I sort of have high hopes, but I'm not setting myself to be toppled down hard. I'll give the new content a shot and wait to see what it really offers. Nothing wrong with being optimistic about new faces on the Escapist contributor front.
Poll: Who else is excited for the proposition of new/different Escapist content?
- Thread starter Zahri
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I boycotted the site because it was involved in the politically correct mess. Hopefully they stop now.
Nope.
I'm riding the Pessimism Express all the way to Doomsville, and it's an exhilarating trip.
By all means, I wish the best luck to the new blood, but just based on what I've seen already I don't hold out much hope that whatever they're going to provide is going to be something I'll be interested in.
I'm riding the Pessimism Express all the way to Doomsville, and it's an exhilarating trip.
By all means, I wish the best luck to the new blood, but just based on what I've seen already I don't hold out much hope that whatever they're going to provide is going to be something I'll be interested in.
I have absolutely no idea what form that new content will take, or even if it will eventually manifest, so "excitement" is a bit much to expect.
As far as the new contributors go... It's interesting that one person can drag controversial opinions into every third column, article, or piece and they're just "one person using their podium, and you can listen/read/watch or not," but that another can simply have an opinion that you disagree with and people are willing to burn down the house before they say one word on the site.
For pity's sake, people. You have to live in a world where people will sometimes disagree with you; get used to it. If whatshisname actually starts using his podium to intentionally demean or suggest violence against transgendered people, I'll be as up in arms about it as anyone. But as I've said time and again, finding something offensive is not enough reason for something not to exist. And as an extension of that, disagreeing with someone on one point is a damn poor reason to try and wipe all evidence of them and their opinions from the face of the Earth. That's true of Moviebob, it's true of Anita Sarkeesian, and it's true of the new contributors as well.
Who knows, these people might actually have something interesting and worthwhile to say about their given subjects. Wouldn't that be a hoot?
As far as the new contributors go... It's interesting that one person can drag controversial opinions into every third column, article, or piece and they're just "one person using their podium, and you can listen/read/watch or not," but that another can simply have an opinion that you disagree with and people are willing to burn down the house before they say one word on the site.
For pity's sake, people. You have to live in a world where people will sometimes disagree with you; get used to it. If whatshisname actually starts using his podium to intentionally demean or suggest violence against transgendered people, I'll be as up in arms about it as anyone. But as I've said time and again, finding something offensive is not enough reason for something not to exist. And as an extension of that, disagreeing with someone on one point is a damn poor reason to try and wipe all evidence of them and their opinions from the face of the Earth. That's true of Moviebob, it's true of Anita Sarkeesian, and it's true of the new contributors as well.
Who knows, these people might actually have something interesting and worthwhile to say about their given subjects. Wouldn't that be a hoot?
- Mar 17, 2012
- 5,948
- 15
- 43
- Country
- United States
I have no idea what they'll do but I'll give it a chance
Honestly, I'm just glad we HAVE content still coming in. I was worried about the future of the site but from a monetary view. Knowing that the site can still at least support people coming in is a good sign for site stability.
TL;DR: Let's YOLO this *****
Honestly, I'm just glad we HAVE content still coming in. I was worried about the future of the site but from a monetary view. Knowing that the site can still at least support people coming in is a good sign for site stability.
TL;DR: Let's YOLO this *****
Didn't say it was a crime. It just means too bad to be ignored. Bad is an incredibly relative term. But someone who calls people who disagree with Anita an evolutionary dead end as well as any other inflammatory terms he can group anyone at all with any objections to her argument in is pretty bad to me.Silvanus said:
I'm all for disagreement. There are very few things you can disagree with me on where I'd been to think of you as a less valuable human being. Those things are generally on topics where disagreeing with me means you think other people are less valuable human beings. You know?
What I mean to say is, he was the only one talking about it from his own side. There was no contradiction of his opinion anywhere else and his entire "jack thomspon" spiel was done as subtly as possible without mentioning Anita (except towards the middle in pictures rather than by name) in an attempt to settle the argument once and for all and get people to stop saying that " 'games making people sexist' is not unlike 'games making people violent' ".
You aren't wrong that he had free reign to express his opinion, but his side of things was pretty much the only thing getting displayed and any talk of it outside of the escapist was incredibly rude. Probably why he's specifically gone even if I'll miss his work.
There were articles about her every time it suited someone's agenda. If I'm going to hear about these "e-celebrities" all the time then I should hear the good and bad. Are you forgetting that my desire is to see both sides of these things rather than just journalists taking a side and telling me how I should or should not feel about something? I don't particularly want any news about her at all but if it's going to be there, at least let it be two sided. Especially if it's polarizing like it is. Otherwise the news is being as bad as Fox with all one-sided nonsense. Just because in this case the media happens to side more with me doesn't mean I'm going to be OK with it. You have to push for fair journalism even when they're preaching to your side so fair journalism is still there when you need it.
The media response to it did more to cause it than anything else. Refusal to cover or even discuss it I think got people more frustrated than had they just ran a few articles and forgot about it. From flying ban hammers across the news sites to marked silence even when real news was coming out of it that was directly related to gaming culture I think we had every reason to revolt against the lopsidedness of it all.
You don't think that the five guys debacle was framed by people like the Internet Aristocrat as one woman fucking men who weren't her boyfriend and one just happened to be a journalist? Because that's what I thought was happening early on and was primarily why I stated multiple times in those first days that if there was a guilty party it would be the journalists that crossed the line rather than some girl that kissed him or pressured the others.
In fact, I'd say that Anti-GGers still see this as exactly how the issue was framed and they're not entirely wrong thanks to the vast majority of radio silence from the media in it all.
No, I wanted the media to report on the situation as it was occurring and if they presented a view then I'd have wanted to see opposing views in there as well. Just like with real big-boy news sources.
When the news outlets finally rose as one and responded, then it was all this garbage about attacking their demographic rather than discussing anything of merit. To the point of a lot of other media outlets taking shock at those articles and later calling it "stooping to the GGers' level" by actual anti-ggers. Active collusion to forward an agenda should indicate to you an issue of polarization in the media. I don't like mainstream media sources that do it for the same reason I don't like Fox News for doing it.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.858347-Zoe-Quinn-and-the-surrounding-controversy?page=31#21285187 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.858347-Zoe-Quinn-and-the-surrounding-controversy?page=31#21285187]
"The Escapist ran a story about Quinn's harassment in late 2013 with little evidence other than her word. We will always default towards helping out people who are the subject of harassment on the internet. I do not support behavior of that kind and will strive to protect those who are feeling the effects of it. We will signal-boost those incidents because I think it's important to create change, and will only choose not to post such stories if I decide they will do more harm to the situation."
Basically, because they want to elevate these kinds of issues they reported on it without doing any fact checking. This is agenda-based reporting. While I absolutely agree that harassment is bad I still think that people need to fact check a claim before bringing out the ol' lynching rope.
They cited specific reporters who told them that's why they weren't reporting on it after having agreed to meet. Those reporters have basically stayed quiet with no one denying TFYC's claims.
They have been pretty public about it and have been doxxed publicly by Zoe's publicist.
This really isn't hasn't been a question of validity so much as something glossed over and ignored.
Cool, in that case you're in favor of hiding news to serve your own personal agenda because you're afraid the truth might get into the wrong hands. Pretty much everything I'm against. If it's true, then it's ours. Thus says the skeptic and the reasonable mind alike.
You're honestly happy that an organization structured to give women development resources to make a game and give proceeds to charity has been blacklisted from the media just because someone used their friendship to blacklist them just because acknowledging that would show widespread nepotism/cronyism in the industry and give people claiming such a problem exists a stronger foothold? You seem far to reasonable to me for all that.
I for one am excited. Whatever else you think about politics or whatnot, the escapist has been in a pretty boring rut for a while. LRR is really the only content contributor I cared about over the last year. Some new blood might be what is needed to make the site interesting again.
The individual stated that they're glad an actual news story about a charity getting black listed by these people wasn't covered because it may have given a group he or she didn't approve of ammo for their discussion.Shanicus said:
This is them essentially stating that they're cool with the things we're essentially debating about as long as it suits their agenda and not other people's agenda. This is inconsistent with what this person has illustrated during our conversation.
Pointing out the inconsistencies in someone's position is a time honored tradition in debate. How they respond to it will better inform me of their position and perhaps get us somewhere new in discussion. I am not insulting them or even being rude. I am leaving the door open for them to respond in the hopes that they meant something else by that or that this will reveal their actual agenda/bias if there is one. I'm unsure what sort of problem you have with that. Pointing out the implications of what someone says isn't accusatory. I basically rephrased exactly what they said so that they could see what it sounds like.
Imagine this: An news organization is stealing funds from their charity. A vocal group is claiming that they're stealing funds from the charity and is generally citing evidence about it. No news agencies report on it because the evidence would point to industry-wide corruption and so they don't write articles exposing the original organization's misdeeds.
Now, someone says that they are happy that didn't get reported on because it would have just fueled that vocal group.
That's essentially what is happening here and what the individual just said. So wait and see how they respond. This is a lynchpin in our discussion that could lead to a final agreement or widen a gulf of disagreement between us.
But if you think I'm being emotional or accusatory you've got me wrong. I'm analytical and logical to a fault. I'm observing this entire conversation as though I'm a third party running an experiment. Bruh.
Bob's were arguably just as shitstormy, but he was able to keep his crazy-ass side confined to his Twitter and allow his videos and columns here to remain sane and rational. Even if Campbell is a complete jackass (which I doubt; I've only seen trace evidence of his 'transphobia' which sounds to me like an off-hand quip got blown out of proportion), his columns will probably still be alright. If anything, the ZP transphobia shitstorm is more of an indication of the volatility of this site, but that's a different issue.IceForce said:
Personally, I'd be more interested in The Escapist being an actual magazine again. Those weekly articles back in the day were the shiznit. Also bring Hank & Jed back; Doraleous and Associates is great.
Take your time. I apologize if I misunderstood the intent of your comment and await your clarification. I hope I did not cause you offense as the other poster seemed to take with it. I am eager to read your response.Silvanus said:
*sigh*, what they're saying there is "Sure, we give the proceeds to charity but that's not the point. The point of our organization is to give women the ability to turn their game ideas into reality in an industry that it's nearly impossible to do that in". Look, read the entire quoted section you're referring to, I'll bolden the part that makes this a charitable endeavor:PaulH said:
"TFYC is not a charity, that was the point. It was about people backing an idea that a woman had, so they could get a part of the profits. The profits were given to charity, but honestly if there was a way to dump the profits from the game into the backers Steam account so they could buy more games we totally would have done that. I?m tired of women not being able to monetize their actual games and being relegated to doing PR in the industry. And I honestly feel no sadness when men give money to women because they expect a return on their investment. "
All they're saying is that TFYC isn't a charity because their goal isn't charity. And they're right. Is a relay for life itself a charity or is it a non-profit event that is set up in a way that consequently donates to charities? TFYC's Women's Game Jam is an event whose proceeds go to charity and the organization itself appears to be a non-profit even if not outright a charity:
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-fine-young-capitalists--2
"Women making Video Games For Charity"
When people talk about charities they generally refer to both the charities themselves and the non-profits that give proceeds to them. Any organization that functions with all proceeds going to charity is justifiably seen as a charitable organization even if they are not themselves focused on charity so must as that just being a side effect.
The Game Jam is just one project of TFYC, it is not the sum total of TFYC. Their proceeds do go to non-profits but their emphasis is giving under-represented voices an opportunity.
Now please explain to me what you have against this organization or what part of the Game Jam you don't think is for charity (the clear intention of what people say when they call it a feminist charity or charitable event)? Feminists and supporters of equality should have been (and should be) ashamed of this organization getting blacklisted in the media. Ashamed.
This is the best way to fight the hype and PR trains. If it ends up good, we win and get content to enjoy. If not? Nothing of value was lost. I hope that the new voices bring a more enthusiast feel to the site, and I signed up after lurking for years to show my support.Phasmal said:
Not excited at all. I'm not apposed to a cosplay show I'm just not that gung ho about it. As for the other contributors I haven't seen anything to be excited over. We don't even know what they are going to do. Its just hard to build excitement for something that you know nothing about.
I'm not excited at all, really. There isn't anything to get excited about, to be honest. The new mission statement seems to be "Be Bland and Inoffensive", so I'm picturing an Escapist that's mostly raw info with little to no in-depth analysis of anything. That's a functional approach to take, to be sure, but not an exciting one.
No worries, not at all.Lightknight said:
I meant that, as far as I've seen, this is primarily based on accusation and speculation, as has so much been over the past few months. I've seen statements and conversations between the two sides, but honestly nothing solid. I also find it difficult to believe that this relatively minor developer holds enough sway, personally, to result in a charitable event going completely uncovered.