GamerGate's Image Problem

[doomrider7]

It discredits Milo's additions since it's clear he doesn't care about the medium and is only using it as a podium to ush his agenda. I don't know what the full deal is wit Alexander, but at least she's been part of the community before this and not using it to push political agendas that have nothing to do with gaming. As for the mailing list, Journalism s dead then since lists like that have existed for quite some time on top the Reporter's Privilege which means grants protections of sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_sources

What agenda exactly, exactly? And if you don't know about LA and don't care to look into it, why do you even bother bringing it up? And even if it discredits Milo, it doesn't discredit the information he provided us with. For that the information would have to be proven false, which it hasn't been. So what is your point in all of this?

This has actually nothing to do with the protection of sources.. but since you bring it up, in order to be protected by that somehow, they'd have to be journalists in the first place. But they are not. They are advocates who try to disguise their bias as objective journalism. Colluding among a large number 'news' sites to synchronise the narrative and push an agenda is a mockery of journalism, nothing else. But then, if we can't agree on what constitutes a journalist, I think we will just have to agree to disagree right here.

If they aren't journalists then why do we care and are discussing journalistic ethics as if it applies to them then. The point of LA is that at least she writes about games because she's actually fan and cares while Milo is using it as anti-feminist agenda. I mean shit, his first piece had this written as it's headline, ?Feminist Bullies? are ?Tearing The Video Game Industry Apart.?, and this as an excerpt,

"There is a platoon of irritants in the media whose talents are vanishingly slight, but who generate column inches by the thousand for victimising innocents and manipulating their way around an over-sensitive industry. Some of them, such as Anita Sarkeesian, have no discernible higher purpose in life, except to bother innocent games developers.

These women purposefully court ? and then exploit ? boisterous, unpleasant reactions from astonished male gamers and use them to attract attention to themselves. What?s remarkable is how deeply unpleasant the skeletons lurking in their own closets often are, how completely those skeletons give the lie to their public image, and how uncritically their claims are repackaged by credulous games journalists."

The entire thing was so blatantly biased and agenda driven against feminists and feminism that I can't believe people are taking this as actual journalism and not for what it actually is, and opinion fluff piece meant to garner hits for his page.

Edit: Another of it's pieces uses links to it's OWN website as citations istead of deferring to more reliable and noteworthy ones. That's how fucking bad it is and something not legitimate news site would EVER do since it's the ultimate evidence of bias.

 

[Davroth]

If they aren't journalists then why do we care and are discussing journalistic ethics as if it applies to them then. The point of LA is that at least she writes about games because she's actually fan and cares while Milo is using it as anti-feminist agenda. I mean shit, his first piece had this written as it's headline, ?Feminist Bullies? are ?Tearing The Video Game Industry Apart.?, and this as an excerpt,

"There is a platoon of irritants in the media whose talents are vanishingly slight, but who generate column inches by the thousand for victimising innocents and manipulating their way around an over-sensitive industry. Some of them, such as Anita Sarkeesian, have no discernible higher purpose in life, except to bother innocent games developers.

These women purposefully court ? and then exploit ? boisterous, unpleasant reactions from astonished male gamers and use them to attract attention to themselves. What?s remarkable is how deeply unpleasant the skeletons lurking in their own closets often are, how completely those skeletons give the lie to their public image, and how uncritically their claims are repackaged by credulous games journalists."

The entire thing was so blatantly biased and agenda driven against feminists and feminism that I can't believe people are taking this as actual journalism and not for what it actually is, and opinion fluff piece meant o garner hits for his page.

I apply the ethics of journalism to them because /they/ tell us that they are journalists, and want to be treated as such. Being a journalist comes with perks and respondsabilities. They make use of the perks, but don't want to be held accountable for it.

Also, this again? Why do you so desperately try to discredit Milo? I don't have to like him, his information is what counts. I read all of his articles on GamerGate. How does is discredit his information? You basically admit that you outright discredit information based on the source, no matter if it holds up to scrutiny or not, in other words you apply personal bias above reason. I have nothing to add to that. If that's your mindset, I don't see why you care one way or the other. You are welcome to come back if you want to make actual arguments instead of focusing solely on that Milo fellow. His character is not important in the slightest. His information is what counts. Do you have anything to discredit his intel? I'd love to see it if you do.

Also, realise who you are trying to cover here. The ones to loose are not the feminists (although the modern definition of feminism has not a lot in common with what the gaming press describes as such), but the media outlets who decided to throw their objectiveness into the wind. They fed us their propaganda. And just because you like their propaganda doesn't make them ethical journalists. And as such they don't deserve the power and perks that come with that position.

 

[doomrider7]

If they aren't journalists then why do we care and are discussing journalistic ethics as if it applies to them then. The point of LA is that at least she writes about games because she's actually fan and cares while Milo is using it as anti-feminist agenda. I mean shit, his first piece had this written as it's headline, ?Feminist Bullies? are ?Tearing The Video Game Industry Apart.?, and this as an excerpt,

"There is a platoon of irritants in the media whose talents are vanishingly slight, but who generate column inches by the thousand for victimising innocents and manipulating their way around an over-sensitive industry. Some of them, such as Anita Sarkeesian, have no discernible higher purpose in life, except to bother innocent games developers.

These women purposefully court ? and then exploit ? boisterous, unpleasant reactions from astonished male gamers and use them to attract attention to themselves. What?s remarkable is how deeply unpleasant the skeletons lurking in their own closets often are, how completely those skeletons give the lie to their public image, and how uncritically their claims are repackaged by credulous games journalists."

The entire thing was so blatantly biased and agenda driven against feminists and feminism that I can't believe people are taking this as actual journalism and not for what it actually is, and opinion fluff piece meant o garner hits for his page.

I apply the ethics of journalism to them because /they/ tell us that they are journalists, and want to be treated as such. Being a journalist comes with perks and respondsabilities. They make use of the perks, but don't want to be held accountable for it.

Also, this again? Why do you so desperately try to discredit Milo? I don't have to like him, his information is what counts. I read all of his articles on GamerGate. How does is discredit his information? You basically admit that you outright discredit information based on the source, no matter if it holds up to scrutiny or not, in other words you apply personal bias above reason. I have nothing to add to that. If that's your mindset, I don't see why you care one way or the other. You are welcome to come back if you want to make actual arguments instead of focusing solely on that Milo fellow. His character is not important in the slightest. His information is what counts. Do you have anything to discredit his intel? I'd love to see it if you do.

Also, realise who you are trying to cover here. The ones to loose are not the feminists (although the modern definition of feminism has not a lot in common with what the gaming press describes as such), but the media outlets who decided to throw their objectiveness into the wind. They fed us their propaganda. And just because you like their propaganda doesn't make them ethical journalists. And as such they don't deserve the power and perks that come with that position.

And why shouldn't informational sources be questioned for validity ESPECIALLY one such as Breibart which has falsified information numerous times. Not to mention that I'm not discrediting his info purely based on source, but also on the grounds that it really is shit and hardly some kind of revelation of corruption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_(website)#Controversies

His supposed intel has in my eyes been very weak and lacking as signify some kind of corruption in gaming and you still haven't commented on his blatantly biased piece, "Feminist Bullies" are "Tearing The Video Game Industry Apart.". If you want my final opinion on this, GamerGate was ridiculously stupid idea that to some it MAY have been about journalistic ethics, but to a number of people both inside and outside of the gaming sphere it was nothing more than an excuse to be a misogynistic asshole and peddle right-wing anti-feministic bullshit.

Edit: I don't believe in the existence of gaming journalism no matter what ANYONE in the industry calls themselves. Reporters yeah sure, but not journalists. This piece pretty much sums most of it up.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/10/26/all-the-pretty-doritos-how-video-game-journalism-went-off-the-rails/

 

[Davroth]

And why shouldn't informational sources be questioned for validity ESPECIALLY one such as Breibart which has falsified information numerous times. Not to mention that I'm not discrediting his info purely based on source, but also on the grounds that it really is shit and hardly some kind of revelation of corruption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_(website)#Controversies

His supposed intel has in my eyes been very weak and lacking as signify some kind of corruption in gaming and you still haven't commented on his blatantly biased piece, "Feminist Bullies" are "Tearing The Video Game Industry Apart.". If you want my final opinion on this, GamerGate was ridiculously stupid idea that to some it MAY have been about journalistic ethics, but to a number of people both inside and outside of the gaming sphere it was nothing more than an excuse to be a misogynistic asshole and peddle right-wing anti-feministic bullshit.

So you believe that the leaks are untruthful then? Is that what you are on about? On the basis that you don't like the political agenda of the source? May I remind you that several of the 'journalists' in question have confirmed their involvement in the list, and so far none of them have denied it? So on what logical basis are you trying to discredit the information here really?

And you know what? If you think it's signs of corruption doesn't change if it's corruption of not. And it is, by any sensible definition of the word. They were colluding. And the people you are trying to defend here are just as guilty of the things you condemn Breitbart for doing. But when Kotaku does it, it's not bad, huh? I can't say I care much for that kind of double standard.

The fun part is that the people who actually matter in this do listen. And that's all I care about. If you don't care for unbiased journalism, then that's fine. Knock yourself out. Don't expect anyone to be persuaded without actual arguments beyond an attempt at character assassination against an easy target though. You'll have to do better, I'm afraid.


Edit: Concerning Doritogate or whatever you wanna call it.. your argument is that you are desillusionized and don't believe the cause of GamerGate can actually do anything? That's not really a reason to stop fighting for unbiased press coverage.. that's just a defeatist attitude you sport there. But then that doesn't really have anything to do with GamerGate, and I'm not sure why you are interested in discrediting this movement so much. Makes no sense to me. If you believe that he situation can't be salvaged, why bother to fight for or against it?

 

[doomrider7]

And why shouldn't informational sources be questioned for validity ESPECIALLY one such as Breibart which has falsified information numerous times. Not to mention that I'm not discrediting his info purely based on source, but also on the grounds that it really is shit and hardly some kind of revelation of corruption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_(website)#Controversies

His supposed intel has in my eyes been very weak and lacking as signify some kind of corruption in gaming and you still haven't commented on his blatantly biased piece, "Feminist Bullies" are "Tearing The Video Game Industry Apart.". If you want my final opinion on this, GamerGate was ridiculously stupid idea that to some it MAY have been about journalistic ethics, but to a number of people both inside and outside of the gaming sphere it was nothing more than an excuse to be a misogynistic asshole and peddle right-wing anti-feministic bullshit.

So you believe that the leaks are untruthful then? Is that what you are on about? On the basis that you don't like the political agenda of the source? May I remind you that several of the 'journalists' in question have confirmed their involvement in the list, and so far none of them have denied it? So on what logical basis are you trying to discredit the information here really?

And you know what? If you think it's signs of corruption doesn't change if it's corruption of not. And it is, by any sensible definition of the word. They were colluding. And the people you are trying to defend here are just as guilty of the things you condemn Breitbart for doing. But when Kotaku does it, it's not bad, huh? I can't say I care much for that kind of double standard.

The fun part is that the people who actually matter in this do listen. And that's all I care about. If you don't care for unbiased journalism, then that's fine. Knock yourself out. Don't expect anyone to be persuaded without actual arguments beyond an attempt at character assassination against an easy target though. You'll have to do better, I'm afraid.

Asking for unbiased journalism is like asking for water that isn't wet. There's no such thing. EVERY form of journalism has bias in it simply because it's in our human nature to be that way towards thing we like and dislike. I never said the leak wasn't truthful only that it's not the smoking gun of corruption that it was painted as or even a sign of corruption at all and I ask you how it is corruption in any way. If Kotaku wants to shutout any discussion it doesn't like for any number of reasons in this case the discussion leading to hate speech then they as the providers of the podium have that right. To my memory the editor of here asked them on their opinion on what to do about discussions on GamerGate and they though he should shut it down. He went in, he asked, and they answered. He didn't since we're here talking about this and nobody showed any hostility that I remember towards him for the decision. As for a lot of them not having similar mindsets on many things, that's just the way it is. People with similar hobbies and similar jobs are gonna have similar opinions. If you don't like that then start your OWN site and publication. A lot of people have no issue using that as the go to excuse for when they want games to be more inclusive or have something that current games are lacking in so I se no reason to not apply the same at them especially with how much cheaper it is.

 

[Davroth]

Asking for unbiased journalism is like asking for water that isn't wet. There's no such thing. EVERY form of journalism has bias in it simply because it's in our human nature to be that way towards thing we like and dislike. I never said the leak wasn't truthful only that it's not the smoking gun of corruption that it was painted as or even a sign of corruption at all and I ask you how it is corruption in any way. If Kotaku wants to shutout any discussion it doesn't like for any number of reasons in this case the discussion leading to hate speech then they as the providers of the podium have that right. To my memory the editor of here asked them on their opinion on what to do about discussions on GamerGate and they though he should shut it down. He went in, he asked, and they answered. He didn't since we're here talking about this and nobody showed any hostility that I remember towards him for the decision. As for a lot of them not having similar mindsets on many things, that's just the way it is. People with similar hobbies and similar jobs are gonna have similar opinions. If you don't like that then start your OWN site and publication. A lot of people have no issue using that as the go to excuse for when they want games to be more inclusive or have something that current games are lacking in so I se no reason to not apply the same at them especially with how much cheaper it is.

Your definition doesn't fit my definition of corruption. I'd argue my definition is closer to what the word means, but I can tell discussing this is a fruitless endeavour since we keep going in circles.

Luckily I don't have to find or make a different site. The Escapist has me covered. They showed the kind of integrity I was looking for when noone else seemed to be willing to. And they stood up against the attempts of collusion in the e-mails. I already found my home. No need to make my own site quite yet (though there are quite a lot of industries people who make just those attempts).

 

[doomrider7]

Asking for unbiased journalism is like asking for water that isn't wet. There's no such thing. EVERY form of journalism has bias in it simply because it's in our human nature to be that way towards thing we like and dislike. I never said the leak wasn't truthful only that it's not the smoking gun of corruption that it was painted as or even a sign of corruption at all and I ask you how it is corruption in any way. If Kotaku wants to shutout any discussion it doesn't like for any number of reasons in this case the discussion leading to hate speech then they as the providers of the podium have that right. To my memory the editor of here asked them on their opinion on what to do about discussions on GamerGate and they though he should shut it down. He went in, he asked, and they answered. He didn't since we're here talking about this and nobody showed any hostility that I remember towards him for the decision. As for a lot of them not having similar mindsets on many things, that's just the way it is. People with similar hobbies and similar jobs are gonna have similar opinions. If you don't like that then start your OWN site and publication. A lot of people have no issue using that as the go to excuse for when they want games to be more inclusive or have something that current games are lacking in so I se no reason to not apply the same at them especially with how much cheaper it is.

Your definition doesn't fit my definition of corruption. I'd argue my definition is closer to what the word means, but I can tell discussing this is a fruitless endeavour since we keep going in circles.

Luckily I don't have to find or make a different site. The Escapist has me covered. They showed the kind of integrity I was looking for when noone else seemed to be willing to. And they stood up against the attempts of collusion in the e-mails. I already found my home. No need to make my own site quite yet (though there are quite a lot of industries people who make just those attempts).

At worse, it's pretty corruption which occurs at a smaller scale and within established social frameworks and governing norms. Examples include the exchange of small improper gifts or use of personal connections to obtain favours. This form of corruption is particularly common in developing countries and where public servants are significantly underpaid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption

But THAT has been an issue since '09 when Ubisoft tried to bribe a German publication for good reviews on AC2 and there have been other more flagrant cases that raised no arms like this has, and please, there's no collusion or cabal like many of you like to claim since there's nothing illegal or even very secretive at all so and using terms like that just makes the whole thing look childish and wanting t desperately believe there's some kind of NWO Conspiracy.

 

[aliengmr]

It is pretty pointless to argue anything at this point. There may have been at some point, but we're really passed that. Those accused of corruption aren't going to say anything as long GG takes anything they say as an indictment of something.

There will be no dialog so nothing on the "integrity" side of things will get done. As for the rest, well, the vast majority of the industry is against, more so after this whole business. GG upset a lot of developers, and not all had any sort of agenda. Christ, GG made EA look good.

So, yea, I'll be sincere here, people, gamers, got hurt. I get it, it sucks. I'm sorry that happened to you, but I also believe it goes much deeper than that. Deeper than any opinion. I'll just say this, make sure to know and understand why you're angry and who you are really angry at.


Also:
Conspiracies suck and so does Twitter.

 

[Caostotale]

Whether you like it or not, the mailing list is a breach of trust between the journalist and the consumer.

Again, you need to be specific about what 'consumer' you are talking about. Is it the 99% of people who buy games and don't take the gaming media that seriously (including most of the indie-gaming scene) or is it that remaining 1% who are so extraordinarily precious about their consumption habits that they've let their preference for 'gaming' become inextricably wrapped in with their sense of being and social belonging?

I've been playing, collecting, and talking about games with people for the better part of three decades and yet I feel utterly alienated from all of the activity related to GG. The way I see it (and I'm purposely being simplistic, since I'm more interested in bluntly expressing my distaste), games (as they are, mind you, not as they might be if those fictional feminazi hordes succeed in overrunning the hobby) must really be pretty dissatisfying to you lot, since you've opted to spend this much less time actually playing and talking about them, rather making up a lame-ass 'game' out of re-educating and overturning the gaming industry itself (or rather, a strict subset of the industry that is much more vulnerable...I'll expect none of you to be scrutinizing any of the triple-A companies, Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Activision, EA, etc..., i.e. any of the firms responsible for 90%+ of gaming products and 99% of its business).

I really hope GG's knight-in-shining-armor from Breitbart ends up taking this to the Alex Jones alternate reality where the air contains more pure outrage and paranoia than oxygen. That's where the movement deserves to retire.

 

[Davroth]

At worse, it's pretty corruption which occurs at a smaller scale and within established social frameworks and governing norms. Examples include the exchange of small improper gifts or use of personal connections to obtain favours. This form of corruption is particularly common in developing countries and where public servants are significantly underpaid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption

But THAT has been an issue since '09 when Ubisoft tried to bribe a German publication for good reviews on AC2, and please, there's no collusion or cabal like many of you like to claim since there's nothing illegal or even very secretive at all so and using terms like that just makes the whole thing look childish and wanting t desperately believe there's some kind of NWO Conspiracy.

I condemn all corruption, not only the big one. Just because you say there's no collusion doesn't make it true. We have the evidence. Also, if it's no big deal, why was it a secret to begin with? Why indeed did /they/ feel it should be a secret? And since you like Wikipedia articles so much, maybe you find this one enlightening on my issue with corruption and collusion in journalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards

Unethical is not the same is illegal. And noone is pressing legal charges against the people on the mailing list. Their ethics are put into question, and in my opinion rightfully so. Transparency has been one of the key ethical standards for journalism historically. Secret mailing lists aren't very transparent, now, are they? I'm honestly not sure what you are even trying to argue here.

 

[Impulse725]

Gamergate has an image problem like Batman has an image problem.

That depends. Are we talking Early Frank Miller or Current-Day Frank Miller? -:3

Okay, seriously, yeah, I'm pro-GG, but think about that for a second. Can anyone think of a more misogynistic person currently working in comics... and if this discussion were about "comics culture" instead of games, can anyone think what Anita Sarkeesian's videos would look like?.

I hope this isn't unacceptably late to jump in here, but Frank Miller is not a terribly active creator anymore and his reputation in the comics community could politely be described as mixed. His projects for the last ten years or so have not been well regarded, and the impression I get from forums and blogs is that his image has shifted from the cool uncle to the uncle that rants about conspiracy theories at thanksgiving. Year One still pretty universally regarded as the perfect story though.

While comics culture certainly has it's share of people who obsess about unimportant details and hate change, we've also considered them legitimate art for 20-30 years, and part of being considered legitimate arts is accepting literate criticism. Feminist and other lens looking at comics are not uncommon, and to the best of my knowledge, there's not the pushback that gamers have to it. I may not agree with Anita, but her work, right or wrong, takes games seriously as a medium and legitimates it as art. Gamers are foolish to oppose her, at least if any of them have talked about games being art before.

 

[Caostotale]

I'm talking about the character of Batman, not the writer or associated publication that is Batman.

Regardless of the writer, the most general characteristics of Batman are still completely ludicrous when squared with the human reality we all inhabit.

 

[doomrider7]

At worse, it's pretty corruption which occurs at a smaller scale and within established social frameworks and governing norms. Examples include the exchange of small improper gifts or use of personal connections to obtain favours. This form of corruption is particularly common in developing countries and where public servants are significantly underpaid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption

But THAT has been an issue since '09 when Ubisoft tried to bribe a German publication for good reviews on AC2, and please, there's no collusion or cabal like many of you like to claim since there's nothing illegal or even very secretive at all so and using terms like that just makes the whole thing look childish and wanting t desperately believe there's some kind of NWO Conspiracy.

I condemn all corruption, not only the big one. Just because you say there's no collusion doesn't make it true. We have the evidence. Also, if it's no big deal, why was it a secret to begin with? Why indeed did /they/ feel it should be a secret? And since you like Wikipedia articles so much, maybe you find this one enlightening on my issue with corruption and collusion in journalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards

Unethical is not the same is illegal. And noone is pressing legal charges against the people on the mailing list. Their ethics are put into question, and in my opinion rightfully so. Transparency has been one of the key ethical standards for journalism historically. Secret mailing lists aren't very transparent, now, are they? I'm honestly not sure what you are even trying to argue here.

Then where's the collusion and the evidence?

 

[RexMundane]

What on earth do you base that on? What historical precedent for an event like this do you assume that will be the outcome? History full of movements with leadership and clearly stated goals that succeed in the end, but you're going the other way because that's the smart thing? Why do you believe that?

When I went to George W. Bush's first inauguration in 2001 to protest; I was there with disenfranchised Gore supporters and communists- and I was neither. That was the same story to all of the demonstrations I went to in the late 90's, mixed political interest groups and strange bedfellows. Someone takes charge of Gamergate, you may not like or agree with them.

The other problem with centralizing leadership is it gives all the people who have been trying to shut this down a nice fat target to focus on. They will be attacked, and any demands they make will be placated. No, an angry mob is better if you can keep it going. Albeit, an angry internet mob is far less effective- but if it keeps up you'll see changes after quartlery earnings in October.

Oh Jesus tell me you aren't saying that. Tell me you aren't all of you saying "just give it another month and a half of being vicious and angry at everyone who isn't us, and not really explaining why too clearly, then we'll start getting what we want, whatever the hell that is."

That's like a child throwing a tantrum, just expecting to be given what it wants because it can scream so loud. They'll just wait you out, because of course they will, and it will work. You'll get tired of it, you'll get bored, you'll go back to buying the games you boycotted [http://static1.gamespot.com/uploads/original/1433/14330981/2618689-0264945701-Boyco.jpg] and return to visiting the sites [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/kotaku.com] you've declared purest of evil [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/polygon.com], because that's what always happens. I've been in the megathread just watching people leave from exhaustion [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.860762-GamerGate-Discussion-Debate-and-Resources?page=235#21427361], and who can blame them? This kind of sustained rage for the promise of having demands met you have yet to make? It's madness. It's unhealthy.

All you have is your anger, and it's going to run out. Everyone else is done with trying to pacify you, they've made several attempts to do so and you've just gotten angrier. They've learned their lesson. And the quicker you learn yours, and quit the angry mob schtick, the better off we all are.

 

[Davroth]

Whether you like it or not, the mailing list is a breach of trust between the journalist and the consumer.

Again, you need to be specific about what 'consumer' you are talking about. Is it the 99% of people who buy games and don't take the gaming media that seriously (including most of the indie-gaming scene) or is it that remaining 1% who are so extraordinarily precious about their consumption habits that they've let their preference for 'gaming' become inextricably wrapped in with their sense of being and social belonging?

I've been playing, collecting, and talking about games with people for the better part of three decades and yet I feel utterly alienated from all of the activity related to GG. The way I see it (and I'm purposely being simplistic, since I'm more interested in bluntly expressing my distaste), games (as they are, mind you, not as they might be if those fictional feminazi hordes succeed in overrunning the hobby) must really be pretty dissatisfying to you lot, since you've opted to spend this much less time actually playing and talking about them, rather making up a lame-ass 'game' out of re-educating and overturning the gaming industry itself (or rather, a strict subset of the industry that is much more vulnerable...I'll expect none of you to be scrutinizing any of the triple-A companies, Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Activision, EA, etc..., i.e. any of the firms responsible for 90%+ of gaming products and 99% of its business).

I really hope GG's knight-in-shining-armor from Breitbart ends up taking this to the Alex Jones alternate reality where the air contains more pure outrage and paranoia than oxygen. That's where the movement deserves to retire.

So if you think that all gaming media is PR bullshit, why do you care to argue against GG so vehemently?

What does that say about yourself if you spend time bickering with the GG crowd? Are games dissatisfying to you? Also, the press is accountable for themselves, not the one they report on. What do triple-A developers have to do with this at all? If they attempt to bribe a journalist, the journalist would be insane to take that bribe and make themselves complicit. Even if it doesn't ever come out, a honest to god bribery story is way more valuable for any serious journalist then the bribe itself.

Again with Milo. I hate Milo. Why do you Anit-GG people keep bringing up Milo like he's our designated driver?

 

[Davroth]

Then where's the collusion and the evidence?

You read the mails. You said so yourself. It's talk about collusion and the evidence itself in one. What more do you want?

 

[Calbeck]

I apply the ethics of journalism to them because /they/ tell us that they are journalists, and want to be treated as such. Being a journalist comes with perks and respondsabilities. They make use of the perks, but don't want to be held accountable for it.

So.
Very.
Much.

THIS.

Attack Milo for being Breitbart, but it took him to bring Kotaku et al clean on the mailing list. When you have a Senior Editor saying journalistic ethics are "bull****", and the founder of the list actually citing JournoList as his inspiration, there is a problem to be addressed.

Filthy loudmouthed jerks acting like scum of the earth a problem? Yes... AND THIS, TOO.

God forbid this gaming community we supposedly all love can walk and chew bubblegum without gnawing its leg off.

 

[doomrider7]

Then where's the collusion and the evidence?

You read the mails. You said so yourself. It's talk about collusion and the evidence itself in one. What more do you want?

If that's your big major proof of their being a cabal and collusion in the gaming industry then we have nothing more to discuss.

 

[Davroth]

Then where's the collusion and the evidence?

You read the mails. You said so yourself. It's talk about collusion and the evidence itself in one. What more do you want?

If that's your big major proof of their being a cabal and collusion in the gaming industry then we have nothing more to discuss.

It really doesn't matter if you have anything to discuss or not. The evidence luckily stands for itself. If you'd like to back out without trying to make a case against it, it's perfectly within your right to do that.

 

[Thorn14]

What on earth do you base that on? What historical precedent for an event like this do you assume that will be the outcome? History full of movements with leadership and clearly stated goals that succeed in the end, but you're going the other way because that's the smart thing? Why do you believe that?

When I went to George W. Bush's first inauguration in 2001 to protest; I was there with disenfranchised Gore supporters and communists- and I was neither. That was the same story to all of the demonstrations I went to in the late 90's, mixed political interest groups and strange bedfellows. Someone takes charge of Gamergate, you may not like or agree with them.

The other problem with centralizing leadership is it gives all the people who have been trying to shut this down a nice fat target to focus on. They will be attacked, and any demands they make will be placated. No, an angry mob is better if you can keep it going. Albeit, an angry internet mob is far less effective- but if it keeps up you'll see changes after quartlery earnings in October.

Oh Jesus tell me you aren't saying that. Tell me you aren't all of you saying "just give it another month and a half of being vicious and angry at everyone who isn't us, and not really explaining why too clearly, then we'll start getting what we want, whatever the hell that is."

That's like a child throwing a tantrum, just expecting to be given what it wants because it can scream so loud. They'll just wait you out, because of course they will, and it will work. You'll get tired of it, you'll get bored, you'll go back to buying the games you boycotted [http://static1.gamespot.com/uploads/original/1433/14330981/2618689-0264945701-Boyco.jpg] and return to visiting the sites [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/kotaku.com] you've declared purest of evil [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/polygon.com], because that's what always happens. I've been in the megathread just watching people leave from exhaustion [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.860762-GamerGate-Discussion-Debate-and-Resources?page=235#21427361], and who can blame them? This kind of sustained rage for the promise of having demands met you have yet to make? It's madness. It's unhealthy.

All you have is your anger, and it's going to run out. Everyone else is done with trying to pacify you, they've made several attempts to do so and you've just gotten angrier. They've learned their lesson. And the quicker you learn yours, and quit the angry mob schtick, the better off we all are.

What a load of bull. I've had no problem avoiding companies who piss me off, I can rent their games or buy them used if I really really want their games, and I haven't visited Kotaku in a long ass time.

Why is the consumer telling publishers and journalists "We do not like how you act and will no longer purchase your product and partake in your services" a tantrum? If I said I don't buy Nike products because they use child workers in terrible conditions to make their products, is that throwing a temper tantrum?

You seem to forget that the publishers and journalists serve US the consumer, and not the other way around. We are not beholden to them or whatever garbage they spew out.