So Neogaf is crashing and burning...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

bastardofmelbourne:
I have literally only engaged with Neogaf as the result of google searches about gaming hardware. Is it good? Is it bad? Is it tofu? I have no idea.

This is like when Gawker died. Something vaguely grubby that I never really paid any attention to on account of its grubbiness.

I'm still convinced you were on gaf btw

yip, y'all not pulling the wool over my eyes!

makano:
Snip

image

You might want to take a few steps away from the internet for a while.

makano:
What a time to be alive. It's about time you twats from that shit hole learned. Social Justice is cancer, and it is to easy for your virtue signaling ass to be kicked to the floor.
Funny how your side has committed more crimes than ours.
Russian Deadpool = murderer
Pedo mod at gaf
"Male allys" turning out to be rapists/sexual harassers.
I don't give a fuck how ass blasted my words make you, i am not interested in any debate. YOU LOST GET OVER IT.
Now i am going to use my "male gaze" to eye up women in video games.
We told you at the start:
"We just wanted to play video games" It's you that started the fight, don't cry while your losing.

"Psshh, nothing personnel kid!"

Neogaf is.... a very odd duck. With accusations flying at them over the last few years with GG, it's hard to get a good handle on the site(Note please don't use this to point out everything that's come up since then).

I will say I disliked the site even before the net scuffle. With how they handled membership and bans, I used to think Neogaf as a heaven for the elitists. That gave way to a more hive mindedness/echo chamber from what posts and topics I saw(Brother visited often but never joined). So I'm not going to lose sleep over this.

However, it burning down means we lose out on the data/lists they drew up and the leaks. It might not be for you(espically now, just go to your favorite site now) but they tended to have detailed topics about a game or anime. Even if it decended into poltics of any color later, the OP almost always had the majority of info they had about the topic at hand. Those were pretty handy when keeping track of progress and or possible new shows/games to consider.

Neogaf also was a place for leaks to come up. Now I don't have a list of how many were right but the fact devs/insiders actually did leak to Gaf at times was impressive as it was just a message board.

NeoGAF? Never heard of it.

Never been but I hear it approaches Gamasutra levels of sanctimony, so I guess not much will be lost.

I don't use this site. I only tangentially heard of it when I read that they were banning talks of a game released on the vita in the USA legally cause to them it veered too close to child porn (which makes no sense), and then years later the next thing I heard was that one of their mods was arrested for being a pedophile, so I guess those who are overly hysterical about such issues and seek to ban game talks are over-compensating as a way of hiding their own urges.

So yeah, I can believe just about anything I hear about that site now. It's like if 4chan decided to be SFW one afternoon and expunged all the surface-level-degeneracy from its midst. It's all just a facade, an obvious one too.

I think the saddest thing about all of this is that I've now heard someone say 'Now i am going to use my "male gaze" to eye up women in video games.' Surely, tears were shed.

Dreiko:
next thing I heard was that one of their mods was arrested for being a pedophile, so I guess those who are overly hysterical about such issues and seek to ban game talks are over-compensating as a way of hiding their own urges.

Eh, I think that's an overly simplistic way of looking at it. Certainly there's going to be an element of 'doth protest too much' with some people (like people sometimes have a real hate-boner for pop music in public, but, you know, they actually kind of bop along to the odd bit when no one else is there), but some people really just hate paedos.

Baffle2:

Dreiko:
next thing I heard was that one of their mods was arrested for being a pedophile, so I guess those who are overly hysterical about such issues and seek to ban game talks are over-compensating as a way of hiding their own urges.

Eh, I think that's an overly simplistic way of looking at it. Certainly there's going to be an element of 'doth protest too much' with some people (like people sometimes have a real hate-boner for pop music in public, but, you know, they actually kind of bop along to the odd bit when no one else is there), but some people really just hate paedos.

I like Jpop and hate most modern American pop (MJ still rules) so I wonder where that puts me lol.

And unless you or someone you know were abused as a child, it's just a very random thing to be up in arms about. There's tons of horrible shit that happens every day. It's like those closeted conservative politicians who make it their issue to be against gay people as a way of ensuring they are not found out. You need not make everyone aware of your opposition to pedophilia. Everyone already presumes it as a matter of course as it is the natural state of being for all normal people.

RedRockRun:
NeoGAF? Never heard of it.

From what I've been reading it was the Tosh.0 of websites. Not funny, memorable or important and most people forget it existed and now that its gone everyone is surprised it lasted as long as it did.

Silentpony:

RedRockRun:
NeoGAF? Never heard of it.

From what I've been reading it was the Tosh.0 of websites. Not funny, memorable or important and most people forget it existed and now that its gone everyone is surprised it lasted as long as it did.

I think it's still on.

I miss the Soup.

NeoGAF had an absolutely disgusting mod culture. They had a rule that no moderator decision was to be questioned, and doing so was bannable, yet they still created an account called ModBot so a mod could close threads and things like that without having the balls to show who did it. Also, all members started as junior members, even after waiting anywhere from days to literally YEARS to have an account approved. You were a junior for one year or 200 posts, whichever came first (At least when I first joined about 9 years ago). Junior members were often insulted for their status, even though it was supposedly a bannable offence, and were not allowed to start threads. Also, a ban as a junior was automatically permanent with no chance for appeal, and the mods often joked about how most of the rules were unwritten and that following them wouldn?t make you safe anyway. Considering you needed a non-free email to sign up, this was a very easy way to intimidate new users. The whole setup stunk of being created by a basement-dwelling teen virgin, and I sure wasn?t shocked to read Evilore?s self-satisfied post about how he started NeoGAF at the age of 15.

I first joined back when devs and journalists actually posted often and there were a lot of good discussions to be had, but that started to turn in about 2009, and only got worse. I stopped going to the Off Topic forums when Numei, a mod who later got stripped of his powers for banning anybody who ever disagreed with him, openly stated that the mods held the belief that anyone whose political views didn?t align with theirs was really not welcome there, even if they kept their views to themselves. As time went on, Political Correctness got out of hand fast, and you can?t hold views to the right of a campus radical without being ridiculed at best, banned at worst. The last US election led to some absolutely disgusting posts, and people spouting shit like ?Racism against whites can never exist?. This is when BishopTL went berserk and banned anyone who posted that they so much as thought about voting Republican. I?m Canadian and I was disgusted by the naked bigotry I saw. One person posted ?Fuck White people?, and the only bans handed out were to people who protested that little bit of hate speech.

Honestly, the NeoGAF that was a great source of news and a place to interact with Devs and other connected individuals died out before GamerGate even hit, and what imploded over the weekend was a cesspool of hate. It wasn?t enough for people there to post their views in opposition to what they don?t support, witch hunts and Lynch mobs were the order of the day for anyone not toeing the line for Social Justice. I am glad to see it burn.

I always thought it was probably wise for women to be cautious around male feminists who say that all other men are evil rapists.

They are not revealing a though process of male pathology, they are revealing their own personal though process when it pertains to women.

Also see: all X are Y'ism/ist when the speaker is a member of group X

They are really just telling you what they personally think of Y and projecting that view onto other members of group X to position them selves as "one of the good ones".

The number of people echoing those sort of sentiments even in this thread should be concerning to people who actually give a shit about these issues.

Zhukov:

Zontar:
Assange put it best

image

Fucking hilarious coming from a guy who has spent the last how many years hiding in a closet to avoid rape charges?

Doesn't make him wrong.

astrav1:

Zhukov:

Zontar:
Assange put it best

image

Fucking hilarious coming from a guy who has spent the last how many years hiding in a closet to avoid rape charges?

Doesn't make him wrong.

And nothing has been shown making him right. So why was he brought up in the first place?

ScaredIndie:

Also see: all X are Y'ism/ist when the speaker is a member of group X

They are really just telling you what they personally think of Y and projecting that view onto other members of group X to position them selves as "one of the good ones".

The number of people echoing those sort of sentiments even in this thread should be concerning to people who actually give a shit about these issues.

Your stance appears to be that anyone in game journalism who was unhappy with ethics in game journalism in fact had no ethics. You strongly believe that Techraptor (sorry if this isn't right, it's the only pro-GG one I could remember) is unethical. It's brave of a scared indie like yourself to be so forthright.

Baffle2:

ScaredIndie:

Also see: all X are Y'ism/ist when the speaker is a member of group X

They are really just telling you what they personally think of Y and projecting that view onto other members of group X to position them selves as "one of the good ones".

The number of people echoing those sort of sentiments even in this thread should be concerning to people who actually give a shit about these issues.

Your stance appears to be that anyone in game journalism who was unhappy with ethics in game journalism in fact had no ethics. You strongly believe that Techraptor (sorry if this isn't right, it's the only pro-GG one I could remember) is unethical. It's brave of a scared indie like yourself to be so forthright.

That is a rather absurd reading of what I said unless tech raptor claimed "all" games journalists were unethical or claimed they were all unethical except them. The word "all" is key in such a logical statement and it denotes a group operation.

See there are two types of group operators worth understanding for this sort of logical statement "all" and "exists" I think you have their function confused.

if I wanted to convey the meaning you have presented I would have worded it as

"there exists a X that is Y'ism/ist when the speaker is a member of group X"

I assume this was a misunderstanding of my logic statement and not ad absurdum

ScaredIndie:

I assume this was a misunderstanding of my logic statement and not ad absurdum

Ah, I think the issue here is that I've never seen anyone suggest that ALL members of a group EXCEPT THEMSELVES are guilty of a specific kind of crime. (Ignore the caps, I'm not shouting I just couldn't be bothered to do italic tags.) Certainly I've seen white people, for example, suggest that many white people are racist (and I'd agree), but I've never seen them suggest that ALL white people EXCEPT THEMSELVES are racist. Are you saying that this is the stance people are openly embracing?

Baffle2:

ScaredIndie:

I assume this was a misunderstanding of my logic statement and not ad absurdum

Ah, I think the issue here is that I've never seen anyone suggest that ALL members of a group EXCEPT THEMSELVES are guilty of a specific kind of crime. (Ignore the caps, I'm not shouting I just couldn't be bothered to do italic tags.) Certainly I've seen white people, for example, suggest that many white people are racist (and I'd agree), but I've never seen them suggest that ALL white people EXCEPT THEMSELVES are racist. Are you saying that this is the stance people are openly embracing?

Well yes I am, look no further than male feminists supporting the #yesallmen, or white people saying "all white people are racist" or again male feminists claiming sexual violence is a component of male pathology.

Or from this very thread

altnameJag:

crimson5pheonix:
Male feminist ally turns out to be big into sexual assault and/or a pedophile? Who could have guessed? I mean, other than people with pattern recognition.

Fixed that for you. The anti-fems don't have the best records out there either. It truly is a male problem.

ScaredIndie:

Well yes I am, look no further than male feminists supporting the #yesallmen, or white people saying "all white people are racist" or again male feminists claiming sexual violence is a component of male pathology.

Or from this very thread

altnameJag:

crimson5pheonix:
Male feminist ally turns out to be big into sexual assault and/or a pedophile? Who could have guessed? I mean, other than people with pattern recognition.

Fixed that for you. The anti-fems don't have the best records out there either. It truly is a male problem.

In what way did any of those people exclude themselves? Surely by virtue of saying 'all white people are racist' they are including themselves (assuming they are white)?

Baffle2:

ScaredIndie:

Well yes I am, look no further than male feminists supporting the #yesallmen, or white people saying "all white people are racist" or again male feminists claiming sexual violence is a component of male pathology.

Or from this very thread

altnameJag:
Fixed that for you. The anti-fems don't have the best records out there either. It truly is a male problem.

In what way did any of those people exclude themselves? Surely by virtue of saying 'all white people are racist' they are including themselves (assuming they are white)?

Ah you are fixated on people having to state "except me", despite that implication generally coming with such a statement. But lets assume it isn't; is a man saying "all men are rapists, including me" not more concerning of an implication?

ScaredIndie:

Ah you are fixated on people having to state "except me", despite that implication generally coming with such a statement.

No it doesn't. It's baked into the statement that it applies to everyone.

It's you who thinks that it doesn't apply to you, and therefore they must think the same thing about themselves and are being hypocrites.

DaCosta:

ScaredIndie:

Ah you are fixated on people having to state "except me", despite that implication generally coming with such a statement.

No it doesn't. It's baked into the statement that it applies to everyone.

It's you who thinks that it doesn't apply to you, and therefore they must think the same thing about themselves and are being hypocrites.

I don't think it applies to me as I don't think it applies to most. But I think people who claim it does apply to all members of a group they-themselves are a member of reveals their own nature more so than the nature of the group.

It has nothing to do with the exception component but I will acknowledge that is the weakest point I made so I see why you are calling me on it I suppose I always assume that sort of statement came with an implied exception for the speaker. So lets assume I retract the comment on the exception, isn't is a man saying "all men are rapists, including me" not more concerning of an implication?

Since you clearly intentionally edited out that last part for no real reason, care to answer it?

Silentpony:

RedRockRun:
NeoGAF? Never heard of it.

From what I've been reading it was the Tosh.0 of websites. Not funny, memorable or important and most people forget it existed and now that its gone everyone is surprised it lasted as long as it did.

Given how long Escapist has been on life support post-GG, comments like this strike me as a capsized rowboat mocking the Titanic sinking. Even post-collapse, Neogaf has more activity than here.

ScaredIndie:

DaCosta:

ScaredIndie:

Ah you are fixated on people having to state "except me", despite that implication generally coming with such a statement.

No it doesn't. It's baked into the statement that it applies to everyone.

It's you who thinks that it doesn't apply to you, and therefore they must think the same thing about themselves and are being hypocrites.

I don't think it applies to me as I don't think it applies to most. But I think people who claim it does apply to all members of a group they-themselves are a member of reveals their own nature more so than the nature of the group.

It has nothing to do with the exception component but I will acknowledge that is the weakest point I made so I see why you are calling me on it I suppose I always assume that sort of statement came with an implied exception for the speaker. So lets assume I retract the comment on the exception, isn't is a man saying "all men are rapists, including me" not more concerning of an implication?

Since you clearly intentionally edited out that last part for no real reason, care to answer it?

No. I'd ask the person for clarification on what they mean by that, if they are talking about past actions or having the potential to act, and where do they draw the line on what constitutes rape for them to say that.

As opposed to saying that everyone is racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Because my answer to that is simply: yes, everybody is.

ScaredIndie:

Well yes I am, look no further than male feminists supporting the #yesallmen, or white people saying "all white people are racist" or again male feminists claiming sexual violence is a component of male pathology.

Or from this very thread

altnameJag:

crimson5pheonix:
Male feminist ally turns out to be big into sexual assault and/or a pedophile? Who could have guessed? I mean, other than people with pattern recognition.

Fixed that for you. The anti-fems don't have the best records out there either. It truly is a male problem.

Gonna have to find the bit where I said "all males". I mean, statistically, this is a bigger problem with dudes then gals. Hence, pattern recognition.

Unless you've got a different explanation for the skewed stats?

altnameJag:

ScaredIndie:

Well yes I am, look no further than male feminists supporting the #yesallmen, or white people saying "all white people are racist" or again male feminists claiming sexual violence is a component of male pathology.

Or from this very thread

altnameJag:
Fixed that for you. The anti-fems don't have the best records out there either. It truly is a male problem.

Gonna have to find the bit where I said "all males". I mean, statistically, this is a bigger problem with dudes then gals. Hence, pattern recognition.

Unless you've got a different explanation for the skewed stats?

They don't even understand what people mean by "white people are racist" and they ascribe the most popular MRA argument ("it's just male nature!") to feminists instead, so I don't think you're going to get anywhere here.

DaCosta:

ScaredIndie:

DaCosta:

No it doesn't. It's baked into the statement that it applies to everyone.

It's you who thinks that it doesn't apply to you, and therefore they must think the same thing about themselves and are being hypocrites.

I don't think it applies to me as I don't think it applies to most. But I think people who claim it does apply to all members of a group they-themselves are a member of reveals their own nature more so than the nature of the group.

It has nothing to do with the exception component but I will acknowledge that is the weakest point I made so I see why you are calling me on it I suppose I always assume that sort of statement came with an implied exception for the speaker. So lets assume I retract the comment on the exception, isn't is a man saying "all men are rapists, including me" not more concerning of an implication?

Since you clearly intentionally edited out that last part for no real reason, care to answer it?

No. I'd ask the person for clarification on what they mean by that, if they are talking about past actions or having the potential to act, and where do they draw the line on what constitutes rape for them to say that.

As opposed to saying that everyone is racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Because my answer to that is simply: yes, everybody is.

There is a big difference between saying:

all Y are X

and saying

all Y have the potential to be X

I would use fascism as my example here all people have the potential to become fascists, this doesn't mean all are or that it is even a majority. It would be foolish to assume one was beyond indoctrination or manipulation given the scope of human history.

But I think I get where you are coming from on that one, I could see how people with a certain level of self esteem (overly positive or negative) could feel the need to present the potential to others. So I guess people with depression or NPD could want to be seen in such a light or be concerned they may act on said potential to the level warnings are needed. Frankly in either of those cases the cause for concern is merely different not absolved though IMHO, if I knew someone personally who thought so little of them self (or in many was more concerning so much of them self) correctly or incorrectly that is a person in need of real psychological help firstly to determine which of those it is for the safety of all parties and second to provide them with a reasonable quality of life.

As for the everyone is racists/sexist/homophobic argument I'm curious how did you come to believe that? Introspection or observation or is it similar to the above example where we are talking about potentials?

Edit: I suck at formatting

Edit: concatenating reply's

shrekfan246:

altnameJag:

ScaredIndie:

Well yes I am, look no further than male feminists supporting the #yesallmen, or white people saying "all white people are racist" or again male feminists claiming sexual violence is a component of male pathology.

Or from this very thread

Gonna have to find the bit where I said "all males". I mean, statistically, this is a bigger problem with dudes then gals. Hence, pattern recognition.

Unless you've got a different explanation for the skewed stats?

They don't even understand what people mean by "white people are racist" and they ascribe the most popular MRA argument ("it's just male nature!") to feminists instead, so I don't think you're going to get anywhere here.

I don't actually follow here who is they? me? Isn't altnamejag the one implying it is "male nature". I'll admit I don't understand this post.

altnameJag:

ScaredIndie:

Well yes I am, look no further than male feminists supporting the #yesallmen, or white people saying "all white people are racist" or again male feminists claiming sexual violence is a component of male pathology.

Or from this very thread

altnameJag:
Fixed that for you. The anti-fems don't have the best records out there either. It truly is a male problem.

Gonna have to find the bit where I said "all males". I mean, statistically, this is a bigger problem with dudes then gals. Hence, pattern recognition.

Unless you've got a different explanation for the skewed stats?

So let me get this straight, your generality about men doesn't apply to yourself?

ScaredIndie:

As for the everyone is racists/sexist/homophobic argument I'm curious how did you come to believe that? Introspection or observation or is it similar to the above example where we are talking about potentials?

By hearing people. Hearing women, people of various ethnicities, queer people, all talk about the things they've been through. Not just the times that someone threw a slur at them, but also all the subtle and little prejudices they deal with everyday just on account of being different. Realizing that I did all those things without noticing.

The only difference is that one group acknowledges that everyone has unconscious biases when it comes to race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. shaped by our society and affecting our interactions, big and small. These things make us racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. and it's only by recognizing this in ourselves that we can try to shed these behaviours. Biases will always exist in some form in another, so they'll never be gone completely, but everyone should still strive to improve.

The other group thinks that racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. are words that can only be applied to very overt and aggressive acts of racism, sexism, etc, and not to those day-to-day casual occurences, which perhaps don't carry malicious intent. By placing the goalposts further into extreme behaviour, it no longer applies to them, and they no longer need to change their behaviour.

PFFFT HA!

Christmas came early.

DaCosta:

ScaredIndie:

As for the everyone is racists/sexist/homophobic argument I'm curious how did you come to believe that? Introspection or observation or is it similar to the above example where we are talking about potentials?

By hearing people. Hearing women, people of various ethnicities, queer people, all talk about the things they've been through. Not just the times that someone threw a slur at them, but also all the subtle and little prejudices they deal with everyday just on account of being different. Realizing that I did all those things without noticing.

The only difference is that one group acknowledges that everyone has unconscious biases when it comes to race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. shaped by our society and affecting our interactions, big and small. These things make us racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. and it's only by recognizing this in ourselves that we can try to shed these behaviours. Biases will always exist in some form in another, so they'll never be gone completely, but everyone should still strive to improve.

The other group thinks that racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. are words that can only be applied to very overt and aggressive acts of racism, sexism, etc, and not to those day-to-day casual occurences, which perhaps don't carry malicious intent. By placing the goalposts further into extreme behaviour, it no longer applies to them, and they no longer need to change their behaviour.

So and correct my if I'm wrong here you would say the definition of racism and sexism don't require the belief of superiority? If so how does racism/sexism differ from racial or sexual biases?

ScaredIndie:

So and correct my if I'm wrong here you would say the definition of racism and sexism don't require the belief of superiority? If so how does racism/sexism differ from racial or sexual biases?

No, it doesn't require a person to think they are superior.

I've seen people say that black people are good at sports, or that asians are smart, or that latinos are good dancers. It's still racism, even if you meant it as a acompliment. At end of the day the person saying that sees those races as stereotypes.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here