's a matter of direction, both sides seem to want the games industry to turn into different things while both are distrustful of each other's intentions. That said, I can't think of an industry that would tolerate a worker that blatantly proclaims to not care about the subject of their work...Maybe the fast food industry. What makes you think that they are tasked with finding SJ inconsistencies? The're games journalists, not social justice journalist and not culture critics. So why would it be their job to make sure that a game is politically correct? Well unfortunately for some people this whole thing has gone too far...now some people are defined by there ideological views and the core subject seems to sometime get lost So take Moosa and his article of W3, he lambasted the game on the lack of racial integration....the actual game gets lost in all the diatribe. If I was Moosa I would have considered where CDPR comes from and the previous Witcher games and then considered if this type of criticism was necessary. Its pushing USA values and expectations to Poland...probably not the right time to do it. Its like the call to remove Hookers from GTAV, its well meaning but utterly misplaced and inconsistent And more importantly it just adds more to the pointless " divide " between gaming journalists and the GG crowd Your post brings hope to my heart and a tear to my eye...which is starting to hurt; you know, like when you haven't used your tear ducts in a while and it just hurts when you do. I have spent some time understanding where the SJ movement in the gaming industry is perhaps making mistakes and exacerbating the problem and divide Edited June 30, 2015 by BruceVC "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
aluminiumtrioxid Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) There is literally nothing that compels you to use the particular web spaces that want you to adhere to a particular set of morals. Ie. I don't feel I'm being "forced on the right path" and "dehumanized" by the nearest church preaching that I will go to Hell for finding men attractive, because I lose nothing by simply ignoring them. It is like saying to the Indians that there is nothing that compels them to stay on the land. The thing is that these webspaces didn't began with those set of morals; they are being pushed, for some that have literally spent years visiting them and have become invested in them such a drastic change is a shock. Also, It really doesn't matter that you don't feel it because there is this awful and wonderful thing called other people that can feel independently from you. For them that have been cast aside by these websites it is a blow to their personhood. To which I can only say: boo-****ing-hoo, grow the **** up. I do find it vaguely ironic that cries of "grow a thicker skin!" and "make your own game!" abound whenever someone mentions they don't feel represented in today's gaming, but when "webspaces" [which ones?] are "being pushed" [how?] to adopt a set of morals [specifically what set?] they didn't originally have [since when can't culture shifts happen naturally? for that matter, why is it bad when they happen?], it's suddenly "a blow against your personhood", akin to the plight of the Native Americans. ... Wow. Just wow. [citation needed] Don't be disingenuous, you've been reading these forums and probably have seen the evidence in other places as well. Or are you saying that you're arguing from a position of ignorance? Actually, no, I haven't seen "evidence" of such, and knowing GG's standards on that front*, frankly, if you people claimed the sky is blue, I'd feel an urgent need to double-check it hasn't turned red in the meantime. *"The corrupt games media wished death in a dozen coordinated articles on millions of diverse gamers" meme seems to never die, despite the fact that over time, it's been so thoroughly twisted in the retelling as to have no resemblance whatsoever to the original articles. Just for example. Edited June 30, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid "Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."
Orogun01 Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 To which I can only say: boo-****ing-hoo, grow the **** up. I do find it vaguely ironic that cries of "grow a thicker skin!" and "make your own game!" abound whenever someone mentions they don't feel represented in today's gaming, but when "webspaces" [which ones?] are "being pushed" [how?] to adopt a set of morals [specifically what set?] they didn't originally have [since when can't culture shifts happen naturally? for that matter, why is it bad when they happen?], it's suddenly "a blow against your personhood", akin to the plight of the Native Americans. ... Wow. Just wow. You know you social justice type really like being **** contrary to your belief that everyone should be good. The original point was about the disparity in how despite both groups being very similar there is only one that has been demonized. As for which site, first it was 4chan /v/ and /pol/ boards and more recently a series of subreddits following an attempt to clean up their image not because of any illegal actions in those places. Actually, no, I haven't seen "evidence" of such, and knowing GG's standards on that front*, frankly, if you people claimed the sky is blue, I'd feel an urgent need to double-check it hasn't turned red in the meantime. *"The corrupt games media wished death in a dozen coordinated articles on millions of diverse gamers" meme seems to never die, despite the fact that over time, it's been so thoroughly twisted in the retelling as to have no resemblance whatsoever to the original articles. Just for example. So you're saying that you only know half the story and won't believe the other side. Glad to know where you stand, that way I can pretty safely assume that this conversation is pointless as you won't accept any other viewpoint. After all, you believe you know. I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"* *If you can't tell, it's you.
BruceVC Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 To which I can only say: boo-****ing-hoo, grow the **** up. I do find it vaguely ironic that cries of "grow a thicker skin!" and "make your own game!" abound whenever someone mentions they don't feel represented in today's gaming, but when "webspaces" [which ones?] are "being pushed" [how?] to adopt a set of morals [specifically what set?] they didn't originally have [since when can't culture shifts happen naturally? for that matter, why is it bad when they happen?], it's suddenly "a blow against your personhood", akin to the plight of the Native Americans. ... Wow. Just wow. You know you social justice type really like being **** contrary to your belief that everyone should be good. The original point was about the disparity in how despite both groups being very similar there is only one that has been demonized. As for which site, first it was 4chan /v/ and /pol/ boards and more recently a series of subreddits following an attempt to clean up their image not because of any illegal actions in those places. Actually, no, I haven't seen "evidence" of such, and knowing GG's standards on that front*, frankly, if you people claimed the sky is blue, I'd feel an urgent need to double-check it hasn't turned red in the meantime. *"The corrupt games media wished death in a dozen coordinated articles on millions of diverse gamers" meme seems to never die, despite the fact that over time, it's been so thoroughly twisted in the retelling as to have no resemblance whatsoever to the original articles. Just for example. So you're saying that you only know half the story and won't believe the other side. Glad to know where you stand, that way I can pretty safely assume that this conversation is pointless as you won't accept any other viewpoint. After all, you believe you know. Orog you guys always make me laugh when you end up having debates with Alum....and you know why ? They always generally end the same way, Alum is basically smarter than the rest of us, I know that annoys certain people but its true. That's not to say he is never wrong but its not like having a debate with me..he is very analytical and you cannot " win " unless you are certain of facts and lets be honest most of our discussions are not about facts but more based on emotion "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
aluminiumtrioxid Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) You know you social justice type really like being **** contrary to your belief that everyone should be good. I don't really see how "pointing out that maybe, just maybe likening the horrible, horrible tragedy of no longer being able to scream abuse at virtual people on your favorite internet hideout to the situation of Native American people is a tad self-absorbed" runs contrary to the belief that people should be good, but whatever. The original point was about the disparity in how despite both groups being very similar there is only one that has been demonized. In all fairness, if the people who have been serious about having a discussion regarding ethics had ditched the "gamergater" label at the point when it became irrevocably associated with harrassment, their opposition would probably have had a harder time making the "ethics is just a smokescreen" charge stick. He who lies down with pigs, etcetera etcetera. As for which site, first it was 4chan /v/ and /pol/ boards and more recently a series of subreddits following an attempt to clean up their image not because of any illegal actions in those places. Do you have any proof that this attempt to clean up their image is actually not an attempt to clean up their image, but the result of outside pressure being applied to the owner of those sites? Because from where I'm standing, "attempting to clean up the site's image" seems like an eminently reasonable goal and an inalienable right of the owner. Posting on a privately owned site is a privilege, not a right. Actually, no, I haven't seen "evidence" of such, and knowing GG's standards on that front*, frankly, if you people claimed the sky is blue, I'd feel an urgent need to double-check it hasn't turned red in the meantime. So you're saying that you only know half the story and won't believe the other side. Glad to know where you stand, that way I can pretty safely assume that this conversation is pointless as you won't accept any other viewpoint. After all, you believe you know. Terrible ability to parse written text, coupled with a smug dismissal of those who didn't drink the GGer kool-aid? How unexpected. Seriously, it's less "there is no evidence that could possibly sway me" and more "the evidence I've seen presented in these threads has been less than convincing so far". Or rather, it's been very convincing re: gaming journalists generally not being very capable at their jobs (something I've known for the better part of a decade), and less convincing re: gaming journalists being part of a vast conspiracy to Destroy Gaming As We Know It Forever. Then again, I never claimed to be a very avid reader of these topics. Alum is basically smarter than the rest of us It's very kind of you to say that, but I'm afraid that's not true, and claiming such isn't really doing the quality of the debate any favors. Edited June 30, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid "Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."
Meshugger Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 The original point was about the disparity in how despite both groups being very similar there is only one that has been demonized. In all fairness, if the people who have been serious about having a discussion regarding ethics had ditched the "gamergater" label at the point when it became irrevocably associated with harrassment, their opposition would probably have had a harder time making the "ethics is just a smokescreen" charge stick. He who lies down with pigs, etcetera etcetera. Sorry i have to butt in here, but that is simply false and have been tried times and times again, especially by those that want GG to die. Not only it's a classic divide & conquer method, it puts the acceptance of new group A in the hand of those that originally hated GG to begin with. There will be always the fallback-argument of "toxic foundations" and so on, so no. Besides it was even an experiment to do so (see http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/gamergate#pizzagate) which pretty much went as expected. "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
BruceVC Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 The original point was about the disparity in how despite both groups being very similar there is only one that has been demonized. In all fairness, if the people who have been serious about having a discussion regarding ethics had ditched the "gamergater" label at the point when it became irrevocably associated with harrassment, their opposition would probably have had a harder time making the "ethics is just a smokescreen" charge stick. He who lies down with pigs, etcetera etcetera. Sorry i have to butt in here, but that is simply false and have been tried times and times again, especially by those that want GG to die. Not only it's a classic divide & conquer method, it puts the acceptance of new group A in the hand of those that originally hated GG to begin with. There will be always the fallback-argument of "toxic foundations" and so on, so no. Besides it was even an experiment to do so (see http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/gamergate#pizzagate) which pretty much went as expected. Nah he is right, I know you guys don't like to hear this but there never was a way to win. The movement was corrupted right in the beginning you just didn't realize it. Its not anyone's fault, lets be honest I know most of you guys mean well but to get onto mainstream media as a " sexist and abusive " organisation you have to realize how utterly outclassed you were due to the support people like Anita will always receive Don't see it as a victory or loss...see is something you believed in and supported. No shame in having conviction in something "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
aluminiumtrioxid Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) In all fairness, if the people who have been serious about having a discussion regarding ethics had ditched the "gamergater" label at the point when it became irrevocably associated with harrassment, their opposition would probably have had a harder time making the "ethics is just a smokescreen" charge stick. He who lies down with pigs, etcetera etcetera. Sorry i have to butt in here, but that is simply false and have been tried times and times again, especially by those that want GG to die. Not only it's a classic divide & conquer method, it puts the acceptance of new group A in the hand of those that originally hated GG to begin with. There will be always the fallback-argument of "toxic foundations" and so on, so no. Besides it was even an experiment to do so (see http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/gamergate#pizzagate) which pretty much went as expected. ...You're not making much sense here. In all fairness, if the people who have been serious about having a discussion regarding ethics had ditched the "gamergater" label at the point when it became irrevocably associated with harrassment, their opposition would probably have had a harder time making the "ethics is just a smokescreen" charge stick. that is simply false and have been tried times and times again, especially by those that want GG to die. What is false? That if the Ethics Brigade had re-organized themselves under a different hashtag, it probably would have been harder to paint them as harrassers? I have a hard time accepting "this is false because reasons" as an answer, especially since the method hasn't been tried, therefore the conviction that it is, indeed, false, seems misplaced. "Maybe it would have worked but it's been decided that it's a slim chance, and comes with associated risks we're not willing to take" sounds vaguely more honest and less like outright accusing the other party of having ulterior motives is all I'm saying. Not only it's a classic divide & conquer method What. I mean, "divide" I get, but how exactly can you get "conquered"? It's not like the group's been represented in a manner members saw as "fair" by media outlets that aren't manned by opportunistic ****bags (looking at you, Milo). Worst case scenario, instead of an amorphous blob that prides itself on being incoherent, you'd get two amorphous blobs, working ostensibly for the same goal, hopefully with a little less harrassment from one blob. it puts the acceptance of new group A in the hand of those that originally hated GG to begin with. ...How exactly are you expecting any good-faith discussion to ensue when you're literally incapable of not assuming the worst of the people sitting on the other side of the table? Besides it was even an experiment to do so (see http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/gamergate#pizzagate) which pretty much went as expected. ...I'm shocked, shocked to discover that a splinter group centered solely on mockery instead of meaningful dialogue and an exploration of issues in journalistic integrity has failed to become a baggage-free bastion of enlightened discourse regarding ethics. Edited June 30, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid "Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."
BruceVC Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Alum is basically smarter than the rest of us It's very kind of you to say that, but I'm afraid that's not true, and claiming such isn't really doing the quality of the debate any favors. Sorry but I didn't say that to flatter you. I never do that, but its true. There will always be someone who is clever than you in a debate but knowing that actually helps you work out how to engage with them properly "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
Amentep Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 it puts the acceptance of new group A in the hand of those that originally hated GG to begin with. ...How exactly are you expecting any good-faith discussion to ensue when you're literally incapable of not assuming the worst of the people sitting on the other side of the table? I don't think either side is capable of not assuming the worst of the people across the table. That's how "ethics in journalism" and "anti-harassment" and "better/more positive/more inclusive representation" and "disclosure of areas of potential bias in news articles" end up being opposing concepts (when there's nothing inherent in one that precludes the others other than the sides have drawn their lines in the sand). 1 I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man
BruceVC Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 it puts the acceptance of new group A in the hand of those that originally hated GG to begin with. ...How exactly are you expecting any good-faith discussion to ensue when you're literally incapable of not assuming the worst of the people sitting on the other side of the table? I don't think either side is capable of not assuming the worst of the people across the table. That's how "ethics in journalism" and "anti-harassment" and "better/more positive/more inclusive representation" and "disclosure of areas of potential bias in news articles" end up being opposing concepts (when there's nothing inherent in one that precludes the others other than the sides have drawn their lines in the sand). Lets not degrade both sides to the lowest closest denominator...GG is still worse than anti-GG at the end of the day if you look at everything that occurred ? "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
Meshugger Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 In all fairness, if the people who have been serious about having a discussion regarding ethics had ditched the "gamergater" label at the point when it became irrevocably associated with harrassment, their opposition would probably have had a harder time making the "ethics is just a smokescreen" charge stick. that is simply false and have been tried times and times again, especially by those that want GG to die. What is false? That if the Ethics Brigade had re-organized themselves under a different hashtag, it probably would have been harder to paint them as harrassers? I have a hard time accepting "this is false because reasons" as an answer, especially since the method hasn't been tried, therefore the conviction that it is, indeed, false, seems misplaced. "Maybe it would have worked but it's been decided that it's a slim chance, and comes with associated risks we're not willing to take" sounds vaguely more honest and less like outright accusing the other party of having ulterior motives is all I'm saying. Not only it's a classic divide & conquer method What. I mean, "divide" I get, but how exactly can you get "conquered"? It's not like the group's been represented in a manner members saw as "fair" by media outlets that aren't manned by opportunistic ****bags (looking at you, Milo). Worst case scenario, instead of an amorphous blob that prides itself on being incoherent, you'd get two amorphous blobs, working ostensibly for the same goal, hopefully with a little less harrassment from one blob. it puts the acceptance of new group A in the hand of those that originally hated GG to begin with. ...How exactly are you expecting any good-faith discussion to ensue when you're literally incapable of not assuming the worst of the people sitting on the other side of the table? Besides it was even an experiment to do so (see http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/gamergate#pizzagate) which pretty much went as expected. ...I'm shocked, shocked to discover that a splinter group centered solely on mockery instead of meaningful dialogue and an exploration of issues in journalistic integrity has failed to become a baggage-free bastion of enlightened discourse regarding ethics. You don't see a splinter-group as weakening GG? Weeding out the "bad" elements? Maybe a leader or group deciding what should be in or not? Kicking Milo because people do not like him? No dividing? lol, you're not even trying. GG has its cause(s) and that's it. Its existence should not, and will not be dependent on the approval of those that hate it. Oh, i did forget one thing, there is meaningful dialogue with the Society of Professional Journalists already: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qECnjnlYu8Y "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
Amentep Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 it puts the acceptance of new group A in the hand of those that originally hated GG to begin with. ...How exactly are you expecting any good-faith discussion to ensue when you're literally incapable of not assuming the worst of the people sitting on the other side of the table? I don't think either side is capable of not assuming the worst of the people across the table. That's how "ethics in journalism" and "anti-harassment" and "better/more positive/more inclusive representation" and "disclosure of areas of potential bias in news articles" end up being opposing concepts (when there's nothing inherent in one that precludes the others other than the sides have drawn their lines in the sand). Lets not degrade both sides to the lowest closest denominator...GG is still worse than anti-GG at the end of the day if you look at everything that occurred ? When two groups fight in the mud, don't both get dirty? 1 I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man
BruceVC Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 In all fairness, if the people who have been serious about having a discussion regarding ethics had ditched the "gamergater" label at the point when it became irrevocably associated with harrassment, their opposition would probably have had a harder time making the "ethics is just a smokescreen" charge stick. that is simply false and have been tried times and times again, especially by those that want GG to die. What is false? That if the Ethics Brigade had re-organized themselves under a different hashtag, it probably would have been harder to paint them as harrassers? I have a hard time accepting "this is false because reasons" as an answer, especially since the method hasn't been tried, therefore the conviction that it is, indeed, false, seems misplaced. "Maybe it would have worked but it's been decided that it's a slim chance, and comes with associated risks we're not willing to take" sounds vaguely more honest and less like outright accusing the other party of having ulterior motives is all I'm saying. Not only it's a classic divide & conquer method What. I mean, "divide" I get, but how exactly can you get "conquered"? It's not like the group's been represented in a manner members saw as "fair" by media outlets that aren't manned by opportunistic ****bags (looking at you, Milo). Worst case scenario, instead of an amorphous blob that prides itself on being incoherent, you'd get two amorphous blobs, working ostensibly for the same goal, hopefully with a little less harrassment from one blob. it puts the acceptance of new group A in the hand of those that originally hated GG to begin with. ...How exactly are you expecting any good-faith discussion to ensue when you're literally incapable of not assuming the worst of the people sitting on the other side of the table? Besides it was even an experiment to do so (see http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/gamergate#pizzagate) which pretty much went as expected. ...I'm shocked, shocked to discover that a splinter group centered solely on mockery instead of meaningful dialogue and an exploration of issues in journalistic integrity has failed to become a baggage-free bastion of enlightened discourse regarding ethics. You don't see a splinter-group as weakening GG? Weeding out the "bad" elements? Maybe a leader or group deciding what should be in or not? Kicking Milo because people do not like him? No dividing? lol, you're not even trying. GG has its cause(s) and that's it. Its existence should not, and will not be dependent on the approval of those that hate it. Oh, i did forget one thing, there is meaningful dialogue with the Society of Professional Journalists already: Meshugger I understand why you are trying to defend GG...you may actually believe it but please trust me its misplaced You have made your point about things that annoyed you like the Alexander article and even won some battles but now its time to move on..what do you gain by this "GG has its causes " ...do you even have an end goal? "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
Bartimaeus Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) When two groups fight in the mud, don't both get dirty? Not if one of the groups is wearing hazmat suits. Edited June 30, 2015 by Bartimaeus Quote How I have existed fills me with horror. For I have failed in everything - spelling, arithmetic, riding, tennis, golf; dancing, singing, acting; wife, mistress, whore, friend. Even cooking. And I do not excuse myself with the usual escape of 'not trying'. I tried with all my heart. In my dreams, I am not crippled. In my dreams, I dance.
Meshugger Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) what do you gain by this "GG has its causes " ...do you even have an end goal? What? Is this September 2014? This ride will never end. Edited June 30, 2015 by Meshugger "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
BruceVC Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 it puts the acceptance of new group A in the hand of those that originally hated GG to begin with. ...How exactly are you expecting any good-faith discussion to ensue when you're literally incapable of not assuming the worst of the people sitting on the other side of the table? I don't think either side is capable of not assuming the worst of the people across the table. That's how "ethics in journalism" and "anti-harassment" and "better/more positive/more inclusive representation" and "disclosure of areas of potential bias in news articles" end up being opposing concepts (when there's nothing inherent in one that precludes the others other than the sides have drawn their lines in the sand). Lets not degrade both sides to the lowest closest denominator...GG is still worse than anti-GG at the end of the day if you look at everything that occurred ? When two groups fight in the mud, don't both get dirty? You cute with your diplomacy that builds at times to irrefutable logic....but not when I''m on the receiving end like when you called me despicable about the Hogan incident....it was true that's what bothered me and my code made it mandatory to accept I was wrong I can easily dispute emotion and invective....in fact I thrive on it but not hard facts "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
Amentep Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) When two groups fight in the mud, don't both get dirty? Not if one of the groups is wearing hazmat suits. The hazmat suits would get dirty. And in taking them off the people inside might get dirty. And the person who cleans them might get dirty. And the person inside might get dirty if the suit isn't properly sealed... ...what was my point again? You cute with your diplomacy that builds at times to irrefutable logic....but not when I''m on the receiving end like when you called me despicable about the Hogan incident....it was true that's what bothered me and my code made it mandatory to accept I was wrong I can easily dispute emotion and invective....in fact I thrive on it but not hard facts Sorry, wasn't meaning to make you feel bad; I did think supporting the publication of Hogan having sex in private with another man's wife because adultry was immoral was dispicable. Neither Hogan or the other man's wife really "deserved" their intimate moments to be posted to the internet. Edited June 30, 2015 by Amentep 1 I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man
Bartimaeus Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) When two groups fight in the mud, don't both get dirty? Not if one of the groups is wearing hazmat suits. The hazmat suits would get dirty. And in taking them off the people inside might get dirty. And the person who cleans them might get dirty. And the person inside might get dirty if the suit isn't properly sealed... ...what was my point again? The hazmat suit wearers can wipe each other down before taking off their hazmat suits. Crisis averted. (edit): Except for those not wearing the hazmat suits. They're still very dirty. Edited June 30, 2015 by Bartimaeus Quote How I have existed fills me with horror. For I have failed in everything - spelling, arithmetic, riding, tennis, golf; dancing, singing, acting; wife, mistress, whore, friend. Even cooking. And I do not excuse myself with the usual escape of 'not trying'. I tried with all my heart. In my dreams, I am not crippled. In my dreams, I dance.
BruceVC Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 what do you gain by this "GG has its causes " ...do you even have an end goal? What? Is this September 2014? This ride will never end. Seriously what is the end goal? There is something I must concede that I didn't want to develop. GG has created something meaningful..there is now a block of very connected and committed people who are opposed to SJ campaigns on different levels. It consists of mostly white, male gamers and they have some valid concerns and have a logical reason to exist I obviously won't judge my own race for making a misplaced stand so I am not opposed to them as much as people think "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
BruceVC Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 When two groups fight in the mud, don't both get dirty? Not if one of the groups is wearing hazmat suits. The hazmat suits would get dirty. And in taking them off the people inside might get dirty. And the person who cleans them might get dirty. And the person inside might get dirty if the suit isn't properly sealed... ...what was my point again? The hazmat suit wearers can wipe each other down before taking off their hazmat suits. Crisis averted. (edit): Except for those not wearing the hazmat suits. They're still dirty. Barti darling who do you support ..GG or anti-GG And before you answer please make the decision based on the overall state of this whole furor and not what you think people on this forum want you to say "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
Bartimaeus Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) Sorry, wasn't meaning to make you feel bad; I did think supporting the publication of Hogan having sex in private with another man's wife because adultry was immoral was dispicable. Neither Hogan or the other man's wife really "deserved" their intimate moments to be posted to the internet. Amentep edited this in after I already liked his post and refreshed the page (and so it's not possible to change it), so I would just like everyone to know before people possibly start to think differently of me as a result...I really liked that part, too. Edited June 30, 2015 by Bartimaeus Quote How I have existed fills me with horror. For I have failed in everything - spelling, arithmetic, riding, tennis, golf; dancing, singing, acting; wife, mistress, whore, friend. Even cooking. And I do not excuse myself with the usual escape of 'not trying'. I tried with all my heart. In my dreams, I am not crippled. In my dreams, I dance.
BruceVC Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 You cute with your diplomacy that builds at times to irrefutable logic....but not when I''m on the receiving end like when you called me despicable about the Hogan incident....it was true that's what bothered me and my code made it mandatory to accept I was wrong I can easily dispute emotion and invective....in fact I thrive on it but not hard facts Sorry, wasn't meaning to make you feel bad; I did think supporting the publication of Hogan having sex in private with another man's wife because adultry was immoral was dispicable. Neither Hogan or the other man's wife really "deserved" their intimate moments to be posted to the internet. You did make me feel bad but I don't blame you....you played the guilt card marked with fact. There is a difference between Zoe Quinn who was a no name, diffident , depressed programmer having an affair with some equally no name " gaming journalist " and Hogan the super-celebrity sleeping with his friends wife...yet they are also similar so I had to concede I was wrong "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
Recommended Posts