I Canceled my Publisher's Club Subscription Today

[Fox12]

To what end was this made? And which group holds legitimacy in your mind?

The gaming journalists and developers in question were hardly professional. Phil Fish's diatribe is not worth defending, nor are the machinations of reviewers who declare gaming dead. If the Social Justice crew ever had the high ground, they gave it up a long, long time ago. There are a lot of problems in the gaming industry right now. Gamergate wants to address a few of them. Even if you don't agree with them on every detail, and I know I don't, they have legitimate points to make.

And, frankly, so does the Social Justice crowd, to some extent. Yes, I said it. Not all members of that group are necessarily pretentious ass holes. Anita Sarkeesian, for example, has made some good points, and those views should be acknowledged. The fact is, gaming has not always been the most open environment for women, a fact that is changing very quickly. It is a change I support. In short, The Escapist has been the most professional website when it comes to this scandal. They actually lend an ear to both sides, on the off chance they actually have something to say, and they avoided the hyperbole, yellow journalism, and hate filled bile the other sites posted during this time. They may have lost you, but they kept me, and gained others.

Goodbye.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Why are the GamerGate folks blasting the OP for blacklisting a website for expressing a perspective he profoundly disagrees with? I thought you guys were all ABOUT blacklisting websites for expressing perspectives you profoundly disagreed with. It's sort of your raison d'etre, isn't it? Or at least one of the fifty?

I mean sure, anyone who feels they need to write a manifesto about why they're leaving is a candidate for the Golden Flounce Award, but it could also be read as site feedback left in the wrong place.

 

[irishda]

I feel this begs the question why this was posted in the first place since you don't expect discussion, debate, or convincing.

Not every opinion is submitted for your approval/discussion. Some are merely for it to be shown.

 

[Thorn14]

Why are the GamerGate folks blasting the OP for blacklisting a website for expressing a perspective he profoundly disagrees with? I thought you guys were all ABOUT blacklisting websites for expressing perspectives you profoundly disagreed with. It's sort of your raison d'etre, isn't it? Or at least one of the fifty?

I mean sure, anyone who feels they need to write a manifesto about why they're leaving is a candidate for the Golden Flounce Award, but it could also be read as site feedback left in the wrong place.

He's free to leave if he wants. No one will stop him there. I'm just making the point its silly that all Escapist did was interview a bunch of people about a topic and that is somehow grounds for quitting.

We dislike Leigh's article on Gamasutra because it was rude, insulting, attacked a group of people for no reason, and just plain mean. There is a difference.

 

[dragoongfa]

Why are the GamerGate folks blasting the OP for blacklisting a website for expressing a perspective he profoundly disagrees with? I thought you guys were all ABOUT blacklisting websites for expressing perspectives you profoundly disagreed with. It's sort of your raison d'etre, isn't it? Or at least one of the fifty?

I mean sure, anyone who feels they need to write a manifesto about why they're leaving is a candidate for the Golden Flounce Award, but it could also be read as site feedback left in the wrong place.

You know a lot of Pro-GGs won't admit it but I believe that having Anti-GGs in the forum is good, it allows for some honest discussion when the discussion is done in good faith.

As for the OP...

A plurality of voices and the conflict between them is the only thing that drives society forward.

 

[irishda]

Why are the GamerGate folks blasting the OP for blacklisting a website for expressing a perspective he profoundly disagrees with? I thought you guys were all ABOUT blacklisting websites for expressing perspectives you profoundly disagreed with. It's sort of your raison d'etre, isn't it? Or at least one of the fifty?

"But when we do it, we don't post it on the forums! We go to a new website, create the most bloated thread that site has ever seen with like minded people, then proceed to try to remove advertisers from the sites we blacklisted for the purpose of 'purging the cancer.' See? Much better."

 

[BloatedGuppy]

He's free to leave if he wants. No one will stop him there. I'm just making the point its silly that all Escapist did was interview a bunch of people about a topic and that is somehow grounds for quitting.

We dislike Leigh's article on Gamasutra because it was rude, insulting, attacked a group of people for no reason, and just plain mean. There is a difference.

I know why people dislike Leigh's article. Read Baldwin's interview. You don't see it as insulting a group of people?

I was a young ?brain-dead liberal? as [David] Mamet called it? I call it being a default liberal.

But I think that the anti-GamerGaters believe that man is perfectible? but perfectible only to the degree that he agrees with their politics. ?If you disagree with my political platform, then you hate women, or you?re a homophobe, or you?re a?? fill in the blank from any anti-GamerGate cliché. That?s their game. They want to shut up dissent.

Yeah, the ?tolerant crowd? is not really that tolerant. They?re only tolerant if you agree with them, because they?re determined to save the world and recreate it in their own image, and if you stand in the way, then you must be destroyed. That?s why they employ so many ad hominem attacks, just to destroy your personality or your personhood. It?s almost like a cult religion.

No, they are in an echo chamber. It?s kind of hilarious to watch it. Frankly, I?ve suffered these attacks before, and it was really taxing. But these guys, they?re not as clever as they think they are.

I mean honestly. If we can get outraged at Leigh for gross generalizations and sneering comments, someone can't feel the same about Baldwin? It's the exact same thing. Baldwin toeing the party line doesn't make what he's saying any less pointlessly inflammatory.

 

[Fappy]

Why are the GamerGate folks blasting the OP for blacklisting a website for expressing a perspective he profoundly disagrees with? I thought you guys were all ABOUT blacklisting websites for expressing perspectives you profoundly disagreed with. It's sort of your raison d'etre, isn't it? Or at least one of the fifty?

"But when we do it, we don't post it on the forums! We go to a new website, create the most bloated thread that site has ever seen with like minded people, then proceed to try to remove advertisers from the sites we blacklisted for the purpose of 'purging the cancer.' See? Much better."

I don't know if you saw what you did there, but I did

OT: Leigh's opinion didn't affect me as a gamer because I didn't know nor care who the fuck she was before her article and that hasn't changed. Baldwin on the other hand? He's a very visible celebrity in the US. While I don't care about his opinion enough to be offended either, his is more troubling due to his influence.

 

[Thorn14]

He's free to leave if he wants. No one will stop him there. I'm just making the point its silly that all Escapist did was interview a bunch of people about a topic and that is somehow grounds for quitting.

We dislike Leigh's article on Gamasutra because it was rude, insulting, attacked a group of people for no reason, and just plain mean. There is a difference.

I know why people dislike Leigh's article. Read Baldwin's interview. You don't see it as insulting a group of people?

I was a young ?brain-dead liberal? as [David] Mamet called it? I call it being a default liberal.

But I think that the anti-GamerGaters believe that man is perfectible? but perfectible only to the degree that he agrees with their politics. ?If you disagree with my political platform, then you hate women, or you?re a homophobe, or you?re a?? fill in the blank from any anti-GamerGate cliché. That?s their game. They want to shut up dissent.

Yeah, the ?tolerant crowd? is not really that tolerant. They?re only tolerant if you agree with them, because they?re determined to save the world and recreate it in their own image, and if you stand in the way, then you must be destroyed. That?s why they employ so many ad hominem attacks, just to destroy your personality or your personhood. It?s almost like a cult religion.

No, they are in an echo chamber. It?s kind of hilarious to watch it. Frankly, I?ve suffered these attacks before, and it was really taxing. But these guys, they?re not as clever as they think they are.

I mean honestly. If we can get outraged at Leigh for gross generalizations and sneering comments, someone can't feel the same about Baldwin? It's the exact same thing. Baldwin toeing the party line doesn't make what he's saying any less pointlessly inflammatory.

I don't like Baldwin. But here is the difference.

Escapist interviewed Baldwin. What is wrong with that? Thats Journalism. If someone interviewed Leigh about whatever and she said stupid shit, I doubt people would have cared 1/4th as much.

If Adam actually had like a guest writer article that he made himself just to rant, then you'd have a point. But this is just an interview! What is the big deal?

Is censorship the more ideal option to some people?

 

[marksibly]

> We dislike Leigh's article on Gamasutra because it was rude, insulting, attacked a group of people for no reason, and just plain mean. There is a difference.

But does it count as 'corruption in game journalism'?

There are bits of the article I don't agree with - the stereotyping of people who line up to buy new releases etc - but there are other parts I do agree with - the shitty treatment of Zoe etc. IMO, it was an entirely valid opinion piece - it's what one women working in the game industry thinks. If you want to read opinion pieces you agree with all the time, write your own.

This is where gamergate FAILS all the time - it's too busy indulging itself in personal axe grinding to be bothered to really tackle the bigger problems.

 

[marksibly]

> We dislike Leigh's article on Gamasutra because it was rude, insulting, attacked a group of people for no reason, and just plain mean. There is a difference.

But does it count as 'corruption in game journalism'?

There are bits of the article I don't agree with - the stereotyping of people who line up to buy new releases etc - but there are other parts I do agree with - the shitty treatment of Zoe etc. IMO, it was an entirely valid opinion piece - it's what one women working in the game industry thinks. If you want to read opinion pieces you agree with all the time, write your own.

This is where gamergate FAILS all the time - it's too busy indulging itself in personal axe grinding to be bothered to really tackle the bigger problems.

 

[Thorn14]

> We dislike Leigh's article on Gamasutra because it was rude, insulting, attacked a group of people for no reason, and just plain mean. There is a difference.

But does it count as 'corruption in game journalism'?

There are bits of the article I don't agree with - the stereotyping of people who line up to buy new releases etc - but there are other parts I do agree with - the shitty treatment of Zoe etc. IMO, it was an entirely valid opinion piece - it's what one women working in the game industry thinks. If you want to read opinion pieces you agree with all the time, write your own.

This is where gamergate FAILS all the time - it's too busy indulging itself in personal axe grinding to be bothered to really tackle the bigger problems.

Leigh's corruption stems from the fact that her article and a bunch more all attacking gamers happened at the same time.

Also lets not forget all the horrible things Leigh has said on twitter with zero repercussions, because hey, why would journalists attack themselves?

 

[marksibly]

No idea how I managed to double post...

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I don't like Baldwin. But here is the difference.

Escapist interviewed Baldwin. What is wrong with that? Thats Journalism. If someone interviewed Leigh about whatever and she said stupid shit, I doubt people would have cared 1/4th as much.

If Adam actually had like a guest writer article that he made himself just to rant, then you'd have a point. But this is just an interview! What is the big deal?

Is censorship the more ideal option to some people?

It was a puff interview in which someone was fed softball questions in order to allow him to elucidate polarizing political rhetoric. This is their website and they are totally within their rights to run whatever kind of content they want. What I am asking you is why is protesting this piece any different than protesting Leigh's?

One of GamerGate's major mission statements is to DESTROY websites who express opinions contrary to their beliefs by decimating sponsorship support and/or driving away page views. That is an active form of grassroots censorship. OP wants to cut off his personal funding to this website because it posted an interview demonstrating a perspective he disagreed with. That's a very limited, individual form of censorship. Ultimately it's his money, he can spend it or not. Doesn't matter what his reasons are, he could hate the color scheme for all it should matter to us.

All I'm saying is, why criticize the guy? He is embracing your movement's ideals. He is attempting to stamp out a voice he dissents with.

 

[psijac]

That's all. I've been a reader since 2007, an active poster since 2008 (both here and, later, via the Facebook-embedded comment thingy), and a subscribed publisher's club member since 2011. I canceled my subscription today, following that utterly-disgusting Gamergate "article" lending a megaphone to insanity.

And I'm not looking to debate anyone here. I'm not going to defend my decision to stop spending my own money. And I know that this ultimately means nothing to the Escapist's bottom line -- that the tiny pie-slice of revenue which derives from pubclub memberships is likely dwarfed by that which is gained from ad-revenue. But this is the only means I have at my disposal to reach out and let those involved know. You've lost a reader today. Worse, you've lost a long-time, loyal, PAYING reader.

Why?

Because sometimes, there aren't two sides to an issue. Sometimes "fair and balanced coverage" is engaging a false dichotomy, one side of which is batshit insane. Sometimes merely acknowledging a party or stance, as a news organization, is socially and journalistically irresponsible. There's a reason, for example, that the New York Times hasn't ever launched an investigation into President Obama's birth certificate, or whether or not Karl Rove is actually a lizard-man: because to do so would NECESSARILY, merely by virtue of existing, tend to grant legitimacy to an utterly-insane point of view, and a toxic group of people who espouse that view.

Gamergate?


Gamergate is like that. There's no defending it. Not even a little. The journalistic duty to fair, truthful coverage does NOT mean that any and all points of view are equally valid and worthy of examination. It is the case that sometimes a particular point of view is simply wrong, either factually, ethically, or both; and offering legitimacy to that viewpoint, through your authority as a gaming culture outlet, is equally wrong.

And I get the urge to play devil's advocate, I really do. When the whole of the internet is screeching in one direction, it feels like it's your duty to chime in and say, "Well let's suppose, for the purposes of discussion..."

But, and I have no more tactful or eloquent way to put this: you fucked up this time. In a big way. And in a way which is telling of issues deeper still.

And that's all I have to say about that.

every Action has an equal an opposite reaction. I joined the pub club because of the actions Escapist took after gamergate broke. Equilibrium is maintained

 

[Thorn14]

I don't like Baldwin. But here is the difference.

Escapist interviewed Baldwin. What is wrong with that? Thats Journalism. If someone interviewed Leigh about whatever and she said stupid shit, I doubt people would have cared 1/4th as much.

If Adam actually had like a guest writer article that he made himself just to rant, then you'd have a point. But this is just an interview! What is the big deal?

Is censorship the more ideal option to some people?

It was a puff interview in which someone was fed softball questions in order to allow him to elucidate polarizing political rhetoric. This is their website and they are totally within their rights to run whatever kind of content they want. What I am asking you is why is protesting this piece any different than protesting Leigh's?

One of GamerGate's major mission statements is to DESTROY websites who express opinions contrary to their beliefs by decimating sponsorship support and/or driving away page views. That is an active form of grassroots censorship. OP wants to cut off his personal funding to this website because it posted an interview demonstrating a perspective he disagreed with. That's a very limited, individual form of censorship. Ultimately it's his money, he can spend it or not. Doesn't matter what his reasons are, he could hate the color scheme for all it should matter to us.

All I'm saying is, why criticize the guy? He is embracing your movement's ideals. He is attempting to stamp out a voice he dissents with.

I won't argue about the "softballness" of an interviews. Not every interview ends up being scathing.

Why is it hard for me to not state "Hey an interview doesn't mean you support a thing."

If NBC somehow got exclusive, super restricted access to somehow ask ISIS a few questions, does that suddenly mean NBC supports ISIS and should be boycotted?

If Escapist decides to interview Leigh and she says things I disagree with, I might roll my eyes, hell I might even criticize the interview, but that doesn't mean I'll believe "Hey Escapist agrees with her because they interviewed her!"

The "Gamers are Dead" article was written by Leigh, who also happens to be a...I forget the title, but staff on Gamasutra, and published on it.

If Adam Baldwin got on Escapist and made his own article, then yeah, you'd have a point.

I just find it quite silly that an interview with someone you don't like to be the catalyst of quitting.

 

[A-D.]

Why are the GamerGate folks blasting the OP for blacklisting a website for expressing a perspective he profoundly disagrees with? I thought you guys were all ABOUT blacklisting websites for expressing perspectives you profoundly disagreed with. It's sort of your raison d'etre, isn't it? Or at least one of the fifty?

"But when we do it, we don't post it on the forums! We go to a new website, create the most bloated thread that site has ever seen with like minded people, then proceed to try to remove advertisers from the sites we blacklisted for the purpose of 'purging the cancer.' See? Much better."

Most bloated? Really? I've seen similarly large threads on the Escapist before, but what are you going to do when every other website basicly censored all discussion that isnt towing the line. Go to Kotaku, or Reddit, make a Thread on GamerGate and discuss all issues, any issues, objectively, see how long it will take you to be shouted down or the Thread gets simply deleted. Are you really suprised people flock to a Forum which allows the dicussion to take place, whether you agree or not?

But lets go over your other points for a second. You claim people are like-minded. Well thats kind of a thing when it was spawned by 11 or 12 sites declaring "Gamers" to be dead. When they broadstroke every Gamer with the same brush and declare all of us as entitled, men, homophobic, transphobic, misogynist, and whatever else word they are going to pull out next. And if your argument is "well they didnt insult me!", then clearly you dont see Gaming as part of your Identity. So these people are angry and rightfully so, what if they had said "All people with Martial Arts Avatars are dead" would you be totally fine with that, even if they never specifically meant you but "all the other people"?

As for the Blacklist, thats not something anyone can enforce. I mean you can go to any site anyway, regardless of your stance on any matter. Its not like anyone sits next to you, watching everything you do and the moment you go to Kotaku for example you get hauled off to jail or something. All people can do is say "look, that site has questionable content which the writer of that list disagrees with, if you do not, go ahead and visit them" in that instance, they cant keep you from going there anyway.

And advertisers, well thats a economic thing. The Advertiser pays the site money to put their ads on the site, in turn the site provides revenue for these advertisers by having people see these ads which is what pays the site. Its essentially how sites like the Escapist make money, they get a cut of all the ads people see when they browse the site. If nobody sees the ads, the Escapist doesnt get money and eventually makes deficit. And then they have to eventually shut down because the cost becomes to high. Whether people mail these advertisers is besides the point there i think, the money would still dry up. Its merely the former viewers going "Look Advertiser, we are not going to that site anymore because Reasons." its not like these people can do anything to make the Advertisers leave, you can claim to boycott them but thats all.

But hey, critical thinking seems to be a lost art. Its much easier to make snide comments rather than actually have any sort of argument.

 

[Fox Pocket]

I joined and bought publishers club solely because they were one of the few outlets willing to look at this issue with an unbiased non-dismissive attitude and allow public discussion of it.


The fact there is such a is such a large backlash and dismissive attitude towards open discussion is really concerning to me.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I won't argue about the "softballness" of an interviews. Not every interview ends up being scathing.

That's fine, but if an interview is constructed as a didactic conversation I'm not surprised if people perceive it as reflected the opinions of the interviewer as well as the subject.

Why is it hard for me to not state "Hey an interview doesn't mean you support a thing."

If NBC somehow got exclusive, super restricted access to somehow ask ISIS a few questions, does that suddenly mean NBC supports ISIS and should be boycotted?

I don't think anyone should be boycotted merely for expressing an opinion, but it's not for me to tell people what they can and cannot boycott.

If Escapist decides to interview Leigh and she says things I disagree with, I might roll my eyes, hell I might even criticize the interview, but that doesn't mean I'll believe "Hey Escapist agrees with her because they interviewed her!"

The "Gamers are Dead" article was written by Leigh, who also happens to be a...I forget the title, but staff on Gamasutra, and published on it.

If Adam Baldwin got on Escapist and made his own article, then yeah, you'd have a point.

It's two pieces, published on two websites, expressing two polarizing, hostile, generalizing sentiments. You cannot be in favor of boycotting one and not the other unless you are engaged in deliberate bias.

Either you're pro-censorship as a form of protest, or you're not.

The fact there is such a is such a large backlash and dismissive attitude towards open discussion is really concerning to me.

Are you also concerned about GamerGate's website blacklist? Or are you only concerned about a backlash towards certain attitudes and topics?