These people are product reviewers. The only events that they cover are trade shows. The only stories that they break are reposting PR packets from AAA studios. The standards you're asking for don't apply to them because they're not important enough to be that rigorous. Seriously, this is a hobby. These guys aren't Time Magazine. They're Fisherman's Weekly. They're maybe a step up from Cosmo and a step down from Parade. And that's being generous.
If you seriously think that "journalistic integrity" is an issue here then you don't understand what either of those words mean. And you clearly don't understand the relative lack of importance that your hobby has next to real news.
I would argue that all of Cosmo's articles both shame and degrade their readers. Also, while Fisherman's Weekly is a fictional magazine that I invented as an example of a hobbyist publication in opposition to a hard-hitting journalistic publication like Time Magazine, I would argue that its make-believe editorial staff comes off as extremely resentful of its own readership. I mean, "10 Trouts To Catch If You're A Smelly Jerkface"? Come on, that's just mean.
Okay, I'll give you the Cosmo thing and in my defense I don't fish and was jumping to conclusions about its existence.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think the journalism angle came in much later as a way to fight back against articles like the ones written by Polygon and so forth. It's not about ethics, it's about people being obnoxious. It would be like someone snatching a copy of "50 Shades of Grey" out of your hands at the laundromat, skimming the thing and then topping it off by throwing wild accusations regarding your sex life. It doesn't matter if they're right or wrong in their assumptions, they're still a prick and it's safe to say that you'd be justified in flipping out right back at them.
These people are product reviewers. The only events that they cover are trade shows. The only stories that they break are reposting PR packets from AAA studios. The standards you're asking for don't apply to them because they're not important enough to be that rigorous. Seriously, this is a hobby. These guys aren't Time Magazine. They're Fisherman's Weekly. They're maybe a step up from Cosmo and a step down from Parade. And that's being generous.
If you seriously think that "journalistic integrity" is an issue here then you don't understand what either of those words mean. And you clearly don't understand the relative lack of importance that your hobby has next to real news.
I would argue that all of Cosmo's articles both shame and degrade their readers. Also, while Fisherman's Weekly is a fictional magazine that I invented as an example of a hobbyist publication in opposition to a hard-hitting journalistic publication like Time Magazine, I would argue that its make-believe editorial staff comes off as extremely resentful of its own readership. I mean, "10 Trouts To Catch If You're A Smelly Jerkface"? Come on, that's just mean.
Okay, I'll give you the Cosmo thing and in my defense I don't fish and was jumping to conclusions about its existence.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think the journalism angle came in much later as a way to fight back against articles like the ones written by Polygon and so forth. It's not about ethics, it's about people being obnoxious. It would be like someone snatching a copy of "50 Shades of Grey" out of your hands at the laundromat, skimming the thing and then topping it off by throwing wild accusations regarding your sex life. It doesn't matter if they're right or wrong in their assumptions, they're still a prick and it's safe to say that you'd be justified in flipping out right back at them.
These people are product reviewers. The only events that they cover are trade shows. The only stories that they break are reposting PR packets from AAA studios. The standards you're asking for don't apply to them because they're not important enough to be that rigorous. Seriously, this is a hobby. These guys aren't Time Magazine. They're Fisherman's Weekly. They're maybe a step up from Cosmo and a step down from Parade. And that's being generous.
If you seriously think that "journalistic integrity" is an issue here then you don't understand what either of those words mean. And you clearly don't understand the relative lack of importance that your hobby has next to real news.
I would argue that all of Cosmo's articles both shame and degrade their readers. Also, while Fisherman's Weekly is a fictional magazine that I invented as an example of a hobbyist publication in opposition to a hard-hitting journalistic publication like Time Magazine, I would argue that its make-believe editorial staff comes off as extremely resentful of its own readership. I mean, "10 Trouts To Catch If You're A Smelly Jerkface"? Come on, that's just mean.
Okay, I'll give you the Cosmo thing and in my defense I don't fish and was jumping to conclusions about its existence.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think the journalism angle came in much later as a way to fight back against articles like the ones written by Polygon and so forth. It's not about ethics, it's about people being obnoxious. It would be like someone snatching a copy of "50 Shades of Grey" out of your hands at the laundromat, skimming the thing and then topping it off by throwing wild accusations regarding your sex life. It doesn't matter if they're right or wrong in their assumptions, they're still a prick and it's safe to say that you'd be justified in flipping out right back at them.
Just because a subject is unimportant in the grander scheme of things doesn't mean that it cannot be reported on with honesty and integrity. And if it *can* be, then it ought to be. The people who are interested in the topic, no matter how trivial, deserve no less.
Why do they deserve honesty and integrity? First off, the journalist owes it to him/her self. I wouldn't stamp my name on something I'd written if I knew it wasn't true. Where the hell is the reporter's pride? Second, the people reading the article are paying the journalist in one way or another - whether it's by buying a magazine, clicking a link, or watching a show. I deserve my money's worth. This ties into the final reason - If I find out that someone's journalistic integrity has been compromised, then I'm not going to trust their opinion any more. If enough people stop trusting a journalist, then they can kiss their career goodbye (or move to Fox news ).
I don't think it's too much to ask that the person who's article I'm reading, who's opinion I may be trusting in order to make a decision whether to spend my money on a given product or not, adhere to a very basic and unimposing set of ethical standards. If it is, then the person writing the article shouldn't be writing the article.
"Journalistic integrity" has been the fig leaf over the flaccid, disfigured, wart-covered genitalia that is the GamerGate movement since its inception. I come here to remove it.
The problem with asking for journalistic integrity is that you're not asking for it from actual journalists. Does Yatzhee have a degree in journalism? Do any of the guys at Giant Bomb or Destructoid? Guys, this isn't some Woodward and Bernstein level stuff here. Nobody's going to get beheaded for uncovering the secret munitions factories being built by Activision as part of their new viral marketing campaign for Call of Duty.
As one AAA developer was quoted as saying - "If you aren't a journalist, then don't come to E3."
These glorified bloggers want to have their cake and eat it too. They want all access to industry events, free swag, in advance review copies and builds that would be privledged to actual journalists, but also want to disavow any notion that they have to conform to any reasonable set of ethics.
It's unacceptable and the excuse that "Well they were never journalists" doesn't fly.
That just sounds like a complete abuse of the word journalism to me. What product reviewers are is advertisers, essentially. There's a reason why the so-called journalists at the Escapist are at the same level as the Youtube Let's Players. Because they don't exist for any other reason but to sell games. Any integrity on their part is an illusion. You continue to read their stuff because you want to be advertised to about the games you're looking forward to. And they get paid and get perks for being good at selling Activision's or EA's or Gearbox's brand.
These sites do not claim to be marketing wings of developers (though they often are used as such).
They are PRETENDING to be unbiased sources of reviewing and information. If they want to throw off the facade and say "We are a site representing feminism in games and will rate down any game we deem sexist" then sure go for it. Don't go to E3, don't get press passes to GDC or what have you. But to PRETEND like they are something they're not is unethical.
"Journalistic integrity" has been the fig leaf over the flaccid, disfigured, wart-covered genitalia that is the GamerGate movement since its inception. I come here to remove it.
The problem with asking for journalistic integrity is that you're not asking for it from actual journalists. Does Yatzhee have a degree in journalism? Do any of the guys at Giant Bomb or Destructoid? Guys, this isn't some Woodward and Bernstein level stuff here. Nobody's going to get beheaded for uncovering the secret munitions factories being built by Activision as part of their new viral marketing campaign for Call of Duty.
These people are product reviewers. The only events that they cover are trade shows. The only stories that they break are reposting PR packets from AAA studios. The standards you're asking for don't apply to them because they're not important enough to be that rigorous. Seriously, this is a hobby. These guys aren't Time Magazine. They're Fisherman's Weekly. They're maybe a step up from Cosmo and a step down from Parade. And that's being generous.
If you seriously think that "journalistic integrity" is an issue here then you don't understand what either of those words mean. And you clearly don't understand the relative lack of importance that your hobby has next to real news.
Would you say that this applies to a typical film reviewer?Would it have been acceptable for Ebert and Roeper to be paid by the same companies that made the films they reviewed? Would it be ethical for a book reviewer, or a restaurant critic, to be paid by the company they are reviewing? Of course not, it would hurt the reputation of the entire industry because you wouldn't be able to trust the reviews. Why are games different? Because they're not importent? They're not art? they're not culturally significant? That's not true, and it hasn't been true for a while. How can we epect games to be taken seriously if we don't take them seriously? They're just as legitimate as film, and we should demand higher expectation from people in the industry.
I'm not a #gg follower, but that doesn't mean they're wrong about journalistic ethics. It's a problem, and it will continue to be a problem until we demand better.
"Journalistic integrity" has been the fig leaf over the flaccid, disfigured, wart-covered genitalia that is the GamerGate movement since its inception. I come here to remove it.
The problem with asking for journalistic integrity is that you're not asking for it from actual journalists. Does Yatzhee have a degree in journalism? Do any of the guys at Giant Bomb or Destructoid? Guys, this isn't some Woodward and Bernstein level stuff here. Nobody's going to get beheaded for uncovering the secret munitions factories being built by Activision as part of their new viral marketing campaign for Call of Duty.
These people are product reviewers. The only events that they cover are trade shows. The only stories that they break are reposting PR packets from AAA studios. The standards you're asking for don't apply to them because they're not important enough to be that rigorous. Seriously, this is a hobby. These guys aren't Time Magazine. They're Fisherman's Weekly. They're maybe a step up from Cosmo and a step down from Parade. And that's being generous.
If you seriously think that "journalistic integrity" is an issue here then you don't understand what either of those words mean. And you clearly don't understand the relative lack of importance that your hobby has next to real news.
Stephen Totilo, EiC of Kotaku does in fact have a journalism degree. When you call yourself a journalist, which he, along with Jason Scherier and others at that site, you should be held to a certain standard of ethics.
And even then, even if I were to concede that they weren't "journalists" but "product reviewers," I would say they are still held to some sort of standard. Without any kind of standard for such reviewers, what is to stop them from having their opinion bought out? When there is the potential to be a conflict of interest, no matter the damn label you use. Is adhering to a set of standards so hard? Just because this is a niche market, does not mean that asking for the journalism of said market to not be shit is some sort of ridiculous demand.
Also, I have yet to see anyone attack Yahtzee, as he is a comedian first and reviewer second. His job isn't to provide a quality opinion, it is to provide us laughs and he has made no attempt to hide that.
The generalization is mostly for the big thread, where I haven't been treated with much respect. I didn't used to generalize, I really didn't. Until several times more or less being backed into a corner until I finally gave up and just left the thread completely. I am now speaking out about it a bit more, so you'll have to forgive me because I know there are some people in there that are just wonderful people, you are quite engaging to talk to, as is Mikey, but in an overall sense, it's become a mess, if you don't mind me saying so.
Oh, I never even really entered into that big thread. I hate mega threads because the entire discussion becomes so cyclical and really no one knows any context for more than like three pages anyway. It gets really frustrating and the only people with the endurance to partisipate in a thread that has like seven hundred pages are usually going to be rediculously factionised.
Not The Bees said:
At any rate, I also agree with the number/star thing. *snip*
Personally I think they should get rid of all of them in the media criticisms, but that's just me.
I agree, that's a point in general I dislike as well. It so much encourages people not to read the review and just look at the score, which doesn't give you any real use. Even Ebert's thumbs up thumbs down stuff was better. At least it was a solid recommendation of the worth of the film as a whole rather than some sliding scale gradient with no real meaning.
Not The Bees said:
Also, I'm not sure what conflates to a conflict of interest. Getting a free copy of a game? Well most movie critics get to see the movies for free, or book reviewers get a free copy of the books. Knowing someone in the industry? Again, most well known critics in the other industries are known for being friends with directors, actors, producers, writers, etc. This happens in industries that are small. And these industries are much smaller than we are led to believe. Now if they're taking kick backs, obviously that's a huge conflict of interest. Or if, like IGN, they're advertising the game in question, and then write a review for the game in question and just happen to give the game a 10/10, that's a bit shady as well.
In the end it's up to the journalist to decide what they feel is worth disclosing, but a general guideline iss disclose everything that could reasonably influence your perception of the game. If getting free games is the norm, disclose when you have to buy yourself. If else, disclose when it breaks the norm. If you know a guy in the industry more than occasionally rubbing elbows as an industry event and you are reviewing something personal to them, you might want to mention that the developer is your friend. Contextualize that relationship so the reader isn't left out of the loop.
When it comes to monetization, yeah. I think I can litterally just sum that up as "don't be IGN"
Not The Bees said:
But it seems to me (and here I am generalizing again, but this is just an over all notice, not on everyone) that the voice of GG doesn't seem to be going after people at IGN or the bigger sites that bring in revenue from the same people they are reviewing, but are going after small time journalists that just happen to be friends with small time developers. And that is something I find to be a problem. It may not be for other people, but I don't find that to be right, and I think that if there is a true problem, you start at the top and you work your way down.
Well, there have been some legitimate cases of string pulling and censorship when it comes to indie devs. I think Jim Sterling even did a video about it a while back in the context of rampant deletion of negative reviews, censoring of discussion on steam forums and abusing DCMA takedowns. Honestly, this is probably an issue too.
Not The Bees said:
If it's a roach problem, you don't get rid of roaches by killing every single roach, you get poison, spray it in their nest, and then weed out the rest of them as needed, if that analogy makes sense.
Stephen Totilo, EiC of Kotaku does in fact have a journalism degree. When you call yourself a journalist, which he, along with Jason Scherier and others at that site, you should be held to a certain standard of ethics.
And even then, even if I were to concede that they weren't "journalists" but "product reviewers," I would say they are still held to some sort of standard. Without any kind of standard for such reviewers, what is to stop them from having their opinion bought out? When there is the potential to be a conflict of interest, no matter the damn label you use. Is adhering to a set of standards so hard? Just because this is a niche market, does not mean that asking for the journalism of said market to not be shit is some sort of ridiculous demand.
Also, I have yet to see anyone attack Yahtzee, as he is a comedian first and reviewer second. His job isn't to provide a quality opinion, it is to provide us laughs and he has made no attempt to hide that.
Even if we were to accept the idea that these people are somehow journalists, even the ones that are primarily entertainers like Yahtzee or LPers (although I have no idea where you want to draw THAT line), then they'd still be at such an abysmally low rung of journalism that their code of ethics would be razor-thin.
As regards GamerGate, it's just not worth the fuss. Or the dedicated harassment campaigns for that matter.
"Journalistic integrity" has been the fig leaf over the flaccid, disfigured, wart-covered genitalia that is the GamerGate movement since its inception. I come here to remove it.
The problem with asking for journalistic integrity is that you're not asking for it from actual journalists. Does Yatzhee have a degree in journalism? Do any of the guys at Giant Bomb or Destructoid? Guys, this isn't some Woodward and Bernstein level stuff here. Nobody's going to get beheaded for uncovering the secret munitions factories being built by Activision as part of their new viral marketing campaign for Call of Duty.
These people are product reviewers. The only events that they cover are trade shows. The only stories that they break are reposting PR packets from AAA studios. The standards you're asking for don't apply to them because they're not important enough to be that rigorous. Seriously, this is a hobby. These guys aren't Time Magazine. They're Fisherman's Weekly. They're maybe a step up from Cosmo and a step down from Parade. And that's being generous.
If you seriously think that "journalistic integrity" is an issue here then you don't understand what either of those words mean. And you clearly don't understand the relative lack of importance that your hobby has next to real news.
I appreciate the argument that enthusiast press requires less of it's writers than actual journalists.
They're small time, as you say.
Though, by that logic, some of the issues they try to tackle would then be a little bit more than their talent and skill can do proper service to and as such, any time they do try to engage with something important, it'd probably be a little bit beyond their amateur hour efforts.
I still think that expecting more from the writers in question isn't a bad thing, but there is some strength to the argument that if you want professional levels of journalism, expect to have to pay for it.
Final point.
I cannot ever be too far in opposition to a person who can use the phrase "flaccid, disfigured, wart-covered genitalia" in an opening sentence.
It's poetic.
ok, i didnt read any of your post. i must admit cuz it's time for serious time. ive even borrowed the serious room from stanley principle and have filled it with a even more serious table. ive gone to the most serious store i could find, replaced that old worn out table and got a new even more serious table.
now im going to take off my central most gamergate hat(as this is officially politics now with centers). and im going to ask you this right here. did you really think a condescending cry to reason was going to work? right now im working on the assumption that all gamergaters are the extreme super misogynist working from the hollowed out volcano that is 4chan and im trying to process things. and im flummoxed why you though this was going to work. you basically start of insulting their entire cause and then proceed to talk down to the lot of the gamergate audience, with an idea that they will all fall in line afterward and obey your plea. im not trying to be mean, trust me i get the idea of "women are in danger, we must protect them" sentiment coming from my fellow anti(ive taken off my gg hat and put on an anti one). but seriously did you believe that undermining them would work? before you rebut with well they've been doing to us. i need to preemptively strike with "did that line of logic work in elementary school?" but man if you wanted to actually end some movement that you believe is truly wrong coming at the issue with understanding rather than pure contempt is the better way to go. don't point me to other peoples comments i care about yours. dude i get the attempt really, you believe people are in danger. i get it, this wasnt the right way to go about trying to get what you want. once again i dont care about others comments or someone else who did what, we start change with the man in the mirror. but then look at me I've taken a condescending tone when talking about another who has taken a condescending tone lol. lighten up dude.
ok anti hat off, central most gamergate hat back on. Mother **** gawker!!!!!!!!! yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Le sigh, I really can't stand either side of this debate. It seems like neither side is willing to treat each other as actual human beings and actually discuss things civilly. Nope, the person one disagrees with is just an evil SJW or misogynist. The people in GamerGate can't possibly be genuinely upset at both the state of the game's media and the constant demonization of gamers as a whole, they just want to put women down. Nor can anyone disagree with GG without being part of the conspiracy to push an SJW agenda or just being too ignorant to know better. Clearly, what people say their opinion is isn't actually their opinion at all. Regardless of side, beliefs, or what they're actually stating, everyone on both sides of the fence is clearly just a bunch of harassment-endorsing haters. Strawman arguments are just a myth!
-_-
I know this looks like hyperbole, but this is honestly how both sides come across. Virtually everyone seems to be of the opinion that they don't have to hear out the other side or show them any respect because that other side is too vile to deserve it, which leaves us all in this fucked up scenario where everyone is guilty of hypocritical bs and absolutely nobody has the moral high-ground. No, shitting on people in GamerGate doesn't make you the better person. Nor does shitting on anti-GamerGate. It just leaves everyone covered in shit - that's why it's called a shitstorm.
I do genuinely hope I don't get mod-wrath for this, but I honestly feel like this needs to be said. Nobody seems to have any perspective or empathy at all for those they disagree with. There's also a massive tendency for both sides to ignore, downplay, or even attempt to justify full-on harassment of people on the other side. Yes, journalists and anti-GGers have been harassing people too, just as much as GG has. Seriously, just as much. There genuinely is not a better side in this.
At this point, I'm just tempted to side with Ganondorf. Compared to everyone in this debate, he seems downright classy.
ok, i didnt read any of your post. i must admit cuz it's time for serious time. ive even borrowed the serious room from stanley principle and have filled it with a even more serious table. ive gone to the most serious store i could find, replaced that old worn out table and got a new even more serious table.
now im going to take off my central most gamergate hat(as this is officially politics now with centers). and im going to ask you this right here. did you really think a condescending cry to reason was going to work? right now im working on the assumption that all gamergaters are the extreme super misogynist working from the hollowed out volcano that is 4chan and im trying to process things. and im flummoxed why you though this was going to work. you basically start of insulting their entire cause and then proceed to talk down to the lot of the gamergate audience, with an idea that they will all fall in line afterward and obey your plea. im not trying to be mean, trust me i get the idea of "women are in danger, we must protect them" sentiment coming from my fellow anti(ive taken off my gg hat and put on an anti one). but seriously did you believe that undermining them would work? before you rebut with well they've been doing to us. i need to preemptively strike with "did that line of logic work in elementary school?" but man if you wanted to actually end some movement that you believe is truly wrong coming at the issue with understanding rather than pure contempt is the better way to go. don't point me to other peoples comments i care about yours. dude i get the attempt really, you believe people are in danger. i get it, this wasnt the right way to go about trying to get what you want. once again i dont care about others comments or someone else who did what, we start change with the man in the mirror. but then look at me I've taken a condescending tone when talking about another who has taken a condescending tone lol. lighten up dude.
ok anti hat off, central most gamergate hat back on. Mother **** gawker!!!!!!!!! yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
to be honest ive been noticing this ever since that convo with the 3 gamergate girls. what most people in this debate arent realizing is that they are having two different conversations. anti- hate misogyny and pro hate corruptions. these ideas are really independent of one another and you can have both at the same time. but im more along the pro-side in that i feel that these journalist could have ended this with a simple apology and change in policies and the whole thing would have been over(granted the change wouldn't have been adhered to but it would have been a sign of good faith), however they got scared to do this after they already established the misogyny narrative so they couldn't back down(im making my assumptions after the small backlash kotaku got for changing their ethics policy). another reason, idk it seems like gamergaters are putting their money were their mouth is i mean you see @_icze4r
one thing i really hate about all this is the fact that opposite sides of the political spectrum are starting to get involved. games used to be my escape from those people and their non-sense.
Le sigh, I really can't stand either side of this debate. It seems like neither side is willing to treat each other as actual human beings and actually discuss things civilly. Nope, the person one disagrees with is just an evil SJW or misogynist. The people in GamerGate can't possibly be genuinely upset at both the state of the game's media and the constant demonization of gamers as a whole, they just want to put women down. Nor can anyone disagree with GG without being part of the conspiracy to push an SJW agenda or just being too ignorant to know better. Clearly, what people say their opinion is isn't actually their opinion at all. Regardless of side, beliefs, or what they're actually stating, everyone on both sides of the fence is clearly just a bunch of harassment-endorsing haters. Strawman arguments are just a myth!
-_-
I know this looks like hyperbole, but this is honestly how both sides come across. Virtually everyone seems to be of the opinion that they don't have to hear out the other side or show them any respect because that other side is too vile to deserve it, which leaves us all in this fucked up scenario where everyone is guilty of hypocritical bs and absolutely nobody has the moral high-ground. No, shitting on people in GamerGate doesn't make you the better person. Nor does shitting on anti-GamerGate. It just leaves everyone covered in shit - that's why it's called a shitstorm.
I do genuinely hope I don't get mod-wrath for this, but I honestly feel like this needs to be said. Nobody seems to have any perspective or empathy at all for those they disagree with. There's also a massive tendency for both sides to ignore, downplay, or even attempt to justify full-on harassment of people on the other side. Yes, journalists and anti-GGers have been harassing people too, just as much as GG has. Seriously, just as much. There genuinely is not a better side in this.
At this point, I'm just tempted to side with Ganondorf. Compared to everyone in this debate, he seems downright classy.
I've spent several hours today debating GamerGate on multiple forums across the internet. After several months of getting slapped in the face with conspiracy mongering and blatant misogyny in the most random of places (I'm sorry, why did someone feel the need to derail a picture of a cute kitten on Imgur into an anti-SJW rant?) I'd finally had enough. I didn't want to debate people reasonably. I wanted to freaking scream in someone's face. And the post that I made here was pretty tame compared to how I was feeling.
That being said, I've now had the opportunity to discuss the issues with the GamerGate crowd and I must admit to being impressed with SOME of them. SOME. There are a small contingent of people who are primarily holed up in their online bases of operation who seem genuinely interested in making a gradual, grassroots and positive change in gaming journalism ethics. I still don't think it's worth the effort and they're clearly the minority of their side but I can understand how a group of generally intelligent people who came into the movement after all of the Zoe Quinn and doxxing madness had died down could become slowly more and more resentful of being tied personally to the actions of what are technically also a minority of harassers. That makes sense to me.
It doesn't excuse GamerGate's blatant attempts to rewrite its own history or the cynical PR move of distancing itself from its own previous campaigns of harassment. And it doesn't make their cries of foul play any more genuine. I still think that GamerGate members complaining about getting doxxed is like a thief complaining about getting shot while breaking into someone's house.
But I can understand how the disconnect between the movement's more intelligent members and its more blatantly stupid majority can send out a lot of confusing mixed messages that can be really off-putting and ultimately dangerous. And I sympathize with that at least.
It doesn't excuse GamerGate's blatant attempts to rewrite its own history or the cynical PR move of distancing itself from its own previous campaigns of harassment. And it doesn't make their cries of foul play any more genuine. I still think that GamerGate members complaining about getting doxxed is like a thief complaining about getting shot while breaking into someone's house.
But I can understand how the disconnect between the movement's more intelligent members and its more blatantly stupid majority can send out a lot of confusing mixed messages that can be really off-putting and ultimately dangerous. And I sympathize with that at least.
so you not see the irony in your own statement? ok going based on your logic , "Cynical pr move of distancing itself from its own previous campaigns of harrassment" and "It doesn't excuse GamerGate's blatant attempts to rewrite its own history". ok so in order for gamergate to evolve and focus on ethics they need to focus on the one woman that everyone says they are all about? but if they do that wont they get "See, see it was always about women this entire time!!!"
next line "I still think that GamerGate members complaining about getting doxxed is like a thief complaining about getting shot while breaking into someone's house." and the line "But I can understand how the disconnect between the movement's more intelligent members and its more blatantly stupid majority can send out a lot of confusing mixed messages that can be really off-putting and ultimately dangerous". so your saying these people deserve the doxxing and death threats for the actions that the "blatantly stupid majority" have done right? or are you saying the people complaining about doxxing are the same exact people making the death threats... but that cant be true cause you said "There are a small contingent of people who are primarily holed up in their online bases of operation who seem genuinely interested in making a gradual, grassroots and positive change in gaming journalism ethics." meaning you obviously think that they aren't doing the harassing and doxxing. and you switch from "they're clearly the minority of their side" ,referring to the rational people, to "what are technically also a minority of harassers". so im at a loss to what you mean.
to be honest from your original statement of " I still think that GamerGate members complaining about getting doxxed is like a thief complaining about getting shot while breaking into someone's house." off puts me in taking you seriously man. maybe you need another analogy but this one? secondly im guessing your making the same mistake many on the "anti" make, you know that using the term "SJW" as a derogatory label. isnt an anti-feminist sentiment right?
I think it would be nice if we could put GG and social justice topics in the one sub-forum. Half the people posting in these are pretty confrontational, so it'd be fun to keep them in one place. I've been told it would "ghettoise" it, but that's only if you stop it from appearing on the front page.
OT: As someone who isn't part of GG but supports the general premise, I used to think exactly like you did. The people in gaming media are just reviewers. However Jim Sterling goes above and beyond that. He brings insider info, and issues to our attention. If he didn't uphold a sort of journalistic standard, he could lie through his teeth and call the CEO of Ubisoft a rapist or something. The point I'm trying to make is, many of these people don't JUST do reviews.
The general idea I'm trying to drive at here, is that the journalistic standard of ethics is based around the idea of, 1. Don't lie, 2. Don't omit facts to spin things, tell the whole story 3. Don't spin some sort of personal or political bias into things (although this might be different for reviews alone). It's just about being honest, regardless of what you're doing, and I think that's a standard of ethics everyone should uphold.
It doesn't excuse GamerGate's blatant attempts to rewrite its own history or the cynical PR move of distancing itself from its own previous campaigns of harassment. And it doesn't make their cries of foul play any more genuine. I still think that GamerGate members complaining about getting doxxed is like a thief complaining about getting shot while breaking into someone's house.
But I can understand how the disconnect between the movement's more intelligent members and its more blatantly stupid majority can send out a lot of confusing mixed messages that can be really off-putting and ultimately dangerous. And I sympathize with that at least.
so you not see the irony in your own statement? ok going based on your logic , "Cynical pr move of distancing itself from its own previous campaigns of harrassment" and "It doesn't excuse GamerGate's blatant attempts to rewrite its own history". ok so in order for gamergate to evolve and focus on ethics they need to focus on the one woman that everyone says they are all about? but if they do that wont they get "See, see it was always about women this entire time!!!"
next line "I still think that GamerGate members complaining about getting doxxed is like a thief complaining about getting shot while breaking into someone's house." and the line "But I can understand how the disconnect between the movement's more intelligent members and its more blatantly stupid majority can send out a lot of confusing mixed messages that can be really off-putting and ultimately dangerous". so your saying these people deserve the doxxing and death threats for the actions that the "blatantly stupid majority" have done right? or are you saying the people complaining about doxxing are the same exact people making the death threats... but that cant be true cause you said "There are a small contingent of people who are primarily holed up in their online bases of operation who seem genuinely interested in making a gradual, grassroots and positive change in gaming journalism ethics." meaning you obviously think that they aren't doing the harassing and doxxing. and you switch from "they're clearly the minority of their side" ,referring to the rational people, to "what are technically also a minority of harassers". so im at a loss to what you mean.
to be honest from your original statement of " I still think that GamerGate members complaining about getting doxxed is like a thief complaining about getting shot while breaking into someone's house." off puts me in taking you seriously man. maybe you need another analogy but this one? secondly im guessing your making the same mistake many on the "anti" make, you know that using the term "SJW" as a derogatory label. isnt an anti-feminist sentiment right?
Your, um, English is a little rough but I think I've got the gist of what you're getting at. I suppose I'll try to add a little context and explain myself again as a courtesy. Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired but I still think we can bridge that gap if you give it a little effort. Here goes.
Firstly, when I say that GamerGate is distancing itself from its past of harassment what I mean is that it is DENYING IT EVER HAPPENED. Every single time that I talked to someone from GamerGate they made sure to specifically, and with much the same language as each other, inform me that no, nobody was ever doxxed by them. Even though there's miles of evidence that that happened they wanted it known that history played out according to their own very selective memories and that they were never guilty of even the slightest bit of antagonism. It was completely surreal.
As far as the very plain and easily understandable statements that I made on the makeup of their movement go, what I said was that there were a minority of intelligent people and a minority of ACTIVE harassers and a big majority of idiots between them. The foundation for that entire movement is the minority of harassers. Then that attracted the big pile of stupid. Then finally the intelligent people hooked up with the movement and are trying to steer it in a different direction. That's my understanding of events. And yes, with a history like that, which they REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE, it is completely silly that they are complaining about getting doxxed themselves. Regardless of what a few good eggs are trying to do right now, the foundation of their movement is still harassment. Their founding moment as a group was when a bunch of people decided to be super mean to Zoe Quinn. That hasn't changed.
As far as your last paragraph goes... I don't even know, man. I don't know if English is your second language but it's clearly your worst language. You're going to have to figure out some way to fix that mess if you want me to answer... whatever it is that you're trying to ask me.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
).
