I Canceled my Publisher's Club Subscription Today

[Colour Scientist]

I thought I wasn't supposed to get quote notifications from people on my ignore list. Anyway, now that I'm here, the inconsistency is that gg'ers are fine with 'blacklisting' websites that host contributors that speak out against gg or are accused of 'toxic' views (a charge I've seen leveled at Chipman by gg'ers many times), yet the escapist gets the blind eye.

I have 6 posts making nothing but calm neutral statements, how am I already on someones ignore list?


I don't even know what to say to this, this is the source of so many problems with this whole fiasco and is incredibly counter intuitive to resolving it, it's mind numbing to see such a blatant example of it.

Eh, I don't think they were talking about you. XD

 

[dragoongfa]

that speak out against gg or are accused of 'toxic' views (a charge I've seen leveled at Chipman by gg'ers many times), yet the escapist gets the blind eye.

I don't get why Chipman gets flak (or hell even Jim Sterling, I mean for a very tenuous fucking link there's that picture of Bob and Sarkeesian, but so what?) for being or even labelled as "SJW".

You know where I stand from my last quote of you, but Jim and Bob gettng blasted? No fucking idea why that happens. I'm just gonna go with the damn vocal minority ruining it for everyone. Because all they did was say "Stop being cunts and sending death threats!" Then suddenly they're "SJW", "Journalists to be avoided" "Corrupt" "on the OTHER side" and other bollocks.

Well Bob did go over the deep end and went into a twitter rant that culminated into calling GG supporters subhuman.

There was also the funny tweet which fat shamed Boogie.

 

[DC_78]

> Social Justice /Warrior/? Really? The whole premise of that sounds ridiculous. It sounds like something a 12 year old child would come up with

I consider myself a SJW, and it's pretty simple - when you see bad shit going down, you don't just sit back and say 'whatever'. You raise your voice, you say 'this is bad shit, stop it'. Sure, it can piss people off - and sometimes, I may even be *wrong* (gasp) - but to just sit back and watch it all just happen? Where's the fun in that?!?

I really, really don't get this vitriolic hatred gamergate has against SJWs (progressives really, right?). Aren't you purely concerned about journalistic standards? What does it matter if I'm a SJW and you're not? Or is gamergate just a crock of conservative bullshit....?

What you describe is not a Social Justice Warrior. It is a good person.

Now do you try and get someone you disagree with banned from the site to make a "safe space"? Do you put someone on ignore that habitually has an opposing viewpoint to you especially on a controversial topic? Do you feel harassed when someone disagrees with you, and openly challenges what you believe in? Do you throw around charged words in ad hominum attacks like racist, misogyny, homophobia, etc. etc?

Because that is what the stereotypical Social Justice Warrior does.

 

[Davroth]

> Social Justice /Warrior/? Really? The whole premise of that sounds ridiculous. It sounds like something a 12 year old child would come up with

So what are you? A Social Justice Arsehole?

I consider myself a SJW, and it's pretty simple - when you see bad shit going down, you don't just sit back and say 'whatever'. You raise your voice, you say 'this is bad shit, stop it'. Sure, it can piss people off - and sometimes, I may even be *wrong* (gasp) - but to just sit back and watch it all just happen? Where's the fun in that?!?

I really, really don't get this vitriolic hatred gamergate has against SJWs (progressives really, right?). Aren't you purely concerned about journalistic standards? What does it matter if I'm a SJW and you're not? Or is gamergate just a crock of conservative bullshit....?

Way to be defensive. At least quote me next time instead of just copy/paste part of what I say.

Anyway this isn't a GamerGate issue per say. I find it ridiculous that people try to attribute the idea of a warrior to social justice. It's the same to me if people were to unironically declared themselves to be white knights. You can 'own' it all you want but it doesn't change that it sounds like a child's conception of standing in for social justice.

I'll let you know that I've been raised a feminist and for US standards a socialist anarchist (in the academic sense), and that's a conviction I hold onto no matter how /terrible/ the feminist community conducts themselves online. So that said, I'd welcome of you didn't generalize the GG movement like that. Also, if you want to know why certain elements of GamerGate are so vitriolic towards the selfproclaimed SJW crowd, you might want to look how the opposition treats them, no matter what they do or how civil they act.

 

[IceForce]

Your fault OP for purchasing one of those things in the first place.

Watch as I continue to use the site completely free of charge.

 

[elvor0]

that speak out against gg or are accused of 'toxic' views (a charge I've seen leveled at Chipman by gg'ers many times), yet the escapist gets the blind eye.

I don't get why Chipman gets flak (or hell even Jim Sterling, I mean for a very tenuous fucking link there's that picture of Bob and Sarkeesian, but so what?) for being or even labelled as "SJW".

You know where I stand from my last quote of you, but Jim and Bob gettng blasted? No fucking idea why that happens. I'm just gonna go with the damn vocal minority ruining it for everyone. Because all they did was say "Stop being cunts and sending death threats!" Then suddenly they're "SJW", "Journalists to be avoided" "Corrupt" "on the OTHER side" and other bollocks.

Well Bob did go over the deep end and went into a twitter rant that culminated into calling GG supporters subhuman.

There was also the funny tweet which fat shamed Boogie.

Oh well okay I must've missed that one, I'm usually pretty informed. I believe you, but you remember any sort of time frame on that one? Having difficulty finding stuff on it. Opinion still stands on Jim though. And even if Bob did go on a nutty rant, I'm pretty sure the blasting of Bob predates this, just because he stood up for Sarkeesian.

 

[IceForce]

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."

We're the consumer and their customers. Thats how the game works. You don't insult your customers and think you can get away with it. And again, its not censorship.

This is funny, because on one hand you say this, and on the other hand GamerGate supporters are saying this:

By the way people like Leigh Alexander and Anita Sarkeesian are calling for censorship, they just aren't using the exact word. When they sit there and go "This game is sexist becuase of this and you shouldn't buy it" That's calling for censorship whether you think so or not.

So let me get this straight, when Anita calls for a boycott of a particular video game, it's censorship. But when GamerGate people call for a boycott of a website, it's NOT censorship?

The doublethink here is astonishing.

 

[dragoongfa]

Oh well okay I must've missed that one, I'm usually pretty informed. I believe you, but you remember any sort of time frame on that one? Having difficulty finding stuff on it. Opinion still stands on Jim though. And even if Bob did go on a nutty rant, I'm pretty sure the blasting of Bob predates this, just because he stood up for Sarkeesian.

The blasting of Bob was after that rant, he made a half arsed apology for it later though. Now for the time frame, it was somewhere right after the 12 'Gamers are over' articles hit and I think that he deleted the tweets after the apology in question.

I am trying to find screen grabs at the moment.

 

[Kingjackl]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and if you want to show objection to an organisation's practices, voting with your wallet is one of the better ways to do it. Still, I can't understand the objection to the Escapist of all places when it's had some of the most level-headed discourse out there. Not all of the interviews posted were pro-GG, and almost nothing else put out by the site or it's contributors have come even close. It doesn't look like they were trying to spread an agenda or fuel the fire, it feels more like they were illustrating that they adhered to their policy of unbiased journalism. The fact they were willing to pull one of the interviews due to harassment shows they still hold certain standards that the rest of the interviews clearly lived up to.

My feelings towards the GamerGate movement are so mixed at this point, I can't really say anything but fall back on the classic South Park "don't be a dick" ethos. For example, I consider any proponent of GG to be a write-off the moment they slag Anita Sarkeesian, because I know that she is a victim of harassment, but has literally nothing to do with any of the GG issues that are actually worthwhile like journalistic integrity or denouncement of gamers and gaming culture. Similarly, any anti-GG that issues personal attacks, or makes unhelpful sweeping generalisations such as 'misogynist' or worse, 'white-privilege' is only showing how ignorant they are.

Come to think of it, anything to do with attacking people over issues should be condemned on both sides. That's what both Erik Kain and TotalBiscuit said, and if GamerGate people want their complaints to be taken seriously, those two are the ones they have to cling to by the coat-tails.

 

[NoX 9]

I respect you putting your literal money where your mouth is -in this case by NOT spending it-, if you talk the talk you should be able to walk the plank. No, thats not right...

Also, congratulations on a post that has just the right amount of every element to set off a massive flame war!

 

[dragoongfa]

snip

I am pro-gg and I understand your comment for AS or LW2 as we call her.

The problem is that for some reason Anti-GGs constantly bring her in because of the harassment she received at the past, hell when the death threats and the CP incident happened we had a few vocal Anti-GG paint the movement as being responsible for them.

I fell to the trap of talking about LW2 in the past, I have my negative opinion about her but I agree that she is not relevant to the core issues behind GamerGate. The only loose relevance she has is that her word is treated like gospel by a large part of Anti-GG people.

 

[Scars Unseen]

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?

I don't really have a horse in this debate, but you may want to re-read the OP. FLn's interpretation of things has some foundation, where as yours is pure speculation. OP quite literally says

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.

The OP given reason for leaving is that the "What Male Game Developers Think About #GamerGate" article should not have been posted, which has nothing to do with Alex Baldwin specifically.

Seeing as the... actually, does the other side even call itself anything? SWJ seems a bit dismissive. Whatever. Seeing as the other side has been campaigning against exclusivity in games, demanding exclusivity in viewpoints is a bit... weird. Oh well.

I'll give OP this, though. He said he wasn't looking to debate, and so far he's stuck with it. I may think that your line of reasoning is extremely suspect, teknoarcanist, but I admire your decisiveness. I.. umm... won't be cancelling my subscription in support.

Feel free to debate that decision. I'm open to criticism. Frankly, though, I can't see myself wanting to deal with Captchas ever again.

 

[The White Hunter]

I cancelled mine because of the advertisments posing as newsposts, and the fact it's not very cheap for what you get at the end of the day.

 

[marksibly]

> What you describe is not a Social Justice Warrior. It is a good person.

Point taken, but if you're 'outside' gamergate, all you hear is all this crap about evil/misogynistic/racist SJWs!

Gamergate obviously has it's own internal definition of SJW (I've read a few, but they differ every time) but, from the outside at least, it's very hard not to read SJW as a slur on 'progressive'.

If you guys REALLY want to clean up game journalism, isn't it better to have progressive on-side? Or is gamergate - as it appears to be - a conservative movement?

 

[Kingjackl]

snip

I am pro-gg and I understand your comment for AS or LW2 as we call her.

The problem is that for some reason Anti-GGs constantly bring her in because of the harassment she received at the past, hell when the death threats and the CP incident happened we had a few vocal Anti-GG paint the movement as being responsible for them.

I fell to the trap of talking about LW2 in the past, I have my negative opinion about her but I agree that she is not relevant to the core issues behind GamerGate. The only loose relevance she has is that her word is treated like gospel by a large part of Anti-GG people.

I get what you mean. Honestly, the amount of hate Anita Sarkeesian has gotten (not sure what LW2 stands for, but it sounds exciting) is still one of the most baffling things I have ever seen. I mean, I get what people are saying when they talk about Hitman being a bad example of misogyny in games, but that nowhere near justifies the way certain groups are behaving. It only gives ammo to the opposing side; a great quote I recall hearing is "the best propaganda is the stuff you don't have to make up".

I think it's important to avoid linking her (and feminism in general) to the anti-GG movement, because feminism isn't something I believe gamers should be fighting. Maybe anti-feminism is a principle of pro-GG's, but it's one I cannot support, and also I don't think it's an issue worth dealing with. I'm against using misogyny or (eurgh) 'white-male privilege' as a cudgel to attack broad groups, because it's intellectually dishonest and hypocritical. Don't blame feminism for that, blame a lack of respect for the audience. At the end of the day, that's what separates a pro-consumer movement from a hate-group.

 

[Thyunda]

I don't even know which side 'pro' or 'anti' Gamergate actually represents. I always have trouble picking a side for that exact reason.

Also - OP, you cancelled your subscription to a games journalism website for giving fair, honest and unbiased coverage?

Okay.

 

[lacktheknack]

If you guys REALLY want to clean up game journalism, isn't it better to have progressive on-side? Or is gamergate - as it appears to be - a conservative movement?

It's not. I'm a true conservative - I'm upset that stuff is changing, period. I think everything will get worse if Gamergate has its way, I think everything will get worse if Tumblr "progressives" get their way. I like my change slow and with as few revolutions as possible.

 

[dragoongfa]

I get what you mean. Honestly, the amount of hate Anita Sarkeesian has gotten (not sure what LW2 stands for, but it sounds exciting) is still one of the most baffling things I have ever seen. I mean, I get what people are saying when they talk about Hitman being a bad example of misogyny in games, but that nowhere near justifies the way certain groups are behaving. It only gives ammo to the opposing side; a great quote I recall hearing is "the best propaganda is the stuff you don't have to make up".

I think it's important to avoid linking her (and feminism in general) to the anti-GG movement, because feminism isn't something I believe gamers should be fighting. Maybe anti-feminism is a principle of pro-GG's, but it's one I cannot support, and also I don't think it's an issue worth dealing with. I'm against using misogyny or (eurgh) 'white-male privilege' as a cudgel to attack broad groups, because it's intellectually dishonest and hypocritical. Don't blame feminism for that, blame a lack of respect for the audience. At the end of the day, that's what separates a pro-consumer movement from a hate-group.

It means Literally Who 2

I agree completely, I joined GamerGate because of the genuine lack of respect several influential people in gaming media and in the gaming industry have for the consumer base.

I admit that I don't like the overly politically correct tone of certain people who proclaim themselves as feminist but that doesn't mean that I don't support the key foundation of feminism that is equality for everyone. I just find it annoying that some people think that equality means being immune to criticism because of one's sex.

I also admit that some people joined GamerGate because they have an axe to grind but that would be true for any such revolt no matter how it would start. We try to police ourselves but it's impossible to do that on the internet. We can only condemn the bad apples while trying to isolate them as much as possible.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Fox Pocket]

If you guys REALLY want to clean up game journalism, isn't it better to have progressive on-side? Or is gamergate - as it appears to be - a conservative movement?

 

[marksibly]

> t's not. I'm a true conservative - I'm upset that stuff is changing, period. I think everything will get worse if Gamergate has its way, I think everything will get worse if Tumblr "progressives" get their way. I like my change slow and with as few revolutions as possible.

That's totally cool - very honest!

Change excites me (guess that's why I'm a progressive) but I understand that everyone has to be onboard for it be worthwhile.

Still not sure what to make of gamergate(!), but I've enjoyed all this discussion anyway.