I Canceled my Publisher's Club Subscription Today

[marksibly]

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

...mainly in response to the Zoe Quinn bullshit, which was toxic. And still, it's all just opinion. I see no corruption. Who bought who? What's the theory here? A bunch of journalists got together and worked out how to piss off their readership? Why?

And what about the *real* corruption going on? Why is gamergate always going on about Zoe and Anita and Leigh?

 

[Thorn14]

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.

They can believe whatever they want. And I can call it silly.

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.

Once again, he can boycott whatever he wants, and I'll just continue to call it silly.

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.

Contacting advertisements is not censorship. Its our way of telling advertisers "Hey, this thing you fund we do not like."

Advertisements are a privilege, not a right, and we are the customers, and they serve us, not the other way around.

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

...mainly in response to the Zoe Quinn bullshit, which was toxic. And still, it's all just opinion. I see no corruption. Who bought who? What's the theory here? A bunch of journalists got together and worked out how to piss off their readership? Why?

And what about the *real* corruption going on? Why is gamergate always going on about Zoe and Anita and Leigh?

I did not give two shits about the "Quinnspiracy" and to this day I do not. I joined the #GG movement when many journalists decided to attack me simply because I enjoy games and label myself a gamer.

And no one in #GG has wanted to talk about ZQ or Anita until people such as you decide to bring them up.

Leigh on the other hand, is a journalist who engaged in behavior I disagree with with her attitudes and actions, not because she has 2 X Chromosomes.

Wanna see what kind of ethics violation I see that needs to be addressed? Read the
Brad Wardell interview.

 

[DOOM GUY]

I'm actually considering buying a pub club membership due to the stance The Escapist has taken on this issue. It would of been easier for them to just block all discussion, but they didn't, they actually allowed people to talk about it, and in my eyes, that just shows that they're a site that's worth supporting.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Contacting advertisements is not censorship. Its our way of telling advertisers "Hey, this thing you fund we do not like."

Advertisements are a privilege, not a right, and we are the customers, and they serve us, not the other way around.

That is correct. You are making a deliberate effort to throttle funding, in the hopes that the thing being funded will go away.

I'm curious as to how you can define this in any terms OTHER than censorship.

Let's turn it on its ear, shall we? If the Axis of Evil...let's say Leigh Alexander and Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian, all joined forces and tried to snuff out the Escapist's funding for hosting GamerGate discussion, what do you presume the reaction would be? Do you think the reaction would be "Welp, advertisements are a privilege, not a right!".

Because I can tell you right now that would NOT be the reaction.

 

[Bat Vader]

I've found the best way to deal with all this GamerGate stuff is to completely ignore it. It doesn't effect me and until it does I will continue to be extremely apathetic towards it.

 

[Thorn14]

Contacting advertisements is not censorship. Its our way of telling advertisers "Hey, this thing you fund we do not like."

Advertisements are a privilege, not a right, and we are the customers, and they serve us, not the other way around.

That is correct. You are making a deliberate effort to throttle funding, in the hopes that the thing being funded will go away.

I'm curious as to how you can define this in any terms OTHER than censorship.

Let's turn it on its ear, shall we? If the Axis of Evil...let's say Leigh Alexander and Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian, all joined forces and tried to snuff out the Escapist's funding for hosting GamerGate discussion, what do you presume the reaction would be? Do you think the reaction would be "Welp, advertisements are a privilege, not a right!".

Because I can tell you right now that would NOT be the reaction.

I'd find it dumb but I wouldn't find it to be censorship. Attacking the advertisers is one of the very few tools we as consumers have. Its a common tactic used by disgruntled consumers all the time. And its not just gaming, remember when that coach for that one NBA team was found saying disgusting racists things?

Guess what it was that prompted the NBA to finally take action? Advertisers starting to back out.

Take that away from us and what voice do we have left?

Your side has Kotaku, Polygon, RPS, and other journalistic sites all working together in their little pow-wow making sure the image THEY want is given out. That is quite fucking powerful.

Could you imagine the shitstorm there would be if we found out MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News all worked together to push the same agenda secretly?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I'd find it dumb but I wouldn't find it to be censorship. Attacking the advertisers is one of the very few tools we as consumers have. Its a common tactic used by disgruntled consumers all the time. And its not just gaming, remember when that coach for that one NBA team was found saying disgusting racists things?

Guess what it was that prompted the NBA to finally take action? Advertisers starting to back out.

Take that away from us and what voice do we have left?

Okey dokey. I'll take your word for it.

I think you'll find yours would not be a common sentiment.

OP wants to cancel their subscription simply because the Escapist dared to present an issue as not black and white.

OP is cancelling their subscription because OP believes Baldwin's interview was one-sided and leading, and OP has an argument. EveryJoe asks gentle, leading questions, all of which cast Baldwin and his beliefs in the most positive light possible. At no point does he challenge anything Baldwin says, even when Baldwin is saying things like...

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

That isn't "daring to present an issue as not black and white". That is publishing a volatile screed. I will say again, they are totally within their rights to do this, just as OP is totally within his rights to withdraw his subscription in reaction.

Seriously, I thought "journalistic integrity" was your thing? How does a responsible "journalist" let a remark like that past without so much as a raised eyebrow?

 

[Jux]

You cannot be in favor of boycotting one and not the other unless you are engaged in deliberate bias.

I always thought the deliberate bias was apparent from the get go. Despite claims of 'dubious practices', it seems that sites like Gamasutra get most of their hate for the 'gamers are dead' pieces that they ran. Which is fine if you want to pull support from a site that expresses opinions you don't like, but at least be consistent about it. By most measures, the Escapist should be on that blacklist too for hosting Chipman and Sterling, two figures I've seen lambasted regularly by gg. Yet I suppose you don't want to bite the hand that feeds you. Makes compromising your mission statement ok I guess for some people.

 

[marksibly]

> I joined the #GG movement when many journalists decided to attack me simply because I enjoy games and label myself a gamer.

So you don't really care about corruption in journalism? Or do you just consider people who have a different opinion from you as 'corrupt'?

And really, all the 'gamers are dead' stuff was largely in response to the Quinnspiracy. You may not care about what happened to Zoe Quinn, but plenty of people do.

 

[dragoongfa]

Contacting advertisements is not censorship. Its our way of telling advertisers "Hey, this thing you fund we do not like."

Advertisements are a privilege, not a right, and we are the customers, and they serve us, not the other way around.

That is correct. You are making a deliberate effort to throttle funding, in the hopes that the thing being funded will go away.

I'm curious as to how you can define this in any terms OTHER than censorship.

Let's turn it on its ear, shall we? If the Axis of Evil...let's say Leigh Alexander and Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian, all joined forces and tried to snuff out the Escapist's funding for hosting GamerGate discussion, what do you presume the reaction would be? Do you think the reaction would be "Welp, advertisements are a privilege, not a right!".

Because I can tell you right now that would NOT be the reaction.

You are making a big assumption here.

The assumption is that advertisers took only GG's words before pulling the adds from Gamasutra and elsewhere.

Advertisers do their research before making this kind of decisions and their usual stance is this: Stay away from controversy, any controversy.

The Escapist has stayed away from everything, it hasn't made any pro or anti gg statement and it has allowed both sides of the debate to engage in its forum.

It hasn't taken a controversial and combative stance and thus it ain't a toxic investment.

Closing, all gaming sites are for profit businesses, the consumer is always the core of for profit businesses. Even if you think that a part of the consumer base are idiots you don't say that openly because you don't know how those consumers will react.

This is especially true when the vast majority of the consumer base has emigrated to other avenues of information for their needs (see YouTubers).

The gaming sites had two choices, evolve or die. Imho they chose to die earlier rather than evolve.

 

[Thorn14]

I'd find it dumb but I wouldn't find it to be censorship. Attacking the advertisers is one of the very few tools we as consumers have. Its a common tactic used by disgruntled consumers all the time. And its not just gaming, remember when that coach for that one NBA team was found saying disgusting racists things?

Guess what it was that prompted the NBA to finally take action? Advertisers starting to back out.

Take that away from us and what voice do we have left?

Okey dokey. I'll take your word for it.

I think you'll find yours would not be a common sentiment.

OP wants to cancel their subscription simply because the Escapist dared to present an issue as not black and white.

OP is cancelling their subscription because OP believes Baldwin's interview was one-sided and leading, and OP has an argument. EveryJoe asks gentle, leading questions, all of which cast Baldwin and his beliefs in the most positive light possible. At no point does he challenge anything Baldwin says, even when Baldwin is saying things like...

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

That isn't "daring to present an issue as not black and white". That is publishing a volatile screed. I will say again, they are totally within their rights to do this, just as OP is totally within his rights to withdraw his subscription in reaction.

You know there is an interview on this segment that involves a guy who says "The GamerGate idiots have-some of them, anyway-acted like total assholes. They don't even deserve the effort it requires to spit on them." and no where does the interviewer call him out on this kind of behavior. Does that mean I as a #GG supporter should be mad at Escapist?

> I joined the #GG movement when many journalists decided to attack me simply because I enjoy games and label myself a gamer.

So you don't really care about corruption in journalism? Or do you just consider people who have a different opinion from you as 'corrupt'?

And really, all the 'gamers are dead' stuff was largely in response to the Quinnspiracy. You may not care about what happened to Zoe Quinn, but plenty of people do.

I do care. The "gamers are dead" bullshit is just what got me to start supporting #GG and engage in discussions. I've had not nice words to say about video game journalists long before I even knew who Zoe Quinn or even Leigh Alexander.

If Leigh and others had not thrown a barrel of gasoline on the fire, and people were still just yacking away about whatever, I and probably many others would not be discussing this right now.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

You are making a big assumption here.

I'm not making any comment at all about any funding that might have been pulled, or why it was pulled. I am commenting on the very real blacklist that exists, for the very real reason of choking off funding to publications that express views GamerGate does not agree with. That is an active form of censorship. I've heard all the reasons, I don't need them listed out for me again. All people who cry for censorship have their reasons. But call a spade a spade.

You know there is an interview on this segment that involves a guy who says "The GamerGate idiots have-some of them, anyway-acted like total assholes. They don't even deserve the effort it requires to spit on them." and no where does the interviewer call him out on this kind of behavior. Does that mean I as a #GG supporter should be mad at Escapist?

If a GamerGate supporter pointed to that as a sloppy, one-sided interview they'd have a perfectly salient argument. Where's the interview? I'm curious to see it.

I should make it clear I consider the gaming press an enthusiast press and don't hold them to any kind of "journalistic standard" whatsoever, at least not as it's commonly understood. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate because I perceive a measure of hypocrisy at work in this thread.

And they'd be free to do so...

Well now I'm confused. One of the oft-repeated themes I've heard is that "social justice warriors" such as the fore-named women are trying to "control the narrative". Couldn't silencing a website by neutering its sponsorship not be fairly described as "trying to control the narrative"?

 

[Thorn14]

You know there is an interview on this segment that involves a guy who says "The GamerGate idiots have-some of them, anyway-acted like total assholes. They don't even deserve the effort it requires to spit on them." and no where does the interviewer call him out on this kind of behavior. Does that mean I as a #GG supporter should be mad at Escapist?

If a GamerGate supported pointed to that as a sloppy, one-sided interview they'd have a perfectly salient argument. Where's the interview? I'm curious to see it.

I should make it clear I consider the gaming press an enthusiast press and don't hold them to any kind of "journalistic standard" whatsoever, at least not as it's commonly understood. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate because I perceive a measure of hypocrisy at work in this thread.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/gamergate-interviews/12392-Greg-Costikyan-GamerGate-Interview

Here's the butthole.


Fun fact, he also wrote a terrible, hilarious article on Gamasutra that had this guy white knighting the living hell out of others. It was removed from Gamasutra for being so bad.

http://atomicovermind.tumblr.com/post/96903894299/greg-costikyan-gamersgate-stfu

Read it in all its glory and laugh.

Well now I'm confused. One of the oft-repeated themes I've heard is that "social justice warriors" such as the fore-named women are trying to "control the narrative". Couldn't silencing a website by neutering its sponsorship not be fairly described as "trying to control the narrative"?

We're just a bunch of consumers with the power to write email. They are the ones with the power to write messages for thousands to see and blindly believe.

And again, we aren't silencing anything. That article is still there. We just expressed our dissatisfaction.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/gamergate-interviews/12392-Greg-Costikyan-GamerGate-Interview

Here's the butthole.

Fun fact, he also wrote a terrible, hilarious article on Gamasutra that had this guy white knighting the living hell out of others. It was removed from Gamasutra for being so bad.

http://atomicovermind.tumblr.com/post/96903894299/greg-costikyan-gamersgate-stfu

Read it in all its glory and laugh.

Well he's certainly hostile towards GamerGate. The Escapist seems to use their interviews as pulpits for the guests to speak their minds. I'm honestly not sure how this is any different than GamaWhatsit giving Leigh Alexander an editorial.

Please don't use "White Knight" un-ironically. It gives me a headache.

And again, we aren't silencing anything. That article is still there. We just expressed our dissatisfaction.

Who is "we", here? I spent some time in the GamerGate thread. There were cries of "smoking guns", calls for all the writers involved to be drummed out of the industry and dragged through the streets, and eager hand-wringing to see each and every publication on the blacklist collapse into irrelevance and financial ruin.

Naturally GamerGate is not a hive mind and the opinions of one member does not necesssarily reflect the opinions of another, but that's pretty much exactly why you can't say things like "we think this" or "we think that".

 

[Colour Scientist]

I perceive a measure of hypocrisy at work in this thread.

Hypocrisy? From people involved in GamerGate?

That's crazy talk.

I tried to have a discussion on the blacklist and calls from a small handful of individuals for blanket boycotts of games journalism as a whole until those pesky SJWs were fired and removed forever but I was basically met with justifications that boiled down to "it's okay when we do it, it's not censorship or an attempt to exert influence because it's us."

 

[Thorn14]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/gamergate-interviews/12392-Greg-Costikyan-GamerGate-Interview

Here's the butthole.

Fun fact, he also wrote a terrible, hilarious article on Gamasutra that had this guy white knighting the living hell out of others. It was removed from Gamasutra for being so bad.

http://atomicovermind.tumblr.com/post/96903894299/greg-costikyan-gamersgate-stfu

Read it in all its glory and laugh.

Well he's certainly hostile towards GamerGate. The Escapist seems to use their interviews as pulpits for the guests to speak their minds. I'm honestly not sure how this is any different than GamaWhatsit giving Leigh Alexander an editorial.

Please don't use "White Knight" un-ironically. It gives me a headache.

Haha sorry but,

He literally says "To which end: To defend the honor of Anita Sirkeesian, Zoe Quinn, Leigh Alexander, or yes, Anna Anthropy, I will be willing to meet any of you, on horse"

If saying you'll duel someone on horseback for the honor of 3 women is not the definition of white knighting I don't know what is.

I don't use the term very much either but that quote is so ridiculous I have to call it that. I mean he's literally acting like a knight!

And once again, Leigh wrote her article and posted it on Gamasutra, she works for them, and is a big name for them over there. THIS is an interview. No where do I believe Escapist believes in what Greg said in that interview. Because its an interview.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Haha sorry but,

He literally says "To which end: To defend the honor of Anita Sirkeesian, Zoe Quinn, Leigh Alexander, or yes, Anna Anthropy, I will be willing to meet any of you, on horse"

If saying you'll duel someone on horseback for the honor of 3 women is not the definition of white knighting I don't know what is.

I don't use the term very much either but that quote is so ridiculous I have to call it that. I mean he's literally acting like a knight!

Okay I agree that's pretty funny but still. Let's not.

EDIT: OMFG it is 2:30 in the fucking morning, what on earth am I even doing. I'm going to bed. Will check thread tomorrow if it's still even open.