The Escapist's General Manager and Adam Baldwin support GG, attack the entire political left

[xPixelatedx]

but how do you explain this, when not only one of your biggest supporters but the General Manager of this very website openly goes against social justice and condemns the entire left political spectrum?

Considering most normal people on both the left and right hate "social justice", that's pretty good. Please don't confuse social justice a typical stance of the left. Not everyone invokes terror onto people in order to force them into submission, especially the enormous amount of good natured people on the left. A vocal minority of internet extremists does not speak for Democrats. Many, including myself, believe arguments can actually be won with reason and words, and we don't have to resort to bullying tactics in order to shut down discussions.

 

[AkaDad]

but how do you explain this, when not only one of your biggest supporters but the General Manager of this very website openly goes against social justice and condemns the entire left political spectrum?

Considering most normal people on both the left and right hate "social justice", that's pretty good. Please don't confuse social justice a typical stance of the left. Not everyone invokes terror onto people in order to force them into submission, especially the enormous amount of good natured people on the left. A vocal minority of internet extremists does not speak for Democrats. Many, including myself, believe arguments can actually be won with reason and words, and we don't have to resort to bullying tactics in order to shut down discussions.

Social justice is absolutely a typical stance of the left. Gay marriage is the perfect example of how the left has fought for social justice. Just like women's suffrage and civil rights before.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

As for Adam Baldwin, my impression of him is that he is indeed a far right winger, and I could talk all about how I think that's nuts, but I prefer to look at the message rather than it's source.

Then you're ignoring a pretty crucial part of the opinion forming process, which is that questionable sources tend to render questionable opinions. If a crazy person takes up your cause then you need to distance yourself from them, regardless of whether or not you think they're right about this one thing. Chances are good the crazy person could be sharing your opinion for very different reasons than you.

If a crazy person says "slavery is bad", should I agree with them or tell them to go away? Focusing on a comment's author is just pointless. If the message is good, I'll agree with the message. If someone I normally disagree with, agrees with me on a point, I'm not going to freak out about it and call him a horrible person. And if someone I normally disagree with makes a point, that I agree with, I'm not going to focus on the point rather than the person making it.

If your opinion on things are formed from the author of the points, rather than the point itself, then your opinion forming process is dangerously flawed. For example, you'd end up looking at, say, H.P. Lovecraft's stories as horrid racist, sexist creations, rather than fantasy books.

 

[xPixelatedx]

but how do you explain this, when not only one of your biggest supporters but the General Manager of this very website openly goes against social justice and condemns the entire left political spectrum?

Considering most normal people on both the left and right hate "social justice", that's pretty good. Please don't confuse social justice a typical stance of the left. Not everyone invokes terror onto people in order to force them into submission, especially the enormous amount of good natured people on the left. A vocal minority of internet extremists does not speak for Democrats. Many, including myself, believe arguments can actually be won with reason and words, and we don't have to resort to bullying tactics in order to shut down discussions.

Social justice is absolutely a typical stance of the left. Gay marriage is the perfect example of how the left has fought for social justice. Just like women's suffrage and civil rights before.

Petitioning to have laws overturned is a pretty big step from actively harassing someone you don't agree with and/or attacking them to silence all dissent. Again, please do not confuse extremists online with people who just want change for the sake of fairness and to better their own lives. SJWs aren't hated by regular people because of what they stand behind, but because of the methods they use; especially when it's ironically hypocritical, like bullying someone they perceive as a bully. All they do is paint an ugly face on otherwise good causes, and given the personal attachment that can involve for leftists, I can tell you now that there are people on the left who hate them more then anyone on the right ever could. That's part of why the Notyourshield hashtag was made in the recent controversy.

 

[AkaDad]

but how do you explain this, when not only one of your biggest supporters but the General Manager of this very website openly goes against social justice and condemns the entire left political spectrum?

Considering most normal people on both the left and right hate "social justice", that's pretty good. Please don't confuse social justice a typical stance of the left. Not everyone invokes terror onto people in order to force them into submission, especially the enormous amount of good natured people on the left. A vocal minority of internet extremists does not speak for Democrats. Many, including myself, believe arguments can actually be won with reason and words, and we don't have to resort to bullying tactics in order to shut down discussions.

Social justice is absolutely a typical stance of the left. Gay marriage is the perfect example of how the left has fought for social justice. Just like women's suffrage and civil rights before.

Petitioning to have laws overturned is a pretty big step from actively harassing someone you don't agree with and/or attacking them to silence all dissent. Again, please do not confuse extremists online with people who just want change for the sake of fairness and to better their own lives. SJWs aren't hated by regular people because of what they stand behind, but because of the methods they use; especially when it's ironically hypocritical, like bullying someone they perceive as a bully. All they do is paint an ugly face on otherwise good causes, and given the personal attachment that can involve for leftists, I can tell you now that there are people on the left who hate them more then anyone on the right ever could. That's part of why the Notyourshield hashtag was made in the recent controversy.

This is utter crap. No one is trying to silence all dissent. A small group of people on the left doesn't compare to the hatred from people on the right. Go to any conservative website and read the comments. It's like a /pol nowadays.

 

[Kontarek]

If a crazy person says "slavery is bad", should I agree with them or tell them to go away? Focusing on a comment's author is just pointless. If the message is good, I'll agree with the message. If someone I normally disagree with, agrees with me on a point, I'm not going to freak out about it and call him a horrible person. And if someone I normally disagree with makes a point, that I agree with, I'm not going to focus on the point rather than the person making it.

If your opinion on things are formed from the author of the points, rather than the point itself, then your opinion forming process is dangerously flawed. For example, you'd end up looking at, say, H.P. Lovecraft's stories as horrid racist, sexist creations, rather than fantasy books.

If a known crazy person comes up to you and says "slavery is bad" you should say "...ok" and then walk away slowly. There's a difference between happening to have common ground with a crazy person, and deciding to give said crazy person a platform and holding him up as one of the main proponents of your cause. It's not so much that I would freak out at someone like Adam Baldwin for agreeing with me on something, it's that I wouldn't want him to be the guy going out and spreading the message because his craziness diminishes said message. So if I were to say, publish an interview with him where we discuss gamegate, I am effectively singling him out and saying "This is someone whose opinion NEEDS to be heard on the matter." And now people associate the cause with a crazy person.

Also I don't know why you're completely factoring out the author's views in this instance. Firstly, I'd say works of art/entertainment (like Lovecraft's stuff) are entirely separate entities from political stances. While authorial intent is an important part of analyzing literature/film/music/whatever, works can indeed take on meanings that the author did not intend. Opinions on works of art can also be multi-faceted; you can think H.P. Lovecraft's stories are masterpieces (which they are) while still acknowledging the fact that they are loaded with racism (which they are).

But, authorial intent is the driving force behind political stances. You are literally saying "this is what I think," there're no unintentional meanings unless you don't bother to think out your words. People can still misinterpret you, but that's on them unless you're just really bad at expressing what you mean. Opinions on other people's political stances can be somewhat multi-faceted as well (I agree with these things he said; I disagree with these other things he said), but really you should look at the summation of a person's views to determine whether or not they are rational in choosing their stances.

Adam Baldwin has proven himself to be highly irrational in just about every area of thought, but even if you think he's being rational here that does not mean he is an ideal candidate to represent you. If someone like him shouts his support the appropriate response should be to shrug and then look for someone with a shred of credibility to hand the torch to.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

If a crazy person says "slavery is bad", should I agree with them or tell them to go away? Focusing on a comment's author is just pointless. If the message is good, I'll agree with the message. If someone I normally disagree with, agrees with me on a point, I'm not going to freak out about it and call him a horrible person. And if someone I normally disagree with makes a point, that I agree with, I'm not going to focus on the point rather than the person making it.

If your opinion on things are formed from the author of the points, rather than the point itself, then your opinion forming process is dangerously flawed. For example, you'd end up looking at, say, H.P. Lovecraft's stories as horrid racist, sexist creations, rather than fantasy books.

If a known crazy person comes up to you and says "slavery is bad" you should say "...ok" and then walk away slowly. There's a difference between happening to have common ground with a crazy person, and deciding to give said crazy person a platform and holding him up as one of the main proponents of your cause. It's not so much that I would freak out at someone like Adam Baldwin for agreeing with me on something, it's that I wouldn't want him to be the guy going out and spreading the message because his craziness diminishes said message. So if I were to say, publish an interview with him where we discuss gamegate, I am effectively singling him out and saying "This is someone whose opinion NEEDS to be heard on the matter." And now people associate your cause with a crazy person

Also I don't know why you're completely factoring out the author's views in this instance. Firstly, I'd say works of art/entertainment (like Lovecraft's stuff) are entirely separate entities from political stances. While authorial intent is an important part of analyzing literature/film/music/whatever, works can indeed take on meanings that the author did not intend. Opinions on works of art can also be multi-faceted; you can think H.P. Lovecraft's stories are masterpieces (which they are) while still acknowledging the fact that they are loaded with racism (which they are).

But, authorial intent is the driving force behind political stances. You are literally saying "this is what I think," there're no unintentional meanings unless you don't bother to think out your words. People can still misinterpret you, but that's on them unless you're just really bad at expressing what you mean. Opinions on other people's political stances can be somewhat multi-faceted as well (I agree with these things he said; I disagree with these other things he said), but really you should look at the summation of a person's views to determine whether or not they are rational in choosing their stances.

Adam Baldwin has proven himself to be highly irrational in just about every area of thought, but even if you think he's being rational here that does not mean he is an ideal candidate to represent you. If someone like him shouts his support the appropriate response should be to shrug and then look for someone with a shred of credibility to hand the torch to.

Shunning someone who is a tad unhinged when they agree with you is not a good way of going about things. If someone who's usually crazy is showing some sanity, talk to them, don't tell them to go away and keep treating them as if they're crazy. People in society will never settle their differences this way. As for him 'representing' GG, I think you're off the mark. He was interviewed because he was the one who coined the term, not because he's some sort of leader or representative. As far as I know, GG has neither, just some people who are more known than others. I wouldn't consider them reps or leaders, you might, but we'll have to agree to disagree on what constitutes a rep/leader here.

My analogy involving Lovecraft was a bad one. In hindsight, comparing creative work to political stances doesn't click. My apologies.

My point still stands on it's own though. Whether or not you support an idea should not depend on what reputation of other people, it should depend on you and you alone. Adam Baldwin supports a better standard of ethics in gaming journalism, I support a better standard of ethics in gaming journalism, but this does not mean I like the guy, or am associated with the guy. Agreeing with him on this particular issue does not mean I'd vote for him to represent me in this, or anything else either.
Whether or not the summation of Baldwin's character amounts to something good or bad, something I support or something I don't, is irrelevant when it comes to my stance on a certain point.

 

[Fappy]

Honestly at this point I'd much rather align myself with the "Crazy Right wing lunatics" than whatever perverted political philosophy the "Anti-GG's" believe in.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

You don't see anything wrong with this statement? I don't think you should ever throw in with nutjobs regardless of how bad you perceive the other side to be; it just weakens your position in the eyes of rational people and makes you look crazy by association.

OP: I think Adam Baldwin is too nuts to give a platform to, and the fact that Macris even interviewed him over this lessens my opinion of him. It would've been one thing if he was interviewing him over something else and and it just happened to come up, but gamergate is clearly the main topic from the get-go. I just don't see how anyone can take Adam Baldwin's stance on anything seriously when he posts shit like this every day:

I knew he was crazy, but I didn't know he was that crazy?! That's some Glenn Beck shit, what the fuck?! Who thought it was a good idea to interview this nutjob?

 

[xPixelatedx]

but how do you explain this, when not only one of your biggest supporters but the General Manager of this very website openly goes against social justice and condemns the entire left political spectrum?

Considering most normal people on both the left and right hate "social justice", that's pretty good. Please don't confuse social justice a typical stance of the left. Not everyone invokes terror onto people in order to force them into submission, especially the enormous amount of good natured people on the left. A vocal minority of internet extremists does not speak for Democrats. Many, including myself, believe arguments can actually be won with reason and words, and we don't have to resort to bullying tactics in order to shut down discussions.

Social justice is absolutely a typical stance of the left. Gay marriage is the perfect example of how the left has fought for social justice. Just like women's suffrage and civil rights before.

Petitioning to have laws overturned is a pretty big step from actively harassing someone you don't agree with and/or attacking them to silence all dissent. Again, please do not confuse extremists online with people who just want change for the sake of fairness and to better their own lives. SJWs aren't hated by regular people because of what they stand behind, but because of the methods they use; especially when it's ironically hypocritical, like bullying someone they perceive as a bully. All they do is paint an ugly face on otherwise good causes, and given the personal attachment that can involve for leftists, I can tell you now that there are people on the left who hate them more then anyone on the right ever could. That's part of why the Notyourshield hashtag was made in the recent controversy.

This is utter crap. No one is trying to silence all dissent. A small group of people on the left doesn't compare to the hatred from people on the right. Go to any conservative website and read the comments. It's like a /pol nowadays.

If I'm not mistaken, this was one of the only places that allowed any kind of civil discussion about the ongoings of GG because many other places didn't. Bans, shadow bans and doxxings happened at the very start of all this. I am pretty sure that qualifies as silencing all dissent, if I'm not mistaken about what the word 'silence' means.

I do agree with you about the right though. I regularly watch Real Time, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report: shows dedicated to pointing out what it is that side does. Pulling strings to silence voices is an underhanded tactic that has been used against the left before, especially in larger political issues involving huge corporations and wars. How sad it is many of us have proven we're not better people then that, and how cowardly the result makes us seem.

 

[Kontarek]

My analogy involving Lovecraft was a bad one. In hindsight, comparing creative work to political stances doesn't click. My apologies.

I convinced you on exactly one thing; this is an acceptable margin of success for me.

I take my leave.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

My analogy involving Lovecraft was a bad one. In hindsight, comparing creative work to political stances doesn't click. My apologies.

I convinced you on exactly one thing; this is an acceptable margin of success for me.

I take my leave.

AHAHAHAHA, it gets a bit like that on the internet doesn't it? Although I would've enjoyed further calm conversation on the matter. Oh well, sayonara.

 

[dragoongfa]

snip

Having done some (small scale) political interviews I have to mention how the journalist goes in, there are two ways to do it:

1st: Make the interviewee say exactly what is in his mind.
2nd: Make the interviewee presentable to the reader.

These two options are vital and when you look deep down on things it is how all political reviews are done and you can easily see what path the interviewer follows.

The first path (and the path Archon followed imo) is when the interviewer builds a rapport with the interviewee, loosening up and making him/her tell what is in his mind in his own words. Such interviews can build and destroy the narrative of the interviewee and politicians that know how to speak know when they are been baited into it and they avoid such interviews like the plague.

You and some others saw Archon agreeing with Adam Baldwin, I saw Archon loosening Adam and making him say what was on his mind. Politicians also hate this kind of interview because the loose words can be spinned accordingly.

The second path and the one politicians love to get into is not an interview, it is an arranged dance where the interviewer and the interviewee have established in advance what is going to be told and how it is going to be presented. The interviewee will always be presented in a positive light with this approach.

Now about the joke. People are really believing that?

Who am I to talk, the far left in Greece believes that Democracy should be abolished and the far right that Putin will save us all.

Strawmanning? You mean like holding up the (ultimately proven false) allegations that a single indy dev might have done something inscrupulous for a review as evidence of some kind of industry wide anti-consumer conspiracy and founding an entire grass-roots social media movement to combat it?

No; that wouldn't be strawmanning, that would be paranoid insanity.

You do know that LW did far more than sleep with 5 guys? (3 of them including her boss at the time came forward and admitted to it)

Claiming that an online community of suicidal men had harassed her? Something that didn't happen and the whole thing ended in that community being raided and ridiculed.
Claiming that a feminist Game Jam was somehow transphobic? Again a false allegation that ended with the organizers of that Game Jam losing a lot of money, being ostracized by the media and being hacked numerous times.

Sorry but LW ain't no saint.

 

[Jux]

You and some others saw Archon agreeing with Adam Baldwin, I saw Archon loosening Adam and making him say what was on his mind. Politicians also hate this kind of interview because the loose words can be spinned accordingly.

While I'll suspend final judgement till Archon comes out and talks about his own viewpoint, I don't think it's a far stretch to say he is at least symapthetic to Baldwins views. Between this:

EveryJoe: Conflict of Visions is an amazing book. I read that. Shortly thereafter I read Steven Pinker?s The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, where he talks about all of the accumulated scientific evidence for human nature. It just feeds right back into the argument that Thomas Sowell is making ? that there are constraints on human nature, and that with politics being the art of the possible, one has to be conservative about what you can accomplish.

EveryJoe: Therefore it must build an Iron Curtain to keep them in.

the comments he's made in the gg original mega thread about 'cultural marxism' and subsequently the PM debate I had with him, coupled with the fact that the interview was soft as shit, he didn't challenge Baldwins viewpoints in the least (challenge in the way of asking him to justify any of it, he just led the dude on), it hardly comes across as impartial to me.

 

[dragoongfa]

While I'll suspend final judgement till Archon comes out and talks about his own viewpoint, I don't think it's a far stretch to say he is at least symapthetic to Baldwins views. Between this:

Everyone can be sympathetic to anyone's minor political views. Personally I am not hiding my contempt for the Greek Far Left and the Greek Far Right (Stalinists and Neo-Nazis) but some of their minor positions do hold some merit and in discussions I am having with them and others I do point out that some of what they say does hold some merit and should be adopted by mainstream political parties in order to be pushed forward.

EveryJoe: Conflict of Visions is an amazing book. I read that. Shortly thereafter I read Steven Pinker?s The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, where he talks about all of the accumulated scientific evidence for human nature. It just feeds right back into the argument that Thomas Sowell is making ? that there are constraints on human nature, and that with politics being the art of the possible, one has to be conservative about what you can accomplish.

EveryJoe: Therefore it must build an Iron Curtain to keep them in.

the comments he's made in the gg original mega thread about 'cultural marxism' and subsequently the PM debate I had with him, coupled with the fact that the interview was soft as shit, he didn't challenge Baldwins viewpoints in the least (challenge in the way of asking him to justify any of it, he just led the dude on), it hardly comes across as impartial to me.

I personally don't see the problem with that comment he made about cultural marxism. In that case he commented on the extremist view of denying objective truth in favor of the 'truth' that is favorable to the narrative, that ain't a Right wing position, imo it is a position that the entirety of society should back up.

Truth ain't relative and must not be clouded by the narrative.

EDIT: Damn it, I cut this before hitting the post.

It is my opinion that challenging the interviewee is something that should happen in an open debate, not in an interview. In an interview the narrative can be controlled and it is best to leave the challenges out in order to let the interviewee say what is in his mind without fear of immediate reprisal.

This opens them up and it leads to interesting results.

 

[Laser Priest]

Then make a game with a "diverse" cast, don't attempt to co-opt the vision of others that don't conform to your ridiculous, narrow views on what constitutes diversity. Seriously, I don't ever discuss race, class, or gender issues unless I'm pushing back against the clueless, smothering idiots that incapable of treating people as individuals and not collectives. I find the ideological under-pinnings of "social justice" to be antithetical to the very concept of individual experiences, reducing people to nothing more numbers, body parts and skin tones.

It disgusts me.

Well, I am certainly impressed that you know my views on diversity from a post that didn't explain them at all. I want a diverse cast. I hate the people who crucify all Social Justice on sight as much as I hate the insane Social Justice supporters who think Social Justice requires them to hate the majority.

So don't cluster people together while claiming that people who do so are "clueless, smothering idiots". I support social justice, but I don't oppose majorities. I want diversity, not just minorities.

 

[Jux]

I personally don't see the problem with that comment he made about cultural marxism. In that case he commented on the extremist view of denying objective truth in favor of the 'truth' that is favorable to the narrative, that ain't a Right wing position, imo it is a position that the entirety of society should back up.

What is the truth? To claim that there is an objective truth that can and should be reported presuposes an epistemological position that not only is there an objective truth (a claim you'll have a hard time proving), but that it is knowable (an impossible claim in my eyes). If you want a more detailed version of why I take umbrage with his comments on 'cultural marxism', you can look here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.860546-Objectivity], a thread created to talk about that very topic.

 

[DC_78]

but how do you explain this, when not only one of your biggest supporters but the General Manager of this very website openly goes against social justice and condemns the entire left political spectrum?

Considering most normal people on both the left and right hate "social justice", that's pretty good. Please don't confuse social justice a typical stance of the left. Not everyone invokes terror onto people in order to force them into submission, especially the enormous amount of good natured people on the left. A vocal minority of internet extremists does not speak for Democrats. Many, including myself, believe arguments can actually be won with reason and words, and we don't have to resort to bullying tactics in order to shut down discussions.

Social justice is absolutely a typical stance of the left. Gay marriage is the perfect example of how the left has fought for social justice. Just like women's suffrage and civil rights before.

"Social justice is absolutely a typical stance of the left." Umm no it is not and that comes from someone that has volunteered for the DNC in red ass Missouri. Social justice is the typical stance of the far Left.

And there are Republicans and a lot of Libertarians that support gay marriage. They do not get many votes anymore, but they do exist. And be careful with the civil rights stuff. That bit of hubris like you just stated has bit us Liberals in the ass more times than not. Remember there is a reason the Southern Strategy worked, because a fair number of southern Democrats switched sides over their opposition to civil rights.

Equality is the typical stance of the left. There is no real call by the Democratic party in the United States for the whole "your rights end where my feelings begin" debate outside, maybe of gun control and academia. Small things like that even in deeply Blue sections of the country lead to cries of Nanny State by right, center, and center left.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Social Justice is about creating equality and ending bigotry?

That's a joke, right? Right? I've never, in my life, seen any group as openly bigoted, racist or sexist as they are. The only ones I can think of which are more so are either secretive ones which do noting in public or groups which don't even exist anymore.

The KKK still exists you know, they don't murder people anymore and their membership is a shadow of what they once were, but they're still around. Also there's the WBC.