The main issue I have with this is the fact that you've identified the source of the problems as being on social media and twitter, and NOT in their actual writings and videos.Tono Makt said:
The purpose is contained in each of those quotes. None of them indicate that criticism of the guy is automatically hypocritical; none of them accuse people of engaging in all his worst behaviours.crimson5pheonix said:
What's the actual chain of events? This is just a highly one-sided description, without any details. It could be anything.SolidState said:
It's not really reasonable to condemn Jim for not criticising the media or other pundits. We hold people accountable for what they do, not what they don't do. His primarily role has always been as a critic of the game development industry, not other pundits.Tono Makt said:
And you've been trying to say that people here shouldn't be criticizing him because then they'd be just like him, which is downplaying how Bob acts. It's apologism. If you don't want to be accused of such, don't misrepresent what people are saying.Silvanus said:
Their actions on Twitter (Bob in particular) are part of their Brand. Their Brands were associated with the Escapists' Brand. There can only be a limited degree of Brand separation at the best of times, and that degree gets even smaller when the Brands are using their literal names - "MovieBOB and the JIMquisition". When one part of the Brand is acting disgracefully (as in the case of Bob), it necessarily has a knock-on effect to the rest of the Brand.IceForce said:
Stop putting words in my mouth, for gods' sake. No, they would not be "just like him"; I'm saying they're doing something that he is frequently accused of doing-- dragging personal animosities into unrelated topics.crimson5pheonix said:
Alright then, who in this thread is so hypocritical? Who shouldn't be criticizing Bob? Can you name the subject of your post?Silvanus said:
"Harassed away?" I admittedly didn't follow GG all that closely, but I don't remember harassment playing a major role for the exodus. It seemed to be more of an example of "taking my ball and leaving."Something Amyss said:
NotTheBees ended up fighting to get her account removed. It's my understanding that other people did, too, but I'm personally familiar with that user. I received death threats and threats to dox/out me (the latter part of that being a potential death sentence, and having been the victim of hate crimes before, I have a pretty good reason to fear such shit). Other people were swarmed and accused of things like supporting child porn (this was one of the things NTBs dealt with, as well). I'm not sure what your definition of harassment is, so maybe leaving the site because people are doing these things counts as taking your ball and going home. I mean, technically, I didn't get my way when I contacted the then-CM about such issues. Part of the reason I changed my account name was specifically because I couldn't get my account deleted, I have had my profile and personal details archived, and this was literally the best way to de-link my alter ego from at least casual scrutiny. I mean, there's another obvious element to it, but that's not really on the current topic.Neverhoodian said:
Fair enough. Sorry to hear you had to put up with all that. People can do thoughtless/asinine things when their blood is up.Something Amyss said:
Do you really see those two quotes as contradicting one another? That is not saying people shouldn't be criticising him.crimson5pheonix said:
Then quote them instead of passive aggressively pointing to everyone in the thread. Because I should point out that of those, only the first actually falls under what you're criticizing. The other two are pointing out his venomous personality. That's actually a pretty common theme.Silvanus said:
No, I'm accusing you of apologism because you're trying to stop people from criticizing Bob.
Unrelated political insults.dirtysteve said:
What I was criticising was personal animosity bleeding into every thread he's mentioned in, regardless of relevance, or whether he's done anything new. They fit the bill.crimson5pheonix said:
Aaand we're done here. If it's always going to default to this mindless notion that I just don't want any criticism at all, there's no point in continuing.crimson5pheonix said:
Possibly because he's done a lot of work to insult a lot of people. If you set yourself up as a toxic person, you'll get a lot of toxic responses. What's your issue? That they have a different opinion of Bob from you? Why are you calling them hypocrites if they express their opinion?Silvanus said:
You haven't yet given a purpose to your posts. I'm defaulting to that because assuming you want to feel smug is demeaning and I can't see any other contribution to the thread from your posts. You won't give any sort of answer either.
If you cannot see the difference between criticising a critic and defending their target, then there's nothing else I can say. They're simply not the same thing.Richard Gozin-Yu said:
Don't know what you're bickering about with everyone else, but I'd just like to point out that there was no hate in the post of mine that you've referenced. I simply pointed out Bob's style of review involves a lot of politicizing, and as was implied by my original post: that's not the kind of thing I like in my reviews. Talk about why the game/movie is good or bad, I don't need a sermon on how the game or movie symbolizes the decay of western society.Silvanus said:
To be fair, there's some games where explaining the politics of it can make it more understandable or make the reviewers views on it more nuanced. But I will agree Bob injected it where it wasn't needed far too often. Especially his Picture Pig stuff had too much in it even for a show that largely was just him blabbering about.RJ 17 said: