|
Please don't go calling people racist, misogynists, or any combination therein. Don't start throwing around words like "white Knight" or SJW, these words are at this point used in a derogatory manner regarding this debate. You can discuss that these terms exist, but do not attribute them to any individual user or group of users on this website.
Try to have a serious discussion about the topic at hand without resorting to personal attacks and we will all be the better for it. Breaking this rule will result in an automatic temp ban the length of which will depend on the comment you make.
This thread started not so bad. It is getting worse. If you want to have this discussion on TL be respectful of your fellow users, we all live in the same house.
Effective now: Page 21 October 18th 08:31 KST |
On October 17 2014 02:30 Stijn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2014 02:09 valium wrote:
By the time Adam Baldwin started the #gamergate tag, the discussion left Zoe Quinn behind. Adam Baldwin tweeted about a week or so old video from Internet Aristocrat. Nobody in gamergate is harassing Zoe Quinn or Anita Hatesgamers, the ones doing the harassing ARE ANONYMOUS INDIVIDUALS. Gamers, and now specifically gamergate, are used as scapegoats, becuase it is the low hanging fruit. When has the media ever NOT demonized gamers? And now there is a consumer revolt consisting of gamers, who are now gathering under a hashtag, that hashtag is an easy target.
Lets all be real, the underlying fact is that gamergate is not, at the base level, about ethics in journalism, nor a hate movement, it is gamers pissed off at the disrespect and outright scorn being directed at them from game "news" sites and publishers. Ethics in journalism and a push back against cultural marxists trying to crap all over video games got rolled up in the giant Katamari ball of gamers fighting back as consumers.
But this is convenient, aren't we gamers constantly being tasked with rooting out the toxic elements in gaming? Well... lets start with the corrupt "journalists" and cultural marxists calling themselves social justice warriors. Later we can worry about fighting against anonymous trolls. I've been talking to some people tweeting GamerGate-related stuff. Some are adamant about the fact that it's about the ties between journalists and the games industry. Others mention having problems with feminist critique. Still others are angry at articles about the "death of gamers". The point is, you cannot make a sweeping statement like "at a base level, gamergate is about gamers pissed off at disrespect". GamerGate is about too many things to be about anything specific at this point. Everyone has their own interpretation. Which makes it very hard to debate the merits of the thing as a whole, because if I point out that a lot of the things they're saying about feminism are wrong or don't hold up, someone else will point out that it's not actually about that. And if I argue about journalist ethics, someone will point out that the real problem is feminist critique. So the label is no longer useful as a basis of discussion, if it ever was. Arguing for or against GamerGate comes down to arguing for or against a weakly linked array of opinions that is probably unique for the one arguing (or the conception of that person of what GamerGate is). I'm fine with debating issues on their own. But when people tag their argument with GamerGate, they tag it with a hashtag that started out as a label for a really toxic discussion about an indie developer's sex life, in which many people got abusive messages and a lot of people published arguments and videos that were very poorly articulated and inflammatory. If two months later they're still gonna put that tag on your post, I'm gonna assume they're okay with that kind of discourse and I'll have a hard time taking you seriously. Plus, if people want their arguments to gain any traction, it's just bad PR to do it under a moniker that gets such media flak. It really doesn't speak for you.
Again, the hashtag was never a "really toxic discussion." Unless of course, you are talking about people against gamergate, who then label it a "really toxic discussion," while lacking any substantial proof of it being so.
I can label myself the queen of England, does not make it true.
|
I've read through the thread a bit and let me get some things cleared up.
"gamergate" has nothing to do with sexism, racism or misogyny, this has been dragged in to defame the people supporting "gamergate".
The whole thing essentially kicked off when it became clear that this Zoey Quinn had been fabricating lies about being harassed by Wizardchan on top of performing certain favours in order to get her game promoted (keep this in mind whenever you read anything about these people being harassed).
Discussion of this was widely shut down everywhere. Which was weird.
Later it was found that pretty much all the major "gaming news" sites are really just one big syndicate playing the market.
Shitstorm ensues as the "gaming press" scrambles to save face not giving two shits about lying and manipulating via god knows how many outlets, it's even been on mainstream media a couple days ago with the entire situation being twisted and turned around.
Sick shit imo.
|
wow finally i kind of understand what this thread is.
|
On October 17 2014 02:45 HeatEXTEND wrote:
I've read through the thread a bit and let me get some things cleared up.
"gamergate" has nothing to do with sexism, racism or misogyny, this has been dragged in to defame the people supporting "gamergate".
The whole thing essentially kicked off when it became clear that this Zoey Quinn had been fabricating lies about being harassed by Wizardchan on top of performing certain favours in order to get her game promoted (keep this in mind whenever you read anything about these people being harassed).
Discussion of this was widely shut down everywhere. Which was weird.
Later it was found that pretty much all the major "gaming news" sites are really just one big syndicate playing the market.
Shitstorm ensues as the "gaming press" scrambles to save face not giving two shits about lying and manipulating via god knows how many outlets, it's even been on mainstream media a couple days ago with the entire situation being twisted and turned around.
Sick shit imo.
To clear up one of your points, it was established that there was no sex in exchange for game review scores. Nathan Grayson never reviewed her game, BUT, he did focus 2 articles on Steam Greenlight on Quinn's game, which was also brought up as strange at the time as her "game" was not technically a game. It was originally declined from Greenlight, then she "harassed" by wizardchan, then her supporters raised hell. Even though she never exchanged sex for favors, as it were, she did have an existing relationship with Grayson that was never disclosed when he gave her "game" publicity. Grayson also covered a game jam that Quinn purposefully sunk, slanting the article to show her in a good light.
This is part of the corruption that is being brought up, no transparency.
|
On October 17 2014 02:34 valium wrote:
Again, the hashtag was never a "really toxic discussion." Unless of course, you are talking about people against gamergate, who then label it a "really toxic discussion," while lacking any substantial proof of it being so.
I can label myself the queen of England, does not make it true.
I guess it depends on your definition of "really toxic discussion". When, in a small window of time, a substantial amount of people put videos, threads, tweets, and whatnot online that slander people and insult them for reasons unrelated to the question at hand, I call that really toxic.
I watched videos by people like thunderf00t and MundaneMatt, I read /r/KotakuInAction for a while, I tried to keep track of things via Twitter and followed people like Milo Yiannoupoulos. If their style of discussing these things seems alright to you - especially the name calling and jumping to conclusion on false grounds - then I guess we're just too far apart on the definition of civility and good journalism to ever agree on any of these things.
|
Oh, and one more thing, if you get serious death threats, you go to the authorities and get that stuff sorted out. Seems obvious, right ?
|
On October 17 2014 03:04 Stijn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2014 02:34 valium wrote:
Again, the hashtag was never a "really toxic discussion." Unless of course, you are talking about people against gamergate, who then label it a "really toxic discussion," while lacking any substantial proof of it being so.
I can label myself the queen of England, does not make it true. I guess it depends on your definition of "really toxic discussion". When, in a small window of time, a substantial amount of people put videos, threads, tweets, and whatnot online that slander people and insult them for reasons unrelated to the question at hand, I call that really toxic. I watched videos by people like thunderf00t and MundaneMatt, I read /r/KotakuInAction for a while, I tried to keep track of things via Twitter and followed people like Milo Yiannoupoulos. If their style of discussing these things seems alright to you - especially the name calling and jumping to conclusion on false grounds - then I guess we're just too far apart on the definition of civility and good journalism to ever agree on any of these things.
The small window of time you mention, was before the gamergate tag was even a thing, when all discussion was being censored across the internet, so people were talking while being in the dark. Most of that ended rather quickly, when places like Escapist actually allowed discussion and people started having an actual discussion. That discussion led AWAY from Zoe Quinn, and the people constantly bringing Zoe Quinn back into the conversation were those who are considered anti-gamergate.
You are assuming, then seeking to find evidence to support your assumption.
Like with my first post, you ignored any discussion points I was bringing up, and argued semantics. You are not interested in a discussion, you are only interested in spinning a narrative.
|
On October 17 2014 03:10 valium wrote:
The small window of time you mention, was before the gamergate tag was even a thing, when all discussion was being censored across the internet, so people were talking while being in the dark. Most of that ended rather quickly, when places like Escapist actually allowed discussion and people started having an actual discussion. That discussion led AWAY from Zoe Quinn, and the people constantly bringing Zoe Quinn back into the conversation were those who are considered anti-gamergate.
You are assuming, then seeking to find evidence to support your assumption.
Like with my first post, you ignored any discussion points I was bringing up, and argued semantics. You are not interested in a discussion, you are only interested in spinning a narrative.
Okay, let's put aside whether GamerGate is a good label to put on your opinions. What discussion points you brought up do you think I ignored? I'll try to respond to those, then.
As my original argument was about semantics in a way (paraphrased, I asked what the GamerGate really meant at this point), I tried to focus on that in my posts because I wanted to keep the discussion focused. But if you'd rather talk about the issues at hand (e.g. what you think is wrong with the gaming industry and community) I'm happy to do that, that was my original point anyway.
|
On October 17 2014 03:05 HeatEXTEND wrote:
Oh, and one more thing, if you get serious death threats, you go to the authorities and get that stuff sorted out. Seems obvious, right ?
not anymore in todays world.
nowadays you go to reddit, twitter, tumblr, etc and get the hivemind to hunt that witch down that dares to threaten your life.
|
On October 17 2014 03:17 Stijn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2014 03:10 valium wrote:
The small window of time you mention, was before the gamergate tag was even a thing, when all discussion was being censored across the internet, so people were talking while being in the dark. Most of that ended rather quickly, when places like Escapist actually allowed discussion and people started having an actual discussion. That discussion led AWAY from Zoe Quinn, and the people constantly bringing Zoe Quinn back into the conversation were those who are considered anti-gamergate.
You are assuming, then seeking to find evidence to support your assumption.
Like with my first post, you ignored any discussion points I was bringing up, and argued semantics. You are not interested in a discussion, you are only interested in spinning a narrative. Okay, let's put aside whether GamerGate is a good label to put on your opinions. What discussion points you brought up do you think I ignored? I'll try to respond to those, then. As my original argument was about semantics in a way (paraphrased, I asked what the GamerGate really meant at this point), I tried to focus on that in my posts because I wanted to keep the discussion focused. But if you'd rather talk about the issues at hand (e.g. what you think is wrong with the gaming industry and community) I'm happy to do that, that was my original point anyway.
Points I was bringing up is that gamergate moved beyond Zoe Quinn well before there was even a gamergate. Gamergate started as a consumer revolt against game blogging sites like rock paper shotgun and kotaku that took to attacking gamers for click-bait, and publishers who are extremely anti-consumer. Which brings it back to these corrupt games "journalists" who instead of being the voice of gamers and talk about actual games and the crap publishers are pulling, they attack gamers too.
There is no single "label" for gamergate, it is a mass of individuals all fighting similar battles. Game blog sites and game bloggers pretending to be journalists are pretending things like gamergate and 4chan/8chan/v/whatever are hive minds. We are not Zerg, we are individuals. We all might all be focusing on minor differences in what we want, but we all seem to be fighting the same things.
|
Gamergate started as a consumer revolt against game blogging sites like rock paper shotgun and kotaku that took to attacking gamers
Can't speak for Kotaku, but can you actually prove that RPS 'attacked gamers'? They linked to a few of the "gamers are dead" pieces and commented that they were interesting pieces that do not necessarily reflect their views, but that's about it.
|
On October 17 2014 03:37 valium wrote:
Points I was bringing up is that gamergate moved beyond Zoe Quinn well before there was even a gamergate. Gamergate started as a consumer revolt against game blogging sites like rock paper shotgun and kotaku that took to attacking gamers for click-bait, and publishers who are extremely anti-consumer. Which brings it back to these corrupt games "journalists" who instead of being the voice of gamers and talk about actual games and the crap publishers are pulling, they attack gamers too.
There is no single "label" for gamergate, it is a mass of individuals all fighting similar battles. Game blog sites and game bloggers pretending to be journalists are pretending things like gamergate and 4chan/8chan/v/whatever are hive minds. We are not Zerg, we are individuals. We all might all be focusing on minor differences in what we want, but we all seem to be fighting the same things
I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree on that one. I still see ZQ cited as a "prime example" of "corruption" often enough that I don't believe everyone has moved on from that. Similarly, in my experience people are not all arguing for similar things. But let's leave that at that.
---
I read RPS daily and I really never saw them attacking gamers. They linked Leigh Alexander's piece in their Sunday Papers, which is a weekly digest of notable articles on gaming from other sites. In a later editorial they actuallynoted that they didn't fully agree with the article. How is that "attacking gamers"? I mean, RPS does write about the crap publishers are pulling. They had multiple articles on how EA handled SimCity's release, they've published articles about how pre-ordering is a scheme that hurts consumers, a lot of stuff like that. I really think it's unfair to say they're against gamers, i.e. people who play games. As for clickbait, I found their own response convincing (just ctrl+f for clickbait, though I found the whole article worth a read).
I don't read Kotaku as often, but I assume you're talking about this article (please link me if not). I also have a really hard time seeing that as an attack on gamers. It even has a disclaimer: "Note they're not talking about everyone who plays games, or who self-identifies as a "gamer", as being the worst. It's being used in these cases as short-hand, a catch-all term for the type of reactionary holdouts that feel so threatened by gaming's widening horizons. If you call yourself a "gamer" and are a cool person, keep on being a cool person.". Can you tell me why you think it is an attack on gamers?
|
Northern Ireland26499 Posts
Why can't more of the internet be like TL? 
|
Then we wouldn't be on TL wouldn't we?
|
Northern Ireland26499 Posts
A fair point, I'm just thoroughly sick of all these bloody movements and controversy everywhere.
|
On October 17 2014 04:08 Wombat_NI wrote:Why can't more of the internet be like TL?
We have our trolls on TL.
I have to say, the discussion here has been very productive. I am glad that this thread managed to stay open, and everyone has had some very insightful input on the issue.
I have learned a lot about this gamergate, and it seems so has many others.
|
On October 17 2014 04:04 ROOTiaguz wrote:Show nested quote +Gamergate started as a consumer revolt against game blogging sites like rock paper shotgun and kotaku that took to attacking gamers Can't speak for Kotaku, but can you actually prove that RPS 'attacked gamers'? They linked to a few of the "gamers are dead" pieces and commented that they were interesting pieces that do not necessarily reflect their views, but that's about it.
granted, I should have went with gamasutra or polygon or neogaf or any gawker site really, who more overtly attacked gamers. RPS was more subtle, if you followed the gamejournopros thing.
|
On October 17 2014 04:05 Stijn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2014 03:37 valium wrote:
Points I was bringing up is that gamergate moved beyond Zoe Quinn well before there was even a gamergate. Gamergate started as a consumer revolt against game blogging sites like rock paper shotgun and kotaku that took to attacking gamers for click-bait, and publishers who are extremely anti-consumer. Which brings it back to these corrupt games "journalists" who instead of being the voice of gamers and talk about actual games and the crap publishers are pulling, they attack gamers too.
There is no single "label" for gamergate, it is a mass of individuals all fighting similar battles. Game blog sites and game bloggers pretending to be journalists are pretending things like gamergate and 4chan/8chan/v/whatever are hive minds. We are not Zerg, we are individuals. We all might all be focusing on minor differences in what we want, but we all seem to be fighting the same things I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree on that one. I still see ZQ cited as a "prime example" of "corruption" often enough that I don't believe everyone has moved on from that. Similarly, in my experience people are not all arguing for similar things. But let's leave that at that. --- I read RPS daily and I really never saw them attacking gamers. They linked Leigh Alexander's piece in their Sunday Papers, which is a weekly digest of notable articles on gaming from other sites. In a later editorial they actuallynoted that they didn't fully agree with the article. How is that "attacking gamers"? I mean, RPS does write about the crap publishers are pulling. They had multiple articles on how EA handled SimCity's release, they've published articles about how pre-ordering is a scheme that hurts consumers, a lot of stuff like that. I really think it's unfair to say they're against gamers, i.e. people who play games. As for clickbait, I found their own response convincing (just ctrl+f for clickbait, though I found the whole article worth a read). I don't read Kotaku as often, but I assume you're talking about this article (please link me if not). I also have a really hard time seeing that as an attack on gamers. It even has a disclaimer: "Note they're not talking about everyone who plays games, or who self-identifies as a "gamer", as being the worst. It's being used in these cases as short-hand, a catch-all term for the type of reactionary holdouts that feel so threatened by gaming's widening horizons. If you call yourself a "gamer" and are a cool person, keep on being a cool person.". Can you tell me why you think it is an attack on gamers?
It wasn't just one article, there were more than 10 similar articles on various other sites all released on the same day. Not just kotaku and RPS, those were just 2 examples, it was a mass of game news sites. Later it turns out the "conspiracy theory" of collusion was factual with the existence of gamejournopros. Also with ties to a PR firm Silverstring media.
Before the Zoe Quinn thing, there were also articles about "white males are the lowest common denominator," and "male gamers are not your target audience." These all added to the boiling point of the mass censorship of any discussion of Zoe Quinn blowing the top of the issue.
This did not stem from what was coined "the quinnspiracy," that was just the straw that broke the camels back as it were.
gamergate was a long time coming, it was going to happen sooner or later, just so happened to happen sooner.
also, the disclaimer, if it exists, came after the article was released. there was no disclaimer when I read the article.
|
On October 17 2014 04:18 valium wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2014 04:04 ROOTiaguz wrote:Gamergate started as a consumer revolt against game blogging sites like rock paper shotgun and kotaku that took to attacking gamers Can't speak for Kotaku, but can you actually prove that RPS 'attacked gamers'? They linked to a few of the "gamers are dead" pieces and commented that they were interesting pieces that do not necessarily reflect their views, but that's about it. granted, I should have went with gamasutra or polygon or neogaf or any gawker site really, who more overtly attacked gamers. RPS was more subtle, if you followed the gamejournopros thing.
So subtle it doesn't actually exist at all.
That's some fucking houdini level shit right there eh?
|
On October 17 2014 04:37 ROOTiaguz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2014 04:18 valium wrote:On October 17 2014 04:04 ROOTiaguz wrote:Gamergate started as a consumer revolt against game blogging sites like rock paper shotgun and kotaku that took to attacking gamers Can't speak for Kotaku, but can you actually prove that RPS 'attacked gamers'? They linked to a few of the "gamers are dead" pieces and commented that they were interesting pieces that do not necessarily reflect their views, but that's about it. granted, I should have went with gamasutra or polygon or neogaf or any gawker site really, who more overtly attacked gamers. RPS was more subtle, if you followed the gamejournopros thing. So subtle it doesn't actually exist at all. That's some fucking houdini level shit right there eh?
I guess you missed the whole gamejournopros thing then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
