I Canceled my Publisher's Club Subscription Today

[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?

snip image

To be fair, that test is crap.

I took it and got uber-central centrist. In reality, I'm a very pro-authority conservative.

 

[clippen05]

Believe it or not, most people can function without worrying about some internet argument that doesn't directly affect their day-to-day life. Yeah, I think the argument is hugely important. But I don't miss sleep at night when some website does something I don't like. Cracked recently sided with Zoe Quinn. I don't boycott them, I do think a lot less of them, but it doesn't make me act like a whining toddler.

 

[Fox Pocket]

To be fair, that test is crap.

I took it and got uber-central centrist. In reality, I'm a very pro-authority conservative.

Only metric compiled regarding the political leanings of the movement, I find it accurate in relations to all that I've read though, which has been far too much for almost two months now.

I can only speak for myself however (moderately left leaning libertarian).

 

[DC_78]

> 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?

Define progressive for me here? Is it life long American Democrats like me? Feminists? People of color? LGBTQ? Marxists?

Because we literally have them all. I have spoken to a self confessed Anarchist in the same thread as a self confessed Conservative about the threats a feminist woman that supports Gamergate received at her work.

https://twitter.com/GGfeminist

 

[Mezahmay]

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.

I'm aware not all topics on this forum exist for my approval/discussion, but the guy pretty much came in, left this topic here, and then left. He even explicitly stated that he did not expect debate or convincing. My brain was not able to think of a reason why this thread existed in a discussion forum, so I replied with a post reflecting such sentiments. Apparently I came back a little later and was a bit of a dick. Can't really remember why that happened now. However, now that people who did find something to talk about have filled out the thread a little more the OP feels less random to me.

 

[marksibly]

> Define progressive for me here? Is it life long American Democrats like me? Feminists? People of color? LGBTQ? Marxists?

Well, I don't know you so I don't know what 'progress' means to you...

But to me, it just means a 'more inclusive' society - ie: if you're doing your own thing and it's not hurting anyone (and that does not include 'the right to not be offended') then I will support you. I don't care if you're male, female, gay, bisexual, communist, capitalist, libertarian, christian, hindu, muslin whatever. As long as we can live peaceably together, people can do whatever they want.

And to me, that means supporting women that complain about the way they're represented in games. I don't think males are capable of fully appreciating what it's like to be female (and vice verse) and it really, really doesn't cost us males anything to at least listen. Disagree if you want, but don't silence them.

I've been gaming since the late 70's, and I know how full of shit the gaming press is - but really, it's not worse than the music/art press, and WAY better than politics! I'd love to see it improve, but it's pretty clear gamergate isn't the way.

 

[freaper]

Thanks for letting us know?

I posted a letter yesterday. In a letterbox.

Just thought you might wanna know that.

I had to post a letter a few months back, so I had to go and buy stamps first. I actually (and this is true) had to ask the cashier, which was a lady in her fifties, in which corner I had to stick the stamp. Writing by hand is really starting to become a lost art.

 

[laggyteabag]

Y'know what the worst part about this whole controversy is? The fact that it made me read up on why the hell everyone is getting their panties in a twist, and you know what? I still have no fucking idea what is going on.

So, what? There are people claiming that a developer slept with a journalist to get coverage for her game, thus showing corruption in journalism, and then there is the group saying that that never happened and people are just blaming her because she is a woman and feminism is a thing that has happened? Is that about right, or am I way off?

I'm not gonna lie, every time that a gamergate discussion has happened on The Escapist, my general reaction after looking at the thread was:
And it was as simple as that, but after looking at Twitter last night and seeing that The Escapist was the number 2 trending topic, I decided that now is as good a time as any to try and find out what is going on. So can someone just kinda condense it down to a few key points?

Otherwise, Im sorry that you didn't agree with The Escapist's point of view, but to cancel your subscription over it? Eehhhhhhhhhh, im less sorry.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

'P-P-people hold different opinion from me??'
Must be heartbreaking for you.


Eh, whatever. These type of self-important threads pop-up time to time, usually when something shakes up the usual day-to-day business a little, like when Extra Credits left. We'll get over it, i'm sure.

And the escapist didn't fuck up. They covered a story, with a lot of interest, and, quite honestly, in a fairly neutral way. It's called journalism. I didn't see this level of self-righteous explosion when they put up female game devs opinion on the thing.

 

[elvor0]

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.

Ah gotcha. It's all a bit messy, can't remember the order of things. I appreciate trying to find the grabs, but it's no worry, I believe you and I'm sure I could eventually find them on my own steam if needs be

 

[Andrey Sirotin]

> Define progressive for me here? Is it life long American Democrats like me? Feminists? People of color? LGBTQ? Marxists?

Well, I don't know you so I don't know what 'progress' means to you...

But to me, it just means a 'more inclusive' society - ie: if you're doing your own thing and it's not hurting anyone (and that does not include 'the right to not be offended') then I will support you. I don't care if you're male, female, gay, bisexual, communist, capitalist, libertarian, christian, hindu, muslin whatever. As long as we can live peaceably together, people can do whatever they want.

And to me, that means supporting women that complain about the way they're represented in games. I don't think males are capable of fully appreciating what it's like to be female (and vice verse) and it really, really doesn't cost us males anything to at least listen. Disagree if you want, but don't silence them.

I've been gaming since the late 70's, and I know how full of shit the gaming press is - but really, it's not worse than the music/art press, and WAY better than politics! I'd love to see it improve, but it's pretty clear gamergate isn't the way.

Well, than you aren't progressive- you are tolerant. Progressivism is a set of ideals, whereas tolerance is acceptance of existence of opinions or behaviors that you may not necessarily agree with.

By your own definition you are supporting a sub-group that feels entitled to not be offended. I don't think that majority of people are against AS or LA having their warped opinions, but a lot of us are tired of their opinions being preached as gospel. When a person chooses to accuse a franchise of bigotry, they better expect the backlash from the fanbase of the said franchise; some of whom might not be as levelheaded as most.

I don't see music press treating their readership with the amount of contempt I only would reserve for my enemies. And I don't see promises of blacklisting or censorship from them.

 

[Negatempest]

Man, I haven't spoken up in Escapist for months. But I do find this hilarious for some of these re-posters.

OP went into a public forum and put his opinion out there. Regardless of what side of the fence on this topic you are on or if your a fence sitter. The OP made a public statement. Thus those that see this public statement are free to criticize said statement. Criticizing is not a naturally evil or good action. It is an action done by people that may have a different view of the world from your own. Thus, even though you may not like the opinion, he/she is free to say their own piece. People are not a colony of germs. People are individuals with their own views that are not going to be the same. To deny a view just because it is different from your own is fascism.

What is healthy is to respect the other persons view. You don't have to like it, but that doesn't make the person or yourself right or wrong. Just different.

Now I am pro-gater. I respect the OP decision. He is free to make it. What I am free to do is criticize his choice. This isn't harassment. Criticizing is not harassment. Having a different opinion is not harassment. Giving a different view is not harassment.

transitive verb
1
a : exhaust, fatigue
b (1) : to annoy persistently (2) : to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct

Here is the thing. No one is keeping anti-gaters from making their own view. They are free to have their own opinion without fear of mods censoring or deleting. With such freedoms comes responsibility. Meaning your have to accept the fact that your opinion is not the word of God. It is just one of many that is different and is, can and/or will be the target of a different opinion.

You are not a special snowflake in a world of color.

 

[SentimentalGeek]

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.

Actually, you've just made our argument for us. Chipman & Sterling are anti-GG, and yet we rally around Escapist because they're offering alternative viewpoints as well. Gamasutra and the like tolerate no other viewpoints, and for that, they're completely different, and are easy to write off.

 

[PDugna]

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

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.

It's not doublethink and I'll tell you why, (since for some reason you went out and pulled out of context quote from another thread).

Pulling advertisers to get somebody like Leigh fired is ok because when she loses money she can still post on a blog about her opinions. Nobody is physically stopping her speaking up or her friends boosting her she just has less influence with her words if she leaves gamasutra. Believe me though she has tons of things wrong with tons of hypocrisy. What we're doing here is lvling the playing field where she has to actually defend her aguments and not sit on a stand and yell "YOU'RE WRONG AND I KNOW YOU'RE WRONG BUT I WON'T EXPLAIN ACTUALLY WHY YOU'RE WRONG BUT I HATE YOU BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH".

When Anita calls for boycott of a studio's game based on her opinions it's a totally different situation. That message that the studio is producing is only being made with the financial backing of the sales, it's not like a person just speaking their mind. Once that company finally goes bankrupt from to many moral busybodies boycotting them they can't have a message anymore. That studio shuts down and very rarely ever works again to make the same games.

tl;dr One involves lvling the playing field, one is just somebody offended and wanting art to go away because they're offended. 1 is fair and alright the other is not and ruins the message.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Hey! Thread's still open.

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.

False Equivalence. I know what a consumer blacklist is. The option left to you is the option left to everyone...don't consume the content if you don't like the content. Saying "This is not for me" and walking away is very different from publicly posting a list, and putting pressure on advertisers to withdraw. One is "voting with your wallet" or "putting your money where your mouth is". The other is deliberate action undertaken with the desired result of ending the thing you dislike.

They are free to do and say whatever they want but they aren't free from the consequences for these actions.

No one said they were. I'm not saying you can't do this. I'm saying the action itself is an act of censorship.

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.

Correct. The sites in question do not endorse or support your viewpoint, so you'd like their sponsors to withdraw and their funding to stop.

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.

But "you", as in GamerGate, have expressed nothing but worry about their job security, as in you're worried about them continuing to enjoy it. There is a long gulf between voting with one's dollar and actively attempting to get something shut down. A devout Catholic who sees a racy show on television and changes the channel saying "Not for me" is one thing. A devout Catholic drumming up organizational support to pressure sponsors into having it taken off the air is another. Would you characterize one of those things as censorship? Yes/No? If not, how does it differ from censorship, exactly?

Overall, the tactic itself is not something inherently bad, it all depends on why it is being used. For example, recall that Chick Fila fiasco that happened a couple of years ago. Now I can't condemn the protestors since their reasoning was fairly sound (Chick Fila financially supported a few organizations that tried to prevent same sex marriage from being legalized).

You know, I don't approve of Chick-Fil-A's stance on gay marriage even slightly, but I was never sure what it had to do with their ability to make chicken, or why them having that perspective should mean their right to have a business should end. As dismayed as I was by Dan Cathy's stance on gay marriage, I did not undertake steps to rub Chick-Fil-A out of existence for disagreeing with me. I never ate at Chick-Fil-A again, but that was pretty easy, as we don't have any Chick-Fil-A's here.

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.

Is that not the long term result of a blacklist? By never visiting sites or reading content that takes an opposite opinion, are you not willfully creating an echo chamber? How would, say, Rock Paper Shotgun's comment section be any more or less an echo chamber than the GamerGate discussion thread? When I posted there weeks ago for the "welcome debate", I popped back in a few hours later to see one of the thread runners issuing a public service announcement not to be "swayed" by "disrupting elements" and to keep the message pure.

Honestly what I see is angry condemnation of one "echo chamber" and gleeful embrace of an alternative one. As I've said from the beginning of all this, I've perceived GamerGate activists and their hypothetical "SJW zealot" opponents as two sides of the same coin. Equally polarized, equally willing to pre-emptively shut down conversation and drown dissent, equally convinced in the utter rightness of their cause, equally unable or unwilling to anything but generalize widely about their hypothetical opposition. Naturally there are sane voices in the discussion, but as with all angry discussions they get quieter and quieter as time goes by.

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.

I went back and read the OP, and he doesn't specify which article inflamed him. Given content, it could easily have been either. I assumed it was the Baldwin one due to a second thread on the same subject, that's my bad.

'P-P-people hold different opinion from me??'

Must be heartbreaking for you.

Agreed, right? For example, I don't consider "Gamers" to be dead, but when I heard someone held a different opinion from me on the subject I didn't get upset and call for a community blacklist of their respective websites.

And the escapist didn't fuck up. They covered a story, with a lot of interest, and, quite honestly, in a fairly neutral way. It's called journalism.

1) I don't even know which article OP was talking about any more, but I'M going to continue talking about the Adam Baldwin one.
2) Not covered in a neutral way
3) Not remotely journalism
4) Of course it doesn't matter this is the Escapist not the fucking New York Times, it's an enthusiast press about hobbyist recreation and it's their website, they can post whatever they want

POST-SCRIPT - I initially fucked up my quoting in this post, so if I've misquoted you and didn't catch it, let me know.

 

[xdiesp]

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?

So you believe that 1) Anita runs boycott campaigns and 2) Gamergate uses tools as legit as hers to protest.

I agree with you there mate, the doublethink is astonishing.