What I learned about the Dragon's Crown controversy

kitetsukitetsu Posts: 256
edited July 2015 in Off-Topic Discussions
For the uninitiated, Jason Schreier of Kotaku (aka a joke of a gaming journalism site) said, with a straight face, that the Sorceress class looked like it was drawn by a 14-year-old, in spite of the fact that George Kamitani is a video game development veteran active since the 90s, and very likely much more older than Schreier. Kamitani, in reply, uploaded a picture of 3 extremely masculine dwarves and saying something to the effect of, "If Jason doesn't like the Sorceress, then surely this must be in line with his tastes", basically an eye for an eye. Jason took great umbrage with this, and so did his whiteknights and about half the internet, and in time, they all forced Kamitani to issue an apology.

An apology Jason Schreier refused to accept, and still attacks Kamitani to this day, from what I can tell.

So what have I learned from all of this? What I've learned is that, as an aspiring "artist" and "developer", I shouldn't just ignore scum like Schreier and his ilk, but also make a defiant stand against them. Get physically violent, if I have to.

Even if Kamitani also needs to be slapped around for his own dumb decisions, the fact that he's still getting beaten while he's on the ground just motivates me to take a selfish, solitary position for the sake of making what I want, barring the notion that I make some morally questionable things and handling them poorly. All the while refusing to take a side and even let both sides of the debate just run each other to the ground.

I'm sorry I have to use this forum for what is essentially soapboxing with this thread, once again. But there are some things in this world that's far too stupid for me to ignore.
«13

Comments

  • ZiddersZidders Posts: 14,347 ✭✭✭
    Um...so...instead of acting like a mature adult and giving rational, well reasoned criticism and accepting such criticism in an appreciative manner, act like a child?

    First off...why should we even care? If you look down on Kotaku so much, why are you visiting the page, never mind posting about that kind of stuff here and second..who the **** cares?

    Dude, there are way more important things to blow a gasket over. You want to soapbox about Monsanto basically getting full reign over the FDA and then making his own company untouchable legally, that I can see blowing a fuse over. This petty bs? Why are you even wasting precious minutes of your life giving two bits about it....and why the **** am I even bothering responding to this?

    And really...beating people up over this? ...really? Dude, if you really feel that way, you might want to get some help with those anger issues, just saying, because that's a little messed up.
    ItfooQF.png
  • SerkevanSerkevan Posts: 1,586
    As much as I tend to pass up Kotaku articles... he has a point. Sexism is present in almost every sector, but in gaming? It is blatant. I have female friends who play games. They hate the overly sexual loli models. They hate the overly manly men. Whenever I see a woman in a mithril bikini I say "yeeeeeah", because it only serves as **** material and adds nothing to either gameplay or story.
  • NeophytoiNeophytoi Posts: 3,539
    kitetsu wrote:
    Get physically violent, if I have to.

    To strike fear into the heart of your enemies, I suggest the use of unmanned hunter-killer drones such as General Atomic's MQ-9 Reaper (formerly designated 'The Predator'). The Reaper has a 950-shaft-horsepower (712 kW) turboprop engine, allowing the Reaper to carry 15 times more ordnance payload and cruise at almost three times the speed of the MQ-1 Predator! The MQ-9 is capable of carrying a variety of weapons including the GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb, the AGM-114 Hellfire II air-to-ground missiles, the AIM-9 Sidewinder, and recently, the GBU-38 JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition). That's a whole lotta bang in a small package, my friend. They're cheap too! And to help sell you on a few of these easy-to-fly and even easier-to-annihilate-your-enemies shark-toothed babies, today only, General Atomics is pleased to make you a special low, low introductory offer with easy credit terms available: fly away this baby for only $16.8 million dollars US! Yes, you read that correctly! $16.8 million dollars! But that offer is only good for today! At $16.8 million, we're practically giving Reapers away below cost!

    Join the big kids on the block - America, Australia, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom... **** even the Dominican Republic and Togo are buying these puppies! We're having a **** of a time keeping product on the shelf! Why risk being left out? Surely you deserve to have better firepower than Togo?

    Why risk the perils of physical confrontation when you don't even need to leave the comfort of that big old chair you've parked in front of your laptop, let alone change out of your pajamas? Because, friend, that's all you need to get ye olde medievael on all those who oppose your righteous fury - a big old comfortable chair and a laptop! Your reaper is already good-to-go, completely outfitted by our specially-trained technicians and aircrew stationed at General Atomic's Ground Control Station (GCS), and we'll be happy to help you deploy your Reaper with any weapons package you like. ****, tell you what - if sitting at the laptop is too much, we'll program this puppy to fly a pre-programmed route autonomously! Just tell us the who and where and leave the rest to us!

    Remember, at General Atomics "Might makes right"!
    kitetsu wrote:
    I'm sorry I have to use this forum for what is essentially soapboxing with this thread, once again. But there are some things in this world that's far too stupid for me to ignore.

    Trust me, I understand perfectly.

    And, remember, for the low, low price of only $16.8 million Schreier and his ilk could simply go "****"... (well, actually it's more of a great rollicking explosion that'll likely result in all sorts of horrendous collateral damage, but for sales purposes "****" plays better).
    reaper-3.jpg General Atomic's Flight Technician Nick 'Nuke 'em all' Fury says, "I'm an 89th level Orc Firemage, and 'World of Warcraft' hits an 11 when I join in on the fun!"
    never let your hatred of people who would bar you from the Inviolable House of Worship lead you into the sin of aggression: but rather help one another in furthering virtue and ****-consciousness, and do not help one another in furthering evil and enmity
  • gold163gold163 Posts: 4,852
    Zidders wrote:
    Um...so...instead of acting like a mature adult and giving rational, well reasoned criticism and accepting such criticism in an appreciative manner, act like a child?

    It's one thing to say something like this and to feel about yourself that you are a "mature adult giving rational, well-reasoned criticism". Very easy to fool yourself into thinking you're a bigger person than you actually are.
    First off...why should we even care? If you look down on Kotaku so much, why are you visiting the page, never mind posting about that kind of stuff here and second..who the **** cares?

    Kotaku is probably the biggest name in games press (ugh). Besides the fact that they're mostly not really journalists, they have a horrible reputation for being sensationalist and heavily biased for a reason. It does none of us any favors to just ignore them. Ignorance does not defeat ignorance. It's probably better to have a discussion on such things, so that we can arrive at this idealistic "rational, well-reasoned criticism". Maybe you aren't, but I'm absolutely sick of the farce that is "video games journalism".

    (As a side-note, being that Polygon has essentially the same people, they're not really any better, so it's a shame to see that they're about as popular these days.)

    So... why should we care? Why shouldn't we care? Because the FDA has a bigger corruption problem? What?
    Dude, there are way more important things to blow a gasket over. You want to soapbox about Monsanto basically getting full reign over the FDA and then making his own company untouchable legally, that I can see blowing a fuse over. This petty bs? Why are you even wasting precious minutes of your life giving two bits about it....and why the **** am I even bothering responding to this?

    I really, really hate the "first world problems" argument. It's a terrible, ugly scarecrow that needs to die horribly.

    If you'll recall, sometime last year there was a discussion on these forums about sexism in video games, one inspired by a thread that you started. It's a bit strange to hear you call it "petty BS" right now, given that this essentially boils down to the same thing. The cause of the fuss this time is different, and I suppose you could call it "petty", but the underlying argument is related and if you ignore it now I have no idea how you could have expected anybody to take you seriously the last time you brought it up.

    The difference here is that what's at stake in the larger picture isn't only the argument about sexism (which in this case, takes a back seat), but the idea that games journalists aren't being held to any particular professional standard and yet have the capability to pretty much nuke any targets of controversy and bully them into submission on the virtue that they're assuming a moral higher ground, which is pure ****. That's propaganda, not journalism.

    This is dangerous, because while it may seem petty, it has wider implications on how people perceive the games industry and all associated media industries. And all throughout this, there's the underlying issue of sexism, which in many cases is more of a red herring to support sensationalist purposes and to further the agenda of the politically-correct. Sexism is a real problem and it's sickening to see it marginalized as a means to bully a video game artist.

    Should Kamitani be immune to criticism for his controversial style? The easy answer is no, but at the same time at this point that's not even the purpose of this crusade, which is the most despicable part.
    And really...beating people up over this? ...really? Dude, if you really feel that way, you might want to get some help with those anger issues, just saying, because that's a little messed up.

    You seem to be averse to the idea of violence, to the point where your reaction is pretty violent itself. If someone states their ideas on an internet forum it doesn't matter because "we have bigger fish to fry", but as soon as someone so much as implies violence everything is suddenly serious ****.

    Let's be clear about this: It's one thing to say you're going to hurt someone; to say you're going to be violent. It's another thing to actually enact violence. They are different things. Violence is a crime after the fact. The thought of violence is not a crime; it's the explicit threat that is and even in that case the ramifications are not all equal.

    If Kitetsu has real plans to deliberately get physically violent with specific persons they wouldn't post in a public internet forum. They'd **** do it.

    I think it's perfectly reasonable to be angry, and I think it's absurd, insulting, and condescending to assert that everybody who reacts differently than you is being irrational and needs psychiatric help. Think critically about what you're reading on the screen rather than having a knee-**** reaction to something you don't like.
    kitetsu wrote:
    So what have I learned from all of this? What I've learned is that, as an aspiring "artist" and "developer", I shouldn't just ignore scum like Schreier and his ilk, but also make a defiant stand against them. Get physically violent, if I have to.

    Even if Kamitani also needs to be slapped around for his own dumb decisions, the fact that he's still getting beaten while he's on the ground just motivates me to take a selfish, solitary position for the sake of making what I want, barring the notion that I make some morally questionable things and handling them poorly. All the while refusing to take a side and even let both sides of the debate just run each other to the ground.

    I'm sorry I have to use this forum for what is essentially soapboxing with this thread, once again. But there are some things in this world that's far too stupid for me to ignore.

    I disagree. You know as well as anybody else that while it's tempting to resort to violence, you're hurting yourself more than anybody else. There is no such thing as a martyr. If one artist goes down fighting Schreier that's a real loss to the industry, but cockroach journalists will just pop up again because the companies that own them hire cheap unqualified labor.

    Your real defiant stand is to ignore them. If you don't give them attention, they have no real power. They aren't seeking a dialogue; they want validation. Don't give it to them, and you've already won. If people want to have a reasonable argument without attacking your artistic integrity, that's a different story.

    I agree that you should stick by your work, even if it is controversial, and even if the entire press calls you out on it. **** 'em. If they're really opposed to the things you create then they don't have to support you. No skin off your back. They're wolves rattling the doors. Don't let them in and they can't hurt you. There is a notable difference between criticism and crucifixion.

    The biggest mistake you can make is to take a side other than your own. You're not creating things to further the agendas of others and you know it.

    And don't be sorry about using a forum for soapboxing. That's what they're here for. If Runic doesn't want this they have the power to shut the thread down if things get hot.
    Serkevan wrote:
    As much as I tend to pass up Kotaku articles... he has a point. Sexism is present in almost every sector, but in gaming? It is blatant. I have female friends who play games. They hate the overly sexual loli models. They hate the overly manly men. Whenever I see a woman in a mithril bikini I say "yeeeeeah", because it only serves as **** material and adds nothing to either gameplay or story.

    Schreier doesn't have a point, or at least he doesn't have any more of a point than anybody else who has ever brought up this problem. He's capitalizing on a controversy to fatten his ego, not to bring attention to a real problem. Whether or not Dragon's Crown exists, whether or not people care about it, there will still be sexism in the games industry and this has very real, very deep cultural roots. It goes beyond, "this game has hilariously oversized **** in it." In fact, I'd assert that the prominence of highly sexualized female character designs in video games is the effect of already-existing sexism, not the cause. We're looking at the wrong end of the barrel.

    This is probably the point where any credibility I've managed to accrue completely and hopelessly falls apart because of my own bigoted opinion, but to **** with it. It needs to be said.

    I like my stupid, blatant **** material. I reserve just as much entitlement to my stupid loli models and manly men as people who reserve the entitlement to abhor that kind of culture.

    I think that the reason why the games industry is the way it is is primarily the fault of the media. There are plenty of games that don't adhere to terrible stereotypes, but the reason why they don't get as much attention is primarily because the press doesn't talk about them in the first place. Or rather, when they do, it's just to put them on a pedestal for all the wrong reasons and to manipulate people to further this politically-correct agenda.

    In other words, sexism in gaming is only as blatant as we allow it to be. The people in charge; the people marketing these games and deciding which games get the green-light for production in the first place, are the real problem. People need to be able to think for themselves. I'm trying desperately not to "blame the victim" here, so to speak, because I don't necessarily think it's the case that nonsexist portrayals of characters in video games are underrepresented or under-supported.

    Rather, I think that the problems the video games industry faces with sexism are deeply rooted in cultural origin and linked to the under-representation of gender-neutrality in STEM fields. It's not something a few people can fix by tooting their horns on Kotaku. It requires a thorough analysis and contemplation of our entire gender culture, and real change from the top-down in these opaque, black-boxed corporations that ultimately control this culture.

    On another note, let's look at it this way: This is not the first game art Kamitani has worked on (he's the president of Vanillaware for ****'s sake), and certainly not the first game with controversial female character designs. Anybody familiar with Vanillaware will recognize his style, and it's not like Odin Sphere or Muramasa were completely overlooked. Furthermore, the Sorceress' design is absolutely nothing new; it was one of the first and only things we saw about the game TWO **** YEARS AGO when it was first revealed. Let that sink in. We have known about this for TWO YEARS.

    So why is this only being brought up now, now that the game is being brought back to the media's attention, rather than when it could have actually been recognized as a problem? Why isn't the western gaming press complaining about the portrayal of female characters in Oneechanbara, or Senran Kagura, or Mortal Kombat, or League of Legends, or...

    It's because they aren't actually behind any sort of real cause to fight sexism. It's because Schreier is an ignorant bully with a political agenda who needs a spotlight and a witch-hunt in order to make his point, rather than the rational analysis his readers need, deserve, and should be able to expect.


    EDIT: Here are the articles, for those who haven't read them:

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... =firefox-a

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... =firefox-a

    http://kotaku.com/the-artist-behind-dra ... -482450927

    First two are cached so as to not give Kotaku pageviews. Third hasn't been cached by Google yet.
    cxNEL.png
  • KilliousKillious Posts: 1,539
    Excellent post gold. Well thought out and eloquently worded. I tend to agree with what you've said.

    I would also like to say that you in no way hurt your credibility by saying that you liked to see the scantily clad women in video games. You have just as much right to enjoy it as the people who don't enjoy it have the right to abhor it. Anyone who says that you don't have that right and is all up in arms over sexism in video games is only hurting their own credibility IMO.

    I'm not saying that sexism is not a problem but you have the right of it. Sexism in video games is not the source its the end result.
    Sig.png
    Please Don't Feed The Trolls
  • NeophytoiNeophytoi Posts: 3,539
    Killious wrote:
    Excellent post gold.

    +1

    (I know, I know... I'm hardly adding to the conversation, but Killious' comment pretty much said it all)
    never let your hatred of people who would bar you from the Inviolable House of Worship lead you into the sin of aggression: but rather help one another in furthering virtue and ****-consciousness, and do not help one another in furthering evil and enmity
  • SerkevanSerkevan Posts: 1,586
    Oh, sorry if my post came out as defending Schreier... I wasn't. I agree completely that sexism is the consequence of this society; just as much as violent games are consequence and not cause of violence itself. As I said in the Bioshock Infinite post, if there is one to blame, those are the players. Of course his manners are not correct, specially after reading the other related posts. I concur in that he was just flamebaiting on a controversial (and, IMO, serious) topic.

    With that out of the way, I don't think that having obviously sexual characters is a bad thing per se. Heck, I don't even think that having big boobed girls is "bad". The problem arises when it objectifies women (or men, but of course since ladies always get the short end of the stick we should focus there first).
    In for the penny, in for the pound, in terms of credibility busting: the main reason I don't like stupid, blatant **** material in games [there are exceptions where a design is good and coherent with being **** material, though] is because I still can't **** and play at the same time. I can't multitask :P

    Anyway, excellent post, Gold.
  • I love Kamitani's art, and Schrier is an idiot. I thought his response was hilarious.

    Kamitani was responding with humor. It shouldn't be his fault that a wannabe journalist took offense, when he was obviously doing it with a joking tone. Especially considering the original remarks Schrier made, effectively decrying Kamitani as an artist completely.

    The worst part? This wonderful artist, this contributor of gold to great games, had to apologize to a **** internet junkie.
    背景音楽主義
    !jrpg
  • NeophytoiNeophytoi Posts: 3,539
    edited October 2014
    All interested:

    (At the expense of resurrecting a thread that's probably best left dead-and-buried (even though it's a thread that makes for good reading), I'd just like to add a little item to the discussion, and maybe - hopefully - me fellow forumites would offer a few of their thoughts in return)

    Last week, Intel pulled a series of ads from Gamasutra, one of the WWW's larger video game news sites. While Intel's decision to remove its ads was purely precautionary (in that Intel did not want its reputation to be linked to any sort of controversy), some commenters were quick to "state as fact" that Intel's motivation was a response to a online protest by a group of gamers upset with a column by Gamasutra's editor-at-large, Leigh Alexander. Gamasutra inadvertently lent credence to this suspicion by writing on Twitter, "Yes, our partners at @intel were flooded with complaints over a recent opinion piece, and they did pull an ad campaign."

    However, this misdirection was quickly refuted by Intel who issued a statement that reads in part, "We take feedback from customers seriously. For the time being, Intel has decided not to continue with our current ad campaign on the gaming site Gamasutra. However, we recognize that our action inadvertently created a perception that we are somehow taking sides in an increasingly bitter debate in the gaming community. That was not our intent, and that is not the case. When it comes to our support of equality and women, we want to be very clear: Intel believes men and women should be treated the same. And, diversity is an integral part of our corporate strategy and vision with commitments to improve the diversity of our workforce. And while we respect the right of individuals to have their personal beliefs and values, Intel does not support any organization or movement that discriminates against women. We apologize, and we are deeply sorry if we offended anyone."

    A veteran games journalist, Ms. Alexander is but one of many writers who have long been critical of gamer culture, particularly that small segment of "over-the-top angry young white men" (and, no, they're not all young, nor are they all white or men) who are rude, crude, sexist, racist, homophobic and obnoxious as all get out.

    Enter the sorry history of #GamerGate, an on-line effort ostensibly aimed at discussing the treatment of women in videogames and exposing and discussing perceived breaches of journalistic integrity vis-a-vis videogame news sites and reporting. All too predictably, the focus of #GamerGate was soon turned away from the promotion of social equality and increased transparency to full-on attacks against those journalists and bloggers who were perceived to be overly critical of gaming. These attacks were particularly vicious when they were aimed at those journalists and bloggers that had taken swipes at that aforementioned small segment. How vicious? Well, vicious enough to set off several FBI investigations*.

    Supporters of the #Gamergate movement continue to insist they remain dedicated to combating corrupt games journalism, but often in the same breath then go one to argue that Ms. Alexander's columns were - and are - "offensive" and "racist." To cap off their position, the organizers behind #Gamergate similarly insist their e-mails to Intel were part of a larger, and entirely successful campaign against sites that have published content they find offensive, including Kotaku and Polygon.

    Should anyone buy into this ****? You tell me.

    Frankly, I take all of this as part and parcel of modern public discourse and the growing social acceptance of limiting negative liabilities while simultaneously ignoring personal responsibility. Hopefully things will change one day.



    *Not that they'll end up making any arrests or laying charges. Historically, the Department of Justice has been particularly ineffectual at successfully prosecuting hate crimes but very good at creating... errr, discovering.... insidious and equally improbable anti-government conspiracies.
    never let your hatred of people who would bar you from the Inviolable House of Worship lead you into the sin of aggression: but rather help one another in furthering virtue and ****-consciousness, and do not help one another in furthering evil and enmity
  • SerkevanSerkevan Posts: 1,586
    Oh boy, here it goes.
    Welp, I'm gonna go get the popcorn.
  • ZiddersZidders Posts: 14,347 ✭✭✭
    Can't we all just try our best to be kind to each other? Is it that hard? Just be kind.
    ItfooQF.png
  • gold163gold163 Posts: 4,852
    Serk knows what's up. Initially I had endeavored to stay silent on this series of events on these forums out of the feeling that the fine people of this forum would find my position on the matter inherently disagreeable and even needlessly combative. I don't wish to turn people away from the subject, or to deny others to form their own opinions contrary to my own. However, I am getting tired of the sheer amount of misinformation being spread on this subject, and the disapproving (if not well-meaning) condescension. Neo, while I respect your mostly neutral stance on the subject, it's also one that I must attempt to refute on principle. Enough is enough.

    First of all, allow me to say this just so that my position and biases on the matter are clear: I stand by everything that I have previously posted in this thread. Everything. I would go as far as to suggest that the post I made from a year ago is just as valid to today's events, if not even more so.

    Let us get our facts straight: GamerGate is NOT "an on-line effort... aimed at discussing the treatment of women in videogames..." At least, not quite. "Ostensibly" is the word of the day here, as any person in support of #GamerGate and #NotYourShield (yes, everybody tends to conveniently leave that one out of the "discussion") would tell you that GamerGate is NOT aimed at discussing the treatment of women in video games, at least not directly nor primarily. It is, first and foremost, a declaration that many of those who identify as "gamers" (or are forced to identify as such) are fed up with the industry and especially self-proclaimed games "journalism". They are fed up with being projected as mysoginists, psychopaths, degenerates, "worse than ISIS", and neanderthals, for being passionate about their hobby (even to a fault). They are fed up with being the scarecrow for the games press and the wider view of popular culture that gamers are entitled, stupid, lazy, and barbaric. They are fed up with being told what to like, what is right, and that they are horrible subhuman pieces of garbage for their tastes. They are fed up with the contrived moral panic and with their hobby being used as a platform with which to disseminate hatred and bigotry under the guise of intellectualism and social justice. They are fed up with being painted in broad strokes. They are FED UP with their race, creed, and genders being used as convenient excuses for the morally bankrupt masquerading as culturally enlightened masters of art to exploit for publicity, click hits and financial gain, safe and sound within their cults of personality. They are fed up with the deflection, the know-it-all attitudes, the sneering and upturned noses of the "thinkers and doers" in their attempts to peddle their trash. They are fed up with the arrogance and incompetence of some of the most public figures in games journalism and industry, and the unprofessionalism with which these people abuse their authority, to no consequence to themselves whatsoever.

    THAT, my friends, is what GamerGate is about. And if you truly believe that this is merely some "****", that it is the whiny, entitled gamers who are at fault here for exercising their right to free speech and their consumer rights to organize and politely petition in a civil manner to advertising companies their disapproval; if you truly believe that this is merely the result of a minority of people taking advantage of an opportunity to cause harm to others and flagrantly ignore personal responsibility, then I say you are WRONG, DEAD WRONG, I claim that you DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH TO SPEAK ON THE SUBJECT, and I would implore you to do further, more careful, and more intensive research before casting your head-shaking and sarcastic judgement. There are two sides to every story and one of them is being ignored by virtually everybody.

    On Intel: they are not a stupid company. They did not pull their ads from a major games industry website and resource because of a "flood of emails" in protest for one mere article. For a company as large as Intel to decide that Gamasutra was no longer something they wanted their products associated with should speak volumes to the nature of recent events. Intel wouldn't bow to harassment, nor would they stop advertising on such a major site simply because people found the content merely "offensive". Leigh Alexander's "Gamers Are Dead" article is only a part of what GamerGate is protesting, and it would be disingenuous to assume that one article on its own (hint hint) could cause such outrage from such a vocal demographic to the point of leading Intel to such an impactful decision.

    Indeed, emails to Intel are part of a larger effort to make dissatisfaction with games press known to their advertisers. However, I challenge the notion that "the organizers behind #GamerGate" said ANYTHING about an "entirely successful campaign". #GamerGate is de-centralized and a large portion of it is anonymous. Individuals have made efforts under the #GamerGate name independently and there is no persons who could possibly call themselves "organizers". Organized as it may be it is not an orchestrated protest by any one group. It is a consumer revolt based on principles, and the result of YEARS of animosity bubbling to the surface. The fact that this very post takes place in a thread created a year ago should attest to that. Make no mistake: this is an uphill battle for #GamerGate. The proof of that should lie in the mass censorship of discussions pertaining to the subject within the past two months (for as long as GamerGate has been a perceptible articulate thing).

    On the allegations that the FBI is involved: I challenge you to name me these specific incidents where the FBI was purported to be involved, and furthermore that #GamerGate perpetrated these incidents to attack games journalists and bloggers. I think you might find some of them quite alarming: for instance, in one incident, when a certain infamous public and political persona in the games industry was confronted with child **** on Twitter, her first instinct was to broadcast the illicit content to her thousands of followers -- instead of alerting the proper authorities. It should be noted that this person has very little to do with #GamerGate, and that the narrative in the media is meant simply to tie any attacks that happen to women in a position to speak publicly about video games to the umbrella of misogyny in order to defame and obscure the true nature of the protest. In a more recent example, when an individual argued publicly in support of #GamerGate, his personal information was doxxed by those against #GamerGate and publicized without his consent -- unfortunately for the perpetrators, this person was apparently in the employment of the United States Department of Defense and as such the FBI was liable to investigate this incident.
    cxNEL.png
  • ZiddersZidders Posts: 14,347 ✭✭✭
    I came back to pretty much say what Gold has said way more eloquently than I could have. There is so much spin out there. The **** is deep. What **** is this is helping destroy any legitimate discussion people might have about ethics in games journalism or equality, and it's all supposedly being done in the name of that stuff but what it's really about is money and power just like it always is.

    I'm convinced there are only two answers to all of humanities problems-
    Either love everyone equally,
    or hate everyone equally.

    I choose love.
    ItfooQF.png
  • gold163gold163 Posts: 4,852
    Rock on Zidders.

    Anyway there's this, which I thought people might find interesting:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/technolog ... es_it.html
    cxNEL.png
  • KilliousKillious Posts: 1,539
    And that article hits the reason why I mainly only use twitter as a gaming news feed right square between the eyes. A decent conversation cannot be held in 140 character completely public interactions, so there's no way that a reasonable debate could ever be held on twitter.
    Sig.png
    Please Don't Feed The Trolls
  • ArkhamArkham Posts: 3,296 ✭✭✭
    Killious wrote:
    And that article hits the reason why I mainly only use twitter as a gaming news feed right square between the eyes. A decent conversation cannot be held in 140 character completely public interactions, so there's no way that a reasonable debate could ever be held on twitter.
    I have always felt that anything I have to say that is worth saying probably can't be condensed into 140 characters... and anything I could say in 140 characters probably isn't worth saying.

    (Well, ok, maybe at least one thing: "**** twitter.")
    Kv2n8MF.jpg

    Mods:
    Arkham's Armory (TL2) | Lego Wizard pet (TL1)

    Check out the Torchlight fan group #The-Lure-of-Ember on dA!
  • ZiddersZidders Posts: 14,347 ✭✭✭
    Arkham wrote:
    Killious wrote:
    And that article hits the reason why I mainly only use twitter as a gaming news feed right square between the eyes. A decent conversation cannot be held in 140 character completely public interactions, so there's no way that a reasonable debate could ever be held on twitter.
    I have always felt that anything I have to say that is worth saying probably can't be condensed into 140 characters... and anything I could say in 140 characters probably isn't worth saying.

    (Well, ok, maybe at least one thing: "**** twitter.")

    I like twitter. I think like anything it can be used for good or used for ill..of course what defines 'good' and 'ill'? Saying you can't do something positive within 140 characters is kinda silly. I mean there are LOTS of statements that have been made as parts of longer messages that have ended up being the only parts of the original message people remember because they say so much despite using so little space.

    "I think, therefor I am."
    "All the world's a stage, and all of us merely players. We have our exits and our entrances,
    And each in our time play many parts."
    "All we are saying is give peace a chance."
    "So it goes."
    "And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make"

    I see a lot of people on this forum putting down social media but I don't see how it's any different from talking to people. Technology is shoving us apart but that doesn't mean it has to stay that way. I've helped a lot of people through social media. I've reached out to people who have been through the sorts of really messed up things people have put me through. I've saved peoples lives..I don't say that to brag I say it to hopefully help people understand that despite some of the intensely negative aspects of social media there are very positive aspects to it as well.

    I'm not saying don't criticize it but you shouldn't slag it off either. For better or worse it's a thing that exists. You can avoid it which is certainly in your right to do but on the other paw you can be a positive part of it. You have to be careful but even if you're only being positive in little unobtrusive ways every little bit adds up.
    ItfooQF.png
  • KilliousKillious Posts: 1,539
    edited October 2014
    To be clear, I wasn't completely knocking twitter. I still use it, but I use it in mostly a different way than the vast majority of people do. I use it as a tool to quickly get the latest gaming info from all over the web. That's not to say that it's completely useless as a personal communication tool. I just feel that carrying a decent conversation shouldn't be limited to 140 character interactions. I'll also reiterate that I don't believe that a reasonable debate can be held on twitter. This point was excellently illustrated in the article that gold linked. The concept of twitter is just fine, it's the execution that's all wrong.

    As a side note, famous quotes are all fine and dandy, those types of tweets are completely legit and acceptable. I will say this though, a single quote without context (even if the context is widely known by most) is far less impactful than having the full story behind it.


    edit: corrected an error in my typing
    Sig.png
    Please Don't Feed The Trolls
  • ZiddersZidders Posts: 14,347 ✭✭✭
    Killious wrote:
    To be clear, I wasn't completely knocking twitter. I still use it, but I use it in mostly a different way than the vast majority of people do. I use it as a tool to quickly get the latest gaming info from all over the web. That's not to say that it's completely useless as a personal communication tool. I just feel that carrying a decent conversation shouldn't be limited to 140 character interactions. I'll also reiterate that I don't believe that a reasonable debate can be held on twitter. This point was excellently illustrated in the article that gold linked. The concept of twitter is just fine, it's the execution that's all wrong.

    As a side note, famous quotes are all find and dandy, those types of tweets are completely legit and acceptable. I will say this though, a single quote without context (even if the context is widely known by most) is far less impactful than having the full story behind it.
    Fair enough. I tend to get rather carried away with my emotions so take anything I have to say with several large grains of salt. There should be a rule-any time anyone reads one of my posts they have to play Elton John's 'Tiny Dancer'.
    ItfooQF.png
  • NeophytoiNeophytoi Posts: 3,539
    @Gold: First, great post! And I'll not reply with any objections to what you've written as I'm wholly in agreement with what you've written (don't believe me? just read my earlier post again, but perhaps a bit more carefully).

    That said, I'd like to comment on a few things you've written:
    gold666 wrote:
    I challenge you to name me these specific incidents where the FBI was purported to be involved, and furthermore that #GamerGate perpetrated these incidents to attack games journalists and bloggers.

    Understandably, the FBI does not publically announce too many details regarding its current investigations or initiatives, and reading the FBI's annual Internet Crimes Complaint Report tends to suggest the FBI is more interested in those cases involving some form of fraud or identity theft than they are on-line harassment. However, under existing federal statutes (passed in 1990) the FBI is both empowered and directed to investigate (and report) any event wherein some type of force (including coercion) or threat of force (i.e., criminal harassment) has been made. Additionally, registering a complaint (and thus notifying the FBI) is as simple as clicking on a link. Of course, the FBI retains the right to file nuisance charges against those individuals or organizations who misuse this ability.

    So, while I cannot satisfactorily prove the FBI is diligently and actively investigating specific incidents involving #GamerGate or any of its organizers or supporters, I'm content to take complainants at their word: if folks like Ms. Sarkeesian announce they've registered a complaint with the FBI, I'll take them at their word. I'll further take the FBI at its word that it treats these matters very seriously (despite its actual history of not doing too much).

    Additionally, where censorship is occurring on social media (and you were briefly acknowledging this, I think, Gold, by writing, "The proof of that should lie in the mass censorship of discussions pertaining to the subject within the past two months (for as long as GamerGate has been a perceptible articulate thing)" chances are terrific this sort of thing is occurring for liability reasons, not conspiracy. In short, if some third party's platform is used to distribute or disseminate criminal material and the third party has demonstrably avoided doing anything to mitigate or terminate this sort of activity, then they're potentially liable too... if not in a criminal way, then in a civil way.

    And...
    Gold666 wrote:
    And if you truly believe that this is merely some "****", that it is the whiny, entitled gamers who are at fault here for exercising their right to free speech and their consumer rights to organize and politely petition in a civil manner to advertising companies their disapproval; if you truly believe that this is merely the result of a minority of people taking advantage of an opportunity to cause harm to others and flagrantly ignore personal responsibility, then I say you are WRONG, DEAD WRONG, I claim that you DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH TO SPEAK ON THE SUBJECT, and I would implore you to do further, more careful, and more intensive research before casting your head-shaking and sarcastic judgement. There are two sides to every story and one of them is being ignored by virtually everybody.

    I'll stand by what I originally wrote: Should anyone buy into this ****? You tell me. But, really, Gold... aren't you going a little overboard by writing "I say you are WRONG, DEAD WRONG, I claim that you DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH TO SPEAK ON THE SUBJECT"? Tight rein that horse, my friend :lol:

    @ Everyone else - Excellent comments all the way through, but I think Killious has really nailed it with his observation that Twitter isn't the best place to hold a reasonable debate. The immediacy of the platform lends itself to scathing, inciting epigrams that are essentially empty of actual meaning, but it's likely for this reason it's become so popular: it appeals to the shortest attention span. And, yes, this point was excellently illustrated in the article that Gold linked.

    To slightly amend K's observation, "Like almost everything else on the WWW, the concept is fine, it's the user's themselves that are getting it all wrong."
    never let your hatred of people who would bar you from the Inviolable House of Worship lead you into the sin of aggression: but rather help one another in furthering virtue and ****-consciousness, and do not help one another in furthering evil and enmity
  • gold163gold163 Posts: 4,852
    Zidders wrote:
    I see a lot of people on this forum putting down social media but I don't see how it's any different from talking to people.

    It's different from talking to people because when actually facing someone there are a number of things you should be taking into consideration in order for the conversation to go anywhere. That is not how Twitter, or much of the internet, is structured. As the article says, posting on Twitter is tantamount to yelling in a crowded public. You are talking to everyone on Twitter and at the same time you are only capable of replying to so many people. You can block anyone, so you can concentrate on surrounding yourself only with opinions that agree with you. There is no way to organize and view an entire conversation; you can only see replies in relevance to other replies that you're already viewing. Twitter is a ****. It's a useful PR tool but it is not a personal soapbox.

    Message boards or **** even emails are a better way of actually communicating with people, because at least then the content is focused.
    Neophytoi wrote:
    Additionally, where censorship is occurring on social media (and you were briefly acknowledging this, I think, Gold, by writing, "The proof of that should lie in the mass censorship of discussions pertaining to the subject within the past two months (for as long as GamerGate has been a perceptible articulate thing)" chances are terrific this sort of thing is occurring for liability reasons, not conspiracy. In short, if some third party's platform is used to distribute or disseminate criminal material and the third party has demonstrably avoided doing anything to mitigate or terminate this sort of activity, then they're potentially liable too... if not in a criminal way, then in a civil way.

    Understandably, if there is criminal activity involved a third party would like not to be held accountable. However, I'm not talking about the censorship of illicit material, I'm talking about the censorship of completely benign discussions. For example, TotalBiscuit's whole thread (thousands of comments long) about wrongful DMCA takedowns was taken down early on in the controversy simply for mentioning a person being indicted in this controversy. That's just one example. There's also the Wikipedia article on this subject (which is flagged for deletion I might add), in which a few people in control of the page refused any edits that didn't conform to their biased view on the whole ordeal, and even went as far as to ban completely neutral additions to the article. Granted that when posting on web forums the administrators are ultimately responsible for deciding what content goes on their site. However, there was a time where you could not even mention #GamerGate without being banned or silenced from most sites (and this is still true to a great extent). This includes sites such as Reddit, where in an ironic twist a user was shadowbanned in an "Ask Me Anything" with Julian Assange about censorship in the media, for merely mentioning #GamerGate in his question.
    I'll stand by what I originally wrote: Should anyone buy into this ****? You tell me. But, really, Gold... aren't you going a little overboard by writing "I say you are WRONG, DEAD WRONG, I claim that you DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH TO SPEAK ON THE SUBJECT"? Tight rein that horse, my friend :lol:

    The media blackout on the other side of this ordeal is very real and it's a huge part of why people are so angry. Twitter just happened to be one of the few places where you couldn't silence someone's opinion in favor of #GamerGate. Censorship has been a central part of #GamerGate and it's hard to convey this because a lot of the discussion has been... you guessed it, silenced. That's why I assert that you simply don't know enough if you're willing to paint #GamerGate as some over-the-top mob effort focused on coercion through force and harassment to the point of criminal activity. It's not. It's seriously mostly a bunch of people sending emails, and #GamerGate actively decries any efforts at hostility because it dilutes the message. Forbes and other major sites have been posting mostly neutral content but many of these articles tend to leave out a lot of #GamerGate's claims and evidence.

    For anybody more interested in a detailed description of the events but is out of the loop, the following link is a decent place to start. Again, Wikipedia and other typical sources are generally NOT going to help you. The entire point of #GamerGate is that the mass-media regarding games and this issue are corrupt, so I would advise you to treat your typical sources with a degree of skepticism regarding their coverage of these events.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/wiki/index
    cxNEL.png
  • ArkhamArkham Posts: 3,296 ✭✭✭
    Zidders wrote:
    "I think, therefor I am."
    "All the world's a stage, and all of us merely players. We have our exits and our entrances,
    And each in our time play many parts."
    "All we are saying is give peace a chance."
    "So it goes."
    "And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make"
    In addition to Twitter, I also have a very low opinion of maxims and aphorisms, for similar reasons.
    Kv2n8MF.jpg

    Mods:
    Arkham's Armory (TL2) | Lego Wizard pet (TL1)

    Check out the Torchlight fan group #The-Lure-of-Ember on dA!
  • gold163gold163 Posts: 4,852
    I thought this was a very well-written and fair overview of the events that have transpired over the past two months:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 24244.html
    cxNEL.png
  • NeophytoiNeophytoi Posts: 3,539
    gold666 wrote:
    Posted a link

    That too is a helpful and decently balanced article, Gold.

    I'd just like to comment on the bit that reads: "Here’s a fun fact: Adam Baldwin’s role in GamerGate started with retweeting concerned feminist blogger" Ariel Connor (a pseudonym), or "MissAngerist" on Twitter, who wrote that she had been wrong in her earlier negative view of the anti-Quinn backlash and in her defense of Quinn. She has become one of many strong female voices on GamerGate’s side."

    I'll do this by re-posting a few of "Ariel Connor's" actual words:

    "The [Fine Young Capitalist] project was more or less killed by Zoe Quinn claiming that they were anti-trans and exploitative. This was a stance I absolutely believed, and I believed it because Ms Quinn said it. I didn’t do research. Why would I? Obviously someone as awesome as her would know what she's talking about. And therein lies the problem. It's so easy to misdirect and deflect blame or scrutiny from yourself by choosing your words carefully."

    No denying they're sage words, but I wonder why resort to the use of a throw-away account? Anonymity or more ****? Hmmm... again, folks, you tell me.
    never let your hatred of people who would bar you from the Inviolable House of Worship lead you into the sin of aggression: but rather help one another in furthering virtue and ****-consciousness, and do not help one another in furthering evil and enmity
  • ZiddersZidders Posts: 14,347 ✭✭✭
    Arkham wrote:
    In addition to Twitter, I also have a very low opinion of maxims and aphorisms, for similar reasons.

    You're probably right, Arkham. I dunno...I just try to do my best to get people to love each other but deep down I'm super insecure, and need the approval of others. Maybe my sticking up for it is because what some here have said hits a little too close to home. I dunno. All I know is I just do my best to at least put something positive out there. I mean if I'm gonna be the kind of person to get sucked into the whole social media bs at least I'm trying to make something positive of it, right? :/

    I mean maybe "And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make" is bs but I don't know how else to be. I wouldn't be here if it weren't for the love I've put out there and gotten back from others. It's not **** to me.
    ItfooQF.png
  • gold163gold163 Posts: 4,852
    There have been insinuations from either side claiming the other is using pundits and sockpuppets to inflate their respective position's credibility or to spin certain narratives. There may be good reasons to remain skeptical about MissAngerist's sincerity and motives, but I think for the most part her words can stand for themselves, and their validity isn't dependent on identity or celebrity.
    cxNEL.png
  • NeophytoiNeophytoi Posts: 3,539
    gold163 wrote:
    I think for the most part her words can stand for themselves, and their validity isn't dependent on identity or celebrity.

    I too believe "Ariel Connor's" argument speaks for itself, and like any other argument its objectivity, validity and reliability is open to formal analysis whereas surmise and opinion are generally not (nor are they really worth evaluating as they're both statements of preference and, as we all ought to know by now, de gustibus non est disputandum, right?).

    It's for this reason we can evaluate the congruity between the evidence (or known facts) and what it is "Ariel Connor" is arguing.

    For example, "Ariel Connor" writes: "But equally, any 'SJW' (shudders at using the term) who blindly defends Ms Quinn and thinks this is just about misogyny is WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG" and that "Five minutes' reading will tell you that Zoe Quinn is not an emblem of feminism in gaming, she's a rebuttal to it. She symbolises a 'straw-feminist' that I never would've thought existed had this whole situation not blown up. I'll think carefully on this last point from now on, and you all should too."

    So... here "Ariel Connor" is arguing anyone who blindly defends Ms. Quinn and thinks this is just about misogyny is categorically wrong, and that these claims can be substantiated by five minutes reading... so, okay. Let's try it.

    Start the clock!

    Let's contrast the statements that appear above to the statements that appear in this Cracked article written by Ms. Quinn and the referenced 'New Yorker' article that was published last month:

    For Quinn, who also suffers from A.D.H.D...

    And...

    The attacks on Quinn escalated when an ex-boyfriend posted a tirade on a blog and exposed an alleged relationship that he claimed she had with a journalist who wrote about the game. The journalist in question pointed out that he had not reviewed the game and had merely reported its existence. Still, some justified their attacks on the “manipulative” Quinn in the name of ethics.

    And finally...

    In the past few weeks, a debate about journalistic ethics in video-game coverage has spilled onto social media. Tens of thousands of tweets were written, most of them accompanied by the hashtag #gamergate. Many Twitter users involved in the discussion called for more clarity and disclosure by writers about the relationships they have with independent creators. They want critics to abide by John Updike’s sound rule to never “accept for review a book you are … committed by friendship to like.” In Quinn’s case, the fact that she was the subject of the attacks rather than the friend who wrote about her game reveals the true nature of much of the criticism: a pretense to make further harassment of women in the industry permissible. (The debate dissipated after Quinn posted the chat logs of some 4chan users, revealing that the #gamergate hashtag had been coördinated with malicious intent.)

    Hmmm... not sure how much time is left on the clock (I've probably exceeded the five minutes I've asked for, haven't I?) but all the same I'm inclined to think five minutes reading will likely indicate Zoe Quinn is not a rebuttal to feminism in gaming, nor is Ms. Quinn a 'straw-feminist'; she is, perhaps, simply another witless person on the WWW that got walloped big time by a nasty crowd that rely on anonymity and sockpuppeting (I love that term - it's perfect!) for no more purpose than to bully and/or demean or diminish others. But this observation doesn't necessarily undermine the gist of "Ariel Connor's" argument; if anything, it underlines its essential correctness: this isn't just about misogyny and, at least symbolically, Ms. Quinn was used as (or came to represent) a 'straw-feminist'. And so the aptness of "Ariel Connor's" conclusion: "I'll think carefully on this last point from now on, and you all should too."

    From everything I've read - and believe me, I've read it all - there's plenty of nonsense running right through this whole sorry incident, and so my original comment: Should anyone buy into this ****? You tell me.

    Yep, in an ideal world this sort of **** wouldn't happen, but this ain't an ideal world, is it? The best we can hope for... the best we can do... is not to become part of the problem, I think.

    (Yeah, I know that sounds both lame and inane... sorry, but these are my pre-coffee thoughts ;) ).

    That written, I'm once again honestly appreciative of all me fellow forumites - as a community, we continue to demonstrate the best of all possible situations. My sincere thanks to all!


    ADDENDUM: A post-coffee thought: I guess what I'm really getting at is, as good netizens, we'd all be better off employing a healthy dose of skepticism, tact and simple good manners... and perhaps some perspective too. For some folks, this sort of thing comes easily; for others, it's a challenge. Given the immediacy of the WWW, it's probably best to accept the editorial advice that was appended to the linked Cracked article: "Please just take a deep breath, step away from your computer, and call your mother. Tell her you love her. Call a friend and ask if they need anything. Go outside, gaze up into the sky, take a deep breath, and really appreciate the fact that you're alive and that you should make the most of it. Thank you."

    Again, more sage advice.
    never let your hatred of people who would bar you from the Inviolable House of Worship lead you into the sin of aggression: but rather help one another in furthering virtue and ****-consciousness, and do not help one another in furthering evil and enmity
  • gold163gold163 Posts: 4,852
    In Quinn’s case, the fact that she was the subject of the attacks rather than the friend who wrote about her game reveals the true nature of much of the criticism: a pretense to make further harassment of women in the industry permissible. (The debate dissipated after Quinn posted the chat logs of some 4chan users, revealing that the #gamergate hashtag had been coördinated with malicious intent.)

    This statement written by Parkin is wrong for a number of reasons.

    I wonder how impartial Simon Parkin can possibly be in his New Yorker article when he is known to be chummy with Quinn and has financial ties through Patreon to Jenn Frank -- a fellow writer sharing similar sentiments about #GamerGate in her editorials, and a "journalist" who claims to have been harassed out of her freelance job for The Guardian when in fact #GamerGate merely raised questions about the ethics behind her recent #GamerGate-related article; apparently she is still allowed to write for The Guardian anyway so it's a wash -- and Quinn's PR agent Maya Kramer, who of course has financial ties to Quinn herself.

    http://gamergate.giz.moe/category/patreon-2/

    Furthermore, I will attest to the fact that #GamerGate *did* make efforts to target Zoe Quinn's alleged romantic partners who were in a position to boost her image within the games industry. Nathan Grayson, the writer for Kotaku, did not in fact write a review for Depression Quest, but he DID provide the game positive coverage without mentioning his relationship to Quinn nor recusing himself, in one instance specifically citing Depression Quest from a list of dozens of other notable games that were greenlit onto Steam. After numerous unprofessional tweets and facebook messages on Grayson's part being made public, he went radio silent and there was little else to continue on. However, Kotaku as a whole was still being interrogated, and ultimately they (completely reluctantly) revised their ethics policies regarding writer/developer relationships and Patreon funding in the wake of #GamerGate.

    The IGF guy, Arnott, was also investigated by #GamerGate, and while criticism was drawn to the festival's policies the organization behind the IGF ultimately reaffirmed that they believed their policies regarding which games are picked as finalists and why are sound and do not need to be reconsidered. I would beg to differ but that discussion has pretty much dead-ended with the IGF staunchly defending their current policies.

    I would like to rebut the assertion that "the chat logs of some 4chan users... (revealed) that the #gamergate hashtag had been coördinated with malicious intent." This is false. First of all, these chat logs were from a public chatroom -- anybody could join and post whatever they wanted into the channel. This includes anybody who is against #GamerGate and sought to undermine the cause by defaming those associated with it. Secondly, as was pointed out in previous posts the #GamerGate hashtag was NOT started by 4chan, it was the result of celebrity Adam Baldwin re-tweeting MissAngerist. That's not even to speak of the origins of #NotYourShield (again, conveniently left out of the discussion because it brings to the surface the hypocrisy of those who would paint #GamerGate as a white cis-male conspiracy). After this, 4chan responded to this by openly decrying the malicious messages that were in the chat logs, and released the chat logs in their entirety for scrutiny -- revealing that those messages with "malicious intent" were merely taken entirely out of context, and that even within the chatroom there were numerous participants voicing their strong disapproval of those with malicious intent. Lastly, I will posit that #GamerGate is not coordinated solely by 4chan, and that other unaffiliated communities such as Reddit and random bystanders on Twitter have contributed to the cause independently, and that it is completely unfair for snippets of a chat log taken completely out of context to spin a narrative that would reflect on #GamerGate as a whole.

    Simon Parkin and Zoe Quinn are certainly responsible for their own feelings on the incident, and they are responsible to their respective sides of the story, but they cannot speak with authority as to the intentions of wide swaths of anonymous users, and the claims they make of the "true nature of much of the criticism" are dubious at best and fallacious at worst.

    Lastly I feel the need to respond to the notion that "an ex-boyfriend posted a tirade on a blog and exposed an alleged relationship that he claimed she had with a journalist who wrote about the game." This is not the whole story, and it leaves out the motivations of the ex-boyfriend in exposing this relationship in the first place. Also, "alleged relationship" is putting it mildly, considering there have been confirmations from the journalist and Quinn herself that this relationship existed. What people will often conveniently forget, or ignore, is that the author of the blog meant to expose Zoe Quinn's infidelity and character, and had initially had nothing to do with #GamerGate. The "Zoepost" was meant expressly for other survivors/victims of emotional abuse and confidants to Quinn; to warn about the emotional abuse, infidelity, and deceit suffered by the ex-boyfriend during his relationship with Quinn. The common narrative within the mainstream media is that Eron Gronj is a "spurned ex-boyfriend" who posted his blog in retaliation to Quinn. However, this is victim-blaming. According to his blog, Eron himself was the person to end the relationship, and he was the victim of Quinn's infidelity and manipulation. Of course, this side of the story is commonly obscured in order to defend Quinn's actions, as if she has done nothing wrong at all and is the victim herself. She is now currently suing the ex for harassment:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction ... n_tuesday/

    Point being, Quinn is no longer relevant to #GamerGate in most ways, but her side of the story has conflicted with the other from the very start to the point of silencing or censoring contradicting claims and evidence, particularly in the mainstream media. This in of itself should be alarming, and who does these things and why is secondary to the idea that these things are allowed to be happening in the first place. These are the ideas that #GamerGate fights against, and the people behind these alleged unethical and unprofessional actions are only important insofar as they currently face no sort of professional consequence and are even wielding their power within the media to twist a narrative against #GamerGate. As long as this misconduct is not even being acknowledged by the mainstream media, #GamerGate will have something to fight against.

    (As an aside, I would like to mention that Cracked has openly mocked #GamerGate and shot down submissions for features that would paint the ordeal in a positive or even neutral light -- even Cracked is not removed from bias that would direct the conversation to certain places.)

    (Also I personally find that they're not funny or clever anymore.)
    cxNEL.png
  • NeophytoiNeophytoi Posts: 3,539
    @Gold - I dunno, reading the item titled 'A Narrative of #GamerGate and Examination of Claims of Collusion with 4chan' is, with all its embedded links and jumps, frankly, enough reading for any potential prosecutor.

    Add to this the stuff that's been posted on Breitbart, and there's a real can of (legal) worms here. Many heads should roll. And, eventually, many heads will roll, I suspect. But I can see why so many take-down orders have been issued - they're probably automated.

    Oi.

    Time to go outside, and gaze up into the sky, I think ;)
    never let your hatred of people who would bar you from the Inviolable House of Worship lead you into the sin of aggression: but rather help one another in furthering virtue and ****-consciousness, and do not help one another in furthering evil and enmity
  • ArkhamArkham Posts: 3,296 ✭✭✭
    Zidders wrote:
    Arkham wrote:
    In addition to Twitter, I also have a very low opinion of maxims and aphorisms, for similar reasons.

    You're probably right, Arkham. I dunno...I just try to do my best to get people to love each other but deep down I'm super insecure, and need the approval of others. Maybe my sticking up for it is because what some here have said hits a little too close to home. I dunno. All I know is I just do my best to at least put something positive out there. I mean if I'm gonna be the kind of person to get sucked into the whole social media bs at least I'm trying to make something positive of it, right? :/

    I mean maybe "And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make" is bs but I don't know how else to be. I wouldn't be here if it weren't for the love I've put out there and gotten back from others. It's not **** to me.
    I should probably clarify that my issue with aphorisms/maxims/quotes/sayings has more to do with them being used as a thoughtless appeal to tradition ("A noteworthy living person/dead historical figure said this pithy statement, and I like/agree with it, so it must necessarily be true; I will now parrot it to other people as if the statement itself proves something.") I didn't mean to say you specifically were doing that; I was remarking on how I see them used generally. Sorry if I was unclear about that.

    Using quotes as shorthand for an idea is fine, so long as it's being understood as such; I don't really have a problem with that. (If I were to say "He who fights with monsters..." most people here would instantly understand the concept I'm talking about. I wouldn't even need to say the whole quote, most likely. I can see how that's useful.) What I don't like is when pithy sayings are taken as a substitute for evidence (essentially treating a claim as evidence of itself), which altogether too many people like to do, in my experience. To compare, I don't have a problem with, say, the things BrianW posts on his twitter account (topical reference to other threads!), but that doesn't necessarily improve my opinion of Twitter as a whole. Similarly, though I might see someone use a quotation in a non-problematic way, I would still say I have a problem with them because of how they are used/understood on the whole.
    Kv2n8MF.jpg

    Mods:
    Arkham's Armory (TL2) | Lego Wizard pet (TL1)

    Check out the Torchlight fan group #The-Lure-of-Ember on dA!
«13
This discussion has been closed.