BREAKING: Women of #GamerGate Make Breakthrough on HuffPo Live

[BloatedGuppy]

I suggest you look up any discussion of free speech which has ever entered a court of law in the United States and Britain. That, or consult a lawyer so they can give you a blank stare and then toss a legal brief on the subject in your lap.

Protip: "forced into going somewhere else" is one of the side-effects of a "chilling effect". Hence the reason I realize you have no idea what you're responding to.

This isn't a freedom of speech question, although it's fun to see that hoary old chestnut make another appearance on a forum. Always entertaining to see people invoke "freedom of speech" whenever they're feeling cross about something.

Hm, let's see: lack of connective material, leaping to conclusions strictly on basis of he-said/she-said, and making assertions without any support. Well, if that's the kind of journalism you don't think should be "criticized"...

Jesus, you're all over the place. Firstly, I never said journalism shouldn't be criticized. Secondly, once AGAIN I was referring to the "laymen" you are so happy to hand wave the behavior of. I mentioned blacklisting and mass mail campaigns as an attempt to squash opinions you dislike. You hand waved it as the actions of "a mass of people on the internet" who apparently needn't be held to any standard of behavior at all, because "mass of people" I guess.

Except for the reality: by that time, ZQ's personal affairs were barely 1% of posts on the GamerGate subject --- ASIDE from people opposing the group, who almost without fail brought it up.

So, clearly, it seems to me that you feel Stephen Totilo was ONLY calling for GamerGate's opposition to be quashed. Interesting interpretation, that.

Not to mention that by the time of the "single sourced call" we're talking about, most other gamer-related venue of speech had already been censored by their site owners. So at this point, they were exporting their quashing to sites they had no control over, but you seem to want to minimize that fact.

Sooo....that was a fun change of subject. Once again, I recall a single incidence of this happening, related to discussion of a single event, and you've pretty much confirmed that. Unless you just felt like not listing all the other "websites" that joined in this call to "quash" the discussion you've been happily having for weeks and weeks now?

This is sort of a common theme, isn't it? I ask you a question, and suddenly we're talking about something else! It's kind of neat.

The whole of Reddit and 4chan immediately come to mind, neither of which limited quashing to "Zoe Quinn's sex life" either.

The whole of Reddit and 4chan tried to "quash" discussion on other websites! Gasp! When did that happen! The whole of Reddit! Like, all of it? All of Reddit tried to quash discussion on other websites?

Or wait, do you mean "discussion was quashed" ON Reddit by the people who own and moderate Reddit? Well that's much less exciting, isn't it?

[/i]a person who examines books, movies, letters, etc., and removes things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc... to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable [/i]

You react to the term as though it, itself, is a crime: it is not. It is merely an accurate description of the mods of those websites conducting lawful actions to suppress speech of which they did not approve --- regardless, in fact, of actual content, since discussion of the movement was itself censored.

Alright, so...if someone shushed you in a library, you'd view that as censorship. If you were asked not to swear in the board room, you'd view that as censorship. So invoking "censorship" is basically your go-to reaction any time you're not allowed to say exactly what you want to say when you want to say it, even if it's on someone else's property. The Gater definition of censorship, which is what I thought.

Now, you respond by saying GamerGaters are wrong to blacklist, condemn, and seek the firing of people who in any other field of endeavor would already be fired for having dramatically embarrassed their parent company with broad-stroke insults of a core demographic.

I cannot agree. But since we're on the Escapist, I'm free to do that and so are you.

Wrong? Not wrong. Just advocates of the kind of "censorship" they're aggrieved about, on a much larger scale. Not allowed to say what I want on your website? Well then sir I want you fired and your voice removed from the discussion entirely. This is the "ethical" movement I am to understand is policing the non-ethical journalists, and am being asked to support.

There's no law against mass mailing sponsors to try and get something removed from the internet, just like there's no law to stop fundamentalist Christians from trying to get violent shows off the air, or government officials with strong beliefs from stumping to get harsher laws strapped to entertainment products. People are allowed to do all of these things, I'm in no position to tell them no.

Surely you could just CRITICIZE the journalists in question, but it's much more important to SILENCE them forever and see to their ejection from the industry, so you never have to hear them ever again. This will better craft the world you want to see. Have at it! What could possibly be wrong with that?

 

[Dagda Mor]

I really don't think that reviews are very good as a straight-up buyer's guide anyway, under most circumstances. If I hear buzz about a game, I'll check it out. To me, reviews are really more about discussion and critique of the game or movie or what have you--they generate the initial buzz and get the ball rolling. That can lead to sales indirectly, but I don't see "9/10" and think, "Oh, it looks like someone else liked that, so I definitely have to buy it." The inverse is also true.


Further, if a game has an anime art style and some reviewers don't like that, why is that a problem? Some players don't like an anime art style either. The guys that do like an anime art style will hear about it, regardless of whether someone else doesn't like it.

 

[Calbeck]

This isn't a freedom of speech question

No, it's a matter of harassing gamers out of an uncomfortable discussion which was mainly about their poor accountability and less about the sex lives of individual people. Which is why it is constantly asserted by the poor accountants that the reverse is true, while at the same time having changed certain of their policies to address exactly the points that they simultaneously say no one was "really" trying to make.

This is why the ZQ issue is a dead-letter; it is a matter of historical fact, but the original, quite-real concerns which spawned them were dealt with. Gamergate SHOULD have ended there, but the journos decided to open fire with both rhetorical barrels into the crowd in the "Gamers Are Dead" scandal.

Way to break it, heroes...

although it's fun to see that hoary old chestnut make another appearance on a forum. Always entertaining to see people invoke "freedom of speech" whenever they're feeling cross about something.

You can't be convincing when you say that, unless you're holding up a cup of Boston tea to your lips and sneering about "quaint Colonials". -:3

Jesus, you're all over the place. Firstly, I never said journalism shouldn't be criticized.

The controllers of the forums where such criticism was banned clearly disagree with you. Of course, they insist that the whole of the discussion was talk of someone else's sex life --- and, incidentally, at least one of those who was outed STILL says that the entire discussion of the matter here on the Escapist is all about that same person's sex life. Indicating that he never bothered to read any of it before making his assertions, assuming for his sake that he isn't lying outright.

Indeed, that's a position so ill-informed as to make the case that he never bothered to read any of the boards he controlled in the first place --- someone merely said to him "it's all about private sex" and he took it as Gospel. Capitalization deliberate.

Secondly, once AGAIN I was referring to the "laymen" you are so happy to hand wave the behavior of. I mentioned blacklisting and mass mail campaigns as an attempt to squash opinions you dislike.

Except they do neither.

Even if someone gets fired, boycotted or ignored, they don't lose the ability to have or promulgate an opinion in the same way anyone else can. The difference is, WE won't silence THEM by banning, censoring, deleting, et cetera.

You hand waved it as the actions of "a mass of people on the internet" who apparently needn't be held to any standard of behavior at all, because "mass of people" I guess.

Here are twenty-five thousand cats.

Feel free to herd them, let us know how that goes. Now, if you want to assert that gaming journalism should be held to the standard of organization inherent in a truckload of cats...

Sooo....that was a fun change of subject. Once again, I recall a single incidence of this happening, related to discussion of a single event, and you've pretty much confirmed that.

Yep, forum owner stomps out discussion on his own site and then goes to a site he doesn't control and accuses the controller there of harboring "harassment" against a single individual because he is absolutely positive that's all anyone is actually talking about.

You can minimize that all you like, but it's still a matter of exporting censorship in hopes of quashing unwelcome speech which "festers" (in his words) elsewhere.

Or wait, do you mean "discussion was quashed" ON Reddit by the people who own and moderate Reddit? Well that's much less exciting, isn't it?

It's also what I said, and you're a lousy actor. You really need to place the back of your hand to your forehead when engaging in faux shock/dismay. -

Alright, so...if someone shushed you in a library, you'd view that as censorship.

a person who examines books, movies, letters, etc., and removes things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc... to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable

I can keep repeating that for as long as you want to try to minimize and misrepresent the definition. You're arguing with Merriam-Webster, not me.

Captcha: Corolla https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqbgBRBRnrE

 

[BloatedGuppy]

No, it's a matter of harassing gamers out of an uncomfortable discussion which was mainly about their poor accountability and less about the sex lives of individual people.

Yeah yeah we have a difference in opinion about the genesis of this particular discussion.

Also...I'm a gamer. I don't feel "harassed" out of any discussions. I was briefly "harassed" out of the GamerGate master thread.

You can't be convincing when you say that, unless you're holding up a cup of Boston tea to your lips and sneering about "quaint Colonials". -:3

Oh, cute! Credit for wearing your politics on your sleeve, I guess. That's me, always sneering about the colonials, given Canada's long history of aggressive colonization.

The controllers of the forums where such criticism was banned clearly disagree with you. Of course, they insist that the whole of the discussion was talk of someone else's sex life.

And others insist the entire reason for the moderation was to silence their dogged pursuit of an industry wide conspiracy of feminists and SJWs trying to control and ruin video games. Yes, I'm aware of the talking points. How could I not be? The "censored" discussed has been raging for weeks.

Except they do neither.

God I must have...I must have IMAGINED the website blacklist, and the calls for firings. All a crazy fever dream.

Even if someone gets fired, boycotted or ignored, they don't lose the ability to have or promulgate an opinion in the same way anyone else can. The difference is, WE won't silence THEM by banning, censoring, deleting, et cetera.

Gotcha. If you're moderated out of a forum and have to have your discussion in a different forum, it's censorship, and corruption, and must be stopped. If your boycott results in websites collapsing or people losing their jobs, and you've effectively silenced a voice you disapprove of it, it's cool beans. Again, I am deeply impressed by the double think. Orwell would be proud. Possibly also horrified.

Here are twenty-five thousand cats.

And here's the hand wave, right on time. Hey, you're ONE cat. You could control your own behavior, right?

Yep, forum owner stomps out discussion on his own site and then goes to a site he doesn't control and accuses the controller there of harboring "harassment" against a single individual because he is absolutely positive that's all anyone is actually talking about.

Yep, one thing happened, one time, one person involved. You present it in a discussion as a slew of websites trying to "quash" discussion everywhere. See the problem?

I can keep repeating that for as long as you want to try to minimize and misrepresent the definition. You're arguing with Merriam-Webster, not me.

Invocations of censorship and freedom of speech when no government body is imposing restrictions on you and you are QUITE FREELY DISCUSSING the so called "censored" material is so patently ludicrous that I'm honestly boggled we're even having this discussion. You got moderated off a couple of websites, and you believe your freedom of speech is under attack. You deplore the "censorship" of moderation, but want to boycott people who disagree with you.

As I've said before, I think gaming "journalism" is a fucking mess. I'm ALL in favor of criticizing it. I will support the criticism of it night and day. I just won't join your little crusade against the "SJW" menace, I won't rubber stamp a grassroots movement to drum people out of the industry for having an opinion, and I'll continue to howl with laughter at the concept of "objective reviews".

 

[Calbeck]

Also...I'm a gamer. I don't feel "harassed" out of any discussions. I was briefly "harassed" out of the GamerGate master thread.

No one deleted your posts, kicked you off the Escapist, or did any of the things I referred to as harassment? Then no, you haven't got any comparisons to make.

And others insist the entire reason for the moderation was to silence their dogged pursuit of an industry wide conspiracy

Haven't met those folks, sorry. You seem to have a field full of straw men, and they're on fire. Should tend to that.

God I must have...I must have IMAGINED the website blacklist, and the calls for firings. All a crazy fever dream.

Yep, it's sure crazy of you to insist that getting fired means you've lost the freedom of speech.

Given that you don't seem interested in keeping track of your own statements let alone mine, and since I don't have any interest in assuming anything other than simple disorganization of speech on your part (that would be rude), I will bid you adieu.

EDIT: Although, I do want to thank you for resurrecting this thread from the deadpile and giving me a reason to continue the discussion this long, thus keeping it in the public view and allowing more people to notice the OP's link to the Women of #Gamergate.

Thanks for playing! -

 

[BloatedGuppy]

No one deleted your posts, kicked you off the Escapist, or did any of the things I referred to as harassment? Then no, you haven't got any comparisons to make.

No, because I didn't invoke moderation by breaching site etiquette.

Haven't met those folks, sorry. You seem to have a field full of straw men, and they're on fire. Should tend to that.

Then you haven't looked very hard. Or at all.

Yep, it's sure crazy of you to insist that getting fired means you've lost the freedom of speech.

No, that only occurs when you get moderated on a forum, as we have established.

Although, I do want to thank you for resurrecting this thread from the deadpile and giving me a reason to continue the discussion this long, thus keeping it in the public view and allowing more people to notice the OP's link to the Women of #Gamergate.

Thanks for playing! -

GASP! You've foxed me with your brilliant ruse. Here I was replying to something in my inbox, and all along I was bungling into your cleverly laid trap. Well done. How else were you going to get a GamerGate thread visibility in the off-topic forum? They're so hard to find.

 

[Calbeck]

"Objective review."

*sigh* There is no such thing in gaming. With artstyle, gameplay, story etc all including subjective qualities you can't have an objective review worth a damn.

But on the other hand we have now "graphics are shit because I PERSONALLY don't like the art-style". When people ask for "Objective reviews" they want reviewers to dismiss their own biases to see the bigger picture.

Rule 1 of Armchair Psychiatry: Biases are symptoms of the very things that make a human being's personality what they are. You cannot ignore them, because they affect everything from the length you spend on a subject to the order you portray them in, and natural things you do to start, finish and counter point opposing points, down to the very way you type and speak. Hence why everyone tends to have their own personalized ways of explaining their various points.

Artstyle is subjective. (some people adore Andy Waholes's untalented shite they call art)

Gameplay qualities are subjective. (Dynasty Warriors is awful at everything, and many people love the gameplay)

Story quality is subjective. (Some people think Sword Art Online is the best written, best told anime of all time, despite spending a quarter of the show on pointless side stories, then an ultra generic tsundere romance, then a second arc that while better paced, is set around a plot point that is about a million times lower stakes then the first arc with a super overused plot that resembled Mario)

Controls are subjective. (Some people think Dark Souls had awful controls. I believe they are superb. Some people like Gears of War for its tight controls, when I found it glitchy, loose and unresponsive)


The only things that are not are emotionless descriptions, lists and technical details on graphics, which even then, can reveal author bias quite a bit more often then you think.

Excellent points. I think we can agree that bias exists, but it's more like looking through a window than anything else. There will always, always be that slightest of reflections no matter how hard you try to eliminate anything imperfect in repeatedly cleaning it. And there's a point of diminishing returns where trying extra-hard doesn't really net you much of a difference.

But the alternative of never cleaning the built-up residue means your viewpoint becomes muddier and muddier, until you cannot really see what is outside your window at all... your vision is reduced to what you can conjure in your imagination.