BloatedGuppy said:
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.
Jux said:
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.