Clarkson gone!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ex-Boyfriend says "she's a slut who slept with loads of journo's for good reviews" and she's expected to prove she didn't do it? That's 4Chan logic for you.

Do you know anything about Watergate? It was a scandal where people were caught, not where someone threw mud and then tried to make it stick with threats and character assassination.

GamerGate is about misogynist pigs, and stupidity.

Let's take a look at the Zoe Quinn thing, shall we, starting with the fact that here new boyfriend, the journalist, (not a random hookup) NEVER reviewed the game in question. Her Ex was just a jerk, as exes often are. You may not know this, but a prime reason that women break up with men is because they're arse holes.

As to the whole "legal" thing, well, doxing, hacking and rape/death threats are not legal.

The question over whether Anita Sarkeesian was a "real gamer" wasn't entirely baseless, but is someone starts a kickstarter to bug consoles and games that implies they don't already have their own gear, doesn't it? As to her points, well, limited value to be honest, but the backlash against her was largely perpetrated by people who just want more titties in games.

Now, let's be clear here, this is a general problem with media today, you only have to watch Game of Thrones to see that a lot of big budget mass-media is directed to hook the lowest common denominator, and GoT is really just a mix of softcore porn and soap opera now, which is not a terrible thing but the big budget doesn't make it a big piece of art.

A final thought for you, the original "Quinspiracy" is pretty much the plot of a 90's Playboy/Skinemax softcore porno, without the final denouncement where the seductress (Quinn) is finally caught out and gets bad reviews for the game.

[Beskar]

Only thing about the Quinn-Conspiracy worth any salt was the bust-up with The Fine Young Capitalists, from all appearances.

[Greyblades]

*cracks fingers*

Ex-Boyfriend says "she's a slut who slept with loads of journo's for good reviews" and she's expected to prove she didn't do it? That's 4Chan logic for you.

I can see how that would be an impossible task, good thing that was not what I was referring to: Prove that Nathan grayson wasnt in a relationship with zoe quinn before or during the writing of this article, or prove that he clearly stated his relationship in said article.

If either of those was proven at the start and maybe gamergate would still be the petty internet drama Anti GG want you to think it is. Alas it remained ambiguous long enough for the investigations of the internet to uncover more instances like it and now you have a whole list of suspected collaberations between journalists and developers to disprove if you want it to go away.

Hey Husar, remember when I told you this:

No, if I responded in such a manner that makes my opponant think I only attack the points I know I could win in while ignored those I cannot, while insulting my opponants language and calling his influences crazy, that would put cement upon your beliefs and push you to look for people who will actually listen to what you have to say.

Take out the insults on language, add in a dose of swearing and misrepresentation, intentional or otherwise. With that I give you exhibit A:

Do you know anything about Watergate? It was a scandal where people were caught, not where someone threw mud and then tried to make it stick with threats and character assassination.

GamerGate is about misogynist pigs, and stupidity.

Let's take a look at the Zoe Quinn thing, shall we, starting with the fact that here new boyfriend, the journalist, (not a random hookup) NEVER reviewed the game in question. Her Ex was just a jerk, as exes often are. You may not know this, but a prime reason that women break up with men is because they're arse holes.

To give him credit the rest is somewhat less counterproductive:

The question over whether Anita Sarkeesian was a "real gamer" wasn't entirely baseless, but is someone starts a kickstarter to bug consoles and games that implies they don't already have their own gear, doesn't it?

I assume you meant to say buy and not bug. To be new to the scene is not an issue, it's that she made a false claim on a game she herself apparantly played and not admit to it when caught that encompasses the main problem with her, makes the audience think she's full of it.

I think she is but that's a matter of opinion.

As to her points, well, limited value to be honest, but the backlash against her was largely perpetrated by people who just want more titties in games.

Dude, dont generalize, whether or not that appraisal is true makes no difference to the situation she created.

Now, let's be clear here, this is a general problem with media today, you only have to watch Game of Thrones to see that a lot of big budget mass-media is directed to hook the lowest common denominator, and GoT is really just a mix of softcore porn and soap opera now, which is not a terrible thing but the big budget doesn't make it a big piece of art.

I dont care about it being art, I care that someone is calling for change in an entire industry over petty social politics and using underhanded tactics to make it happen.

A final thought for you, the original "Quinspiracy" is pretty much the plot of a 90's Playboy/Skinemax softcore porno, without the final denouncement where the seductress (Quinn) is finally caught out and gets bad reviews for the game

As much as the Anti's like to use the term in irony, a lot of GG is actually about gamer ethics. Notice that those attacking GG rarely want to actually address it, either to confirm or deny such occurances. Using deflection to steer the conversation away, sometimes arguing the relevance but never arguing the content.

Both sides do it, I dare say every side in every controvertial political debate does, but the anti side is the one that wants everyone to think it upright and good while GG are a bunch of uncooth thugs, yet they keep going to thier opponants level again and again and again.

Only thing about the Quinn-Conspiracy worth any salt was the bust-up with The Fine Young Capitalists, from all appearances.

If I may, who do you hear your information about GamerGate from?

[Beskar]

If I may, who do you hear your information about GamerGate from?

I read articles from 'both sides', but it seems whatever the actual valid points actually were got lost in the wades of sewage which made the only logical response of 'stay away from it or get covered in it'.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

*cracks fingers*
I can see how that would be an impossible task, good thing that was not what I was referring to: Prove that Nathan grayson wasnt in a relationship with zoe quinn before or during the writing of this article, or prove that he clearly stated his relationship in said article.

What are you, 12?

He said he wasn't, Quinn doesn't get mentioned until roughly the middle of the article and she gets about as much "air-time" as everyone else. so, to summarise, I see no evidence of bias in the article, there's no evidence they were in a relationship at the time, the article is not about Quinn but (partly) about Pepsi pushing a sexist angle and he's not written anything else about her since.

As far as Anita Sarkeesian goes, I'm not a big fan but what she says about games is broadly correct, in GTA you can beat prostitutes to death, steal all their cash and then if you get caught the cops confiscate some cash, you lose the car you were driving and that's it.

Her point is that while you can chose not to use that baseball bat, there's little incentive not to. You can actually be a "good" guy in GTA, murder a few prozies, get nicked and then go back the main plot where you agonise over the morals of being a "decent criminal"

[CrossLOPER]

As far as Anita Sarkeesian goes, I'm not a big fan but what she says about games is broadly correct, in GTA you can beat prostitutes to death, steal all their cash and then if you get caught the cops confiscate some cash, you lose the car you were driving and that's it.

I wonder how many guys I ruthlessly gunned down with little to no repercussions. Oh wait, no one actually cared about that because its a video game and the only people who complained were people who didn't actually play games.

Nothing that Sarkeesian actually says is particularly enlightening or interesting. She bluntly refuses to address any rebuttals, and often repeats points that are either subjective or circumstantial. She's basically the Food Babe (http://foodbabe.com/) of the gaming industry.

[Sarmatian]

Sarkeesian does seem like a bit of a fruitcake, which is sad, because, let's face it, there's a quite a bit of sexism in games and it is an issue that should be at least discussed. Most gamers, unfortunately, refuse flat out to admit there's an issue at all.

[CrossLOPER]

Sarkeesian does seem like a bit of a fruitcake, which is sad, because, let's face it, there's a quite a bit of sexism in games and it is an issue that should be at least discussed. Most gamers, unfortunately, refuse flat out to admit there's an issue at all.

Just curious, what examples do you have?

[Greyblades]

Edit:I think we need a way to automatically shift the first line in a paragraph a few spaces away from the post border.

I notice I have made a mistake; my last post was hypocritical. Itself an example of the same debate methods I have been railing against. It is a failure of my own philosophy; I let what objectivity I had been trying to maintain slip and devolved into party rhetoric. As you can see I placed unnecessary ammunition in my opponent’s hands for little more than a false sense of satisfaction that quickly evaporated.
I failed myself and I must acknowledge my failure and increase my efforts to avoid doing so again else I stop calling myself a man.

Also I realize that pointing out the duplicitous debate strategies of the opposition is itself counterproductive due to its universal in all debates. It's only use is for countering accusations phrased to imply innocent of said issues on the speaker’s side, to use it myself will merely allow the opposition to do the same.

What are you, 12?

When I was twelve I was accused on the internet of being a fifteen year old and I somehow ended up taking that as a indication of my advanced maturity.
I'm still here talking on forums, so evidently not much has changed. In a way I am indeed twelve, maybe younger, body be damned.

He said he wasn't, Quinn doesn't get mentioned until roughly the middle of the article and she gets about as much "air-time" as everyone else. so, to summarise, I see no evidence of bias in the article, there's no evidence they were in a relationship at the time, the article is not about Quinn but (partly) about Pepsi pushing a sexist angle and he's not written anything else about her since.

It doesnt matter if the bias is clear, in any other journalistic field if a journalist is told to report on a person he was in a relationship with he is expected to recuse himself to avoid bias and in other fields a reporter who hides his relationship to report on the article can be fired for collusion. Nathan Grayson did not recuse himself nor did he state his relationship so when he went on a tirade against his ex Girlfriend he unintentionally proved that he had violated journalistic ethics.

Had this been a one off thing it would not have gone anywhere, the public who cared about journalistic intergrity would have been satisfied with a small policy change and maybe Nathan's blacklisting. Unfotunately digging uncovered more and more examples of this going on, starting with zoe quinn it was found Ben kuchera was paying ms quinn's patreon before writing this about her, Patrica Hernandez was found inviting zoe quinn to a meeting a year before writing this and this. Soon there were cases found that didnt include zoe quinn; patricia hernandez giving favourable coverage to her roomate Anna Anthropy, Lauren WainWright penning a number of articles on her own employer square-enix without confiding the information on the page.

These connections kept being exposed and the reaction was to either try to cover it up through deletions or by diverting attention towards the people pointing it out with attacks on them. Evidently it has worked as you are now defending them while not knowing of these specific collusions.

I cannot explain why this is the issue that got people up in arms instead of the previous scandals. I highly suspect it is because AAA developers have PR departments to keep the public outrage to a minimum, departments that indie developers dont have; had Sony, activision, or EA in thier scandals reacted with the blatant contempt of the indies here I believe that this sort of consumer revolt would have happened years ago.
However it is largely immaterial why this is happening now instead of another time, it is happening and if it succeeds gaming media will become forced to adhier to the standards of other fields of journalism.

As far as Anita Sarkeesian goes, I'm not a big fan but what she says about games is broadly correct, in GTA you can beat prostitutes to death, steal all their cash and then if you get caught the cops confiscate some cash, you lose the car you were driving and that's it.

Her point is that while you can chose not to use that baseball bat, there's little incentive not to. You can actually be a "good" guy in GTA, murder a few prozies, get nicked and then go back the main plot where you agonise over the morals of being a "decent criminal"

And I argue that it is a pointless argument because there is no harm in allowing grown adults the freedom to do that in thier games. Whether the argument is more violent or sexist the core is that games will influence how people think in significant amounts and if thompson was proven wrong why is it any different for sarkeesian.

But that's not the only issue; It is in the interest of those that shares her views to dissassociate themselves from her and find a champion who is harder to dismiss. As husar's reaction to sargon of akkad a few weeks ago exhibited: every imperfection be it swearing, tone or presentation will be siezed upon as an excuse to dismiss the entire argument.
It is the arguer's responsibility if they wish to get thier point across to answer those criticisms by correcting accordingly until there is no criticism remaining that can be objectively proven. This way those who wish to ignore the message have to either, engage the argument directly, or admit to themselves that they are ignoring this person because they just dont want to deal with it, which will be counted as a flaw of the person and not the thing they ignore.

Ms sarkeesian shows herself as not willing to answer critiscisms valid or otherwise, to the point of shutting down the avenues of communication. Those who agree with her might be able to get past that but everyone else not already invested will just dismiss her as another idealogue preaching to the choir.

It sort of adopting the tactics and not getting the point of it. Get in through a lie, then go in with active derailment tactics. That's sort a check list on how to get banned from that type of expo. Then claim victory to show the evil and hypocrisy of their opponents. It was a funded kickstarter with that specific purpose.

That is the anti story, GG's story is that they were kicked out for asking questions in a civil manner during a pannel (full recording here)and later the expo called the police on them while they were peacefully congregating outside.

I'll leave determining which is right to the viewer.

The edge of harassment is towards feminists. It heavily outnumber the average harassment noise. It's underlying the entire conversation.

IIRC Ben's article was basically that here's some indie games that you can find to be interesting. I might be mixing him up with Grayson on that though.

It's worth remembering that at this point, something like 99% of the active harassment is still towards Zoe.

Getting only trolls would be a vast improvement. That is of an issue. When the trolls have upgraded to harassers (who don't disappear by being ignored) and there's no system to take care of them, what do you do then? Let them win of course. That won't ever become a problem later on.

To quote a wise and ancient sage (who exresses this in a depressingly more conscise way that I ever could) by the name of Razorfist:

"...and has harrasment and even worse taken place in the name of this movment? Absolutely. Harrassment and grotesque unconscionable violations of privacy have taken place in defense of figures targeted by the movment as well, proving only that there is not a party in existance that assholes dont turn up to. It doesnt mean you call off the party folks.

"The 2000 democratic national convention was penned in by rioting and protests, there were sweeping riots across all of LA but you simply do not halt the nomination process simply because rage against the machine needs to promote thier new albu-I mean social change. I mean heck I seem to remember back in 2004 during the 'hate bush' protests seeing a load of busted out windows in downtown Phoenix courtesy of fringe elements of the protest movment. I dont remember these folks calling for the end of that movment.

"Accusations of harassment are not invalid, not at all, but your problem, may I suggest, is not actually with the movment but with the act of harassment itself[...]The pont is that we see the same behavior at every societal subset and debate from radical femenism to my little pony so why would a divisive issue like gamergate be any different?"

Quoted from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mYXk_wfG-I

Disabling comments one of the things that get mostly ignored, unless you have an axe to grind.

Debating the circumstances of a criticism can also be considered a derailment tactic as it doesn't dispute the content. In this case it reinforces an impression that Anita is refusing to accept critiscism, for whatever reason. That impression is rooted from a general lack of acknowlegement of her mistakes and not focused entirely on her comments section.

Mess around= Move around in this case. Makes a stronger visual imagery.

It is drawn from a specific narrative. You can reject that narrative and thus rejecting the point it would make (making it incorrect in your mind), but from that narrative it's not a lie. The combined work of the game developers put it in there for a reason.

The mere presence of the ability to move around a body does not in and of itself imply any intent of what the players are supposed to do with it. If ms sarkeesian is going to state as fact "players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters" and is proven absolutely wrong you'll be dissapointed if you expect me or anyone else to pay attention to narrative when presented with such an unacknowledged falsehood.

It would diversify the market. Some games would have more. Most less. That would be a good thing.

Questionable, these developers are dissassociating themselves with thier core costumer base for the promise of a new one. Sure, for a time there will be greater diversity but unless the new customer base proves itself as profitable as the old one the developers will be faced with the choice of switching back or accept being outpaced by the competition and made irrelevant.
Unless you can pad this customer base with enough people to become as profitable as the old base, people willing to keep paying for new products for years to come and wont leave after a fasion, it will devolve to another niche market and become largely ignored by the mainstream.

The people most suited to pad that base are the same people Anti-GG keeps alienating.

I suspect the new Positive Female Characters is a response to that. Since the focus are mostly on positive things, it's way less aggressive.

Good, but their peaceful success hinged on the support of the people who were directly linked to the ones they suffered under and they got that support by being the rational alternative to the violent mob. You need to be seen to disassociate yourself with the people saying gamers are dead/inheritly sexist. Every time you see these things happening, every time they are presented to you, you need to be seen as rejecting this attitude, not making excuses for it. Do that and you will find it will propel you further than any eloquent argument could without it.

Do not stand by and allow yourself to be painted as another "rabid femenazi out to rip joy from your hobby with no regard for the desires of the consumer" any more than MLK didnt allow himself to be painted as another "spiteful n***** who wants to wreak vengeance on the whites with no regard for individual innocence".

It's sort of hard to prove that you don't have a collusion, from someone that wants you to have one, when you're open with that you are in contact with them and do a theme piece. The summary, consisting of two things, if you read the articles is that the gamer is becoming dead the same way a movier is. When everyone does it, it's no longer an identifier,even if some people are more into it than others.

Of course it's hard to prove you dont have a bias when you do.

Journalists are supposed to be objective, in any other field they are supposed to recuse themselves when the bias is too much to stay objecive. Now there is leeway, if it is believed that there isnt a conflict of interest they might be allowed to comment as a journalist, but in those cases they are expected to reveal any association between themselves and those they comment upon, regardless of the briefness of the association.

For a long time the gaming press did not do this, left to thier own devices a lot of them were found colluding and when it was exposed the companies hiring them did a horrendous job responding; and too many of them responded to valid critiscism with vitriol and contempt and the consumer riot that ensued is hardly surprising and well earned.

The second and more important part is the massive criticism of an active harassment campaign. Not trolling, major harassment way beyond the regular internet trolling noise. That got the explosion.

On the Anti-side perhaps, pointing out the otherside's harrassers is a good way to accrue support, but despite all the harassment there was truth, evidence that has mounted that implicates these people as disregarding the Journalistic code of ethics and when the anti side started focused soley on attacking the harrassers it was simple for the Pro side to simply give thier evidence, point to the attacks on the harrassers and say "these people coordinating a smear campaign to distract the population from reading our evidence in the hope that it will save thier skins."

With evidence like this combined with deletions of prevfious articles that justscreamed coverup it became undisputable.

The narrative that's pushed that you ignore and that the entire world notices are the massive harassment, way, way beyond trolling. There's a reason why GG got kicked out of 4chan and why the official GG supporters are almost entirely consisting of people with hateful and dubious reputation.

GG got kicked out of 4chan through the moderators deleting every post someone made on the topic.

This was unheard of. Normally, every time something like Gamergate happened the mods would merely comb through and remove the illegal stuff (child porn, doxx and swat threads), they did it for chanology, they did it for luzsec, they did it for every operation and anonymous activity before that has been accused of harassment. But this time they were killing all discussion on the subject at the root regardless of if it was a doxxing thread or merely a thread asking what gamergate was.

See, every now and then mods would go nuts and censor left and right and most of the time m00t, the owner, would respond by replacing the moderator with someone less banhappy. But this time it was rampant and m00t said it was his idea and in the face of this most of the site defected to 8chan, which is almost identical but not run by a man who had apparantly only grown a conscience just as gamergate was starting to gain ground.

That is a an example of disorganisation (since anti GG isn't exactly a movement as such) and the internet. Some degree of trolling on the net seems to be the norm on many sites. Then again, you run with 5 mighty examples. I can't post the content of the FF twitter link with more than 100 posts without getting a warning. "Get cancer" is a nicer one from the list. Have you read it?

Yup have you read this? Or this?

Crazies be universal. We must strive to see past them because they wont go away if we keep hitting them and ignoring those who have legitimate grievences.

That would require them to read the tiny areas were something that could be called an organised Anti GG really exist. A well thought out argument has to be read first. And the heavy spinners are pretty much beyond salvation.

It worked once, until the context were provided afaik. They are fond of the method though, they also use it against reviews they don't like. Because ethics and free speech, you know.

Ugh, As I mentioned was being an idiot when I said the things these are replying to. To find out the intended reaction actually happened makes me feel worse.

If you havent noticed, and I doubt you haven't, both side spins. Both sides detracts and both sides accuses the other of misrepresentation while doing a fair bit of misrepresenting themselves. Both sides also doxx and swat eachother, pointing out when the other side does it but forgetting when it's thier side acting out. That's what happens when you get a group, there's allways some asshole. But every time a member starts to voice doubts those on thier side come to reaffirm thier convictions, first through reason then, if and when that doesnt work, through peer preassure.

Yet the freak accidents of history shows that both sides doing the same things doesnt automatically make both sides equally wrong or equally right; sometimes we're all goddamn idiots beating our chests at eachother over nothing, other times one side who has been tricked to want to kill everyone else. Most of the time it's somewhere between those, one side is right and one side is wrong, but through the fog of self affirmation, propaganda and outright peer preassure those who have already joined a side are nigh incapable of objectively knowing which side is right and wrong.

People's views become contaminated, much in the same way that these journalists are accused of being, and that contamination can permanently colour a person's viewpoint. Even if it is minor acquaintance or full indoctrination it seems there is no foolproof way to truly recapture the objectivity that comes with initial ignorance. So when we look to something to impart the news of the day whether it is wars of video games we want our sources to be as objective as possible, and when the provider of the news is unable to be objective we want him to hand over to someone who is objective.

Now these days noone can be truly objective, and I doubt there was a time when it was otherwise. Whether one side is right and another wrong, the second you hear them out you can't help but be swayed however slighty and that influence will never become truly neutral again. To counter this we ask journalists to assess themselves, and even if they can be objective we ask them to provide a record of their influences in the hope that it will inform the reader when the journalist is being factual and opinionated.

Then evidence is presented that these people who call themselves objective are in fact biased, that the journalists have been witholding that bias from the public. When the newspaper in response ignores the evidence and uses the assumption of objectivity to call the accuser lairs, sexists and worse, how can you still believe that the journalist is unbiased? Indeed how can you ignore the accuser when they tell you the newspaper is protecting the journalist in fear of being proven wrong and being punished for a crime they actually commit?

A question that I have been wrestling with for the last month is: which side is correct? I will likely be wrestling with that question for my entire life over every conflict I engage in as I am long contaminated. On the political scale I started ignorant and thus had the potential to be objective, and when I came to understand the ideas of nationalism, of all the good that my country has done, I was shifted to the right. As I grew up I became influenced with the propaganda of the liberals which showed me the extreme of the right and in recoil my political outlook shifted to the left. Now, in response to this I am back to middle again as in my mind the liberal political left has shown itself as the same self affirming arrogant hippocrytes that they allways accuse the right of being. I now think both sides extremes are as bad as eachother just with opposite casting in the role of master and slave.

Sad thing is, it was when condemning the other side for thier own groupthink that made me realize my side's own.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I wonder how many guys I ruthlessly gunned down with little to no repercussions. Oh wait, no one actually cared about that because its a video game and the only people who complained were people who didn't actually play games.

Nothing that Sarkeesian actually says is particularly enlightening or interesting. She bluntly refuses to address any rebuttals, and often repeats points that are either subjective or circumstantial. She's basically the Food Babe (http://foodbabe.com/) of the gaming industry.

I think you rather miss the point, nobody's saying that GTA turns the average player into a sociopathic killer, the argument is that it fosters a callous attitude to other people, especially women.


It's like in Crusader Kings II when the game asks you to consider "should I kill newborn Henry and then his Dad so I can inherit the throne".


It's not a healthy thought process, if you emotionally invest in games (many gamers do) then it raises questions about whether you should be confronted with/offered such choices.

[Kralizec]

I think you rather miss the point, nobody's saying that GTA turns the average player into a sociopathic killer, the argument is that it fosters a callous attitude to other people, especially women.


It's like in Crusader Kings II when the game asks you to consider "should I kill newborn Henry and then his Dad so I can inherit the throne".


It's not a healthy thought process, if you emotionally invest in games (many gamers do) then it raises questions about whether you should be confronted with/offered such choices.

I don't agree with your position, but to be fair you make a good case.

I think it would be highly inappropriate to compell the gaming industry to make their products comply with pedagogical standards. They're not responsible for fostering civic virtues. It might seem odd to call video games "art", but I definitely think that artistic freedom should apply. If a game clearly encourages or endorses criminal/unethical behaviour, that's another thing. And I would definitely support measures aimed at preventing children from playing GTA V or similar games, which is a no-brainer for pretty much everyone.

I vaguely recall you said you've played Skyrim (and presumably liked it). I'm a big fan of that series as well, and to me, an Elder Scrolls game where you can't roleplay as a sociopathic Dark Brotherhood assassin doesn't deserve the title.*

(*except Morrowind)