You are absolutely right.
I need to head to the local game store and renew my Plus subscription - I've finished Mass Effect 1 and 2 last week and there's crewmates to be banged in Mass Effect 3. ;O;
Corruption In Games Journalism, or "Five Guys Burgers and Fries"
- Thread starter Gahars
- Start date
- Views 46,802
- Replies 512
- Likes 1
I need to head to the local game store and renew my Plus subscription - I've finished Mass Effect 1 and 2 last week and there's crewmates to be banged in Mass Effect 3. ;O;
And before we get too off-topic on jolly cooperation...
Who knew how prophetic this image would turn out to be?
On Christina Sommers/The Factual Feminist/Based Mom...
So, this is twofold. First, she published a new video on the GamerGate phenomenon.
Awesome!
Then she was scheduled to speak on MSNBC, which only gave her two minutes out of a promised five and tried to railroad her on soggy knees.
Oh, you!
On another note... Former Tory MP Louise Mensch has come in guns blazing.
https://twitter.com/LouiseMensch/status/527162616083668993
https://twitter.com/LouiseMensch/status/527163109283475457
For my fellow Americlaps, the Tory party is conservative (or, as I like to call them, "Righto-wing").
Who knew how prophetic this image would turn out to be?
On Christina Sommers/The Factual Feminist/Based Mom...
So, this is twofold. First, she published a new video on the GamerGate phenomenon.
Awesome!
Then she was scheduled to speak on MSNBC, which only gave her two minutes out of a promised five and tried to railroad her on soggy knees.
Oh, you!
On another note... Former Tory MP Louise Mensch has come in guns blazing.
https://twitter.com/LouiseMensch/status/527162616083668993
https://twitter.com/LouiseMensch/status/527163109283475457
For my fellow Americlaps, the Tory party is conservative (or, as I like to call them, "Righto-wing").
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,444
- Trophies
- 2
- Age
- 34
- Location
- Central NC
- Website
- twitter.com
- XP
- 3,309
- Country
And before we get too off-topic on jolly cooperation...
Who knew how prophetic this image would turn out to be?
On Christina Sommers/The Factual Feminist/Based Mom...
So, this is twofold. First, she published a new video on the GamerGate phenomenon.
Awesome!
Then she was scheduled to speak on MSNBC, which only gave her two minutes out of a promised five and tried to railroad her on soggy knees.
Oh, you!
On another note... Former Tory MP Louise Mensch has come in guns blazing.
https://twitter.com/LouiseMensch/status/527162616083668993
https://twitter.com/LouiseMensch/status/527163109283475457
For my fellow Americlaps, the Tory party is conservative (or, as I like to call them, "Righto-wing").
That video hurt to watch... Good grief, he was trying SO HARD to steer what she had to say.
Unfortunately, it's not even the first time she's had to deal with this. She gets laughed off for not following the groupthink, with the host literally citing "The Patriarchy" at 5:55 or so. (The rest of the video is an analysis/discussion. I'm not sure if it's any good, this is just the best video I could find of the segment.)
MSNBC is a joke, and I say that as a somewhat left-leaning Democrat. Give Fox News all the shit you want, but at least Bill O'Reilly can entertain.
Well, if you guys want to start linking to abuse numbers we can do that all day.
http://www.ncadv.org/files/Domestic Violence Stylized--GS edits.pdf
1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have experience some sort of violence within their lifetime.
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/domestic_violence/resources/statistics.html
Intimate partner violence (IPV) made up of 20% of crime experience by men, 3% for men.
http://www.thehotline.org/resources/statistics/
30% of women and 10% of men have experienced rape, violence, or stalking.
See, the problem is you guys already have your minds made up, and all you want to do is try to find information that you think backs up what you're saying. You're not interested in finding truth, just something that validates your thoughts.
Kalker3, is there any proof of what you're saying? I have yet to witness either side being anything but negative to the other. I want to see facts before we can declare something true. And not just some guy saying he got banned, let's see what he wrote and when.
Foxi4, I never said anything about segregating men, that's ridiculous. Please don't put words in my mouth. I stated the fact that men are the vast majority when it comes to violent crime. I also stated what I believe to be fact (though there's no real way to quantify this) that women are the vast majority when it comes to what I call emotional crime.
Gahars, there's a very big difference between calling out a toxic culture and calling out an entire gender. I'll use the NFL as an example. There's plenty of people who have called out the toxic culture in the NFL locker rooms, but no one takes that as them damning the entire group of players. The fact that you don't see this shows how entrenched your views are, and how unwilling to accept anything else you are.
And who has ever said that being masculine is akin to being an asshole? Maybe a few bra-burning bitches, but then you associate that with all of us? And I'm the one who's assuming?
And I grew up in the time of the Panthers, so I know they weren't violent in the beginning. There were those who did violence in the name of the Panthers (sound familiar?) but those weren't true members.
Btw, your first link was pretty good, though one of the top comments is that that guy isn't so much anti-Gamergate as he is anti--asshole, which would describe me as well. Your second link is less useful. It's just some guy dodging questions and making the anti-Gamergate people look bad. Keeping it up does more harm to the other side than help them. In your 3rd link the chick is neutral,as you said. That doesn't prove your point.
And you're wrong, Gawker isn't bleeding sponsors. I wish they were, but you're kidding yourself if you think that they're going away.
Finally, come on, you can't act like having a form letter that people are supposed to use, and instructing them exactly how to change certain things "DO NOT COPY AND PASTE" isn't manipulative. The people doing that aren't doing it because they're legitimately offended, they're doing it in a thinly veiled attempt to hurt Gawker, etc. These people are instructing others on how to fabricate their emails to the sponsors, in order to be most effective. That's manipulative, you have to admit that.
One final thing (for real this time), I do definitely agree that it's how the trope is used rather than what it is. My only quibble would be that if you make an interesting damsel then that rises above the damsel trope and thus is no longer a trope in my eyes. That's me, though.
http://www.ncadv.org/files/Domestic Violence Stylized--GS edits.pdf
1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have experience some sort of violence within their lifetime.
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/domestic_violence/resources/statistics.html
Intimate partner violence (IPV) made up of 20% of crime experience by men, 3% for men.
http://www.thehotline.org/resources/statistics/
30% of women and 10% of men have experienced rape, violence, or stalking.
See, the problem is you guys already have your minds made up, and all you want to do is try to find information that you think backs up what you're saying. You're not interested in finding truth, just something that validates your thoughts.
Kalker3, is there any proof of what you're saying? I have yet to witness either side being anything but negative to the other. I want to see facts before we can declare something true. And not just some guy saying he got banned, let's see what he wrote and when.
Foxi4, I never said anything about segregating men, that's ridiculous. Please don't put words in my mouth. I stated the fact that men are the vast majority when it comes to violent crime. I also stated what I believe to be fact (though there's no real way to quantify this) that women are the vast majority when it comes to what I call emotional crime.
Gahars, there's a very big difference between calling out a toxic culture and calling out an entire gender. I'll use the NFL as an example. There's plenty of people who have called out the toxic culture in the NFL locker rooms, but no one takes that as them damning the entire group of players. The fact that you don't see this shows how entrenched your views are, and how unwilling to accept anything else you are.
And who has ever said that being masculine is akin to being an asshole? Maybe a few bra-burning bitches, but then you associate that with all of us? And I'm the one who's assuming?
And I grew up in the time of the Panthers, so I know they weren't violent in the beginning. There were those who did violence in the name of the Panthers (sound familiar?) but those weren't true members.
Btw, your first link was pretty good, though one of the top comments is that that guy isn't so much anti-Gamergate as he is anti--asshole, which would describe me as well. Your second link is less useful. It's just some guy dodging questions and making the anti-Gamergate people look bad. Keeping it up does more harm to the other side than help them. In your 3rd link the chick is neutral,as you said. That doesn't prove your point.
And you're wrong, Gawker isn't bleeding sponsors. I wish they were, but you're kidding yourself if you think that they're going away.
Finally, come on, you can't act like having a form letter that people are supposed to use, and instructing them exactly how to change certain things "DO NOT COPY AND PASTE" isn't manipulative. The people doing that aren't doing it because they're legitimately offended, they're doing it in a thinly veiled attempt to hurt Gawker, etc. These people are instructing others on how to fabricate their emails to the sponsors, in order to be most effective. That's manipulative, you have to admit that.
One final thing (for real this time), I do definitely agree that it's how the trope is used rather than what it is. My only quibble would be that if you make an interesting damsel then that rises above the damsel trope and thus is no longer a trope in my eyes. That's me, though.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,444
- Trophies
- 2
- Age
- 34
- Location
- Central NC
- Website
- twitter.com
- XP
- 3,309
- Country
Aren't you doing the exact same thing when you point out that X percentage of men have committed Y crime more than women? As if that actually has any bearing on inherent masculinity as a whole.
No, not at all. I don't see how you get that. I'm pointing out the facts that men commit more violent crime than women do. You're assuming that I'm saying that X percentage of men who commit those crimes represent you all as a whole. I'm not saying that at all. The vast majority of those who commit those crimes are men, but they are the vast minority of all men in general. The fact that men are much more likely to commit violent crime then women speaks to the way that we, as parents, have failed some of them in how we raised them. It also speaks to the mental health issues that I believe Gahars spoke about (sorry, on mobile so hard to check right now).
There's a large number of reasons why the men who commit these crimes do so. Maybe it's the way they were raised, maybe they got mistreated by a girl in their lives? We could go on and on and on because there's a huge number of reasons.
There's a correlation between men and violent crime, there has to be. It's the only explanation as to why there is such a huge disparity between violent crimes committed by the 2 sexes. Perhaps that correlation is the mental health issues that Gahars brought up? Perhaps it's the parental issues that I've brought up? Maybe it's both? Maybe it's something else? Maybe it has to do with the differences between the brains of men and women? Maybe it just has to do with the fact that most men are bigger and stronger than women?
Foxi4 put the words in my mouth of segregation because of the increased percentage of black men committing violent crimes as opposed to white men. I know the correlation there, and it's poverty. Some of it is also racial. There's a litany of reasons more men commit violent crimes, and one of them happens to be gender. I think the problem is that you guys are misinterpreting my comments as somehow anti-men. There's a litany of reasons why your computer messes up, and one of them happens to be the hard drive. That doesn't mean that I want to get rid of hard drives or anything.
Anyone who says that masculinity is bad is an idiot, plain and simple. Just as those who say that femininity is bad are idiots.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,444
- Trophies
- 2
- Age
- 34
- Location
- Central NC
- Website
- twitter.com
- XP
- 3,309
- Country
Honestly, I have no idea.
I think we got sidetracked with the whole Sarkeesian stuff.
For the record, I agree with the "calling into question the ethics of certain sites" issue at the crux of the Gamergate movement. I don't really frequent that many sites, though, but I think it's a very important issue.
You want proof? Sure, I'll give you proof.
Proof that posting anti-GG comments on /r/KotakuInAction won't get you banned but doing the opposite on /r/gamerGhazi does.
Pro-GG? BOOOM. Banned.
I guess /r/GirlGamers don't feel like debating, even when the OP is a woman.
An AMA by an anti-GG redditor, gilded twice with nearly 600 upvotes.
Allistair Pinsof's AMA rejected by /r/Games.
FEmale feminist banned from anti-GG sub for asking questions.
I could go on, but if you need any more proof of "censorship" on ehm, both sides, please let me know.
Well, those are troubling posts. I think the first one is too much of that "we don't want flamewars here so we'll just silence everyone" stuff that I hate. The second is a continuation of that. The 3rd and 5th ones, though, are on different subreddits, so I don't think they're fully applicable here. The 4th one is a fence-rider using a throwaway account who dodged questions. Definitely not a good look for any anti-Gamergate people.
The 6th one is something I really don't have time to read, but I'll assume is damning, based on the fact that you linked to it even though it's not on the Gamerghazi subreddit.
I hope you don't think me being critical of some of those links is me excusing anything. One time is too much, and there's no doubt that the stuff you showed me in those links is censorship. Whatever the reason, censorship is wrong. I hate when people say "we don't want any flamewar arguments here so we don't allow debate period". That's no way to conduct yourself, and gives you a bad name. Too bad we can't get those mods removed from their position.
The 6th one is something I really don't have time to read, but I'll assume is damning, based on the fact that you linked to it even though it's not on the Gamerghazi subreddit.
I hope you don't think me being critical of some of those links is me excusing anything. One time is too much, and there's no doubt that the stuff you showed me in those links is censorship. Whatever the reason, censorship is wrong. I hate when people say "we don't want any flamewar arguments here so we don't allow debate period". That's no way to conduct yourself, and gives you a bad name. Too bad we can't get those mods removed from their position.
I don't believe that anti-GG supporters are bad people. The actions of one person do not represent someone else.
I do believe however that many anti-GG supporters are uninformed either because of the constant attacks (<- NSFW by the way) from MSM or lack of research. For instance here's the the first paragraph on Wikipedia about it.
Anyone who'd read this paragraph and wouldn't search anywhere else would automatically see GamerGate as an angry misogynist mob when in fact it's a consumer revolt.
I do believe however that many anti-GG supporters are uninformed either because of the constant attacks (<- NSFW by the way) from MSM or lack of research. For instance here's the the first paragraph on Wikipedia about it.
Anyone who'd read this paragraph and wouldn't search anywhere else would automatically see GamerGate as an angry misogynist mob when in fact it's a consumer revolt.
The biggest thing that sucks about this in my eyes is that the real issue has been obfuscated. This started as a discussion about journalist ethics, and now it's just about who's getting sexually harassed, threatened, etc. Both sides have had people behaving poorly. Many hours upon hours could be spent hashing out the fault and blame and who did what to whom first, but that's secondary.
If the main issue is putting an end to the quid pro quo crap that's taken place, I'm all for it. I find that so reprehensible. Regardless of the other stuff, that's what I would like to see, honesty. Not favorable review scores or coverage in exchange for sex, or money, or early access to a game.
If the main issue is putting an end to the quid pro quo crap that's taken place, I'm all for it. I find that so reprehensible. Regardless of the other stuff, that's what I would like to see, honesty. Not favorable review scores or coverage in exchange for sex, or money, or early access to a game.
I agree with you here, 100%. I didn't care about "Internet Harrasment" before GamerGate and I'm not going to start caring now. I don't care how many dicks Zoe Quinn can fit inside of her, that's none of my business. I don't care what horrible e-mails or tweets people face everyday - that kind of stuff is to be expected when you're a celebrity of any kind and if you can't stand the heat, perhaps you shouldn't put yourself in the kitchen. I want to hear about people dealing with the actual issue at hand, not faffing about, and it's the faffing that made me lose interest.
Imagine a scenario where the government has to pass a controversial bill, but instead of talking about the bill, they talk about the awful harassment they're facing everyday - poor victims, they need a hug. Jesus Christ, anyone would be upset over that, a normal human being would say "just do your goddamn job, get on with it!", but that's not the case here strictly because both parties in the debate are more interested in throwing snowballs at each other than in having a sensible debate, and the media fueling the fire are not helping.
This is the problem of "trending" and "movements without representation" - if you don't have an imposed order in your movement, the ideology of the movement is open to debate and interpretation. If there's no official manifesto everyone's agreeing with, everyone's just going to follow their own ideals, and those aren't always as compatible as they seem.
It doesn't really matter if it is.
The SJW's are using the video game journalism that we support with our clicks and our dollars
to belittle an entire group of people who don't like lazy, art house, liberal-arts degree propaganda
crammed in our faces, whenever some under-achieving trust fund baby decides that indie game
development is their flavor of the month.
They have a network of Journalists, multi-national media conglomerates, game developers,
bloggers, secret e-mail lists, conferences, and public relations firms working for them.
How is that fair.
We are just a bunch of nobodies who happen to enjoy video games.
If you want to be in their club, you have to be a middle to upper middle-class white person
with a liberal arts degree, pledge undying loyalty, and go to their cult meetings.
To be one of us, you can just rummage through gamestops $5.99 bargain bin until you find something you like.
So I've written this all up, but I agree that we've got sidetracked. I think we have some fundamental differences in viewpoints, which is totally fine, but we're probably not going to settle them like this. We agree on a lot of the ethical concerns, and that's what really matters most.
I'll leave the politics in the spoilers just to show that I did consider your points and I'm not just brushing them off or anything like that. I'll be happy to agree to disagree, but we can keep on discussing them if that's what you prefer.
If we're playing the stats game, men make up almost 80% of all murder victims. That's kind of the be-all, end-all right there.
The point wasn't to seriously say, "This is something endemic to women!" It's that pulling these statistics for these cases and using them to make sweeping generalizations about all men or all women is a ludicrous, ridiculous argument.
Isn't that what you just did?
When you call masculinity a toxic culture, you are attacking the gender. We're not talking about sports teams or particular locker rooms, we're talking about half of the population being labeled toxic just because they're different from the other half.
When you yourself link the "culture" of masculinity to crime and bullying, yeah, that's going to give readers that certain impression.
And there comes the assumptions.
I'm sure you don't intend any malice, and please don't think I'm accusing you of "man-hating" or being a "bra-burning bitch" or anything like that. However, these sorts of claims are derogatory and, ultimately, ill-founded. Is it such a surprise that men take offense when they're called toxic for being men?
There's a reason they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but you can't "No True Scotsman" this away. If the Black Panthers were a hashtag or some internet moniker, that analogy would hold water, but these people were initiated into the organization and physically engaging in criminal activity with other members. There is a world of difference.
I can't help that the respondent didn't reflect well on their side; however, the fact that they were still allowed to post and engage despite their behavior lends even more credence to the sub's commitment to free speech.
Like I said, the third one is relevant because neutrality is not tolerated on r/GamerGhazi and other such communities. Nothing short of complete vehemence is allowed.
Colgate, Kelloggs, BMW, Nissan, Olympus, Adobe, etc. etc. Furthermore, their actions (like calling Intel "craven idiots") has likely soured potential future sponsorship deals with other companies.
No one's saying they're dead, but it's hurting them where it hurts and it's a powerful repudiation of their behavior. That's what matters most.
Informing people how they can have an impact isn't manipulative. No one is forcing anybody to write up their own and send them out. Also, what makes you think that people aren't legitimately offended? GamerGate raised $16,000 in response to Gawker's bullying comments; you can't exactly fake that. It's even drawn in total outsiders.
While I agree there's certainly been obfuscation, I'd argue that's the fault of the publications pumping out smear piece after smear piece. Had they engaged people openly about their concerns with journalistic ethics and integrity, and had they not tried to censor opposing voices, this probably wouldn't have exploded in the first place.
I'll leave the politics in the spoilers just to show that I did consider your points and I'm not just brushing them off or anything like that. I'll be happy to agree to disagree, but we can keep on discussing them if that's what you prefer.
If we're playing the stats game, men make up almost 80% of all murder victims. That's kind of the be-all, end-all right there.
The point wasn't to seriously say, "This is something endemic to women!" It's that pulling these statistics for these cases and using them to make sweeping generalizations about all men or all women is a ludicrous, ridiculous argument.
Isn't that what you just did?
When you call masculinity a toxic culture, you are attacking the gender. We're not talking about sports teams or particular locker rooms, we're talking about half of the population being labeled toxic just because they're different from the other half.
When you yourself link the "culture" of masculinity to crime and bullying, yeah, that's going to give readers that certain impression.
And there comes the assumptions.
I'm sure you don't intend any malice, and please don't think I'm accusing you of "man-hating" or being a "bra-burning bitch" or anything like that. However, these sorts of claims are derogatory and, ultimately, ill-founded. Is it such a surprise that men take offense when they're called toxic for being men?
There's a reason they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but you can't "No True Scotsman" this away. If the Black Panthers were a hashtag or some internet moniker, that analogy would hold water, but these people were initiated into the organization and physically engaging in criminal activity with other members. There is a world of difference.
I can't help that the respondent didn't reflect well on their side; however, the fact that they were still allowed to post and engage despite their behavior lends even more credence to the sub's commitment to free speech.
Like I said, the third one is relevant because neutrality is not tolerated on r/GamerGhazi and other such communities. Nothing short of complete vehemence is allowed.
Colgate, Kelloggs, BMW, Nissan, Olympus, Adobe, etc. etc. Furthermore, their actions (like calling Intel "craven idiots") has likely soured potential future sponsorship deals with other companies.
No one's saying they're dead, but it's hurting them where it hurts and it's a powerful repudiation of their behavior. That's what matters most.
Informing people how they can have an impact isn't manipulative. No one is forcing anybody to write up their own and send them out. Also, what makes you think that people aren't legitimately offended? GamerGate raised $16,000 in response to Gawker's bullying comments; you can't exactly fake that. It's even drawn in total outsiders.
While I agree there's certainly been obfuscation, I'd argue that's the fault of the publications pumping out smear piece after smear piece. Had they engaged people openly about their concerns with journalistic ethics and integrity, and had they not tried to censor opposing voices, this probably wouldn't have exploded in the first place.
ALSO
Potential Habbeding: It looks like The Fine Young Capitalists might've been doxxed by a former Destructoid writer. As if its ties to Anthony "Left in the lurch" Burch weren't bad enough. It truly never ends, this shit.
"Guys, stop archiving what we say. It's very inconvenient, urr, illegal!" (Archived for your convenience, of course)
Stay classy.
Potential Habbeding: It looks like The Fine Young Capitalists might've been doxxed by a former Destructoid writer. As if its ties to Anthony "Left in the lurch" Burch weren't bad enough. It truly never ends, this shit.
"Guys, stop archiving what we say. It's very inconvenient, urr, illegal!" (Archived for your convenience, of course)
Stay classy.
You know what the Internet Aristocrat should do? He should doxx himself. Tell everyone his address. No negotiating with terrorists - "selling" personal information in this fashion is just immoral and the least he can do is make their little operation an unprofitable waste of time.
Similar threads
-
- Locked
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
@ HiradeGirl:
Any TV with your PC connected with Citra and any smartphone to use as a screen using a free play store app.+1 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
NinStar:
quite ironic that brawlhalla has a far superior netcode compared to smash bros ultimate while offering free online play with crossplay support -
