Journalism and Bias in the Gaming Industry

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

What's masculine?

Slavoj Zizek.

 

 

[Malcador]

What's masculine?

Being an independent male, I would guess.

[Meshugger]

 

What's masculine?

Slavoj Zizek.

 

 

 

 

 

The moment he whispered into her ear "My schlong is social construct" she was already gone and gave up her agency completely.

 

 

 

What's masculine?

 

Being an independent male, I would guess.

 

 

Nonsense, they are a social construct made by the patriarchy council, who gathers in the woodshed behind the bar every thursday at 8 PM. Worlds have burned thanks to their influence.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Meshugger

[aluminiumtrioxid]

What's masculine?

 

 

they are a social construct made by the patriarchy council, who gathers in the woodshed behind the bar every thursday at 8 PM. Worlds have burned thanks to their influence.

 

 

Why ask if you've made up your mind already? 

[Meshugger]

 

What's masculine?

 

 

they are a social construct made by the patriarchy council, who gathers in the woodshed behind the bar every thursday at 8 PM. Worlds have burned thanks to their influence.

 

 

Why ask if you've made up your mind already? 

 

A wise man never stops questioning, i am not that smart though.

[Nonek]

 

 

1. I don't think it is in any way a different expression of male identity, that's just wishful thinking not borne out by gameplay, they are professions largely dominated by men but also open to women, and are as dangerous and full of possible confrontation as the author is stating he wishes to avoid. Each one of these protagonists is more than versed in violence, they are extremely dangerous, athletic and bodily potent. The author is attributing qualities that are not there. Being perceptive is not limited to stealth operatives, anybody involved in violent and dangerous work will have an enhanced sense of perception or not practise that trade for long. 

 

 

 

I'm not sure there is no meaningful difference between "full of possible confrontation the gameplay actually encourages you to avoid" and "full of confrontation that's actually unavoidable to progress in the game". Also, I do not think there is no meaningful difference between "extremely dangerous because he always confronts his enemies when he's at an advantage and strikes with killing precision¹"  and "extremely dangerous because he has a giant gun and even if he didn't, he's still a towering mountain of meat wearing inch-thick metal plates". I absolutely do think "confronts problems head-on and overpowers them with brute force" is a meaningfully different expression of male identity from "avoids confrontation whenever possible and fights dirty when it's not". I mean, I'm pretty sure nobody would argue Odysseus does not represent a completely different heroic archetype from Achilles based on the fact that both men are hardened killers and are actually far above the average human in physical capabilities (remember the archery contest?).

 

¹ Remember, Garret for example, especially on higher difficulties, is at an extreme disadvantage when fighting enemies head-on. Being comparatively squishy and unable to face many opponents very effectively is a staple of stealth protagonists.

 

 

 

Being perceptive is not limited to stealth operatives, anybody involved in violent and dangerous work will have an enhanced sense of perception or not practise that trade for long. 

 

 

A fair point, but I think it's hardly debatable that stealth games reward patience and perceptiveness on the player side far more than more traditional action games do.

 

 

 

2. Sam Fisher is a trained wetworks operative, these gentlemen are trained to kill without pause, this requires a certain level of danger, aggression and possibly psychotic characteristics. Without this they would not funcion in the everyday world.

 

 

 

I dunno, we're usually not characterizing video game protagonists like Marcus Fenix or Randomly Chosen Call of Duty Shooter Guy of your choice as "borderline psychotic", even though they rack up a far higher bodycount in their respective games than Sam Fisher does. So why single out the poor wetworks guy?

 

 

 

3. That one regenerating bar never runs out, you are never reduced to a total lack of power, thus your energy never runs out it always regenerates and if you are playing a stealth run of Mr Jenssen that is all you need. 

 

 

Eh, depends on how you view contextual powerlessness. Is being temporarily without energy for agonizing seconds while it ever so slowly creeps back to full a "total lack of power"? I'd argue it is, in the specific context of engagement during those periods. (Not to mention that due to enemies sometimes noticing you during a takedown, if you went for the "ghost" xp bonus, you were usually trying to avoid knocking enemies out whenever possible, which made your job considerably harder.)

 

 

 

Mr Jenssen is in no way, shape or form anything but a superhuman now compared to the baseline average, to deny his strength is to deny the reality of the game

 

 

I do not think "superhuman and broken" or "superhuman and eminently fallible" are in any way inherently contradictory statements. Not to mention that even Jensen feels ambivalent about his new body, if you choose to roleplay him that way. It can be both a source of superhuman powers and alienation, both from society and the self. To claim otherwise would be a tad reductionist, don't you think?

 

 

 

I thought it bore remarking upon as the authors piece was looking for examples where he can self insert to achieve his fantasy and escape reality.

 

 

You say that as if it was a bad thing 

 

 

1. No, one is the action of a smart protagonist and the other is the action of a dead protagonist, this is absolutely nothing to do with gender and everything to do with effectiveness. Shooter protagonists either bunnyhop or popamole for a reason. Once again if the author wishes to identify with one, then good on him, but ascribing none existent gender bias to military tactics is not reinforced by the gameplay in any way, it's wishful thinking.

 

At the highest level Garret does not kill at all, except the Undead, and sometimes must not be noticed at all, and we have allready established that Garret the Thief is neither sensitive, illusory or self reflective, he is interested in self preservation and enrichment at others expense and does that by violating their privacy, something that the author is vehemently against considering the article.

 

2. No, patience and perception are vital to the shooter genre, patience is especially vital to the modern popamole shooting mechanic while perception and twitch responses are vital to the old school shooters. Indeed hand eye coordination is the watchword of the FPS.

 

3. I would definitely ascribe this quality to any successful special forces operative, a working form of pschopathy and initiative are the calling card of the profession. A wetworks operative deals with the dirty end of the profession, a mechanised infantryman does not get so close, deal with such ugly situations or is trained for espionage, murder and deniability, the two professions are a world apart. Though Mr Fenix dealing with an alien infestation head on may well be unfit for civilised society, but then again he and his squad seemed so before the events of the first game.

 

4. No the power recharged far too fast to judge it as ever depleted and a good tactical grasp of the situation, being perceptive and patient like any good combatant would, ensured that you could take down four or five guards by exploiting the weaknesses of their patrol routes. If ghosting then one does not need use power at all. 

 

5. No mechanical augmentation is the new fashionable accessory for the elite, this is demonstrated throughout the game, and all such augmented are faster, stronger and eminently more economically viable than their ordinary fellow Humans. Even Mr Jensssen cannot deny the potency of his augmentations and uses them during his missions. Now after the incident Mr Darrow engineered at Pangaea this alienation may be present in the sequel, but in Human Revolution the elite are heavily augmented, and Mr Jenssen more so does not even have any of their weaknesses or reliance on drugs to maintain superiority.

 

6. No I do not at all, why would I?

Edited September 13, 2015 by Nonek

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

1. No, one is the action of a smart protagonist and the other is the action of a dead protagonist, this is absolutely nothing to do with gender and everything to do with effectiveness. Shooter protagonists either bunnyhop or popamole for a reason. Once again if the author wishes to identify with one, then good on him, but ascribing none existent gender bias to military tactics is not reinforced by the gameplay in any way, it's wishful thinking.

 

At the highest level Garret does not kill at all, except the Undead, and sometimes must not be noticed at all, and we have allready established that Garret the Thief is neither sensitive, illusory or self reflective, he is interested in self preservation and enrichment at others expense and does that by violating their privacy, something that the author is vehemently against considering the article.

 

 

 

I'm a bit unsure what you're arguing for here; the article is explicitly talking about male bodies as loci for different expressions of masculinity. Gender bias and protagonist personality do not enter the picture.

 

 

 

2. No, patience and perception are vital to the shooter genre, patience is especially vital to the modern popamole shooting mechanic while perception and twitch responses are vital to the old school shooters. Indeed hand eye coordination is the watchword of the FPS.

 

 

 

I don't think you're required to show any amount of patience in those games beyond the amount that would only provide a challenge for an ADHD-addled lemming, but I'm willing to take your word for it, it's not like I've played every single modern shooter game on every difficulty, examples that run counter to my personal experience may exist. I definitely do think you need to be perceptive in an entirely different manner in a shooter than in a stealth game, though (as evidenced by the fact that I suck at the former genre and am decent at the latter).

 

 

 

 

4. No the power recharged far too fast to judge it as ever depleted and a good tactical grasp of the situation, being perceptive and patient like any good combatant would, ensured that you could take down four or five guards by exploiting the weaknesses of their patrol routes. If ghosting then one does not need use power at all. 

 

 

 

Well apparently what is deemed too fast to give an impression of fallibleness is subjective, as evidenced by the fact that Jensen's capabilities gave an impression of vulnerability to the article's writer, of superhuman prowess to you, and of being a bit of a crapshoot compared to the previous installments' nano-augs to me (as they should be).

 

 

 

 

5. No mechanical augmentation is the new fashionable accessory for the elite, this is demonstrated throughout the game, and all such augmented are faster, stronger and eminently more economically viable than their ordinary fellow Humans. Even Mr Jensssen cannot deny the potency of his augmentations and uses them during his missions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do not think it's hard to see how one of those pictures can give off an impression of sleekness and being riddled with imperfections, while the other doesn't.

[Meshugger]

It's been waaaaaay to long ago since i played any of the Thief-games, but i would say that the portrayal of Garret and how the game is designed it almost fits the definition (strength, courage, mastery, honor) according to the quote below:

 

 

 

“Men cannot be men—much less good or heroic men—unless their actions have meaningful consequences to people they truly care about. Strength requires an opposing force, courage requires risk, mastery requires hard work, honor requires accountability to other men. Without these things, we are little more than boys playing at being men, and there is no weekend retreat or mantra or half-assed rite of passage that can change that. A rite of passage must reflect a real change in status and responsibility for it to be anything more than theater. No reimagined manhood of convenience can hold its head high so long as the earth remains the tomb of our ancestors” -- Jack Donovan 

 

The honor part can be slightly debated.
 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

It's been waaaaaay to long ago since i played any of the Thief-games, but i would say that the portrayal of Garret and how the game is designed it almost fits the definition (strength, courage, mastery, honor) according to the quote below:

 

 

 

“Men cannot be men—much less good or heroic men—unless their actions have meaningful consequences to people they truly care about. Strength requires an opposing force, courage requires risk, mastery requires hard work, honor requires accountability to other men. Without these things, we are little more than boys playing at being men, and there is no weekend retreat or mantra or half-assed rite of passage that can change that. A rite of passage must reflect a real change in status and responsibility for it to be anything more than theater. No reimagined manhood of convenience can hold its head high so long as the earth remains the tomb of our ancestors” -- Jack Donovan 

 

The honor part can be slightly debated.

 

 

Since the entire point of the article is that stealth games offer an alternate ideal of masculinity to the rather childish image shooters project, I think you seem to be in agreement with the author.

[Meshugger]

 

It's been waaaaaay to long ago since i played any of the Thief-games, but i would say that the portrayal of Garret and how the game is designed it almost fits the definition (strength, courage, mastery, honor) according to the quote below:

 

 

 

“Men cannot be men—much less good or heroic men—unless their actions have meaningful consequences to people they truly care about. Strength requires an opposing force, courage requires risk, mastery requires hard work, honor requires accountability to other men. Without these things, we are little more than boys playing at being men, and there is no weekend retreat or mantra or half-assed rite of passage that can change that. A rite of passage must reflect a real change in status and responsibility for it to be anything more than theater. No reimagined manhood of convenience can hold its head high so long as the earth remains the tomb of our ancestors” -- Jack Donovan 

 

The honor part can be slightly debated.

 

 

Since the entire point of the article is that stealth games offer an alternate ideal of masculinity to the rather childish image shooters project, I think you seem to be in agreement with the author.

 

 

Almost. Thief is different as the gameplay requires different MO than Gears of War, but it still trancends to the ideals mentioned in my quote to a certain degree. 

 

//EDIT: To clarify, i mean that both thief and regular FPS's seems to reflect the same ideal, even if they manifest themselves in different gameplays.

Edited September 14, 2015 by Meshugger

[Malcador]

The self reflective part is the most goofy. For the most part, just different flavour of killers.

 

Fenix does have a body type not many soldiers would, anyway. Too much to maintain I imagine.

Edited September 14, 2015 by Malcador

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

It's been waaaaaay to long ago since i played any of the Thief-games, but i would say that the portrayal of Garret and how the game is designed it almost fits the definition (strength, courage, mastery, honor) according to the quote below:

 

 

 

“Men cannot be men—much less good or heroic men—unless their actions have meaningful consequences to people they truly care about. Strength requires an opposing force, courage requires risk, mastery requires hard work, honor requires accountability to other men. Without these things, we are little more than boys playing at being men, and there is no weekend retreat or mantra or half-assed rite of passage that can change that. A rite of passage must reflect a real change in status and responsibility for it to be anything more than theater. No reimagined manhood of convenience can hold its head high so long as the earth remains the tomb of our ancestors” -- Jack Donovan 

 

The honor part can be slightly debated.

 

 

Since the entire point of the article is that stealth games offer an alternate ideal of masculinity to the rather childish image shooters project, I think you seem to be in agreement with the author.

 

 

Almost. Thief is different as the gameplay requires different MO than Gears of War, but it still trancends to the ideals mentioned in my quote to a certain degree. 

 

 

Thus, "alternate ideal of masculinity" instead of "an exaltation of non-masculine virtues".

 

The shadowy assassin, the ninja, the stealth operative - they're hella masculine, says the article, just in an entirely different manner than shooter protagonists are, and this masculinity appeals to the writer. This is essentially all it says.

 

As I've said earlier, a resounding "duh" is the most appropriate reaction to it, don't really get the borderline obsessive need to ridicule it and somehow prove it wrong.

Edited September 14, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Malcador]

If that were his only point, sure. And besides, what's wrong with ridiculing it (if anyone was doing that). Some stuff seems like usual reading far too much into things, like

 

Stealth bodies turn our focus to our place in the world and ask us where we want to go next and how and why we want to get there. They enable us to meet our needs while leaving everyone around us unharmed, paying attention to how we handle others and rewarding us for doing so with grace and care. They hold minimizing damage as a value and sharing space as a success.

Last sentence particularly

[aluminiumtrioxid]

If that were his only point, sure. And besides, what's wrong with ridiculing it (if anyone was doing that). 

 

The problem isn't with ridiculing, it's with unthinkingly ridiculing even when, upon a closer reading, it turns out that the even the ones doing the ridiculing agree with the point being raised.

 

 

 

 

Stealth bodies turn our focus to our place in the world and ask us where we want to go next and how and why we want to get there. They enable us to meet our needs while leaving everyone around us unharmed, paying attention to how we handle others and rewarding us for doing so with grace and care. They hold minimizing damage as a value and sharing space as a success.

Last sentence particularly

 

 

Sounds like a pretty accurate description, with most stealth games rewarding you with more points for avoiding confrontation (consequently, minimizing damage and sharing space). I do find it a more elegant and refined genre than ultraviolent shooters, although obviously the fact that I suck balls at shooters may be a factor there.

 

The ****ing stupid part isn't "they hold minimizing damage as a value and sharing space as a success", it's the assertion that "stealth bodies" (that phrase doesn't even mean anything!) enable us to do this. "No, you numbnut, if you kept the gameplay, but switched out the character model for a Space Marine (sans power armor), you'd have the same result" would be an entirely appropriate response.

[Malcador]

Well that is what he wrote. That is also a good response. Seems like the popular high involvement with a PC.

[GhoulishVisage]

This entire srhbutts drama is leaving an incredibly sour taste in my mouth. From both sides.

Edited September 14, 2015 by GhoulishVisage

[Zoraptor]

It's been waaaaaay to long ago since i played any of the Thief-games, but i would say that the portrayal of Garret and how the game is designed it almost fits the definition (strength, courage, mastery, honor) according to the quote below:

 

 

 

“Men cannot be men—much less good or heroic men—unless their actions have meaningful consequences to people they truly care about. Strength requires an opposing force, courage requires risk, mastery requires hard work, honor requires accountability to other men. Without these things, we are little more than boys playing at being men, and there is no weekend retreat or mantra or half-assed rite of passage that can change that. A rite of passage must reflect a real change in status and responsibility for it to be anything more than theater. No reimagined manhood of convenience can hold its head high so long as the earth remains the tomb of our ancestors” -- Jack Donovan 

 

The honor part can be slightly debated.

 

 

That Garrett has people he 'truly cares about' is very debatable, imo- he certainly has some sense of honour as he targets people who 'deserve' it and avoids the poor and killing servants and the like especially*, though clearly he cares mostly about his own sense of honour rather than any accountability to others. Part of that is a sense of professionalism/ professional pride and there being little point targeting those who have little to take, but only a part of it; he's also a narcissist. The only person he's shown genuine concern for is himself and his driving motives are profit and self preservation for self. That doesn't stop him from saving the world of course, but it's the balance of amorality and narcissism leavened with a bit of honour then combined with saving the world which makes him a rare antihero rather than the far more common protagonist villain or flawed hero. The only way that Garrett has people he truly cares about is if you define Garrett as being those people.

 

*gameplay experience may vary, but the game clearly regards civilian deaths as being sloppy at very best.

[Nonek]

 

 

 

1. No, one is the action of a smart protagonist and the other is the action of a dead protagonist, this is absolutely nothing to do with gender and everything to do with effectiveness. Shooter protagonists either bunnyhop or popamole for a reason. Once again if the author wishes to identify with one, then good on him, but ascribing none existent gender bias to military tactics is not reinforced by the gameplay in any way, it's wishful thinking.

 

At the highest level Garret does not kill at all, except the Undead, and sometimes must not be noticed at all, and we have allready established that Garret the Thief is neither sensitive, illusory or self reflective, he is interested in self preservation and enrichment at others expense and does that by violating their privacy, something that the author is vehemently against considering the article.

 

 

 

I'm a bit unsure what you're arguing for here; the article is explicitly talking about male bodies as loci for different expressions of masculinity. Gender bias and protagonist personality do not enter the picture.

 

 

 

2. No, patience and perception are vital to the shooter genre, patience is especially vital to the modern popamole shooting mechanic while perception and twitch responses are vital to the old school shooters. Indeed hand eye coordination is the watchword of the FPS.

 

 

 

I don't think you're required to show any amount of patience in those games beyond the amount that would only provide a challenge for an ADHD-addled lemming, but I'm willing to take your word for it, it's not like I've played every single modern shooter game on every difficulty, examples that run counter to my personal experience may exist. I definitely do think you need to be perceptive in an entirely different manner in a shooter than in a stealth game, though (as evidenced by the fact that I suck at the former genre and am decent at the latter).

 

 

 

 

4. No the power recharged far too fast to judge it as ever depleted and a good tactical grasp of the situation, being perceptive and patient like any good combatant would, ensured that you could take down four or five guards by exploiting the weaknesses of their patrol routes. If ghosting then one does not need use power at all. 

 

 

 

Well apparently what is deemed too fast to give an impression of fallibleness is subjective, as evidenced by the fact that Jensen's capabilities gave an impression of vulnerability to the article's writer, of superhuman prowess to you, and of being a bit of a crapshoot compared to the previous installments' nano-augs to me (as they should be).

 

 

 

 

5. No mechanical augmentation is the new fashionable accessory for the elite, this is demonstrated throughout the game, and all such augmented are faster, stronger and eminently more economically viable than their ordinary fellow Humans. Even Mr Jensssen cannot deny the potency of his augmentations and uses them during his missions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do not think it's hard to see how one of those pictures can give off an impression of sleekness and being riddled with imperfections, while the other doesn't.

 

 

1. There is absolutely no proof or gameplay that backs up this different expression of masculinity, they are simply professional options. I agree gender and personality do not enter the picture and trying to insert them is wishful thinking not borne out by gameplay.

 

You're wrong about Garret the Thief.

 

2. Then you're wrong.

 

3. If anyone thinks Jenssen is anything but a superhuman and deny his strength, then they're simply denying reality.

 

4. The scar tissue covering Mr Fenix' body is not an imperfection now or the powerlifter musculature not seen on much of any soldiery? Both protagonists are fit, powerful and dangerous and Mr Jenssen is probably the stronger of the two due to his augmentations, neither of them depict any form of alternate masculinity, they are both professional operatives who can face danger head on or use recon tactics as any soldier will.

 

I don't really get the borderline obsessive need to defend this wishful thinking and desperately try to prove it has any reflection in the reality of the games.

 

Edited September 15, 2015 by Nonek

[kirottu]

Brad Wardells thoughts of the recent drama.

 

It really disgusts me to no end. At some point SJWism has started to mean "it's cool when we do it". Her defense is "I was just joking". She "joked" for years that she was a pedophile. She "jokingly" had archive of "pre-teen-models". She spread her 8 year old cousins picture and name as "joke". And people ****ing defend her, because "it's cool when we do it". One cracked.com journalist even send her picture of his daughter as a way to "cheer her up". My hands are literally shaking when I'm typing this. I just can't understand.

 

For the sake of my own mental health I wont talk about it further.

 

I'm just gonna play some games.

[Keyrock]

At some point SJWism has started to mean "it's cool when we do it". 

As far as I'm concerned, it meant that from the very start.  The core SJWs, I don't mean the gullible masses that parrot them, have always been hypocrites.

[Amentep]

This probably won't be a popular opinion, but...

 

Having glanced over the logs when this came to light earlier, my first thought was it looks like the kind of ****posting a lot of people do trying to get a rise out of people.  Could be wrong of course, but ultimately isn't that something for for the police to discover, not the internet?  I've seen someone say "well it must be true, because it was said repeatedly for years".  But we have examples in our own community that have kept up alts for years.  I kept up a mod personality account for a couple of years myself on Black Isle.  We have posters like Gromnir or Sargalath Abraxium who have maintained a posting style for almost 20 years.  Back on USENET there was a group of Discordian posters that maintained a chaotic posting style for years because it allowed them to maintain connected to their internet group.

 

Sure there's some wonkyness with her defense post (like indicating 4Chan community acceptance as being a motivational factor potentially prior to its creation).  It being wonky from a timeline perspective doesn't make the basic argument wrong.  Yes it throws doubt on the situation but people with troubled pasts will often compress time and events.  In such a scenario spiritual precursors to 4Chan would be easy to confuse with 4Chan itself.  Maybe this is the case, maybe not.

 

But lets say the doubt is enough that you think the explanation doesn't work.  So you think someone has abused a relative?  Or have proof?  Or even an admission of guilt from that person? The appropriate thing is to contact the police.  If you're a news outlet and you uncover a crime you work with the police and cover that story.  But that doesn't seem to be happening.  And, not coincidentally, it didn't seem to happen at the time the posts were made.  So either the chatposters were some awful people or...they thought she was ****posting too.

 

The problem with arguing SJW = "Its okay when we do it" is that it seems that Gamersgate has become (or always been) the same thing.  There hasn't been made - in at least the articles I've read - any attempt to make a connection between this information on Nyberg and ethics in journalism; its presented solely as an attempt to discredit an aGG opinion article writer and thus the other side by association.  Which is the exact same thing the aGG side is accused of doing every time they claim GG is a vehicle for harassment by associating harassers who claim affiliation with GG as legitimately representing GG which GGers have been claiming is bad form for over a year. 

 

GG and aGG appear more and more like different sides of the same coin in this.  Same tactics, same demonization, same moral outrage whenever anyone points out that each side is using tactics they accuse the other of using.

 

And to be completely honest a lot of responses to Nyberg I've seen haven't been "I think you've committed criminal acts, I'm contacting the police" but instead has been "look at the freak" style stuff that is frankly uncomfortable and doesn't seem easily connected to any kind of ethics in journalism argument. 

Edited September 16, 2015 by Amentep

[Sakai]

This entire srhbutts drama is leaving an incredibly sour taste in my mouth. From both sides.

And now a child is being used as a weapon. There aren't any winners in this whole mess... Only losers. 

 

 

GG and aGG appear more and more like different sides of the same coin in this. 

More or less. I would say with GG maybe 20, 30% tops are actually good people, who genuinely care about the issues they say they care. But the rest are there simply to fight who they see as their enemies. Everything else is basically irrelevant. 

Edited September 16, 2015 by Sakai

[Meshugger]

This probably won't be a popular opinion, but...

 

Having glanced over the logs when this came to light earlier, my first thought was it looks like the kind of ****posting a lot of people do trying to get a rise out of people.  Could be wrong of course, but ultimately isn't that something for for the police to discover, not the internet?  I've seen someone say "well it must be true, because it was said repeatedly for years".  But we have examples in our own community that have kept up alts for years.  I kept up a mod personality account for a couple of years myself on Black Isle.  We have posters like Gromnir or Sargalath Abraxium who have maintained a posting style for almost 20 years.  Back on USENET there was a group of Discordian posters that maintained a chaotic posting style for years because it allowed them to maintain connected to their internet group.

 

Sure there's some wonkyness with her defense post (like indicating 4Chan community acceptance as being a motivational factor potentially prior to its creation).  It being wonky from a timeline perspective doesn't make the basic argument wrong.  Yes it throws doubt on the situation but people with troubled pasts will often compress time and events.  In such a scenario spiritual precursors to 4Chan would be easy to confuse with 4Chan itself.  Maybe this is the case, maybe not.

 

But lets say the doubt is enough that you think the explanation doesn't work.  So you think someone has abused a relative?  Or have proof?  Or even an admission of guilt from that person? The appropriate thing is to contact the police.  If you're a news outlet and you uncover a crime you work with the police and cover that story.  But that doesn't seem to be happening.  And, not coincidentally, it didn't seem to happen at the time the posts were made.  So either the chatposters were some awful people or...they thought she was ****posting too.

 

The problem with arguing SJW = "Its okay when we do it" is that it seems that Gamersgate has become (or always been) the same thing.  There hasn't been made - in at least the articles I've read - any attempt to make a connection between this information on Nyberg and ethics in journalism; its presented solely as an attempt to discredit an aGG opinion article writer and thus the other side by association.  Which is the exact same thing the aGG side is accused of doing every time they claim GG is a vehicle for harassment by associating harassers who claim affiliation with GG as legitimately representing GG which GGers have been claiming is bad form for over a year. 

 

GG and aGG appear more and more like different sides of the same coin in this.  Same tactics, same demonization, same moral outrage whenever anyone points out that each side is using tactics they accuse the other of using.

 

And to be completely honest a lot of responses to Nyberg I've seen haven't been "I think you've committed criminal acts, I'm contacting the police" but instead has been "look at the freak" style stuff that is frankly uncomfortable and doesn't seem easily connected to any kind of ethics in journalism argument. 

 

Nah, it's more like GG is 2+2=4 and aGG is 2+2=5. But i know it is difficult to comprehend that in a world where nothing is right and there has to be two sides with no truth what so ever.

[Bartimaeus]

snip

It's essentially become an ad hominem attack on a massive scale. Yeah, what's being said in the attack might actually be true...but that really doesn't matter as it relates to your movement, particularly when your movement is supposed to be about ethics in the gaming industry and NOT harassing the people whom disagree with you.

 

Not that I'm defending her character or the anti-GGers defending her in her pedophilia - based on the evidence so far, it does all seem rather messed up. ...But you just do not help your reputation as a bunch of women-haters by getting so incredibly fixated on stuff like this. Unfortunately, I think it's just the nature of people that once someone's character is effectively assassinated, we feel like absolutely nothing they say or do is of consequence, unless they work for years and years trying to fix their reputation, and even then, a good percentage of people will still automatically discount them for forever. So...character assassination will likely continue on in and outside of GG, as it always has.

 

(edit): Oh, and furthermore: when someone who was prominently correlated with something has their character assassinated, it feels natural to believe that what they stood for and what they were working on and what they believed are all automatically discredited or "lessened" because of it. Which is completely ridiculous...but again, that just seems to be our natural tendency.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[Amentep]

Nah, it's more like GG is 2+2=4 and aGG is 2+2=5. But i know it is difficult to comprehend that in a world where nothing is right and there has to be two sides with no truth what so ever.

 

I confess, I actually have no clue what you mean.