revisionup
Banned
Considering this hate has been spurred by the ever-compounding amount of anti-"gamer" articles coming out in the past few weeks, I think it is very related.
Games Journalism! Wainwright/Florence/Tomb Raider/Eurogamer/Libel Threats/Doritos
- Thread starter papersleeves
- Start date
- Status
Considering this hate has been spurred by the ever-compounding amount of anti-"gamer" articles coming out in the past few weeks, I think it is very related.
The cognitive dissonance within the gaming community trying to put agendas before all else and especially on this board which I thought better of most of the members is getting ridiculous. This is directly related to the unethical behavior of the gaming press throwing an entire community to the rest of world shamed up, insulted and tied up with a bow to be beaten while they threw their hands up and said "not my problem i'm not with them"
But you know what, this would go better in the other thread where the mods claimed there hasn't been any cases of this exact behavior due to those articles and people were feeling persecuted for no reason. Why don't we all just try going to social media and self-identifying as a gamer and trying to explain "but i'm one of the good ones i'm not with them"
MHWilliams
Member
Alternatively, and this may shock you, they believe what they're writing about.
If he releases his game and no one covers it, I'll concede the point. Doubt that will happen though as Kingdom Come is a name at this point. It is a thing that was covered, so its release will be covered again. The press has covered games from developers with differing opinions from the writer. It happens.
this is the kind of stuff i've been seeing on twitter. it's getting ugly.
That's harassment, which is not cool. One of both "sides" I'm sure.
That also has nothing to do with journalism ethics.
The woman in your video is expressing legitimate concerns. Many that are mirrored by me and my tiny little blog all the way up to Stephen Totilo and his... much larger little blog. The problem is that it's run right along side trash like ShortFatOtaku's video which I have already called "at worst misogynist" because of the "quinspiracy" blurb in the beginning and the fact that the 'content' of the video is limited to... once again... baseless accusations with no evidence to back it up.
Why would I accuse the woman in the video above as anything but a concerned consumer? She's not claiming that there's a secret indie cabal run out of Zoe Quinn's vagina, she's just saying that we need to hold the press in video games to a specific professional standard.
Great, lets hold these guys to a standard.
It seems Kotaku is, as in many areas, taking the lead on this by being as transparent as possible in their coverage and response to accusations... but does anybody who is recording videos about #gamergate have specific demands or standards that need to apply? Is this agreed upon? Or is the hashtag really just a large group of concerned consumers glued together by a small group of legitimately vile human beings who have co-opted real people and their real questions into a virtual witch hunt. This isn't, at it's core, about legitimacy in press. This is about a simmering hatred of indie games and the social issues that many indie devs and the press are attempting to tackle.
So no, I'm not going to take anything with #gamergate seriously because it's not serious. It's a bastardization of a real issue and has set the cause of journalistic integrity back by miring it in slut-shaming and misogyny. Jim Sterling, the most boisterous and one of the most respected voices of integrity, is being targeted by #gamergate... does that seem like the way to go forward?
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
Yea, I agree. People who are opposing GamerGate are so quick to yell misogyny instead of actually looking at all the blatant conflicts of interest being brought to light the last few weeks. I just want to show people not really following this that closely that the venom is strong on twitter and most people on the GamerGate tag are just trying to be civil while being called NEETs and manchildren.
Oh man it never stops does it? :| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgW5NRUfs44
Kotaku just put this story up today.
http://kotaku.com/https-www-youtube-com-watch-v-4_hhklez9go-aid-p8oqc4c-1629556923
One singular story showing that sometimes the ugly commenting can come from the other side wouldn't be super crazy in my opinion. Particularly since these comments are kind of directly tied to the "death of gamers" editorials just pushed out.
Someone could craft an interesting editorial disagreeing with that generalization in Alexander's and many others' articles, and showcasing how it leads to harassment. And they'd have some fairly compelling evidence.
The journalism ethics angle here is that this story isn't up already. It's about story selection and omission, which is definitely part of journalism ethics.
Gamers could also think about their image and not rationalize death threats, confuse accusions of sleeping with someone with collusion and conspiracy, whine when people think poorly of these reactions.
Gamers are not one mind, but continueing to saddle blame while ignoring events can not give me a good opinion of them. Should the press cover these terrible reactions? If they did, would you assume it was part of the conspiracy to slander the gamer?
https://twitter.com/DanielVavra/status/505869413942571008
when he talks about being lynched by social justice warriors, it's a pretty good indication that he doesn't have anything worthwhile to say.
if he wants an interview though, tell him to hit me up, I'd love to get him on record and publish it.
SJW is often used to describe extremists in the movement. It's an abused term now due to misuse a few times. But it's actually slightly more productive than trying to demonize a long-standing and generalized existing term (like say, gamer). They are specifically differentiating extremists from the rest of feminism with the name SJW, which is a step up from simply demonizing all of feminism.
There's a big campaign now to fully delegitimize SJW as a term, like there are no extremists ever. But all you have to do is look at twitter to see that's not true. We can call them something else if you want. Saying "SJW" doesn't automatically mean you are worthless. It's talking about people claiming to be champions of equality, but hypocritically promoting bullying based on inaccurate stereotypes. That is currently happening.
The level of hypocrisy is laughable.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
bishopcruz
Member
Can kinda agree with you there, it is really vitriolic right now, the "gamer's are dead" articles really pushed it to the next level.
One thing that WAS interesting about the shortfatotaku was some of the IGF accusations stuff. I mean if the juries are set up with individuals who are close to the contestants themselves, that would make it extremely hard to get visibility if you are a non-connected indie. THAT sounds like I story I would read the hell out of, if only to see HOW the judging and stuff actually works. Are these blind entries to the judges? What makes a finalist?
Beyond that, I do think that there is still an issue with the tone of too many in the industry who don't seem to respect their readers. There is a severe lack of empathy at times, especially when it comes to the more political side of the industry. To be fair, gaming press isn't unique in that regard, far from it. It's still disheartening
I could think of a group that would be perfect to disseminate all this information impartially and objectively and put all the information out there in a rational manner for civil discussion without sensationalism. Driving real change and putting to bed any mis-information like we see the political world currently reduced.
I know there is a group out there that could do this but they are escaping me at this moment.
It's definitely got some heavy historical context, but I wouldn't assume ulterior motives by that word alone. I have heard it used to just mean the slang version of mob justice.
I really won't assume past that without further evidence, because racism is a very serious thing to throw around based on so little. I'm sensitive to those concerns, but this is really not giving someone credible benefit of the doubt here that I think anyone would deserve.
I already informed facebook, rest easy.
actually, yeah it does. There's a line: people who want to talk about social justice warriors and people who aren't assholes, you get to pick which side of it you're on. also, the lynching part is worse, but whatever.
revisionup
Banned
People thinking poorly of those who are sending death threats is entirely understandable. Taking a group of people (those who play video games) lumping them all together (instead of looking at each and every person as an individual) and calling them, "toilets given human form" is not understandable.
I won't apologize when I state blatantly, that this is in fact sick and wrong. It is just as sick and wrong as the people who are are making misogynistic comments toward female gamers. No one should feel threatened, no one. It is not equality to attack people because they play video games, period.
okay I lol'd for the first time in days. Sincerely thank you.
Iva Demilcol
Member
So it's again that "you're with us or against us" thing?
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Yeah, I suppose that's one way to describe it ><. Or we could say that someone who compares getting flak on the internet to being hanged to death for being black doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt because there's no good reason someone wouldn't know the historical context and the stupidity of inviting that comparison. It's that kind of complete racial ignorance and tone deafness that makes people scoff.
And you're a journalist? Might want to not do that interview then, since you just called the guy you wanted to interview an asshole.
If I genuinely believed he intended to do that, I would be upset. But I don't. That's the distinction.
And I think anyone would deserve the benefit of the doubt. You can't call someone a racist with such little evidence. That's irresponsible.
EmCeeGramr
Member
His point is not that anybody who says "lynching" is a racist, it's that using the term frivolously to describe decidedly non-lethal consequences for bigoted actions is grotesque. Especially when they use the term to defend the use of bigoted language or actions (i highly doubt the "a joke to a friend" he's thinking of is a children's knock knock joke).
Brawndo Addict
Banned
This.
Unless we heard the joke, calling him guilty of anything bigoted is again, wildly premature.
I would at least like to hear it before I throw around these labels on people. All you know is that he said a joke that made someone upset. Every comedian ever has done this. In fact, he may never have even said a joke, and could just be commenting on a hypothetical situation he has envisioned in his head. I have more respect for the seriousness of the word "racist" than to throw it around it's implications without more evidence than this.
Show me the bigoted joke and I'd agree with you. My point is, we never heard it.
On top of that, he is (apparently approvingly) retweeting Adam Baldwin and the Breitbart London piece.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
You're the only one throwing around the terms racist and bigoted. Now maybe you just associate racial insensitivity/ignorance with racism, and depending on your definition of racism I might agree.The content of the joke is irrelevant however, because what's important is how he reacts to the consequences of making the joke. That he compares it to being lynched at all is what's disgusting, although the content of the joke could certainly make it worse.
EmCeeGramr
Member
Well, I assumed the joke was hypothetical.
But okay, let's assume that this joke that the "SJWs" would "lynch" someone over is real.
What kind of joke would get that sort of reaction from the "SJWs"?
On one hand, this is all very concerning.
On the other, every time there's a progress, part of the #GamerGate proud always goes a bit too far in their zeal like now trying to peg "all indie devs are corrupt" in some of the comments.
Again, I know, that doesn't represent the whole movement but really, and coming from someone who originally supports the movement, this kind of grand rhetoric is what pushes people away in the first place and makes it really, really hard to talk about it normally without falling into an extreme
On the other, every time there's a progress, part of the #GamerGate proud always goes a bit too far in their zeal like now trying to peg "all indie devs are corrupt" in some of the comments.
Again, I know, that doesn't represent the whole movement but really, and coming from someone who originally supports the movement, this kind of grand rhetoric is what pushes people away in the first place and makes it really, really hard to talk about it normally without falling into an extreme
Wasn't hypothetical. It immediately followed a retweet of this tweet about the Adria Richards brouhaha from last year.
Ok, I do have one question. Why is kickstarter, to you guys, ok to financially support but Patreon not? This seems like a weird line in the sand to me, which has you guys taking more flack then you need to be. If you guys just came out and said no financial support for the things you cover, but you can still use kickstarter or patreon, I don't think you guys would be getting near as much push back. I do you handle the ethical implications that one is whildly different then the other, when both, potentially, could have the same type of value(since you can donate based on content delivered).
Hyperborean
Member
I just looked at Lauren Wainwright's blog ( http://www.laurenwainwright.com/ ), and her last post was dated August 2013. I wonder has she quit the industry.
Wow.. this is gonna be a little hard to fit under a rug.
I think it's probably best for a reporter to not donate to any crowdfunded campaign by a game developer unless it's essential for coverage in some way.
RockTurtle
Member
this thing has been brewing for YEARS . doritos pope thing. the gerstman firing. the push by journalists to label those who complained about the mass effect endings and EA dlc shenanigans as "entitled".
but look at what's going on. some people in this very thread, and even jason schreir already, is saying the whole thing is nothing but an excuse for misogynists to decry "sjws". The handwaving of something that people have been complaining about FOR YEARS as "just the talk of anti-sjw bigots".
jschreier "all i see is misogynistic talk in the gamergate" is such a fucking copout and willful ignorant comment i had to do a double take and wonder if we are seeing the same twitter page.
i see abusive and disgusting language from both sides in it, but i sure as shit am not seeing an equal amount of mudslinging. no, i'm seeing self proclaimed social progressives doing nothing but posting shit posts in the #gamergate area, disregarding others, insulting them, making broad assumptions. to say the amount of vitriol being posted is equal proportions is disingenuous.
So if I read this right, he was commenting on two men talking about a dick joke to themselves, that got them fired. Then said it reminded him of 1984.
That is fair. Do you think if you have do donate to cover the content you should wait until it hits it's goals or the content is near delivery, or do you think it doesn't matter? Essentially how do you guys, currently, deal with having to donate to kickstarter to cover something.
EmCeeGramr
Member
Okay, so, a guy makes inappropriate sexual comments in a public place, and is fired for this by his employer (his companion is not fired). The woman who reported this has her site DDOSed, is threatened, and her employer also fires her for the inappropriate way she reported the incident.
This is a far cry from "1984 SJWs lynched someone for a joke."
The woman in the second video is expressing what #GamerGate is and has been about from the beginning. "Trash" like ShortFatOtaku's video is what led to this, and it's the dismissive behaviour of outlets, that you are now mirroring, that has only exacerbated the issue. #GamerGate is the result of gamers being ignored and censored when they wanted open and honest dialogue in regards to journalistic integrity and ethics. Go on twitter right now if you'd like to see for yourself, you'll find little vitriol coming from gamers. Most of the vitriol has come from journalists and their followers that hijacked the tag and vilify all those identify as a gamer.
The only reason people like ShortFatOtaku, MundaneMatt and InternetAristocrat - amongst many, many others - are making these videos criticising outlets and bringing these dubious ties to the light is because it is obvious that no actual journalism will be done. So, yeah, they're biased videos that insult the individuals they're scrutinising, but you come across as nothing but disingenuous for dismissing them entirely as misogynists when they have drummed significant support from a vast and diverse audience that includes a great number of women.
I have no doubt that individuals like Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian are targeted by misogynistic pricks with nothing better to do than to attack these women, and I sympathise with them, truly, because nobody deserves to feel unsafe in their own homes, however the attackers are not representative of the majority. They are maladjusted assholes that make the rest look bad, and the unfortunate reality is that no number of petitions will make them stop being assholes. Boogie2988 spoke much better on this issue that I could, so I recommend you watch his video on it.
Kotaku is being transparent because they have undeniably been proven to be one of the biggest offenders in unethical journalism, so excuse me if I don't give them too much credit for getting their shit together.
Has this video been posted yet? Jesus, how deep this stuff go? It's crazy.
Wolves Evolve
Member
Anybody who quotes and idolises a Brietbart reporter is not worthy of discussion. That website still has articles up about Obama's birth certificate.
I know, it's sad that nobody will stand up for the true victims of persecution. *sheds single tear*
I think we would deal with it on a case-by-case basis. For me, it's got nothing to do with contributing to the creation of something -- it's more about creating unnecessary connections and conflicts of interest.
Wolves Evolve
Member
As an IGF judge, I can tell you the process of judging is flawed but it is entirely designed around transparency, openness and revealing conflict of interest. On top of that, the culture inside the judges is more hardcore about improving those standards. This video just does a lot of harm to the people who otherwise would have been allies of a movement for transparency. IGF exists to *bring* transparency, as flawed as that concept it.
It's strange how few, if any, of the most prominent #GamerGate advocates seem unable to avoid surrounding their concerns with misogyny and conspiracy theories.
SenorArdilla
Member
Are you allowed to disclose the judging process?
I am a journalist. I also think some people are assholes. Including some people I've interviewed.
There's nothing about journalism that surgically removes your ability to identify assholes when and where they exist. It's not a thing.
So you don't have an issue with the financial support, but the implications that you know said person or it might become a problem down the line? Am I getting it right?
Gormless Noodle
Member
- Status