I Canceled my Publisher's Club Subscription Today

[Thorn14]

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.

 

[Fox Pocket]

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

That's a false equivalent. A consumer blacklist is an integral part of a consumer boycott, especially when it is the only option really left to us at this point. Also simply blacklisting or mailing advertisers isn't censorship, these places can still spin whatever narrative they want and block whatever discussion they want, the public is just reacting to it in the only way they have left. They are free to do and say whatever they want but they aren't free from the consequences for these actions.

Also that doesn't have anything to do with open discussion when there is no open discussion occurring in these blacklisted sites, just agenda driven articles and heavily moderated/ censored or completely closed comment sections.

 

[dragoongfa]

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.

Then you should already know that the blacklist is there for those who support GamerGate and want to stop visiting the sites that are against GamerGate and the push for ethical standards in gaming journalism.

If the gaming sites are starving and choked because of the blacklist then that means that the supporters of GamerGate made up a large part of their audience and consumer base, large enough to bring them in the red. If a for profit business does not address the concerns of such an important part of the consumer base then they should go out of business. It ain't our obligation to worry about their job security, our obligation as consumers is to voice our concerns and not give our patronage to the businesses that are not addressing our concerns.

 

[jamail77]

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.

Regardless of what "side" you're on this is just ridiculous. Yes, sometimes "fair and balanced coverage" is engaging in false dichotomy. We're not talking about such a situation though. This isn't the stupid global warming debate or the issue over Obama's birth certificate. Those involve facts and knowledge about very specific fields people spend years studying. This discussion has to do with perspective. What you're saying is equivalent to, if not as serious as, people who say "Racism is only a problem because we obsess over it! If we stopped talking about it, it would go away!". Obviously, there's little logic to that; that's not how life works. The Escapist coverage of Gamergate is not granting legitimacy considering the site does not even have a stance on the issue other than believing gamers are not dead and that they should stay committed to high levels of journalistic integrity.

My only advice would be to stop believing in the "evil patriarchy" for a week. Pretend that the feminists and SJW are just blowing hot air, and the issues they are bringing up don't really exist. Just "try" to believe that for one week. You'll notice your life will get a "lot" better. No arguments, no frustration, no oppression, and not being forced to cancel long standing subscriptions.

Your beliefs are causing you problems, and not bringing any benefit to your life.

This is just as disingenuous an analysis of the OP as the OP's reasons for leaving. I did not self-educate and go to high school and college for years learning about social issues, history, philosophy to hear such a dismissive attitude towards real problems. I'm sure someone will just tell me how liberal public education is though and how snobby I sound and how my self-education was just me going through one big loop of confirmation bias and how feminists and SJWs are just a bunch of liars. I'm not even left leaning, but that and everything else I listed tends to be the go-to response to avoid actual, civil discussion. And, forget that I've witnessed some of the issues "feminists" and "SJWs" fight against firsthand. They do exist, they are real, I've seen them, heck, I've experienced some of them, and that's not just anecdotal because there is well done research to back this up. And, obviously, the fact I sympathize with Gamergaters does not do anything to rid me of my evil liberalness. Sorry, from my point of view, the OP's reasons for leaving are bratty and ridiculous and have only a little bit to do with his beliefs. It's more to do with his attitude.

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.

Yeah, exactly. While I admittedly lean towards a side on this issue, I respect both sides and believe there is credibility and nuance to both arguments. I manage to sympathize with everyone in this discussion honestly. The OP's perspective is utterly flawed because it assumes discussion is the same as granting legitimacy to disproven facts when this is a perspective based discussion. Facts actually have little to do with it from my point of view. How we see the gaming community is a lot more relevant to this frankly and that's ONLY based on opinions.

 

[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.

As I've myself have stated before, I don't fault the Escapist themselves for Chipman and Sterling (though Sterling is nowhere near as vitriolic as Chipman over most issues) since they're not actually apart of the site themselves. They're nothing but content creators of which is based on nothing but their own opinion. Leigh Alexander on the other hand has a fairly influential role within the site itself so unless they try to distance themselves from her, her actions and opinions reflect on Gamasutra itself.

Frankly that just looks like mental gymnastics to me. If gg wants to be internally consistent, they'd pull support from the escapist for giving people they don't like a platform, regardless of 'how influential they are'.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

So in other words:
"What do Female Game Developers think of GamerGate?" - Good
"What do Male Game Developers think of GamerGate?" - MISOGYNIST! I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU, YOU'RE DISGUSTING!
Is this Tumblr or real life?

At least I think that's the correct way to decipher this. It's hard to tell if this person is one way or the other. After all, they didn't mention any specific thing that got them all upset. Maybe this is some kind of social experiment. Do I pass?

 

[marksibly]

> 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.

I respect that! And as the saying goes, although I may disagree with you, I will fight to the death for your right to express your opinion! Yet I read the same pieces, consider myself a gamer etc, and didn't feel in anyway 'attacked'...go figure... But I do not consider the 'gamers are dead' stuff to represent 'game journalism corruption' - it's just a bunch of opinion pieces, written largely in response to the shitty treatment Zoe Quinn received - so I cannot support any attempt to silence those who expressed the 'gamers are dead' opinions in the first place. 'Journalists' should be allowed to have opinions and express them - esp. in the entertainment industries.

To me, corruption in game journalism is about big companies with megabucks being able to buy favourable coverage and influence reviews and so on - quietly, in the background, where nobody really notices. But this just doesn't seem to be what gamergate is about.

 

[Fox Pocket]

Frankly that just looks like mental gymnastics to me. If gg wants to be internally consistent, they'd pull support from the escapist for giving people they don't like a platform, regardless of 'how influential they are'.

Apologized for previous mistakes they were called out on, addressed the public on their own ethics, hosts content from both sides of the issue and allows uncensored open discussion on its forum.

Not really seeing the problem or how this would be inconsistent.

 

[DC_78]

Frankly that just looks like mental gymnastics to me. If gg wants to be internally consistent, they'd pull support from the escapist for giving people they don't like a platform, regardless of 'how influential they are'.

Internally consistent? You mean morally consistent, almost pure really.

Which while an admirable goal Jux would amount to pretty much cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. The Escapist is one of the FEW safe harbors on the ENTIRE internet that can handle the traffic, has host to a media wing that can front page meaningful reports, has not moderated/banned both sides of the topic out of existence, and has a reasonable audience from which to pool others for discussion both pro and con.

Want to see Gamergate get much, much worse? Pull the Escapist out of the picture. Then the moderates are left with only the chans and other dark corners of the internet to congregate in angry echo chambers. Only the majority voices of the moderates in Gamergate are keeping the worst trolls from going around half cocked all the time. Even then some go off the range and do hurtful and stupid things. Which the entire movement then gets blamed for even if we denounce them.

Take the entire possibility of good PR out of the equation and then you just get Anonymous.

 

[Nikolaz72]

I have my subscription because of the Escapists dedication to ethics and their journalistic integrity.

I will keep it as long as they stick to good value journalism. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[Jux]

Frankly that just looks like mental gymnastics to me. If gg wants to be internally consistent, they'd pull support from the escapist for giving people they don't like a platform, regardless of 'how influential they are'.

Internally consistent? You mean morally consistent, almost pure really.

If you want to attach morals to it, that's on you. I meant internally consistent. Integrity if you will.

Which while an admirable goal Jux would amount to pretty much cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. The Escapist is one of the FEW safe harbors on the ENTIRE internet that can handle the traffic, has host to a media wing that can front page meaningful reports, has not moderated/banned both sides of the topic out of existence, and has a reasonable audience from which to pool others for discussion both pro and con.

Like I said, they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. Which is their prerogative, but I'm going to point out this inconsistency regardless.

Want to see Gamergate get much, much worse? Pull the Escapist out of the picture. Then the moderates are left with only the chans and other dark corners of the internet to congregate in angry echo chambers. Only the majority voices of the moderates in Gamergate are keeping the worst trolls from going around half cocked all the time. Even then some go off the range and do hurtful and stupid things.

I don't really care how gg goes. Best case scenario would be gg actually acknowledges it's misogynistic roots and gives up it's crusade against the social justice movement, and actually focuses on real corruption (like AAA publishers paying for good reviews) instead of small time nonsense and hurt feelings over the 'gamers are dead' articles, which from where I'm sitting were mostly taken out of context anyway.

Which the entire movement then gets blamed for even if we denounce them.

Much like any movement, those vilified social justice advocates included.

Take the entire possibility of good PR out of the equation and then you just get Anonymous.

I think this says something about gg as a whole, and not in a very flattering way.

 

[Davroth]

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."

The endgame isn't for the SJW to leave gaming, although I have to wonder why anyone would identify as a SJW to begin with. Social Justice /Warrior/? Really? The whole premise of that sounds ridiculous. It sounds like something a 12 year old child would come up with.

If GamerGate is such an insignificantly small group, then there is no danger coming from 'our' calls for boycotts and 'we' don't really have that kind of influence to even exert. And if 'we' are not a such a minority, then 'we' deserve to be heard. Besides, most of GG really concentrates on journalistic corruption, and getting a journalist fired for unethical behaviour isn't 'censorship', it's a smart business move for their employer to improve their outlet's credibility.

 

[Fox Pocket]

Like I said, they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. Which is their prerogative, but I'm going to point out this inconsistency regardless.

Again, they apologized for previous wrongdoing, host articles giving a voice to both sides of the issue and allow open uncensored discussion and debate of it on their forum.

This is basically all anyone wants and should be what people expect from this kind of enthusiast website, what exactly is inconsistent here?

 

[elvor0]

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.

Well the OP has the arse on because the site chose to present /both/ sides of an argument, which is silly because 1: you can't make an informed decision about an argument if you are not informed about both sides and 2: Both sides is a vast improvement over one side, as the escapist has been prone to do in the past. The thing is, The Escapist DIDN'T express an opinion, the person in the interview did, the expressions of whom are obviously seperate and independant from the expressions of The Escapist.

This is entirely different from the site publishing an article, the content soley by a member of staff; telling us we're all scumbags.

Okay, OP doesn't agree with one side of the argument, but part of The Escapist staffs duty does include being "journalists" and part of that is presenting both sides of a story, as not to appear biased or skew perspective. I'm pro gamers gate but I'm not going to get up in arms because they interviewed someone from the other "side" as it were. I'm unlikely to agree with what the interviewee says, but what they say isn't what the website is saying.

One would assume GamersGate blacklist the other websites because they promote only one perspective and quashed any discussion of the other when the fires were raging. Creating an echo-chamber is good for no one, ever. That leaves you with skewed accounts, false truths, half truths, agenda op-ed in news articles and other bollocks that help no one other than the site. Not only does The Escapist present both sides, it allows open discussion now and even at the hight of the Quinnspiricy, it was one of the only sites that did.

I don't really care how gg goes. Best case scenario would be gg actually acknowledges it's misogynistic roots

I think the word has actually lost all meaning at this point. But speak for yourself, the movement may have been borne out of the Quinn-spiricy, but do people still believe that it was completely mysoginistic or even /had/ mysoginistic intentions for more than a handful of vocal nutjobs? Really? You don't think people had the arse on about the insane nepotism and quashing of any looking into it, especially when it all blew up into something bigger than just Quinn? And then, when it did blow up and people got the arse on about what was behind the curtain, we all got blasted by Silverstring Media through proxy sites telling us we were the scum of the earth and were only doing it because Quinn was a girl.

I couldn't give a rats arse about Quinn being a fucking girl, just her nepotism and the resutling reveal and fallout. Just because /some/ people were dicks (which happened on /both/ sides) and because it /happened/ to involve a woman, that doesn't make it mysoginist. I abhore the people sending her or anyone else death threats, but they're a vocal minority as you should know. And mysoginy? VERY fucking rare. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who actually hates women and got on Quinns back because they were /actually/ a mysoginist.

 

[Jux]

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.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yeah, sometimes there just isn't two sides to the debate, sometimes someone's just breaking the "don't be a jerk" rule the Escapist doesn't care to enforce. Deciding who and when, though...

Now, I can understand (though I'm not happy with) letting those thing slide, you should stop pretending to take the rules seriously if you aren't going to worry about them.

The endgame isn't for the SJW to leave gaming, although I have to wonder why anyone would identify as a SJW to begin with. Social Justice /Warrior/? Really? The whole premise of that sounds ridiculous. It sounds like something a 12 year old child would come up with.

More or less, it was created to smear people who care about social justice the way "feminazi" was created to smear feminists. Presumably there's one for gay activists, but I don't know what it is.

Some people are trying to "reclaim" it.

 

[SteveThaiBinh]

I also cancelled my subscription to publisher's club today, for similar reasons to the original poster who is not alone in his/her concerns.

 

[Fox Pocket]

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.



Anyway, they host viewpoints the movement finds disagreeable but they also host opposing viewpoints and allow open discussion on the subject. This is healthy and should be the standard for all of these outlets, there is no reason to boycott it when this is exactly what people want.

 

[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.