Ryallen said:
If I remember correctly, it caused the front page twitter feed to be updated to only include staff, and not content contributors. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong though.Slayer4472 said:
Demonization of Moviebob and other Escapist Staff
- Thread starter firebobm173
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's on the Escapist!! You're here on the Escapist, but you don't actually read the Escapist? It's on the news, man.firebobm173 said:
People don't like Moviebob? What an amazing discovery.
People haven't liked Moviebob ever since he came on the gaming scene. I know there haven't been threads that have called for him to get fired, but with all this Gamergate stuff flying about I'm not surprised one thread like that cropped up. Same goes for Jim; people have always had beef with him and always will. There are going to be people who respectuflly disagree with him and people who act like children about their beef with the guy. The same goes for anyone taking stances on hot topic issues. What both men are facing isn't anything new and the only reason why it's noteworthy is because it ties to the whole "Gamergate" issue, which is making people bring up their displeasure. People always had these negative feelings, it's just now that they feel like talking about them.
Don't get me wrong, I watch Bob's shows, so I do enjoy his work when he's talking about movies or comics, it's just his political views that drive me crazy. I don't hate the guy or want him to be fired despite my ire with his political views and how reactionary he seems to be whenever some controversy rears its head.
People haven't liked Moviebob ever since he came on the gaming scene. I know there haven't been threads that have called for him to get fired, but with all this Gamergate stuff flying about I'm not surprised one thread like that cropped up. Same goes for Jim; people have always had beef with him and always will. There are going to be people who respectuflly disagree with him and people who act like children about their beef with the guy. The same goes for anyone taking stances on hot topic issues. What both men are facing isn't anything new and the only reason why it's noteworthy is because it ties to the whole "Gamergate" issue, which is making people bring up their displeasure. People always had these negative feelings, it's just now that they feel like talking about them.
Don't get me wrong, I watch Bob's shows, so I do enjoy his work when he's talking about movies or comics, it's just his political views that drive me crazy. I don't hate the guy or want him to be fired despite my ire with his political views and how reactionary he seems to be whenever some controversy rears its head.
I feel quite insulted by our baseless accusation about not reading the escapist, as I have been a regular reader here for years. As for content on the escapist, I've already linked to moviebob's intermission on all this, which despite you not agreeing with it is still something I read on the escapist. As for other stuff, are you talking about this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/137293-Exclusive-Zoe-Quinn-Posts-Chat-Logs-Debunking-GamerGate-4Chan-and-Quinn-Respond] article that simply says what zoe quinn has said, then says what 4chan said, and is at pains to stay completely neutral throughout? And as for the link to the attempt to get MovieBob fired, I already talked about and linked to it in literally the second sentence of my original post.AlexKerscher said:
So I am totally following your reponses in this thread right now.firebobm173 said:
Didn't you say that the article you posted on thedailydot was neutral, but took Zoe's side.... yet this article on the escapist 'pains to stay completely neutral throughout' by providing both parties a voice and comparing what they both say, without forcing a concluion on the reader?
Well obviously yes I did say that, and I would like to say that it's possible for someone to take a side on an issue without being biased to the point where their opinion should be completely dismissed.thethird0611 said:
Being neutral doesn't mean you can't take a side, it means you report both sides without your bias in it.firebobm173 said:
Being neutral is showing both sides of the story when the two sides differ and one side doesn't have a burden of proof.
Being neutral means your own opinion doesnt slander others, and you give both sides time to talk.
Even in the escapist article, they pointed out, "Please note that The Escapist firmly stands against all harassment, bullying and abuse." Even if Greg sides with Zoe, he is reporting this issue neutrally and giving both sides time to talk, and is letting his readers decide for themselves about the information.
I friggin loved this line. *completely sincere*firebobm173 said:
OT: Eh, Moviebob gets angry at idiots and said idiots throw a shitstorm. It's happened before. It'll happen again. I do wish Moviebob could keep his cool more, since he is almost always right, but considering I have trouble with that too... Pots and kettles and the color black and all that...
You do realize that if one side of a two sided story is stupid, than neutrality means showing that stupidity right? I'm not saying Moviebob was neutral or unbiased in this case, because he wasn't, but "neutrality" also doesn't mean going out of your way to make both sides look like they have a point if one side is completely off it's rocker.thethird0611 said:
Additionally, I think the point is that someone can be biased and still be right. Having bias doesn't automatically make you wrong about the thing you're biased about. Now, all I've read of Moviebob's take on this controversy was that one Intermission article, but I found it rather spot on. Bias and all.
Ok we seem to working from two different definitions of the word neutral [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/neutral]. You seem be using it to mean not being biased, but taking a side and bias are not the same thing. I am using in the sense of the first two definitions of the word in the link, meaning not taking a side.thethird0611 said:
The thing is, Moviebob has had a degree of hostility aimed at him for as long as I've been on the Escapist. He's always been an outspoken feminist and against some of the whinier aspects of fandom.
Personally, sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I think he's an indignant baby spending way too much effort on topics that barely concern him, but his movie reviews are pretty good.
Personally, sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I think he's an indignant baby spending way too much effort on topics that barely concern him, but his movie reviews are pretty good.
Thanks for your support. I agree with you completely on Moviebob and this entire affair. So many people try to see "both sides" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation] of an issue to the point where they insist that in any conflict both sides must be equally right and wrong. Sometimes one side of an issue is simply right.dragonswarrior said:
Except, your saying the side of the #burgersandfries IRC (A subset of 4chan no less, so even less people) are stupid.... except it seems that zoe may of been showing things out of context and making up some information. Except.... The #IRC spokesman showed professionalism and showed what the movement was really about, and actually showed that Zoe may of shown some chats out of context, or even worse, faked some.... so who is stupid now?dragonswarrior said:
That is why we have neutrality. Neither side has a burden of proof. You don't want to be neutral here, you want to slander a side.
Bias can happen when you are right.... except you don't get to say you are right in this case, and bias can absolutely happen when you are wrong to. There is an actual discussion going on here, and your spreading what basically amounts to slanderous propaganda against a movement that is fighting for journalistic integrity.
I have to say, I am glad Greg Tito, who most likely sides with Zoe, wrote that article, and not you. Greg knows how to write a neutral article when there is no one 'right' side, you would just want to be like Polygon, Kotaku, and Rock/Paper/Shotgun.
Actually, I am using it in the first two definitions.firebobm173 said:
not taking part or giving assistance in a dispute or war between others:
a neutral nation during World War II.
2.
not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy:
The arbitrator was absolutely neutral.
In the escapist article, Greg did not take a side or give assistance to any side (that is debatable on a small area of the article, but easily forgiven).
The escapist article was neutral and conformed to neither side. The dailydot article was completely on one side.
I don't always agree with moviebob, but I'm not fringe extreme crazed against him. Even if someone gives an opposing position to something I believe, I'll give it the time of day as long as there isn't real venom injected into the conversation. I don't talk about social issues or politics unless I can keep the conversation civil myself and try to objectively listen to all sides of a position. No one on escapist has expressed opinions I find vile (journalists that is) but there are some articles or parts I'll disagree with.
I try to approach things with civility and grace, anything emotionally injected just turns a conversation into a war of words, never ends well because like arguments, no one really wins in a war either.
I try to approach things with civility and grace, anything emotionally injected just turns a conversation into a war of words, never ends well because like arguments, no one really wins in a war either.
Alright, let me just begin by saying that while taking a side often means that some degree of bias is unavoidable, that does not immediately discount the arguments of the person taking a side. I also never said that if you're biased you can't be wrong, this should be obvious. And as for which side is a malicious slander against a legitimate movement, I think it's safe to say we disagree on which is which, and which side is shutting down legitimate discussion in the name of furthering their side. I am not here to slander, I am arguing for my side on this, which doesn't automatically discredit me. I have seen the amount of contempt and bile leveled at "Social Justice Warriors" on that thread, and didn't feel that it would be an appropriate place to start a relatively unbiased discussion on this issue.thethird0611 said:
Except.... this thread isn't unbiased. You are set in your point and want others to agree with you. You have already shown me that you believe anyone who supports #gamersgate is wrong, by saying that the dailydot article is right and the escapist one isn't. You are getting way off point to.firebobm173 said:
I don't care that we disagree on which side is right. That is why the escapist article is the neutral article. It provides both sides of the story for people on both sides of the conversation, and those in the middle.
The people in that mega thread would happily talk to you if you want to have a discussion.
"I have seen the amount of contempt and bile leveled at "Social Justice Warriors" on that thread"
You know why, right? Because those are the people constantly calling us misogynist, neck beards, scum, ISIS, and a plethora of other things. Not everyone who opposes #gamergate is a SJW, but the ones who are can usually be seen by calling someone a misogynist.
Hmm, wasn't it because he said some stupid things over Twitter in the heat of the moment?
If I remember correctly he was insulting to the conspiracy theorists calling them sexist or something, which suddenly put him on the shit-list of a lot of people.
Eh I mean you got a topic that went viral, anything that comes from that will be magnified, he just insulted a single side without much context and got shit for it.
If I remember correctly he was insulting to the conspiracy theorists calling them sexist or something, which suddenly put him on the shit-list of a lot of people.
Eh I mean you got a topic that went viral, anything that comes from that will be magnified, he just insulted a single side without much context and got shit for it.
Huh? the actions of a few hundred idiots speak for a "gaming community"? That's pretty damn insulting to hear.Fiz_The_Toaster said:
Given how much of the vocal minority just over shadowed everyone else and drove out two people from the industry, and made one critic leave her house because of death threats, I would say it's pretty accurate.NiPah said:
I find all of that insulting when those people condone it.
Is all of the community like that? No, but at a casual glance from someone outside of our little bubble that is pretty damning.
Indeed it is! So why are we putting up with it? Why are we not actively denouncing it?NiPah said: