BlackListed

[MiskWisk]

If you wasted less time on talking about GG and more time about finding the "journalism" and the ethical problems that you talk about, maybe people would actually help Kotaku.

Weird, for a movement that seems to do little more than talk about itself, that the burden is on me to deal with ethics and journalism.

Except I actually tried that, offering my experience and understanding of ethics in terms of practical applications, and I got shouted down and threatened. Why would I continue?

I'm not sure we understand each other.
You were talking down on GG because they weren't defending Kotaku because supposedly this current situation is a breach of ethics in journalism. The point is, it isn't. Whether this is a breach of ethics or not is even completely irrelevant because it's not about journalism but business. Should this be talked about? Yeah, it should. Even if Kotaku is beyond shit, the thing that affected them affects everyone else to some extend, and ultimately us as the consumer. But that's not GG related and I don't get some of your stabs against GG for this situation.

Leaving GG aside for a moment; how is gathering, processing, and publishing information related to news to an audience not Journalism?

I might be wrong but I think BiH-Kira misspoke. Rather, this isn't a case of ethics in journalism; both sides have a right to do what they have done. The question here is however to do with business in journalism, was the decision to publish the information Kotaku had a good business decision and is it a good decision to do what Ubi and Bethesda have done in response?

 

[Ash_Effect]

I should state at this point that before last year, game journalists, their audience, and game developers/publishers were in a delicate state of balanced symbiosis. Journalists were not supposed to overstep their boundaries, the audience would read between the lines or waited to see who was relatively trustworthy and who wasn't, and devs/publishers fed the journalists info for them to write articles for their audience. Objectively, it was the best solution to a situation that would, outside of enthusiast press, been seen as deeply corrupt. There were problems, sure, but they were minimal.

The problem came when journalists overstepped their boundaries both ways. They started stringing up figures in the dev/pub world with little more than hearsay, or with full knowledge that their subjects could not defend themselves without compromising an ongoing case. They started speaking down to their audience while publishing recommendations for games that weren't very good but made by their associates/friends. They started pushing their ideology both ways rather than realizing this symbiosis was what kept the money rolling in, NOT their individual skills as writers. It should be noted that unlike devs/pubs and gamers, journalists have a vested interest in pleasing both sides. Gamers only want to play good games and want their hobby to be free of proselytizing. Devs/pubs want to make money and want their profession to be free of proselytizing. Those two sides are, and always will be, in it for themselves, but they recognize the relative give-and-take economic relationship that they possess. Journalists, on the other hand, are reliant on good will from both devs/pubs (to give them info) and readers (to give them clicks); they had largely forgotten the simple philosophy of give-and-take between them and both devs/pubs and their audience, and believed themselves to be the most important part of an industry that has many parts far more important than them.

Their audience, who has nothing to lose, and everything to gain, revolted. This led to the GamerGate hashtag. Regardless of where you fall on the controversy (I was a supporter, but I slowly bowed out as an observer now, though I still tweet about relevant things, without the hashtag), it can't be denied that the hashtag was started at least in part by the journalists' inability to refrain from overstepping their boundaries. The balance ended up tipping over; the only reason devs/pubs largely have not chosen a side yet in the controversy is that they're caught between a rock and a hard place - do they support the journalists, who could ruin a game with a few articles, or the audience who largely fills their pockets? I have no opinion on which is the right choice, but the current situation and climate is very volatile. Everyone (both on the journalist side and the GG side) are on a hair trigger for any moment of weakness.

So let's take this event not as a isolated incident but as the latest in a series of things journalists have done. It is a fact that journalists have lost a lot of public trust due to the scandal and controversy. It is also a fact that they are still publishing stories that do damage to others so they can gain clicks. If we see this as a chain of events it makes perfect sense that Bethesda and Ubisoft would retract their business relationship with Kotaku; not only has Kotaku lost public faith, it continues to push out damaging articles that don't really help either its existing audience (because let's face it, nobody fucking cares about Prey 2, and as I said before this was an act of ego for Kotaku) or the companies it professes to help. It plain doesn't make any sense to work with them anymore, because they are (excuse the metaphor) a pack of rabid dogs now - public perception is that they are unprofessional, condescending, and lazy. When you add that to the fact that they may actually do damage to your properties instead of promote them, then the only logical choice is to cease relations with them.

 

[StatusNil]

The GJP also wield power "over themselves", rather than the entire industry, and their power went no further than their own choices. That's my point.

It's still shady. I agree, I know. But it is, in principle, much the same as has been done towards Kotaku.

If you look at what the GJP was (and probably still is), it was a collusive group, seeking to consolidate pretty much the entire class of American gaming sites of note under a single umbrella organization that would control personnel decisions and enforce a common message across ostensibly competitive platforms. It permeated virtually the whole field, including The Escapist. And of course it did this in a consciously clandestine manner. In other words, it was a secret media cartel.

Seems to me that what's allegedly happened to Kotaku doesn't really begin to approach an analogous situation until we see all the publishers (maybe excluding some tiny indies) in on a secret agreement regarding this, directed by a few dominant individuals. Of course, even that wouldn't violate the stated core function of the games publishing industry the way the GJP violated journalistic principles.

 

[Coruptin]

Ah yes, being divisive, that's what we needed. I really appreciate the way you guys framed this discussion.

 

[Karadalis]

Ah yes, being divisive, that's what we needed. I really appreciate the way you guys framed this discussion.

Atleast we contributed to the discussion instead of passive agressively making oh so clever remarks ABOUT the discussion...

But thats just me you know...

Anyways:

Yes TB has some good points.. however in my opinion they fell flat on their nose due to one simple reason:

The journalistic value (or lack thereof actually) of kotaku.

Kotaku writers are not journalists, they are clickbaiters, glorified bloggers who call themselves journalists only when it benefits them.

They are the equivalent of the yellow press, they attack in all directions, painting everyone who asociates themselves with kotaku in a bad light, publishes articles based on mere rumors no matter how much damage they can cause, invite devs into ambush interviews where political fueled accusations dressed up as questions are dropped onto unprepared Developers.

They have no journalistic value, they literaly make shit up!

They do not deserve to be treated as journalists just because they have a somewhat big audience. He holds them to a standard that they themselves do nothing to actually deserve. So them being blacklisted is no loss for the consumer at all... because no one with two braincells worth rubbing together would take kotaku at their word anyways. The reason why other journos are somewhat supportive of kotaku in this situation is because they think: "It could happen to me!" Wich only shows once more that the people who keep telling us "they only want your money!" when talking about the industry ALSO only want our money and put their interests infront of the interest of the consumer.

Now when it comes to blacklisting itselfe being able to hurt gaming outlets... im afraid the game journo scene has only itselfe to blame. In their attempt to get the hottest news as fast as possible and before everyone else they literally stumbled over each other trying to kiss publishers asses, not noticing how more entangled they became with the people and companies they are suposed to report about.

In the movie and book industry its the publishers who send revie copies / invite critics to preview screenings in hope for positive reviews and exposure.

In the game industry its the Journalists who ask for review copies and exclusive interviews in return for favourable scores.

The very core of the game journo scene is completly rotten, and i would like to remind everyone that since a year or two again that big publishers would shower game journos with "gifts" at review events to assure positive coverage. (No, no one has gotten rich on these gifts but it has only "recently" stopped being a thing that game journos would go home from big review events without their bags being full of merchandise and other little gifts... like tablets or PS4s with their names on it)

 

[SecondPrize]

No, they don't wield substantial power in the field. They wield power over themselves. Blacklisting is total. If you are blacklisted, you don't get to work in that profession unless you find the equivalent of an punishment army posting in the back end of Antarctica. Movie folk weren't able to find work in a few studios when they were labeled as communist by the HUAC, they were unable to work in Hollywood entirely. Refusing to hire or work with somebody is simply not hiring or working with them. Refusing to hire somebody because the industry has them on a list of undesirables to freeze out of the industry is blacklisting. The GJP weren't individually deciding not to hire Allistair Pinsof, they were collectively discussing how they were not going to give him any freelance gigs and encouraging editors not on board to get with it. That's blacklisting.

The GJP also wield power "over themselves", rather than the entire industry, and their power went no further than their own choices. That's my point.

It's still shady. I agree, I know. But it is, in principle, much the same as has been done towards Kotaku.

Your point is one company is the same as editors and journalists from a myriad of different publications? I'm not getting it. Just because you can use the word themselves to describe employees at ubisoft and a collection of Journalists colluding to not give someone work doesn't mean it's anywhere near the same thing.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

No, they don't wield substantial power in the field. They wield power over themselves. Blacklisting is total. If you are blacklisted, you don't get to work in that profession unless you find the equivalent of an punishment army posting in the back end of Antarctica. Movie folk weren't able to find work in a few studios when they were labeled as communist by the HUAC, they were unable to work in Hollywood entirely. Refusing to hire or work with somebody is simply not hiring or working with them. Refusing to hire somebody because the industry has them on a list of undesirables to freeze out of the industry is blacklisting. The GJP weren't individually deciding not to hire Allistair Pinsof, they were collectively discussing how they were not going to give him any freelance gigs and encouraging editors not on board to get with it. That's blacklisting.

The GJP also wield power "over themselves", rather than the entire industry, and their power went no further than their own choices. That's my point.

It's still shady. I agree, I know. But it is, in principle, much the same as has been done towards Kotaku.

Your point is one company is the same as editors and journalists from a myriad of different publications? I'm not getting it. Just because you can use the word themselves to describe employees at ubisoft and a collection of Journalists colluding to not give someone work doesn't mean it's anywhere near the same thing.

Not to mention that there was evidence of shameful behaviour with the GJP thing. You can only assume that Ubisoft and Bethesda's decisions are related in any sense beyond both being sufficiently annoyed with Kotaku. There is not evidence of anything like that.

 

[Silvanus]

If you look at what the GJP was (and probably still is), it was a collusive group, seeking to consolidate pretty much the entire class of American gaming sites of note under a single umbrella organization that would control personnel decisions and enforce a common message across ostensibly competitive platforms. It permeated virtually the whole field, including The Escapist. And of course it did this in a consciously clandestine manner. In other words, it was a secret media cartel.

Well, no, it was a mailing list-- let's keep that in perspective-- of the kind that exists in every industry. The existence of it is not noteworthy. The noteworthiness is that some members were found to be discussing some shady shit, though those that did so do not comprise the entire list, and do not reflect poorly on the others. The ones that took part in this do not comprise "the entire class of American gaming sites", and it's simply a little bizarre to conclude that the existence of the mailing list itself means they were all somehow in on that. Subscribers to New Scientist are a mailing list.

Your point is one company is the same as editors and journalists from a myriad of different publications? I'm not getting it. Just because you can use the word themselves to describe employees at ubisoft and a collection of Journalists colluding to not give someone work doesn't mean it's anywhere near the same thing.

My point is that, in both cases, people made decisions for themselves. Exercised power they had to non-engage, did not cajole others to do so, and did not represent the entirety of the industry, or anywhere near it. I haven't seen a difference of substance, except in who they targeted, which seems to me to be the crux.

You could make an argument that one was worse because of the extent, though that then is not an argument of principle any more.

 

[Gorrath]

If you look at what the GJP was (and probably still is), it was a collusive group, seeking to consolidate pretty much the entire class of American gaming sites of note under a single umbrella organization that would control personnel decisions and enforce a common message across ostensibly competitive platforms. It permeated virtually the whole field, including The Escapist. And of course it did this in a consciously clandestine manner. In other words, it was a secret media cartel.

Well, no, it was a mailing list-- let's keep that in perspective-- of the kind that exists in every industry. The existence of it is not noteworthy. The noteworthiness is that some members were found to be discussing some shady shit, though those that did so do not comprise the entire list, and do not reflect poorly on the others. The ones that took part in this do not comprise "the entire class of American gaming sites", and it's simply a little bizarre to conclude that the existence of the mailing list itself means they were all somehow in on that. Subscribers to New Scientist are a mailing list.

Your point is one company is the same as editors and journalists from a myriad of different publications? I'm not getting it. Just because you can use the word themselves to describe employees at ubisoft and a collection of Journalists colluding to not give someone work doesn't mean it's anywhere near the same thing.

My point is that, in both cases, people made decisions for themselves. Exercised power they had to non-engage, did not cajole others to do so, and did not represent the entirety of the industry, or anywhere near it. I haven't seen a difference of substance, except in who they targeted, which seems to me to be the crux.

You could make an argument that one was worse because of the extent, though that then is not an argument of principle any more.

Extent has nothing whatsoever to do with this. The GJP incident was several industry players colluding to not hire a specific individual. That falls under the literal definition of industry blacklisting. Ubi and Bethesda did not collude to both stop speaking with Kotaku. Ignoring the collusion in order to conflate the two incidents is fallacious.

While mailing lists in industries are not in and of themselves shady, using them to set up a hiring blacklist is at least unethical and possibly illegal. A lack of cajoling and the fact that they made their decisions for themselves has no bearing. If several natural gas companies used a mailing list to discuss all setting their prices the same you could argue that they don't represent anywhere near the whole industry, that they made their decision to set their prices without cajoling anyone and that they were merely exercising their right to set their prices where they wished. It would still be collusion and price fixing.

You say you don't see a difference in the substance of the two incidents but the difference in the substance is the collusion. If you think the collusion does not affect the substance then you are of an opinion not shared by modern legal or ethical thinking.

 

[Silvanus]

Extent has nothing whatsoever to do with this. The GJP incident was several industry players colluding to not hire a specific individual. That falls under the literal definition of industry blacklisting. Ubi and Bethesda did not collude to both stop speaking with Kotaku. Ignoring the collusion in order to conflate the two incidents is fallacious.

The decision not to talk to Kotaku also fits the literal definition of a blacklist, though limited to those companies.

If the sticking point is the "collusion", then you're playing fast and loose there, too; that term refers to undermining open competition through deception, not merely two figures talking to eachother. If we included the latter, then every company on earth is guilty of it. It is not "modern legal and ethical thinking" that individuals from companies may not even talk about what they plan to do; I find it fairly ludicrous that people are unaware how accepted that is.

EDIT: I feel I should reiterate; I think both are shitty and shady things to do, and constitute blacklisting. My point is that people are getting angry about one, and sweeping the other under the rug, for what seem superficial reasons. If I didn't know better, I'd say it's all about who, and not about what.

 

[Gorrath]

Extent has nothing whatsoever to do with this. The GJP incident was several industry players colluding to not hire a specific individual. That falls under the literal definition of industry blacklisting. Ubi and Bethesda did not collude to both stop speaking with Kotaku. Ignoring the collusion in order to conflate the two incidents is fallacious.

The decision not to talk to Kotaku also fits the literal definition of a blacklist, though limited to those companies.

I'll be happy to wait for a definition of industry blacklisting (the unethical sort) that would include two companies breaking business ties with a third without conferring with one another. But then you merely used the word blacklisting and dropped the "industry" part, which I put there specifically differentiate the two. So either we're conflating industry blacklisting with the greater definition, which is a fallacious semantic game, or you're jousting at strawmen by aiming for a broader definition of blacklisting that includes ethically neutral behavior, which is not what I was talking about.

If the sticking point is the "collusion", then you're playing fast and loose there, too; that term refers to undermining open competition through deception, not merely two figures talking to eachother. If we included the latter, then every company on earth is guilty of it. It is not "modern legal and ethical thinking" that individuals from companies may not even talk about what they plan to do; I find it fairly ludicrous that people are unaware how accepted that is.

Fast and loose my backside!

From DictionarydotCom: a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy:

Merriam Webster: secret cooperation for an illegal or dishonest purpose

The Free dictionary: An often secret action taken by two or more parties to achieve an illegal or improper purpose.

Your attempt to describe the GJP incident as "two companies talking to eachother" is a gross misrepresentation of what happened and saying "if we were to include that" is a red herring in the extreme. This wasn't "two companies," it was, to my knowledge, at least as many senior game's journalists as there were companies involved in the Silicon Valley hiring collusion scandal. And they weren't just "talking to eachother" they were deciding, as a group, to blacklist someone from being hired, which is usually illegal and at least unethical.

As for blacklisting, here's a list of laws by U.S. State: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/employee-rights-book/chapter10-9.html

Note Arizona: A blacklist is any understanding or agreement that communicates a name, or list of names, or descriptions between two or more employers, supervisors, or managers in order to prevent an employee from engaging in a useful occupation.

Or Colorado: Publishing or maintaining a blacklist. Conspiring or contriving to prevent a discharged employee from securing other employment

Or Florida: Agreeing or conspiring with another person or persons in order to get someone fired or prevent someone from obtaining employment.

Ect. ect.

So yes, it is modern (and sometimes not so modern) legal and ethical thinking that representatives with the power to keep someone from getting hired in an industry using that power to keep someone from getting hired is blacklisting, is collusion and is illegal/unethical.

And just to add some perspective, every company I have ever worked for has rules about what HR can share with otehr companies about terminated employees. Specifically, to a man, every one of them will only tell another employer the dates which an ex-employee was employed there and their job description. They will not share any details about why the employee no longer works with them specifically because of the threat of coming under scrutiny for illegal blacklisting. And if you want to see what happens when a group of people with influence in a company chat over e-mail about who not to hire and why, google Silicon Valley Hiring Collusion.

Now I don't want to misrepresent anything you've said so please do wring me out if you feel I've misconstrued anything you've written or meant. Also, since we are discussing not just GJP but their comparability to Ubi and Bethesda and the breaking of their relationship with Kotaku, I'll concede if you can show that what either of them did was illegal or unethical in comparable fashion. Thus far, I've seen no reason to think they've acted unethically, let alone illegally.

 

[Silvanus]

I'll be happy to wait for a definition of industry blacklisting (the unethical sort) that would include two companies breaking business ties with a third without conferring with one another. But then you merely used the word blacklisting and dropped the "industry" part, which I put there specifically differentiate the two. So either we're conflating industry blacklisting with the greater definition, which is a fallacious semantic game, or you're jousting at strawmen by aiming for a broader definition of blacklisting that includes ethically neutral behavior, which is not what I was talking about.

You don't have to wait long; you can look as far as the U.S. legal definition [http://thelawdictionary.org/black-list/]. The only mention in UK law I could find [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/493/crossheading/general-prohibition/made] concerns specifically trade unionism, but it too makes no qualification that it must extend further than one company.

I haven't decided or agreed that it is ethically neutral, because it seems arbitrary to only count cross-company instances. Admittedly, I won't be ordering my miniature violins any time soon, but it seems rather wrong-headed to expect an unaffiliated media outlet to withhold information.

Fast and loose my backside!

From DictionarydotCom: a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy:

Merriam Webster: secret cooperation for an illegal or dishonest purpose

The Free dictionary: An often secret action taken by two or more parties to achieve an illegal or improper purpose.

Your attempt to describe the GJP incident as "two companies talking to eachother" is a gross misrepresentation of what happened and saying "if we were to include that" is a red herring in the extreme. This wasn't "two companies," it was, to my knowledge, at least as many senior game's journalists as there were companies involved in the Silicon Valley hiring collusion scandal. And they weren't just "talking to eachother" they were deciding, as a group, to blacklist someone from being hired, which is usually illegal and at least unethical.

Using general dictionaries (rather than legal definitions) is a little unhelpful, but actually illustrates my point rather well. Schoolchildren could be said to "secretly cooperate for a dishonest purpose", or take a "secret action to achieve an improper purpose". These are terms vague enough to be legally meaningless (as should be expected from general-usage dictionaries), and are being liberally applied only where convenient.

The legal definition [http://thelawdictionary.org/collusion/] specifically revolves around creating the illusion of competition in order to defraud a third party.

And just to add some perspective, every company I have ever worked for has rules about what HR can share with otehr companies about terminated employees. Specifically, to a man, every one of them will only tell another employer the dates which an ex-employee was employed there and their job description. They will not share any details about why the employee no longer works with them specifically because of the threat of coming under scrutiny for illegal blacklisting. And if you want to see what happens when a group of people with influence in a company chat over e-mail about who not to hire and why, google Silicon Valley Hiring Collusion.

Indeed, that's common practice. However, so too is it common practice for somebody to discuss a new policy or practice at work with people outside the company.

 

[Nailzzz]

If you defend the individual based on their individual rights, you solve the problem for the collective.

If you defend every individual equally, then you've solved the problems "for the collective", yes. That's just tautology. It tells us nothing.

The trend need not even be a factor. It isn't important to identify racism or homophobia. The only thing that is important is to safeguard the rights of the individual from bigots of any kind. To do otherwise, is to reinforce tribalism and keep us on an us vs. them mindset.

Absolute bollocks. If we ignore the existence of racism and homophobia, and refuse to acknowledge them for what they are, then we simply allow them to persist.

They would not magically go away if we did not do anything about them, and pretended that everybody is receiving equal treatment. That would be simply lying, and disregarding vital evidence for no good reason whatsoever. Nothing but lying.

So tell me. How far are you willing to go to eradicate racists and homophobes from the planet? How bloody should we expect this purge to be? How many cultures and people are you prepared to wipe from existence for harboring such beliefs?

You nor anyone will stamp out racism or homophobia. These have been with us for as long as we have been recording history and likely well before that. It is the very height of conceit to believe that we will ever see these go away entirely within our lifetimes regardless of what actions and absolute power we could wield for that end. Tribalism and hatred will continue to exist alongside the human condition until the day comes when we succeed at wiping ourselves from existence.

I prefer to focus on more realistic goals such as supporting measures to insure that the excesses of such human flaws do not unfairly impact the individuals who would otherwise suffer from them.

 

[Silvanus]

So tell me. How far are you willing to go to eradicate racists and homophobes from the planet? How bloody should we expect this purge to be? How many cultures and people are you prepared to wipe from existence for harboring such beliefs?

This is just utter drivel. Absurd hyperbolic nonsense. "Bloody purge", "wipe from existence"... Give me a break.

You nor anyone will stamp out racism or homophobia. These have been with us for as long as we have been recording history and likely well before that. It is the very height of conceit to believe that we will ever see these go away entirely within our lifetimes regardless of what actions and absolute power we could wield for that end. Tribalism and hatred will continue to exist alongside the human condition until the day comes when we succeed at wiping ourselves from existence.

Who on earth claimed we could entirely get rid of them? That's just a (frankly bizarre) stipulation you've dreamt up. We can tackle them, we can counter them as much as possible, and limit the damage they do. Nobody but a fool would argue that because we cannot entirely undo violence or crime, we therefore shouldn't even fight them or the damage they do.

 

[Nailzzz]

So tell me. How far are you willing to go to eradicate racists and homophobes from the planet? How bloody should we expect this purge to be? How many cultures and people are you prepared to wipe from existence for harboring such beliefs?

This is just utter drivel. Absurd hyperbolic nonsense. "Bloody purge", "wipe from existence"... Give me a break.

You nor anyone will stamp out racism or homophobia. These have been with us for as long as we have been recording history and likely well before that. It is the very height of conceit to believe that we will ever see these go away entirely within our lifetimes regardless of what actions and absolute power we could wield for that end. Tribalism and hatred will continue to exist alongside the human condition until the day comes when we succeed at wiping ourselves from existence.

Who on earth claimed we could entirely get rid of them? That's just a (frankly bizarre) stipulation you've dreamt up. We can tackle them, we can counter them as much as possible, and limit the damage they do. Nobody but a fool would argue that because we cannot entirely undo violence or crime, we therefore shouldn't even fight them or the damage they do.

That would probably be the where you said: "If we ignore the existence of racism and homophobia, and refuse to acknowledge them for what they are, then we simply allow them to persist".

Now obviously you believe that allowing them to exist is unacceptable as that is your reason for justifying calling them out for racism and homophobia. Now of course calling them out will not keep them from "persisting". Naturally this will require you to up the consequences in order to keep them from "persisting" as that was the unacceptable position they occupied in the first place that justified any of your actions. It is obvious that them "persisting" is unacceptable to you. Naturally you will seek to correct this. Eventually this will require you to purge them as that is the only actual method to guarantee the outcome you desire.

Of course given that in some cases people holding such views may be the result of negative experiences with such groups of people, the purges necessary to your goal may have to be an ever ongoing affair while you keep such people from persisting.

 

[Barbas]

That would probably be the where you said: "If we ignore the existence of racism and homophobia, and refuse to acknowledge them for what they are, then we simply allow them to persist".

Now obviously you believe that allowing them to exist is unacceptable as that is your reason for justifying calling them out for racism and homophobia. Now of course calling them out will not keep them from "persisting". Naturally this will require you to up the consequences in order to keep them from "persisting" as that was the unacceptable position they occupied in the first place that justified any of your actions. It is obvious that them "persisting" is unacceptable to you. Naturally you will seek to correct this. Eventually this will require you to purge them as that is the only actual method to guarantee the outcome you desire.

Of course given that in some cases people holding such views may be the result of negative experiences with such groups of people, the purges necessary to your goal may have to be an ever ongoing affair while you keep such people from persisting.

Recognizing, acknowledging and combating racism and homophobia =/= purging people who practice it.

 

[SecondPrize]

If you look at what the GJP was (and probably still is), it was a collusive group, seeking to consolidate pretty much the entire class of American gaming sites of note under a single umbrella organization that would control personnel decisions and enforce a common message across ostensibly competitive platforms. It permeated virtually the whole field, including The Escapist. And of course it did this in a consciously clandestine manner. In other words, it was a secret media cartel.

Well, no, it was a mailing list-- let's keep that in perspective-- of the kind that exists in every industry. The existence of it is not noteworthy. The noteworthiness is that some members were found to be discussing some shady shit, though those that did so do not comprise the entire list, and do not reflect poorly on the others. The ones that took part in this do not comprise "the entire class of American gaming sites", and it's simply a little bizarre to conclude that the existence of the mailing list itself means they were all somehow in on that. Subscribers to New Scientist are a mailing list.

Your point is one company is the same as editors and journalists from a myriad of different publications? I'm not getting it. Just because you can use the word themselves to describe employees at ubisoft and a collection of Journalists colluding to not give someone work doesn't mean it's anywhere near the same thing.

My point is that, in both cases, people made decisions for themselves. Exercised power they had to non-engage, did not cajole others to do so, and did not represent the entirety of the industry, or anywhere near it. I haven't seen a difference of substance, except in who they targeted, which seems to me to be the crux.

You could make an argument that one was worse because of the extent, though that then is not an argument of principle any more.

Extent has nothing whatsoever to do with this. The GJP incident was several industry players colluding to not hire a specific individual. That falls under the literal definition of industry blacklisting. Ubi and Bethesda did not collude to both stop speaking with Kotaku. Ignoring the collusion in order to conflate the two incidents is fallacious.

While mailing lists in industries are not in and of themselves shady, using them to set up a hiring blacklist is at least unethical and possibly illegal. A lack of cajoling and the fact that they made their decisions for themselves has no bearing. If several natural gas companies used a mailing list to discuss all setting their prices the same you could argue that they don't represent anywhere near the whole industry, that they made their decision to set their prices without cajoling anyone and that they were merely exercising their right to set their prices where they wished. It would still be collusion and price fixing.

You say you don't see a difference in the substance of the two incidents but the difference in the substance is the collusion. If you think the collusion does not affect the substance then you are of an opinion not shared by modern legal or ethical thinking.

Discussion about why others should not hire Pinsof in no way match what you describe.
No, every industry does not run those mailing lists. You may recall the Journo Pros list, the mere existence of which caused a scandal.

 

[Silvanus]

That would probably be the where you said: "If we ignore the existence of racism and homophobia, and refuse to acknowledge them for what they are, then we simply allow them to persist".

"Allowing something to persist" and "accepting that something cannot be entirely destroyed" are completely different things. The police do not "allow crime to persist", but they accept that it will not be entirely removed from society.

Now obviously you believe that allowing them to exist is unacceptable as that is your reason for justifying calling them out for racism and homophobia. Now of course calling them out will not keep them from "persisting". Naturally this will require you to up the consequences in order to keep them from "persisting" as that was the unacceptable position they occupied in the first place that justified any of your actions. It is obvious that them "persisting" is unacceptable to you. Naturally you will seek to correct this. Eventually this will require you to purge them as that is the only actual method to guarantee the outcome you desire.

Of course given that in some cases people holding such views may be the result of negative experiences with such groups of people, the purges necessary to your goal may have to be an ever ongoing affair while you keep such people from persisting.

This whole tirade-- the ridiculous nonsense about purges and killing people-- is just taking something to the irrational extreme, beyond any reason, as a means of throwing accusations around. There's nothing of value here whatsoever.

 

[Nailzzz]

That would probably be the where you said: "If we ignore the existence of racism and homophobia, and refuse to acknowledge them for what they are, then we simply allow them to persist".

Now obviously you believe that allowing them to exist is unacceptable as that is your reason for justifying calling them out for racism and homophobia. Now of course calling them out will not keep them from "persisting". Naturally this will require you to up the consequences in order to keep them from "persisting" as that was the unacceptable position they occupied in the first place that justified any of your actions. It is obvious that them "persisting" is unacceptable to you. Naturally you will seek to correct this. Eventually this will require you to purge them as that is the only actual method to guarantee the outcome you desire.

Of course given that in some cases people holding such views may be the result of negative experiences with such groups of people, the purges necessary to your goal may have to be an ever ongoing affair while you keep such people from persisting.

Recognizing, acknowledging and combating racism and homophobia =/= purging people who practice it.

So your content with vague half measures then. Whew and here I was thinking you guys were serious about your convictions on the matter. Good to know that this doesn't really matter to you enough to actually do anything to solve the problems you guys are always complaining about. We'll if the goal is simply to have something to complain about to justify social controls on racists and non-racists alike, carry on then. Double plus good and all that.

 

[Nailzzz]

That would probably be the where you said: "If we ignore the existence of racism and homophobia, and refuse to acknowledge them for what they are, then we simply allow them to persist".

"Allowing something to persist" and "accepting that something cannot be entirely destroyed" are completely different things. The police do not "allow crime to persist", but they accept that it will not be entirely removed from society.

Now obviously you believe that allowing them to exist is unacceptable as that is your reason for justifying calling them out for racism and homophobia. Now of course calling them out will not keep them from "persisting". Naturally this will require you to up the consequences in order to keep them from "persisting" as that was the unacceptable position they occupied in the first place that justified any of your actions. It is obvious that them "persisting" is unacceptable to you. Naturally you will seek to correct this. Eventually this will require you to purge them as that is the only actual method to guarantee the outcome you desire.

Of course given that in some cases people holding such views may be the result of negative experiences with such groups of people, the purges necessary to your goal may have to be an ever ongoing affair while you keep such people from persisting.

This whole tirade-- the ridiculous nonsense about purges and killing people-- is just taking something to the irrational extreme, beyond any reason, as a means of throwing accusations around. There's nothing of value here whatsoever.

Odd. You just used an example of how society purges people from society for committing crimes by locking them away and occasionally killing a few. But somehow my bringing it up is somehow irrational and beyond reason. Your rather sanitized view of the criminal justice system compared to the obvious reality belies a sense of privilege on the matter I have never known.