+- Southperry.net (https://www.southperry.net)
+-- Forum: Arts & Entertainment (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Forum: General Entertainment (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=71)
+---- Forum: General Gaming (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=74)
+---- Thread: #Gamergate (/showthread.php?tid=72381)
#Gamergate - Flonne - 2014-10-13
Stereo Wrote:Funny, I see the holes on the other side of the argument than you do. I'm not playing devil's advocate or making up a hypothetical situation for the state of argument so the comic doesn't apply.
The fact that you don't even realize it makes it worse; at least some people can do something and know that what they are doing is wrong but believe they profit more from it than the other side would give them. Those people may be morally bankrupt, but at least they aren't ignorant. Many believe that a clever person is more dangerous than an idiot, I disagree; to give an example of this, which do you consider more dangerous, George W Bush or Clinton? Or, to give a less obvious example since I'm sure you are a liberal, Obama or Clinton? Which one has done irreparable damage to the world and the world's opinion of the US, and which was merely an opportunistic jackass that profited hugely off of everything, talked circles around his opposition, and even now still is considered an important person for public relations because of how he does things? Just stating the things they have done with zero opinions still seems to make that a weighted answer, and that's kind of my point. This is how I feel about SJWs; they are more dangerous BECAUSE they are ignorant of EVERYTHING that goes on around them, ignorant of all facts that do not coincide with their opinions, and ignorant of how entitlement and many, many other things actually work in the real world.
#Gamergate - Stereo - 2014-10-13
Spoiler
Flonne Wrote:The fact that you don't even realize it makes it worse; at least some people can do something and know that what they are doing is wrong but believe they profit more from it than the other side would give them.See, I can believe Dustin is just in this argument because it's how he rolls, but some of you guys don't seem to realize the harm you're doing by supporting such a toxic movement. So... same?
#Gamergate - Flonne - 2014-10-13
And that entire post is why you should ever never try to reason with these people.
Spoiler
Responding to any of that is an absolute waste of time because if you understood any of it at a rudimentary level you would feel embarrassed for stating those things. Also, it's not on topic in the least; my previous post was barely on topic at that, and I'm pretty sure that's your goal at this point since very few people agree with you in this thread, and the main defensive mechanism you people use when that happens is "disrupt as many things as possible so everyone else will leave out of disgust or fear or both".
#Gamergate - KhainiWest - 2014-10-13
Stereo Wrote:See, I can believe Dustin is just in this argument because it's how he rolls, but some of you guys don't seem to realize the harm you're doing by supporting such a toxic movement. So... same?
Feminist's acting like marxists is much worse when they try to inject an ideology relentlessly because they were in sh`itty raised households and feel that the entire world is like that.
FYI the most prominent and active in the gamergate movement are all females, who are constantly harassed, told their opinion doesn't matter, that they are just guys pretending. There is nothing toxic about this movement, like, at all. Our consumer right allows us to tell companies what kind of harassment we go through, and intel was not the only company to see this. Even when gaymerx pulled out saying they don't support either side, gamergate didn't attack them for it. When boogie picked a neutral stance, gamergate majority supported him and continue to do so.
Anita Sarkeeson and Zoe Quinn are probably the worst things that have happened to the gaming community in a long time. They are professional pan handlers who victimize themselves as a job, has nothing to do with their gender. The fact journalists slander anyone who doesn't agree with their ideology and even attacked their readerbase as a whole, is enough for them to lose their jobs, their agenda is not in their job description, their "shadow of mordor kiss of death", is a classic example of exaggerated click bait.
If gamergate is a harassment movement, then go find me 5 people who havent been debunked who have got harassed to the toxic level of degree you mention, and I want solid proof not just what an article speculates. Then I will match you, I will show you that the so called people who did those things are doing it on both sides to cause wildfire. I will show you that gamergate people have been doxxed 10x worse, they've had actual threats from this feminist cult, they aren't even feminist to be honest, more marxist.
Your entire argument is baseless statements that I'm used to seeing on twitter, gamergate activists try to reason when this, only by the end of the conversation are told they don't care enough to actually look at the facts. You are perpetuating a fallacy and enabling this behavior by using this female meat shield to genuinely awful people. And by awful I mean someone who makes a game about depression, creates a false incident to gain attention by smearing those who are genuinely depressed. Though it says a lot how useless she is when all she can do is a boring text based game, how the hell did that win the indie game awards, oh right, conflict of interest.
#Gamergate - Niernen - 2014-10-13
Stereo Wrote:but some of you guys don't seem to realize the harm you're doing by supporting such a toxic movement.
Are you referring to yourself here?
#Gamergate - KhainiWest - 2014-10-13
![[Image: ffDZF5N.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ffDZF5N.jpg)
...Nexon claims support for #gamergate
#Gamergate - Eliseo - 2014-10-13
KhainiWest Wrote:
...Nexon claims support for #gamergate
Link?
#Gamergate - KhainiWest - 2014-10-13
Eliseo Wrote:Link?
It was done on a live stream, should have evidence of it by tomorrow, or the the livestream uploaded on youtube.
#Gamergate - Stereo - 2014-10-13
KhainiWest Wrote:Your entire argument is baseless statements that I'm used to seeing on twitter, gamergate activists try to reason when this, only by the end of the conversation are told they don't care enough to actually look at the facts. You are perpetuating a fallacy and enabling this behavior by using this female meat shield to genuinely awful people. And by awful I mean someone who makes a game about depression, creates a false incident to gain attention by smearing those who are genuinely depressed. Though it says a lot how useless she is when all she can do is a boring text based game, how the hell did that win the indie game awards, oh right, conflict of interest.
I assume by 'conflict of interest' you mean 'people whose interests are different from mine'. 'the indie game awards' like there's just one tho, which represents all gamers.
If people want to consume media that tells them about games that interest them, why should GamerGate gamers force those sites to only cover... idek. What are the top five indie games that rock scissors shotgun didn't discuss because they were busy fellating Zoe Quinn? Does every gaming site have to conform to your tastes in games to be non-corrupted? What if they just like boring text games?
#Gamergate - Grey - 2014-10-13
Stereo Wrote:I assume by 'conflict of interest' you mean 'people whose interests are different from mine'. 'the indie game awards' like there's just one tho, which represents all gamers.
If people want to consume media that tells them about games that interest them, why should GamerGate gamers force those sites to only cover... idek. What are the top five indie games that rock scissors shotgun didn't discuss because they were busy fellating Zoe Quinn? Does every gaming site have to conform to your tastes in games to be non-corrupted? What if they just like boring text games?
There's always the possibility that they actually liked "boring text games", but if you have a preexisting personal relationship with someone, the public cannot trust you to have an objective opinion on their work, hence the conflict of interest. It's the same reason why my adviser couldn't review my abstract in the capacity of a judge for the research competition at my university; she knows me and if I leave things out or explain things poorly, she would probably unconsciously fill in the blanks and score me more leniently. She wouldn't have judged me solely on the work I submitted, which is wrong. And that's someone I haven't slept with.
I'm sure someone can argue that they can manage to maintain the separation between personal and professional sides of a relationship, but most times, this isn't the case. It's not right to give someone a review (I guess, whether positive or negative) which may have been corrupted by your relationship with that person, that's already bad enough, but to go and try and hide the relationship once it comes to light is an entirely disappointing and probably pretty unprofessional way to handle things.
The point is, it really doesn't matter what they cover, as long as they cover it objectively. But no matter how much you argue your ability to maintain the separation, we as a public cannot trust your opinion anymore. Integrity in journalism means accepting your potential to be corrupted by personal relationships and leaving such things, in this case, reviews, to people who don't have a personal relationship with the subject.
There's nothing admirable about going against this, you just end up deceiving the public, whether you mean to or not.
#Gamergate - KhainiWest - 2014-10-13
Stereo Wrote:I assume by 'conflict of interest' you mean 'people whose interests are different from mine'. 'the indie game awards' like there's just one tho, which represents all gamers.
No, conflict of interest as in, financial investments into Fez and eachother.
Stereo Wrote:If people want to consume media that tells them about games that interest them, why should GamerGate gamers force those sites to only cover... idek. What are the top five indie games that rock scissors shotgun didn't discuss because they were busy fellating Zoe Quinn? Does every gaming site have to conform to your tastes in games to be non-corrupted? What if they just like boring text games?
What gamergate is forcing is transparency, which if you disagree is unnecessary than you can go whine to 3 organizations that have decided was the best course of action. How can I take your opinion on anything when you don't even tell me the context that you donated X amount of money to the person you wrote about.
How can you even say she legitimately won anything when she essentially profited from Robin Williams death, intentionally, following up with causing a facade controversy against the very people this game as about.
Disregarding all that, how comfortable are you supporting a rapist? And a well known Nazi? You talk down to others assuming they are misogynistic based on psychological definitions by people who have the most worthless college degrees against people who have openly admitted to these social travesties. How awful you must feel
#Gamergate - Stereo - 2014-10-13
KhainiWest Wrote:Disregarding all that, how comfortable are you supporting a rapist? And a well known Nazi? You talk down to others assuming they are misogynistic based on psychological definitions by people who have the most worthless college degrees against people who have openly admitted to these social travesties. How awful you must feel
Sorry I don't subscribe to the 'eye for an eye' morality, if a rapist is being harrassed and attacked that's no less wrong than if they weren't a rapist.
I'm not sure what the third sentence means, it's got too many subordinate clauses. Remember you're dealing with someone who doesn't "understood any of it at a rudimentary level". I'm not referring to some specific 1st year engineering student's definition of misogyny when I claim it about people, so I don't know whose degree is in play.
I don't know how you're looking at the problem but I see these things as mutually exclusive:
reviewer judges the game alone, not the author
reviewer is part of the gaming community
reviewers never exchange money with game developers
review sites are able to pay their reviewers
Personally I'm on the side where reviewers are part of the community, know what's out there and who's making it, and has opinions about what's a good game. I recognize that this means reviewers aren't completely unbiased, and will probably ending up talking to game developers. Because I want to see dev interviews. I want the reviewer to be able to go to PAX and talk to the folks making a game and not feel like that disqualifies them from reviewing it.
#Gamergate - KhainiWest - 2014-10-13
Stereo Wrote:Sorry I don't subscribe to the 'eye for an eye' morality, if a rapist is being harrassed and attacked that's no less wrong than if they weren't a rapist.
Asking for pity for those who caused more harm seems to be more of a Karma issue than an "eye for an eye". But even with that perspective no one of gamergate has been harassing zoe quinn. People have because she's an awful person. She showed the rabbit hole to #gamergate, the end. If you want to cry about the poor zoe quinn, go complain to her twitter where she encouraged it, thrived on the attention, and showed herself to consistently being a shi`tty person. I'm sure people would feel more sympathetic if they didn't see her by her actions and not her convenient intentions. Funny how humans work that way.
Stereo Wrote:I'm not sure what the third sentence means, it's got too many subordinate clauses. Remember you're dealing with someone who doesn't "understood any of it at a rudimentary level". I'm not referring to some specific 1st year engineering student's definition of misogyny when I claim it about people, so I don't know whose degree is in play.
You talk down to others assuming they are misogynistic based on psychological definitions by people who have the most worthless college degrees, such as communication and level 1 sociology, who are the same people who admit to these racist/bigotry statements. You genuinely think anyone here is misogynistic? I mean honestly do you really want to undervalue that term to make it mean something as worthless as genuine feminists feel about feminism?
stereo Wrote:I don't know how you're looking at the problem but I see these things as mutually exclusive:
reviewer judges the game alone, not the author
reviewer is part of the gaming community
reviewers never exchange money with game developers
review sites are able to pay their reviewers
That's nice and all but that's not what happened. During majority of these indie game competitions, other peoples games were ignored, or played really really briefly while the conflict of interest game was played the entirety of the time. We aren't talking you know "Oh my friend played it", I'm talking "We have stock invested into this game" or "co-owners" in some cases.
Last I checked Phil Fish fled because the FBI is after him for racketeering.
#Gamergate - Grey - 2014-10-13
Stereo Wrote:Personally I'm on the side where reviewers are part of the community, know what's out there and who's making it, and has opinions about what's a good game. I recognize that this means reviewers aren't completely unbiased, and will probably ending up talking to game developers. Because I want to see dev interviews. I want the reviewer to be able to go to PAX and talk to the folks making a game and not feel like that disqualifies them from reviewing it.
Just talking to game developers doesn't automatically disqualify them from reviewing it, that's just silly. It's fine and dandy to know devs and talk to them; that doesn't inherently cause a conflict of interest. I don't see this as mutually exclusive with the concept of journalistic integrity; you can write friendly endorsements or scathing opinion pieces, but don't try to pass it off as an objective review (as reviews should be, though that isn't to say you shouldn't still at least try to be objective).
What is a conflict of interest is telling everyone how great something your best friend (or something similar or deeper) made is and, most importantly, failing to disclose, or even actively hiding the fact that you know them, even worse when money is involved. As if that weren't enough, when you get called on it, you decide that the best move is to scapegoat some of your consumers, throw them right under that bus instead of just owning up to it, which is at least admirable on some level. It's a super good idea in terms of self-preservation, I admit, if you can rebuild your consumer base, but that places you firmly in the realm of deceit and I don't know, I'd say I'm a fairly honest person and that rates fairly high on my "things that are wrong" meter.
#Gamergate - VerrKol - 2014-10-13
Stereo Wrote:
I don't know how you're looking at the problem but I see these things as mutually exclusive:
reviewer judges the game alone, not the author
reviewer is part of the gaming community
reviewers never exchange money with game developers
review sites are able to pay their reviewers
Personally I'm on the side where reviewers are part of the community, know what's out there and who's making it, and has opinions about what's a good game. I recognize that this means reviewers aren't completely unbiased, and will probably ending up talking to game developers. Because I want to see dev interviews. I want the reviewer to be able to go to PAX and talk to the folks making a game and not feel like that disqualifies them from reviewing it.
I think you've misunderstood slightly and should re-read Grey's post. We're not saying the journalists shouldn't be a part of the "community" or even have a financial relationship with developers. We're asking for transparency. If a developer is helping pay for a site or article, that's fine as long as it is disclosed. I don't know if you listen to NPR but I'd take them as a model. They always disclose if a story is about or concerned with one of their sponsors or even a subsidiary corporation. It's all about context. As long as the reader is aware of the relationship between the writer/site and the developer/game everything is kosher. This movement began because not only were the relationships, both financial and personal, not disclosed, they were outright lied about.
A lot of the anti-gamergate people have created a false dichotomy where anyone pro-gamergate is misogynistic. Gamergate isn't about the representation or lack of women as developers and their portrayal in video games. It's about transparency in journalism. There is no reason someone can't be pro-gamergate AND pro-women's rights, in fact many are.
#Gamergate - Flonne - 2014-10-13
VerrKol Wrote:There is no reason someone can't be pro-gamergate AND pro-women's rights, in fact many are.
The irony is that these SJWs who claim to be fighting for womens rights, not just in the gaming community but in the community as a whole, are more misogynist that most of the people they are fighting against. If you want women's rights, that's cool, but they don't, they want to place women on a pedestal and say they can do no wrong, explaining away everything bad that they could possibly do. How they treat them reminds me of a spoiled child, one who is allowed to do anything with no repercussions; treating someone as a child or lesser based on their gender is in and of itself sexist, just not the kind of sexism they believe is a real thing, since it's not doing -direct- physical or emotion damage. They don't realize that it's doing more long term damage in an indirect manner than almost anything that can be inflicted in a direct manner.
#Gamergate - KhainiWest - 2014-10-13
MSNBC covered gamergate but decided to talk about the "female abuse" since gamers feelings aren't an interesting enough topic. They claimed they tried to contact boogie for him to talk on behalf of GG, but did not respond. Turns out they did a public statement on his fanbased facebook wall and he completely missed it.
Unfortunately BBC is now going to cover it which means MSNBC just started an unstoppable roll
#Gamergate - Eliseo - 2014-10-13
KhainiWest Wrote:MSNBC covered gamergate but decided to talk about the "female abuse" since gamers feelings aren't an interesting enough topic. They claimed they tried to contact boogie for him to talk on behalf of GG, but did not respond. Turns out they did a public statement on his fanbased facebook wall and he completely missed it.
Unfortunately BBC is now going to cover it which means MSNBC just started an unstoppable roll
WOAH WHAT THE ACTUAL pineapple
That report was seriously biased. The entire thing dealt with the sexism, nothing to do what the move is about. Just what the pineapple.
#Gamergate - Flonne - 2014-10-13
Eliseo Wrote:WOAH WHAT THE ACTUAL pineapple
That report was seriously biased. The entire thing dealt with the sexism, nothing to do what the move is about. Just what the pineapple.
But hey, at least this means Fox News will support the other side. We can finally realize our dream of getting millions of angry/uninformed people on our side, ready to make complete jackasses out of themselves in the name of what they believe gamergate is!
...;_;
#Gamergate - KhainiWest - 2014-10-13
Flonne Wrote:But hey, at least this means Fox News will support the other side. We can finally realize our dream of getting millions of angry/uninformed people on our side, ready to make complete jackasses out of themselves in the name of what they believe gamergate is!
...;_;
![[Image: put-that-evil-on-me.gif]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YhcOntV_57M/UslUK8g059I/AAAAAAAAPy4/f8IZZVotRxQ/s1600/put-that-evil-on-me.gif)
sob