And Now For Some Truth

[BillyBlackSheep]

I'd like to have the ethics standards food and movie reviewers have in video game journalism. I don't think that is too much to ask.

This is the other thing that weirds me out. Because I think you've already got that. Yes, publishers frequently attempt to bribe reviewers or lock them into contracts that all but guarantee a good review.

But film critics go to private screenings and attend Hollywood parties and often receive other perks as part of their job.

In every circumstance where there is a critical community it is actively engaged with the creators of whatever it is criticizing and those creators try their darnedest (and sometimes their shadiest) to get good reviews.

 

[Otakun]

"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.

Let me list where you failed:

First, insulting the movement in the first sentence will cause people to ignore your whole post.
Second, Some are Journalists which they claimed to be.
Third, Yatzhee is an entertainer that people listen to, not the samething.
Forth, Denouncing a hobby doesn't support your argument, it makes you look stupid. People take hobbies seriously since when you waste your time on something means you care about it.
Firth, Questioning the intelligence of your readers when it's been explained by the ones you are posting against constantly shows your lack of intelligence.

 

[BillyBlackSheep]

"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.

Let me list where you failed:

First, insulting the movement in the first sentence will cause people to ignore your whole post.
Second, Some are Journalists which they claimed to be.
Third, Yatzhee is an entertainer that people listen to, not the samething.
Forth, Denouncing a hobby doesn't support your argument, it makes you look stupid. People take hobbies seriously since when you waste your time on something means you care about it.
Firth, Questioning the intelligence of your readers when it's been explained by the ones you are posting against constantly shows your lack of intelligence.

My "lack of intelligence".

"Firth".

You are a brilliant comedic mind.

 

[Otakun]

"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.

Let me list where you failed:

First, insulting the movement in the first sentence will cause people to ignore your whole post.
Second, Some are Journalists which they claimed to be.
Third, Yatzhee is an entertainer that people listen to, not the samething.
Forth, Denouncing a hobby doesn't support your argument, it makes you look stupid. People take hobbies seriously since when you waste your time on something means you care about it.
Firth, Questioning the intelligence of your readers when it's been explained by the ones you are posting against constantly shows your lack of intelligence.

My "lack of intelligence".

"Firth".

You are a brilliant comedic mind.

lol, shows your lack of argument where your big comeback is pointing out a slip of a finger and act like mistyping means anything to intelligence.

 

[psijac]

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.

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.

This comment pretty much blows your entire argument out of the water. Checkmate, game over, press start to return to title screen.

its kinda sad that it took the entire page to get to it

 

[Belaam]

This is the other thing that weirds me out. Because I think you've already got that. Yes, publishers frequently attempt to bribe reviewers or lock them into contracts that all but guarantee a good review.

But film critics go to private screenings and attend Hollywood parties and often receive other perks as part of their job.

In every circumstance where there is a critical community it is actively engaged with the creators of whatever it is criticizing and those creators try their darnedest (and sometimes their shadiest) to get good reviews.

Indeed. In a world where journalists at Fox News can bill themselves as Fair and Balanced, getting Kotaku to tell their reviewers to stop investing in games they review is mind-blowingly ethical. Hell, game journalism is at least as transparent and ethical than several major news outlets.

 

[Grottnikk]

"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.

*Monocle pops out*

My word! What an odious, uncouth statement!

To the docks with you, you rapscallion!

I thought that was the best part of the whole post! It was a very colourful metaphor that encapsulated his argument quite articulately . And yes, it was also rather odious .

 

[Davroth]

I'd like to have the ethics standards food and movie reviewers have in video game journalism. I don't think that is too much to ask.

This is the other thing that weirds me out. Because I think you've already got that. Yes, publishers frequently attempt to bribe reviewers or lock them into contracts that all but guarantee a good review.

But film critics go to private screenings and attend Hollywood parties and often receive other perks as part of their job.

In every circumstance where there is a critical community it is actively engaged with the creators of whatever it is criticizing and those creators try their darnedest (and sometimes their shadiest) to get good reviews.

/Attempt/ to bribe reviewers? Don't delude yourself. Bribes are happening all the time.

And considering nobody got fired for favourably reporting on a project their roommate was working on, no, I don't believe I have that. That would be a career ending move in both of those fields.

As for your examples, private screenings are not a perk, it's a necessity to review a movie. So what are those well known perks that movie critics receive? I'd like some examples. Other then getting invited to parties, which, honestly, means they are usually there in a professional function, not to party. So I fail to see how that's even a perk.

Also, here, something I feel is worth sharing for context: http://afjonline.com/ethics.cfm

Why do I want those kinds of ethics for game journalism? Two reasons.

1. It's a giant, billion dollar industry, and a global spanning community. We, those who play them and those who make them, deserve better then shady backroom deals and clickbait-articles.

2. Those scandals, though they usually don't really make it out to the mainstream, hurt the credibility of the whole medium in the public eyes.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

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.

The thing to keep in mind is that the very way you are feeling now is precisely how many in GamerGate feel as well, just with a different perpetrator for a lack of a better term. As I said in another thread, both sides feel like they're the little guy getting bullied around by a bigger, hate-driven group. Neither side wants a reasonable debate because of this, preferring to just scream in the others' faces, which needless to say is exactly what's been happening. Both sides have become the thing they hate. Fuck, I became the thing I hate at one point. This is something too many have done, often without even trying.

About that bolded part of your quoted post there, I'm going to say something that's likely quite rude: Stop. Please stop doing that. That very attitude is the main reason I left GamerGate, as they were pulling the same crap (and likely still are). The idea that anyone deserves the hell they may get put through because of what side they're on is absolutely terrible. It's pretty much victim blaming and is a prime reason why "Us vs Them" mentalities are the most toxic of all. I know I'm pretty much talking down to you here, and I do apologize for my arrogance. However, I do still insist that this is an attitude that needs to die on both sides of the field. This idea that any of the harassment, doxxing, or other bs is made even slightly more acceptable because of who it's towards, even if it's towards truly malicious people (which is not the case the vast majority of the time)... it's horrifying.

Sorry again for any hostility I may be displaying. Like I said, the idea that the other side shouldn't be heard out and that they deserve some of the bad things that happen to them is why I dropped out of GG, despite still believing in most of it's core ideals. I simply couldn't get behind how overly hostile people were behaving, myself included. Needless to say, seeing people against GG pulling the exact same crap starts to bring out the worst in me, especially as someone who kept preaching civility since the beginning.

 

[Slayer4472]

I'd like to have the ethics standards food and movie reviewers have in video game journalism. I don't think that is too much to ask.

This is the other thing that weirds me out. Because I think you've already got that. Yes, publishers frequently attempt to bribe reviewers or lock them into contracts that all but guarantee a good review.

But film critics go to private screenings and attend Hollywood parties and often receive other perks as part of their job.

In every circumstance where there is a critical community it is actively engaged with the creators of whatever it is criticizing and those creators try their darnedest (and sometimes their shadiest) to get good reviews.

/Attempt/ to bribe reviewers? Don't delude yourself. Bribes are happening all the time.

And considering nobody got fired for favourably reporting on a project their roommate was working on, no, I don't believe I have that. That would be a career ending move in both of those fields.

As for your examples, private screenings are not a perk, it's a necessity to review a movie. So what are those well known perks that movie critics receive? I'd like some examples. Other then getting invited to parties, which, honestly, means they are usually there in a professional function, not to party. So I fail to see how that's even a perk.

Also, here, something I feel is worth sharing for context: http://afjonline.com/ethics.cfm

Why do I want those kinds of ethics for game journalism? Two reasons.

1. It's a giant, billion dollar industry, and a global spanning community. We, those who play them and those who make them, deserve better then shady backroom deals and clickbait-articles.

2. Those scandals, though they usually don't really make it out to the mainstream, hurt the credibility of the whole medium in the public eyes.

Regarding the bolded section- there's a rumor running around on /v/ and /gg/ that EA may have bribed the Anti-GG websites (Kotaku, Polygon, RockPaperShotgun) in order to recieve favorable reviews for Dante's Inferno (like God of War But: Italian Literature Edition). So, we'll be cleaning house in more than one way with GamerGate.

 

[BillyBlackSheep]

I'd like to have the ethics standards food and movie reviewers have in video game journalism. I don't think that is too much to ask.

This is the other thing that weirds me out. Because I think you've already got that. Yes, publishers frequently attempt to bribe reviewers or lock them into contracts that all but guarantee a good review.

But film critics go to private screenings and attend Hollywood parties and often receive other perks as part of their job.

In every circumstance where there is a critical community it is actively engaged with the creators of whatever it is criticizing and those creators try their darnedest (and sometimes their shadiest) to get good reviews.

/Attempt/ to bribe reviewers? Don't delude yourself. Bribes are happening all the time.

And considering nobody got fired for favourably reporting on a project their roommate was working on, no, I don't believe I have that. That would be a career ending move in both of those fields.

As for your examples, private screenings are not a perk, it's a necessity to review a movie. So what are those well known perks that movie critics receive? I'd like some examples. Other then getting invited to parties, which, honestly, means they are usually there in a professional function, not to party. So I fail to see how that's even a perk.

Also, here, something I feel is worth sharing for context: http://afjonline.com/ethics.cfm

Why do I want those kinds of ethics for game journalism? Two reasons.

1. It's a giant, billion dollar industry, and a global spanning community. We, those who play them and those who make them, deserve better then shady backroom deals and clickbait-articles.

2. Those scandals, though they usually don't really make it out to the mainstream, hurt the credibility of the whole medium in the public eyes.

It's interesting to me that multiple GamerGate people have linked me to that same site today. Especially when it's for the Association of Food Journalists of all things.I guess you people have been sharing links.

I remember reading a story about how a collection of critics were up in arms because their exclusive, advanced screening of The Avengers wasn't catered to their liking. They ended up raiding the hotel bar. I found that mental image amusing.

Now here's the part of the conversation that GamerGate folks tend to conveniently ignore. The line between entertainer/product reviewer/rumor mill attendant is incredibly blurry in every medium. How else do you explain a website like latino-review? What is the code of ethics to be applied to them, a site that features their own film reviews, considering that not only do they know people in the industry but their entire website depends on keeping those connections healthy because that's how they get all of their pre-release scoops?

And how is that any less of a bed buddies situation than the one that sites like the Escapist find themselves in?

 

[BillyBlackSheep]

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.

The thing to keep in mind is that the very way you are feeling now is precisely how many in GamerGate feel as well, just with a different perpetrator for a lack of a better term. As I said in another thread, both sides feel like they're the little guy getting bullied around by a bigger, hate-driven group. Neither side wants a reasonable debate because of this, preferring to just scream in the others' faces, which needless to say is exactly what's been happening. Both sides have become the thing they hate. Fuck, I became the thing I hate at one point. This is something too many have done, often without even trying.

About that bolded part of your quoted post there, I'm going to say something that's likely quite rude: Stop. Please stop doing that. That very attitude is the main reason I left GamerGate, as they were pulling the same crap (and likely still are). The idea that anyone deserves the hell they may get put through because of what side they're on is absolutely terrible. It's pretty much victim blaming and is a prime reason why "Us vs Them" mentalities are the most toxic of all. I know I'm pretty much talking down to you here, and I do apologize for my arrogance. However, I do still insist that this is an attitude that needs to die on both sides of the field. This idea that any of the harassment, doxxing, or other bs is made even slightly more acceptable because of who it's towards, even if it's towards truly malicious people (which is not the case the vast majority of the time)... it's horrifying.

Sorry again for any hostility I may be displaying. Like I said, the idea that the other side shouldn't be heard out and that they deserve some of the bad things that happen to them is why I dropped out of GG, despite still believing in most of it's core ideals. I simply couldn't get behind how overly hostile people were behaving, myself included. Needless to say, seeing people against GG pulling the exact same crap starts to bring out the worst in me, especially as someone who kept preaching civility since the beginning.

I believe that it's critically important who fired the first shot. Or shots, in this case. It's not important to ending the discussion but it's very important to having the discussion. And especially going over the morality of it. You believe that nobody deserves that kind of harassment regardless of what they've done. Even if they engaged in the exact same behaviors against someone else. That's a noble sentiment and I respect you for it but it's one that I simply don't share.

If that makes me just as bad as the worst of the lot in the eyes of other people then that's just something I'll have to live with. But it's not a careless or thoughtless decision on my part.

 

[Davroth]

It's interesting to me that multiple GamerGate people have linked me to that same site today. Especially when it's for the Association of Food Journalists of all things.I guess you people have been sharing links.

I remember reading a story about how a collection of critics were up in arms because their exclusive, advanced screening of The Avengers wasn't catered to their liking. They ended up raiding the hotel bar. I found that mental image amusing.

Now here's the part of the conversation that GamerGate folks tend to conveniently ignore. The line between entertainer/product reviewer/rumor mill attendant is incredibly blurry in every medium. How else do you explain a website like latino-review? What is the code of ethics to be applied to them, a site that features their own film reviews, considering that not only do they know people in the industry but their entire website depends on keeping those connections healthy because that's how they get all of their pre-release scoops?

And how is that any less of a bed buddies situation than the one that sites like the Escapist find themselves in?

It was the first link I got when googling "Food critic ethics", so, uh, blame google?

If you can give me a link to the story, I'll read it and form an opinion on it. Can't really comment on it like that.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with latino-review. It's a reviews site for latinos? I guess it's kinda sad that we apparently need this since other websites don't cater enough to that demographic? Honestly, I don't see what you mean, though. Do they live in the same apartment with their sources and healthy contacts?

What bed buddies situation with sites like The Escapist? Mind elaborating on that? You are being kind of vague here.

 

[BillyBlackSheep]

It's interesting to me that multiple GamerGate people have linked me to that same site today. Especially when it's for the Association of Food Journalists of all things.I guess you people have been sharing links.

I remember reading a story about how a collection of critics were up in arms because their exclusive, advanced screening of The Avengers wasn't catered to their liking. They ended up raiding the hotel bar. I found that mental image amusing.

Now here's the part of the conversation that GamerGate folks tend to conveniently ignore. The line between entertainer/product reviewer/rumor mill attendant is incredibly blurry in every medium. How else do you explain a website like latino-review? What is the code of ethics to be applied to them, a site that features their own film reviews, considering that not only do they know people in the industry but their entire website depends on keeping those connections healthy because that's how they get all of their pre-release scoops?

And how is that any less of a bed buddies situation than the one that sites like the Escapist find themselves in?

It was the first link I got when googling "Food critic ethics", so, uh, blame google?

If you can give me a link to the story, I'll read it and form an opinion on it. Can't really comment on it like that.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with latino-review. It's a reviews site for latinos? I guess it's kinda sad that we apparently need this since other websites don't cater enough to that demographic? Honestly, I don't see what you mean, though. Do they live in the same apartment with their sources and healthy contacts?

What bed buddies situation with sites like The Escapist? Mind elaborating on that? You are being kind of vague here.

Sorry, I'll explain. Latino-review is a scoop site. Their major beat is rumors, essentially. Whenever you hear something like "Benedict Cumberbatch in talks to play Dr. Strange!" or "Planet Hulk to be next Marvel film?" there's a very good chance that it came directly from them before making the rounds to the rest of the internet. Start checking the sources at the bottom of articles and you'll notice their name come up a lot.

But they also release their own film reviews. That's pretty common, actually. I think ScreenCrush does the same song and dance. So what's their code of ethics? And how is that any worse than what what gaming websites pull in terms of unspoken industry connections? Heck, latino-review can't EVER release the names of their sources or which projects they worked on directly. And they've even been accused of just making stuff up on slow news days because of that.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

I believe that it's critically important who fired the first shot. Or shots, in this case. It's not important to ending the discussion but it's very important to having the discussion. And especially going over the morality of it. You believe that nobody deserves that kind of harassment regardless of what they've done. Even if they engaged in the exact same behaviors against someone else. That's a noble sentiment and I respect you for it but it's one that I simply don't share.

If that makes me just as bad as the worst of the lot in the eyes of other people then that's just something I'll have to live with. But it's not a careless or thoughtless decision on my part.

By that logic, Leigh Alexander, Zoe Quinn, and Ben Kuchera deserved their harassment, something I highly doubt you believe. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, my friend. If you believe harassment is wrong, then don't make exceptions for it.

One more thing - both sides legitimately see the other as having fired the first shot. Both sides view the other as the more guilty party, as the real bully here. The very reasoning you're using here is the exact same reasoning the harassers in GG have been using to justify their actions. Does being a victim make it right to victimize others?

 

[BillyBlackSheep]

I believe that it's critically important who fired the first shot. Or shots, in this case. It's not important to ending the discussion but it's very important to having the discussion. And especially going over the morality of it. You believe that nobody deserves that kind of harassment regardless of what they've done. Even if they engaged in the exact same behaviors against someone else. That's a noble sentiment and I respect you for it but it's one that I simply don't share.

If that makes me just as bad as the worst of the lot in the eyes of other people then that's just something I'll have to live with. But it's not a careless or thoughtless decision on my part.

By that logic, Leigh Alexander, Zoe Quinn, and Ben Kuchera deserved their harassment, something I highly doubt you believe. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, my friend. If you believe harassment is wrong, then don't make exceptions for it.

One more thing - both sides legitimately see the other as having fired the first shot. Both sides view the other as the more guilty party, as the real bully here. The very reasoning you're using here is the exact same reasoning the harassers in GG have been using to justify their actions. Does being a victim make it right to victimize others?

I've had this conversation many times in my life. And every time I've come up with the same answer: being a victim affords you the right to retaliation. You may not believe that but it's what I believe. That's not some "side" talking. That's not blind rage. That's my earnest belief after having long considered the question.

 

[blackmanon4chan]

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.

yeah 0k i get your jib now your the type to make swooping assumptions about others and not quite understand what they are getting at. English is my first language, but I've tried to turn your statement into a logical disproof, which is my bad assuming that everyone understands logic(mathematical), and not quite sure how to use symbols in the escapist, and i never really format, and i make run on sentences because i pay no attention to grammer, or spelllling . what I'm trying to say is that your all over the place and contradict yourself within your own statements, while denouncing everyone as less intelligent than yourself. you believe your own hype dude.

especially when i see you type

"My "lack of intelligence".

"Firth".

You are a brilliant comedic mind."

dude did you just use a typo to verify your intelligence? really? common son


also

with much the same language as each other, inform me that no, nobody was ever doxxed by them

does not equal

" DENYING IT EVER HAPPENED."

your statements:

"minority of intelligent people"

&

"minority of ACTIVE harassers"

&

"big majority of idiots"

this conflicts with your statement:

"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"

as you are now admitting to a minority of harassers. so which is it? You admit that there are a minority of actual harassers, yet the rest are not. but those who use the hashtag must forever be brought down by their minority. in which case i guess you MUST acknowledge the fact that people on you "side" have been attacking gamergaters and can not get past it. or that the primary person on the anti-gg side who was "Exposing" sock accounts turned out to actually be a sock account(a_real_girl_irl). do you think its kinda foolish to hold you accountable for the actions of those that you dont condone.... well actually im guessing you do condone them given your thief comment.



going forward with your statements

which they REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE, it is completely silly that they are complaining about getting doxxed themselves

this does not equal

with much the same language as each other, inform me that no, nobody was ever doxxed by them

saying it wasn't me is not denying it existed, it is saying it wasn't me. as in why are you bringing up the actions of others saying this when i condemn them and don't like them. you are bringing this up just to derail the overall sentiment, to be honest gg's have been doing this as well; i.e. harassment from the anti-gg side doesn't mean that misogyny isn't still bad(their overall platform).

basically your under the assumption that this is a group... it is not, it is just people using a hashtag to state that they agree with something.

my last paragraph:: 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."
makes me not want to take you seriously.
maybe you need another situation, but this one is wrong, and really off putting. basically your saying they deserve it. is that really what you mean? are you actually a ghoul in disguise?

Secondly im guessing your making the same mistake many on the "anti"-side make in that thinking "SJW", as a derogatory label, is an anti-feminist sentiment. is this true?

also dude, i see your comments and your quickness to call everyone stupid, and immediately know why people where hostile towards you.

ps. crap half way threw i started to turn this back into a logical disproof, Ive already had to go threw and remove all my if's and iff's

 

[BillyBlackSheep]

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.

yeah 0k i get your jib now your the type to make swooping assumptions about others and not quite understand what they are getting at. English is my first language, but I've tried to turn your statement into a logical disproof, which is my bad assuming that everyone understands logic(mathematical), and not quite sure how to use symbols in the escapist, and i never really format, and i make run on sentences because i pay no attention to grammer, or spelllling . what I'm trying to say is that your all over the place and contradict yourself within your own statements, while denouncing everyone as less intelligent than yourself. you believe your own hype dude.

especially when i see you type

"My "lack of intelligence".

"Firth".

You are a brilliant comedic mind."

dude did you just use a typo to verify your intelligence? really? common son


also

with much the same language as each other, inform me that no, nobody was ever doxxed by them

does not equal

" DENYING IT EVER HAPPENED."

your statements:

"minority of intelligent people"

&

"minority of ACTIVE harassers"

&

"big majority of idiots"

this conflicts with your statement:

"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"

as you are now admitting to a minority of harassers. so which is it? You admit that there are a minority of actual harassers, yet the rest are not. but those who use the hashtag must forever be brought down by their minority. in which case i guess you MUST acknowledge the fact that people on you "side" have been attacking gamergaters and can not get past it. or that the primary person on the anti-gg side who was "Exposing" sock accounts turned out to actually be a sock account(a_real_girl_irl). do you think its kinda foolish to hold you accountable for the actions of those that you dont condone.... well actually im guessing you do condone them given your thief comment.



going forward with your statements

which they REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE, it is completely silly that they are complaining about getting doxxed themselves

this does not equal

with much the same language as each other, inform me that no, nobody was ever doxxed by them

saying it wasn't me is not denying it existed, it is saying it wasn't me. as in why are you bringing up the actions of others saying this when i condemn them and don't like them. you are bringing this up just to derail the overall sentiment, to be honest gg's have been doing this as well; i.e. harassment from the anti-gg side doesn't mean that misogyny isn't still bad(their overall platform).

basically your under the assumption that this is a group... it is not, it is just people using a hashtag to state that they agree with something.

my last paragraph:: 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."
makes me not want to take you seriously.
maybe you need another situation, but this one is wrong, and really off putting. basically your saying they deserve it. is that really what you mean? are you actually a ghoul in disguise?

Secondly im guessing your making the same mistake many on the "anti"-side make in that thinking "SJW", as a derogatory label, is an anti-feminist sentiment. is this true?

also dude, i see your comments and your quickness to call everyone stupid, and immediately know why people where hostile towards you.

ps. crap half way threw i started to turn this back into a logical disproof, Ive already had to go threw and remove all my if's and iff's

... I seriously tried to read every word of what you just typed and it's a complete mess. The few bits that I could recognize as actual sentences were clearly arguments from a total lack of reading comprehension. You seem to be trying to argue for some kind of logical fallacy but you actually don't know what I've even typed. Are you dyslexic? I'm sorry, I just really have no idea how to respond to you.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

I've had this conversation many times in my life. And every time I've come up with the same answer: being a victim affords you the right to retaliation. You may not believe that but it's what I believe. That's not some "side" talking. That's not blind rage. That's my earnest belief after having long considered the question.

If you seriously believe that, then the people in GamerGate that are harassing others are justified in their actions. That belief of yours absolves GamerGate of every wrong thing they have done, because they are victims too.

To quote Ghandi again, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

 

[BillyBlackSheep]

By that logic, Leigh Alexander, Zoe Quinn, and Ben Kuchera deserved their harassment, something I highly doubt you believe. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, my friend. If you believe harassment is wrong, then don't make exceptions for it.

One more thing - both sides legitimately see the other as having fired the first shot. Both sides view the other as the more guilty party, as the real bully here. The very reasoning you're using here is the exact same reasoning the harassers in GG have been using to justify their actions. Does being a victim make it right to victimize others?

I've had this conversation many times in my life. And every time I've come up with the same answer: being a victim affords you the right to retaliation. You may not believe that but it's what I believe. That's not some "side" talking. That's not blind rage. That's my earnest belief after having long considered the question.

If you seriously believe that, then the people in GamerGate that are harassing others are justified in their actions. That belief of yours justifies every wrong thing that GamerGate has done, because they are victims too.

To quote Ghandi again, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.[/quote]

I can see how you would come to that conclusion. However, I personally think it's quite clear that the GamerGate people began a campaign of harassment and only stopped after they had built up enough steam to no longer feel that they had to rely on such tactics. That and because they suddenly felt the sting of retaliation. It's possible that they'd still be leading attacks against people if people hadn't pushed back.

I am confident that their reading of history, while clearly different, is so warped as to be easily dismissed.