Farewell Jim Sterling

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Mastemat:

Strazdas:
So no, a right to marry between homosexuals are not a civil right by definition.

Yup. Cleary. Just because there is no explicit statement about homosexuals... CLEARLY they have no civil right to such. Just like before the 13th and 14th amendments, there was 0 ethical issue with slavery.
100% perfectly fine and not infringing on any human's civil rights to exist at all.

Who knew that intrinsic values of humanity were defined not by a person's existence but by words on a piece of paper!
Clearly you know what's what when it comes to equality and civil rights.

You know there is a reason i cited what civil right means. thats because i explicitly not equated it to legal right or ethical issues.

LifeCharacter:

No, our democracy does not allow the denial of gay marriages based on religious purposes, that's just the bullshit reason bigots use to try and justify their want to deny people their rights. And, if you see no hate in the advertisements used in prop 8, and in trying to make certain relationships lesser and unworthy of marriage, then I guess there's no point in trying to argue.

And i never said it did. In fact i pointed out that it was shot down afterwards without actually coming into effect. However the proposition act itself and ability to vote on laws IS democracy.

I actually never saw a single advertisement for prop 8 so i wouldnt know.

Before the proposition, the people in the state of California had the right to marry members of the same sex as them. Afterwards, they didn't. I don't see how that is anything but taking their rights away.

And I already have plenty of evidence to support that claim. Those who don't support marriage equality, especially those who cannot claim ignorance like he can, and especially those who give money to the cause of taking people's rights away are but bigots. He gave money to such a cause so that is what he is and what he remains.

Fair enough, i stand corrected then, it was taking peoples rights away.

Oh, yes, you have plenty of evidence, none of which you have shown here still.

LifeCharacter:

That I knew, but organizing a boycott doesn't seem the same as organizing a campaign of contacting advertisers with misinformation. If GamerGate just said "Don't go to these sites" or the people boycotting Mozilla said "contact these advertisers" I'd consider them the same methods, but I don't believe that's the case at the moment.

Contacting advertisers is exactly what boycotting of internet websites is. you can physically stand at the door with shitty T-shirts and hand-drawl-posters. the internet alternative of that - DDoSing is only legal in Germany, so what people are doing is telling advertisers why they cannot buy products if they give money to people they dont like.

As far as that misinformation goes, im sure you also have mountains of evidence of that, none of which you seem to be able to reproduce.

People boycotting Mozilla DID contact advertisers and developers to pull out from their support, so yep, same methods.

I only came here because of Jim. Haven't watched his videos or listened to his podcast for weeks. I really hoped he would recover, I liked him more when he had the balls to joke and comment on anything (even if I didn't always agree). His feminist transformation is complete now, he got no balls, he does poor research, and his former views of pro-consumerism and freedom of speech comes second to feminism, he even got his own patreon. I am dissapointed.

Aardvaarkman:

... and equated gamers in general with Gamergate supporters, and the "anti-Gamergate" side as being anti-gamer.

Yes, I wonder were they might have gotten that misconception... Wait what is this? https://i.imgur.com/7BFjPIM.jpg? Did a large portion of the anti-gamer gate side try to claim that the gamer identity was dead? Oh and it happened fairly recently as well. But seriously I still have anti-gamergate people in my everyday claiming that the gamer identity is over because of these articles.

Aardvaarkman:

That was some highly unethical games "journalism" by Macris, and it's hilarious to see it being praised by people as being somehow balanced by people who self-identify as being against corruption in games journalism. He violated a lot of journalistic ethics rules with that piece.

Please specify which rules he violated, I'm too sad to read about it right now but I will check later and if he is in breach then shit will be done. Gamergate does not discriminate.

Shattered:
Yes, I wonder were they might have gotten that misconception... Wait what is this? https://i.imgur.com/7BFjPIM.jpg? Did a large portion of the anti-gamer gate side try to claim that the gamer identity was dead? Oh and it happened fairly recently as well. But seriously I still have anti-gamergate people in my everyday claiming that the gamer identity is over because of these articles.

Nice try. Most of the "gamers are dead" articles were written before Gamergate blew up, so they have nothing to do with an "anti-gamergate" reaction. Gamergate was fuelled as a reaction to those articles, not the other way around.

Besides which, you are completely misinterpreting what the articles are saying. They aren't "anti-gamer." They are embracing a broader conception of people who play games.

Shattered:

Please specify which rules he violated, I'm too sad to read about it right now but I will check later and if he is in breach then shit will be done. Gamergate does not discriminate.

Firstly, he violated editorial independence, by being a business owner who interfered with editorial decisions. Much like it is an ethics violation for Rupert Murdoch to tell his editors what they can and can't write.

Secondly, he was highly dishonest in attributing the interviews to "The Escapist Staff" rather than disclosing he was the one who conducted the interviews and wrote the questions. He was literally putting words in other people's mouths.

Thirdly, he violated good journalistic practices by asking leading questions, and making up pre-determined conclusions in those question.

Fourthly, he did not disclose his pre-existing relationships with the developers he interviewed.

Finally, he did not own up to any of this after the fact, and basically left Greg Tito to clean up the mess he created after him.

If you care about journalistic ethics, then I don;t know how you could ignore the glaring issues with those interviews, and the way that Macris has behaved. Far from giving anything resembling the truth or impartiality on Gamergate, he has basically directed The Escapist to take a "Fair and Balanced" path of false equivalence, by treating both sides as "equal", despite the evidence to the contrary. The reporting here has been anything but impartial, and The Escapist has gone out of its way to pander to the pro-Gamergate side, and let them dominate forums and generate hostility towards commenters who don't support the movement.

Aardvaarkman:

Shattered:
Yes, I wonder were they might have gotten that misconception... Wait what is this? https://i.imgur.com/7BFjPIM.jpg? Did a large portion of the anti-gamer gate side try to claim that the gamer identity was dead? Oh and it happened fairly recently as well. But seriously I still have anti-gamergate people in my everyday claiming that the gamer identity is over because of these articles.

Nice try. Most of the "gamers are dead" articles were written before Gamergate blew up, so they have nothing to do with an "anti-gamergate" reaction. Besides which, you are completely misinterpreting what the articles are saying. They aren't "anti-gamer." They are embracing a broader conception of people who play games.

It is the same people, just look at the names. At the time gamergate was still quinnspiracy and shit like this https://twitter.com/legobutts/statuses/501855043612848128 happened. Sure they want to distance themselves from attacking gamers now but that is only because they felt backlash and female gamers where clearly offended to be excluded from the term gamer but not because gamers excluded them but because writers created a false narrative of gamers vs women (this later carried over into #notyourshield). And that "broader conception of people who play games" is bullshit, if you play games you play games, gamer is an inclusive generic term based on a hobby like golfer or roleplayer or whatever else regardless of what these writers want you to believe.

And those people attacking gamerculture and trying to separate women from gamers aren't just random internet trolls or unverifiable anonoumous posters (often with the same forum id, that are screencapped at suspicious speed by anti-gamergaters who then remove their threads when someone points out to the anti-gamergater that the screencap looks suspicious) these people are game journalists and they should know better.

I don't know how you can look at those articles and not recognise that

1 they divide gamers and women into two separate groups

2 they are negatively framed towards gamers

3 they are written by people who are now anti-gamergate (then anti quinnspiracy) and use a lot of feminist lingo to collectively push a narrative.

Shattered:
And that "broader conception of people who play games" is bullshit, if you play games you play games, gamer is an inclusive generic term based on a hobby like golfer or roleplayer or whatever else regardless of what these writers want you to believe.

But that's exactly what most of those articles were saying. They were decrying the idea of the "true gamer" meaning only a sort of hardcore gamer. If you believe that "gamer" is an inclusive term, then you disagree with Alexander Macris, who was saying that it should only apply to a certain type of "core" gamer, and was enshrining that exclusiveness as company policy.

Nobody is "attacking gamer culture" - unless you believe that "gamer culture" is something that is very narrow and only available to certain people. The people who wrote those "gamers are dead" articles ARE gamers. And why should anybody be surprised that those people are "anti-gamergate" now? Most people who are informed about the topic are. And these people were harassed by Gamergate simply for writing articles that had no ethical breaches in them.

But really, this is all a distraction from the real issues. If you actually support journalistic ethics, then you should be decrying Macris and the way he has manipulated The Escapist on this issue. If there's one golden rule of journalism, it's "be honest," and Macris has been extremely dishonest in his handling of the issue.

Macris was "was enshrining that exclusiveness as company policy" because then it becomes much easier for advertisers to target people from that exclusive segment of the population. See how he was talking about "consumers' core interests" in 2012. And since "Gamergate" presents itself as a consumer revolt, well, he couldn't exactly go against the will of the consumers, right?

It reminds me of an article at a left-wing site called "Jacobin", that really spelled it out: "Gamer identity is tainted, root and branch, by its embrace of consumption as a way of life. If gamers suddenly became completely inclusive, if all of the threats and stamping of feet went away and the doors were flung open, conspicuous consumption would still be the essential core of their identity." (Source: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/09/death-to-the-gamer/ )

Still, there's a good way and a bad way to stand up for the consumer, if that's what you want. The good way was what Sterling was doing, the no-nonsense cut-out-the-c**p approach he followed in his videos. The bad way is what The Escapist on the whole seems to be doing: we know what our audience wants to buy, so we'll make sure its consumer desires are fulfilled. ("The mouthpiece of the gaming generation", remember?)

But now it's getting clear that in its quest for purifying the perfect marketable demographic of core gamers/enthusiasts, it was prepared not only to do a Faustian bargain with the likes of Gamergate, but also to excise all those undesirables from that demographic: the "filthy casuals", women (who'd deny now that there have been some vile things carried out by GG that exclusively targeted women?), anyone on either side of the 12-34 bracket (this is by Macris' own admission), anyone whose interest in games goes beyond the shiny new AAA game of the moment, and anyone who's not prepared to buy into the entire cultural package offered by The Escapist (which includes superhero flicks, fantasy stuff, gaming conventions and whatnot).

It's good to see now that there is poetic justice out there, that The Escapist has lost something of value by endorsing the path of least resistance. It's not good to see, however, that this place remains a bastion of increasingly embarrassing GG thinking.

All that needs to happen now is for Yahtzee to leave and maybe join Jim's website and as far as i'm concerned this place is dead in the water.

V da Mighty Taco:

Exley97:

Taco, I'll put it to you this way -- as a journalist myself and someone who's worked in the profession for more than 15 years, if you're collecting un-biased opinions on a topic, it helps to not include people who are directly involved in said topic. In other words, the two developers who were active participants in GG should not have been allowed to offer their opinion on GG under the guise that they were just "male game developers." If you want to interview those two clowns and then title it "What GamerGate members think of GamerGate," then by all means, have at it. But again, to include those two individuals -- and to make no mention that they were active participants in the group -- and present them as just your average male game developers with no ax to grind and no stake is the ground (when they CLEARLY did) was patently absurd. In fact, the only reason you knows these developers were active in GG "ops" is because I told you. The RogueStar interview, for example, simply described him as "an independent game developer" and a "a 7-year veteran of the Marine Corps" -- not, you know, an active member of the Burgers & Fries IRC channel targeting Zoe Quinn. Not exactly un-biased, or transparent, right?

Also, what other interviewees said about GG doesn't matter. It's not a zero sum game. If you're looking for a true sample of opinion, you don't go into the interview search saying "Well, we need to have 4 pro-GG people, and 4 against." That's not how journalism works.

Once again, I'm attributing it to Hanlon's Razor here. It's much more likely that they did not realize who they were interviewing rather than some malicious attempt at promoting GG, especially with the retractions of those specific interviews and the Editor's Notes in mind. Those interviews might point at journalistic incompetence, but not some sort of pro-GG bias.

Actually, that's not very likely that the Escapist didn't know these guys were part of the GamerGate mob on 4chan.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BznJKW-CIAAfN3G.png

I'm not saying it was "malicious" that the Escapist sought these people out. I honestly believe them when they say they didn't want to promote harassment and were generally unaware of the behavior of these two developers. BUT....if you're going to look for sources from 4chan (which they did), and you know what's been going on there (how could they NOT?), how do you not screen/vet them to make sure they're kosher and not part of the harassment brigade? That's reckless.

evileeyore:

Corran006:
Jim is one of the few balanced people with the whole gamer gate thing and everything that is around it.

No, he really isn't. He is here, in his vids on the Escapist, but outside of these confines? No, he really isn't balanced. He's very much Anti-#GG.

See, this is the problem with GG. If you're not with them, you're against them (A point Sterling made in a video on this very site). If you even criticize them just a little or god forbin poke fun at their absolutely absurd notion of "objective" game reviews, then you're an enemy of the state. You're "Anti-#GG" because you won't accept the phony notion that the group is about journalism ethics and isn't harassing females. You're anti-#GG if you call out their faux outrage at two-year-old tweets. You're anti-GG if you refuse to believe the wild conspiracy theories about "collusion." You're anti-GG if you stand up for industry colleagues and refuse to idly sit as people are threatened and harassed.

Jim Sterling learned alll of this in due time, even though he treated the subject matter with kid gloves early on by merely poking fun at things like #IstandwithJonTron and the SJW uproar, and all it did was put him on the receiving end of "SJW" accusations and shill charges while reinforcing the idea that this group is unreasonable in their claims and actions. In fact, in anything could prove to GG supporters how ridiculous their movement has become, it should be how quickly they turned on a guy who's been repeatedly championed here at a no-bullshit consumer advocate and an outspoke man of principle who abhors fence sitting. But when he doesn't sit on a fence and remain "objective" about GG? When he won't start towing the line for GG? Well, then he's just a con man, a shill, another compromised game journalist (LOL, I can barely write that without buckling over in laughter). I mean, you can hear the echoes of this insanity all through social media and on this very forum: "Jim Sterling disagreed with us on this one topic so therefore I'm no longer a fan!"

Phil the Nervous:
I doubt Jim will be as extreme with whatever new series he puts out. There's really nothing stopping those indie devs that went after him from trying to get (strikes? think that's the word.) on his Youtube channel. He'll have to watch out for that sort of thing from now on.

I don't think this is the case. Thank God for Him Jim's strength wasn't in the Escapist, but from his audience that just so happened to intersect with the Escapist. Now that he's being directly funded by his followers, they'll have an even stronger bond with him and therefore a much larger incentive to vilify anyone who crosses him.

Keep in mind the fiasco with Slaughtering Grounds was already well-publicized before his episode on Jimquisition due to his personal channels that weren't associated with the Escapist. I honestly thought that episode was entirely unnecessary.

Exley97:

V da Mighty Taco:
Once again, I'm attributing it to Hanlon's Razor here. It's much more likely that they did not realize who they were interviewing rather than some malicious attempt at promoting GG, especially with the retractions of those specific interviews and the Editor's Notes in mind. Those interviews might point at journalistic incompetence, but not some sort of pro-GG bias.

Actually, that's not very likely that the Escapist didn't know these guys were part of the GamerGate mob on 4chan.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BznJKW-CIAAfN3G.png

I'm not saying it was "malicious" that the Escapist sought these people out. I honestly believe them when they say they didn't want to promote harassment and were generally unaware of the behavior of these two developers. BUT....if you're going to look for sources from 4chan (which they did), and you know what's been going on there (how could they NOT?), how do you not screen/vet them to make sure they're kosher and not part of the harassment brigade? That's reckless.

That ties back directly with what I said ealier - that this is much more indicative of journalistic incompetence rather than of a pro-GG bias.

Those posts from Archon that you listed also lend more credence to the idea of them trying to be relatively neutral, especially that last post as it's simply stating interest in interviewing some scared devs. I really don't see where the bias is in those posts, unless somehow addressing GG's criticisms of the Escapist, admitting to the site's mistakes, or interviewing someone who frequents 4chan is inherently biased (despite 4chan not being anywhere near a primarily pro-GG site, as anyone who knows what's been going on with 4chan during GG can more than vouche for).

Once again, I'll agree that some semblance of screening should have been done towards the interviewees. However, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they likely did not screen anyone in those interviews, but rather just interviewed any confirmed dev who was willing to give their opinion on the matter, regardless of where they stood on GG. The fact that two of the 17 people interviewed happened to be well-known harassers doesn't suddenly make the whole thing biased and the remainder of the interviews irrelevant, especially since the interviews of those two were removed once the Escapist knew of their past actions.

To reiterate what I said earlier, all of the actions of the Escapist need to be considered before one can feasibly proclaim it as biased as a whole. What we know about those interviews combined with absolutely everything else the site has done in relation to GG as well as the EiC's own personal stance against GG just goes too much against the idea of the site having a pro-GG slant for that to be believable. Those two retracted interviews just do not do enough to debunk everything else that has happened and prove that the Escapist is running with a pro-GG bias, especially given the context of those interviews.

LifeCharacter:
Here's the thing, making up a cute nickname for someone does not mean that you've stopped talking about them. Every mention of Literally Who is a mention of Zoe Quinn and pretending otherwise is little more than a lie.

Their goal was to try and get away from the five guys bit. Not to stop talking about her at all since she was still relevant to the discussion due to the media letting her control them by falsely accusing Wizard Chan without fact checking and later she managed to actively blacklist TFYC from even getting interviewed when they'd already been signed up for them. I mean, someone tells journalists not to interview a group they've already set up an interview with and they drop the interview cold turkey? Why? How? Then after they couldn't get a voice she offered her services (for hire) to TFYC as a consultant. I mean, wow...

Again, this should have been an issue for everyone. A feminist charity getting black listed by someone who had their own "Jam" funding request in the works and who tried to then monetize the black listing? The only reason why she isn't being demonized on all sides for this is because of the whole five guys red herring that most of us (on the escapist) dismissed early on as needing more evidence of actual intentional bribery on her part (since otherwise it'd just be the journalist's fault which is also something I pointed out and others agreed because we're not mindless idiots). Had this been a man convincing journalists to not cover TFYC we would have seen blood. "A man stopped journalists from interviewing a charity trying to give development resources to women to give them a voice in gaming?". What's more is that the journalist in question did write an article regarding a conflict Zoe had with a TV producer within two weeks of them "making out" by Zoe's own words. So there was a failure to recuse oneself there so even the five guys's wasn't a total bust even if it was told from the completely wrong side of the equation (it's not Zoe's job to make sure somebody she kissed is able to maintain professional ethics afterwards, it's his fault).

Look, this was a dropped ball on the fellow feminists' side (yes, I want gender equality and would qualify as a feminist). We should not defend someone who actively harms feminist causes for personal gain. That should be obvious and yet somehow people honestly think that just because she's a woman she's a positive force in feminism.

I've said elsewhere so I'll say it again here, I don't think GamerGate is a hate movement or a whatever, because that's too easy for people to wiggle out of and pretend it's not because they can attribute every bad thing that's been done to some nebulous other who isn't really GamerGate.

You do realize that this is an awful lot like you saying it's a hate group, right? "I would call it a hate group but they can claim that the haters are extremists" is all that comes across as rather than a denial of it.

That said, I will describe GamerGate as a movement to expel differing opinions (notable of the "we care about social issues in games" variety) from the industry, as well as a movement of intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy, because that's what they are.

There's a few things I would say to this:

1. I am in no way intellectually dishonest or hypocritical. If you're going to address the whole set of an anonymous group then you're going to need to address the individuals. You are currently pointing to a group you yourself called nebulous and are now claiming that it is X. Perhaps you can see the duplicity in that? To acknowledge that it is indeed a nebulous group but then to make firm statements about its cause from your perspective just doesn't follow. So which is it? Are we a unified front with an iron leader and a clear cause or are we a nebulous group with several loosely affiliated fragments that all evolved on various parts of the internet with differing causes and perspectives? Hell, I might as well call myself an Escapist Journalism Ethics GG member to be more precise but even that may require further breakdowns. Seriously, this is a consumer revolt. If you go up to many members of a typical consumer revolt and get 10 things they're upset about you'll get a ton of different answers with only some overlap. This is typical unless the revolt is for one very specific thing (like lead in a child's toy).

2. I'm sure that "looters" have grabbed a hold of our coat tails and are using this as a means to further an anti-feminist agenda. I'll continue to stand with you against them but just because they likely exist doesn't make the point of our movement irrelevant. Just like the anti-GG crowd has members in their mix that do all the same things you can accuse GG of and more when you count cyber-attacking a charity webpage. So to throw one group out for it's looters you'd have to throw out both.

3. I believe that both sides have a credible reason for existing. GG has positions that are clearly acknowledged as issues by all sides. I mean, everyone acknowledges the severe issues of ethics in journalism before then going on to discuss something else they think is the real problem without realizing that they just conceded our point. Anti-GG have a clear reason to denounce any elements of GG that support harassment or that attack legitimate social causes that have every right to exist. In a lot of ways, I think the people with legitimate causes are talking past each other to the crazies in the other group when a lot of good would be done if the rational spoke with the rational.

It's only bad if you actually believe GamerGate is about corruption in journalism. I don't. I'm sure there's plenty of people in GamerGate who care about it

I'll stop you right there. This means that you acknowledge that some of us DO care about journalism so it is "Bad" to us. Just bear that in mind, you're convicting the righteous along with the unrighteous without any concern for individualism in a "nebulous" group.

and I'm sure there's lots more who say they care about it, but when they spend so much time going after things that are decidedly not corruption instead of actual corruption, you'll forgive me for doubting your sincerity. This isn't a knee jerk reaction, this is an opinion based on observing the little tantrum that erupted out of slander and illiteracy.

That's your prerogative to think. But how about we try to deal with the actual corruption so that anyone who is left are the ones you know are in the latter category? If people would stop saying, "Sure, of course there's a major corruption in gaming journalism but..." before discussing the other topics then maybe we could get to the actual issues at hand and those of us on the rational side of things can go along on our merry way and leave the group to its own devices afterwards. In only addressing the irrational components or the misguided components then they're only getting more polarized while those of us who are specific to cronyism, nepotism, and outright corruption in journalism keep seeing a legitimate complaint by consumers acknowledged but ultimately ignored. That's why it's a standstill.

You know what, if people actually used SJW in that way there wouldn't be a problem. But they don't. They don't just refer to the weird, obscure blogs on tumblr that you have to go well out of your way to find when they say "SJW," they seem to be referring to pretty much anyone who criticizes anything for racism or sexism or homophobia or whatever. You can believe it only means the weird thing, but not everyone's you and I'm not familiar enough with your posting history to judge your own sincerity. SJW means what people have used it to mean, and they've used it far more broadly than you, so there's no miscommunication, you just seem to be using the word incorrectly.

No, there really is an issue of semantics here. Take a look at the internet in looking for a definition of the word. It is wildly varied:

(I'm just pasting the first two links from a google search I ran that attempt to define the term, "Social Justice Warrior definition")

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=social%20justice%20warrior
http://www.rooshv.com/what-is-a-social-justice-warrior-sjw

The third link was just an auto-redirect to Wiki's social justice page which didn't help.

So there really is this kind of belief that the term isn't merely the positive idea of anyone who fights for social causes. It is typically specifically a derogatory term, not a positive one. You don't own the term and you can't control how it's defined (not that you're trying to) but there isn't what I'd call an official dictionary definition as far as I can tell and that's a major part of the problem.

Also, I do believe that some people who are just legitimate proponents of social justice have been inappropriately labeled as "SJW" by these definitions. So I absolutely agree that there's a problem there. But you've got to understand that if someone is upset with the "SJW" (again, the negative definition of it, not mere social justice) agenda being rammed down their throats, they aren't necessarily talking about feminism or legitimate causes. Some of them are talking about the likes of Zoe being given too much power over the media in a way that harms everyone, including actual feminist organizations. Honestly, had it not been for what she did to TFYC I probably wouldn't have stepped into this debacle at all. Can you consider how strange this whole thing has been for me? To step into the complaints from a pro-feminist perspective regarding a person who was allowed to blacklist a feminist organization only to see wild backlash from the feminist community dished out on all of us who then in turn got harassed by some assholes that then used that harassment as a label for all of us? It's been one trippy ride.

SJWs, as defined above, should generally be disliked by any group. Calling men evil, saying that we're all just one step away from rape, saying that we've had our turn and it's over. That's not equality. That's just misanthropy and what we need is equality as a society. Not to try to raise one group by putting another group down but to give and enforce equal footing.

And unless you actually have proof that this is how it is, it comes across as little more than a bullshit way of criticizing someone without actually putting intellectual effort in.

Agreed, but as I said above, neither of us are in control of how words are defined. I am merely discussing the definitions for you. I mean, surely there are some people exploiting social causes for personal gain. But you're entirely right that proving it requires a legitimate burden of proof. I don't disagree.

However, even attempting to address people's arguments or motives results in such a huge backlash that a review of those things is nigh impossible. As Liana Kerzer said, for a female journalist to critique someone's argument, like Anita Sarkeesian's damsel trope discussion, the female journalist would instantly be pigeon holed and defined as being the anti-Anita and their fame would rise and fall with Anita. A male would immediately be placed into the same role but also would be slapped with the anti-feminist label or whatever so it would likewise be detrimental for their career.

This makes an environment in which matters can't be discussed on an honest level.

As I said, not much. I mean you use minorities and women as a shield of any criticism of sexism or racism, which is pathetic, but I don't think you have any overtly racist or sexist goals.

We use minorities and women as a shield? Are we hiding them in our basement and only feeding them if they come forward? Do you really think that minorities and women can't think for themselves and come to their own conclusions? That really sounds pretty sexist/racist to me. That they couldn't have their own qualms with ethics in journalism. They started using the #notyourshield to stop your side from deflecting the issues of ethics in journalism by using them. Why do you believe they're being controlled in doing that? Have you considered that they, like me, are latching onto the ethics issue as something needing to be addressed?

Just anti-intellectual and hypocritical goals to censor anyone who says something you dislike, or who you think said something you dislike.

There's a huge difference between pushing to censor and pushing for fair coverage. I want accusations made to actually be fact checked. I don't want some buddy behind the scenes being able to stop interviews for competing businesses. I just generally don't want bias to control news and we need to be able to criticize anyone and any position safely.

I don't want anyone to shut-up. I don't want anyone silenced. In fact, the outstanding nepotism is also causing social justice groups to be silenced on the behalf of their friends. That's a real problem. I'm not saying we need equal face-time between feminists and anti-feminists or some crazy thing. Those anti-social justice groups don't deserve any face time and I'm not sure how they could ever be relevant. Also, social issues are still very important and should absolutely be covered. But nepotism and agenda-based reporting should never control media even if the people think they're doing something good, because sometimes they're wrong and good or innocent people get hurt and it just ends up making everyone look bad. But what we think of as "Social Justice Warrior" agenda? It's not what we're talking about when we discussing an agenda getting forced on us. Like myself, many of us have no problem whatsoever with women being catered to and will argue in favor of equality. What we are talking about is some sort of agenda that we are bad because we have dicks and are rapists and encourage rapists even if we don't think we are, again, just because we are born male? This is us fighting against social injustice. We are very much dealing with sexism levied at us, all of us, because some men are bad. This shouldn't be right and just because some people are doing that in the name of "equality" doesn't make it so. I want equality. But it shouldn't be attainable only by me or any group not having access to it too.

This is very much a "first they came for..." scenario. I get that legitimate social causes are getting benefitted by this bias too and you and I like that. But we also need to make sure this environment is cleaned up and kept clean or else some day there could be topics that we very much need to hear about that aren't reported on because of the next big "agenda". We also should be willing to differentiate between legitimate social causes and these extremist misandrist causes. It's as if people are afraid to tear down misandry would somehow tear down feminism or to tear down racism against white people would somehow illegitimize calls for racial equality. That's totally wrong. Equality can only be obtained through equality, not through inequality. This should be all or nothing. Men deserve rights, women deserve rights, majorities deserve rights, minorities deserve rights. This should be a no-brainer but people are afraid of calling out the people in the wrong just because they label themselves on the same side.

Strazdas:

LifeCharacter:

No, our democracy does not allow the denial of gay marriages based on religious purposes, that's just the bullshit reason bigots use to try and justify their want to deny people their rights. And, if you see no hate in the advertisements used in prop 8, and in trying to make certain relationships lesser and unworthy of marriage, then I guess there's no point in trying to argue.

And i never said it did. In fact i pointed out that it was shot down afterwards without actually coming into effect. However the proposition act itself and ability to vote on laws IS democracy.

Yes, the ability to hold political views and support political causes is entirely legitimate. In fact, the attempt to have the man fired is an act of bigotry itself, bigotry being a term meaning intolerance of people holding different opinions from oneself.

Regardless of how we feel about the issue at hand, demanding he be let go (to the point that he just resigned) because of a political position that the majority of California actually voted in favor of, was wrong and intolerant. It's discrimination of belief, something that is every American's legal right to have.

Personally, I'm all for the abolition of the government issued marriage license in general. I don't think the government should have any say in what union two consenting adults decide to enter. The marriage license only became required towards the civil war era in American history as a means to prevent interracial marriage (before then, common law marriage was the norm and licenses were only required in circumstances where the marriage would otherwise be illegal like underage or breaking of a mourning period). So it's astounding to me that Jim Crow-esque laws have existed all the way to today and continue to harm/control society. Likewise, using the term "marriage" in the license actually evokes a cultural and religious term in people's minds. They associate changes with it as though they were changes to their actual personal practice (albeit a false association). This is why I can understand why someone like that would want marriage defined in a certain way because to them it means that. It would do a lot less harm if civil unions had the exact same rights too. Regardless, in a further attempt to separate church and state they should at the very least change the name of the license anyone gets. Either everyone should get a civil union or it should be called something dumb like a "105c License" or whatever neutral crap name they can create. That would avoid the confusion and division within the US. It seems like most Americans are fine with a "civil union" but draw the line at the term "marriage". Semantics are a hell of a thing and just because we understand what terms actually mean doesn't necessarily translate into the general population understanding that.

PainInTheAssInternet:

I don't think this is the case. Thank God for Him Jim's strength wasn't in the Escapist, but from his audience that just so happened to intersect with the Escapist. Now that he's being directly funded by his followers, they'll have an even stronger bond with him and therefore a much larger incentive to vilify anyone who crosses him.

Hopefully. But there's this tendency on the internet for people to unsubscribe when someone says one thing they don't like.

Ishal:

Bob has been toxic and has expressed dislike for his audience multiple times in the past. Though only recently did it start to bleed into his work with the whole, "The audience is the problem" thing dealing with the Michael Bay hate. He was wrong then, and he continues to be wrong.

This has come up a few times recently and I think people have forgotten Chipman's inaugural review for this website.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/797-Transformers-Revenge

I enjoyed the Jimquisition and hate to see the show go, but don't feel bad for Jim Sterling. The pledges on his patron page have him up to $8385/month. He's now getting paid $100k+ per year to do the Jimquisition. Good for him.

V da Mighty Taco:

Exley97:

V da Mighty Taco:
Once again, I'm attributing it to Hanlon's Razor here. It's much more likely that they did not realize who they were interviewing rather than some malicious attempt at promoting GG, especially with the retractions of those specific interviews and the Editor's Notes in mind. Those interviews might point at journalistic incompetence, but not some sort of pro-GG bias.

Actually, that's not very likely that the Escapist didn't know these guys were part of the GamerGate mob on 4chan.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BznJKW-CIAAfN3G.png

I'm not saying it was "malicious" that the Escapist sought these people out. I honestly believe them when they say they didn't want to promote harassment and were generally unaware of the behavior of these two developers. BUT....if you're going to look for sources from 4chan (which they did), and you know what's been going on there (how could they NOT?), how do you not screen/vet them to make sure they're kosher and not part of the harassment brigade? That's reckless.

That ties back directly with what I said ealier - that this is much more indicative of journalistic incompetence rather than of a pro-GG bias.

Those posts from Archon that you listed also lend more credence to the idea of them trying to be relatively neutral, especially that last post as it's simply stating interest in interviewing some scared devs. I really don't see where the bias is in those posts, unless somehow addressing GG's criticisms of the Escapist, admitting to the site's mistakes, or interviewing someone who frequents 4chan is inherently biased (despite 4chan not being anywhere near a primarily pro-GG site, as anyone who knows what's been going on with 4chan during GG can more than vouche for).

Once again, I'll agree that some semblance of screening should have been done towards the interviewees. However, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they likely did not screen anyone in those interviews, but rather just interviewed any confirmed dev who was willing to give their opinion on the matter, regardless of where they stood on GG. The fact that two of the 17 people interviewed happened to be well-known harassers doesn't suddenly make the whole thing biased and the remainder of the interviews irrelevant, especially since the interviews of those two were removed once the Escapist knew of their past actions.

To reiterate what I said earlier, all of the actions of the Escapist need to be considered before one can feasibly proclaim it as biased as a whole. What we know about those interviews combined with absolutely everything else the site has done in relation to GG as well as the EiC's own personal stance against GG just goes too much against the idea of the site having a pro-GG slant for that to be believable. Those two retracted interviews just do not do enough to debunk everything else that has happened and prove that the Escapist is running with a pro-GG bias, especially given the context of those interviews.

Taco, obviously we disagree about these interviews. In fact, I couldn't disagree with you more. But I appreciate the measure, thoughtful response.

That said, you mentioned several times now that the EiC here is biased against GG, which I don't believe to be true, but for the sake of argument, let's go with it. If that's the case, where is the "op" against Greg Tito? Or more appropriately, where is the letter-writing campaign demanding that Bob Chipman be fired for his "anti-GG" remarks or allegedly unprofessional, hateful behavior toward the audience/consumers? It sure seems like he's written/Tweeted just as much stuff, if not more, about GG over the last few months as any LW or other anti-GG journalist. So where is the op to take HIM down? Or the Escapist and Tito for "censoring" RogueStar by taking his interview off line? How come RogueStar told GG supporters to lay off the Escapist and instead focus on...Gamasutra??? Does that make ANY goddamn sense to you? How come every time I turn around KiA has a new operation against females like Leigh Alexander? How come GG folks in these forums, and in fact this VERY THREAD, can't help but come back to Zoe Quinn? How come I NEVER see ops or campigns against Dan Golding, who's literally started the whole "Gamers are over" wave? Why is it that so few men like Sam Biddle raise the ire of GG? Why does it always seem that GG is focused discrediting/firing women? Is it my imagination? (answer: it's not.)

Exley97:
Taco, obviously we disagree about these interviews. In fact, I couldn't disagree with you more. But I appreciate the measure, thoughtful response.

That said, you mentioned several times now that the EiC here is biased against GG, which I don't believe to be true, but for the sake of argument, let's go with it. If that's the case, where is the "op" against Greg Tito? Or more appropriately, where is the letter-writing campaign demanding that Bob Chipman be fired for his "anti-GG" remarks or allegedly unprofessional, hateful behavior toward the audience/consumers? It sure seems like he's written/Tweeted just as much stuff, if not more, about GG over the last few months as any LW or other anti-GG journalist. So where is the op to take HIM down? Or the Escapist and Tito for "censoring" RogueStar by taking his interview off line? How come RogueStar told GG supporters to lay off the Escapist and instead focus on...Gamasutra??? Does that make ANY goddamn sense to you? How come every time I turn around KiA has a new operation against females like Leigh Alexander? How come GG folks in these forums, and in fact this VERY THREAD, can't help but come back to Zoe Quinn? How come I NEVER see ops or campigns against Dan Golding, who's literally started the whole "Gamers are over" wave? Why is it that so few men like Sam Biddle raise the ire of GG? Why does it always seem that GG is focused discrediting/firing women? Is it my imagination? (answer: it's not.)

I'm not here to defend or argue about GG itself or the legitimacy of any "op" from either side, other than to say that there's a reason I identify as "former GGer". I don't like either side for a lot of reasons (which is best discussed elsewhere and at another time), and frankly I'm not in a state of mind where I could argue for or against either group in a rational, civil way without my anger at both sides getting the better of me.

I'm simply trying to counter the notion that the Escapist is somehow biased in favor of GG. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Captcha: "pants on the ground" Lol.

Edit: As for Greg Tito being against GG personally, just ask him. It's something he's openly admitted to many times in the past, both in these forums and on Twitter.

Edit 2: Re-editted the above edit to fix a goof-up in my wording.

Shattered:
His feminist transformation is complete now, he got no balls

People who unironically say things like this is the reason I stopped coming to the comment section. The GG hate-mob has poisoned all of my favorite hangouts and the escapist has become no exception.

I hope Jim keeps working well into the future. I was one of the first to change my mind about him after his rocky start here on the Escapist and I will gladly watch him elsewhere.

V da Mighty Taco:
Edit: As for Tito not being against GG, just ask him. It's something he's openly admitted to several times in the past, both in these forums and on Twitter.

I think you're confusing "having an opinion" with "being biased." If you simply assume that everyone who disagrees with you is only doing it because they're biased against you, then you've kissed off logic reasoning. The persecution complex, the assumed bias of opponents, the complete denial of any wrong-doing by any (true) member of their group... GG isn't a movement, it's a religion.

Comrade_Beric:

V da Mighty Taco:
Edit: As for Tito not being against GG, just ask him. It's something he's openly admitted to several times in the past, both in these forums and on Twitter.

I think you're confusing "having an opinion" with "being biased." If you simply assume that everyone who disagrees with you is only doing it because they're biased against you, then you've kissed off logic reasoning. The persecution complex, the assumed bias of opponents, the complete denial of any wrong-doing by any (true) member of their group... GG isn't a movement, it's a religion.

Um, what are you talking about? You do realize that I'm the one arguing that the Escapist is being relatively unbiased, right? All I said was that Tito is personally against GG, not that he's being biased in his reporting on it - I argued quite the opposite, actually, and named him as one of two people that I actually respect in this shitstorm for that very reason.

You also read the part where I said I'm not a part of GG these days and hate both sides, didn't you?

Anyways, I'm gonna re-edit that post for clarity as it's clear I worded that part wrong.

Archmike:
All that needs to happen now is for Yahtzee to leave and maybe join Jim's website and as far as i'm concerned this place is dead in the water.

Exactly this.

I started hanging around because of Yahtzee with MovieBob and Lisa Foiles and Extra Credits becoming a reason to check in every couple of days. Jim Sterling became the reason to check in every day and rose to a level on par with Yahtzee.

And while I'm amused by MovieBob often unintentional comedy, he's never been anything more than a side dish. The site has atrophied to the point where I'm not sure I'll continue bothering to visit it... as Jim led me to start using YouTube's subscriptions and if I don't mind waiting a week, Yahtzee's video shows up there.

With gaming season upon us, this could very well be the last gasp of me bothering with the forums. I've had far too many years of the No Fun Brigade and I tend to shy away from forums where they have too large of a presence. I've got 20 threads dedicated to complaining about Unity, a few telling me I can't complain about Unity *that* way, and none to just kick back and say "you know what, these are some fucking hilarious bugs and I'm enjoying it."

Hell, if I wasn't waiting for a pizza, I wouldn't be posting right now. For the last week, it's really only been something I did on my phone at work.

V da Mighty Taco:

Exley97:
Taco, obviously we disagree about these interviews. In fact, I couldn't disagree with you more. But I appreciate the measure, thoughtful response.

That said, you mentioned several times now that the EiC here is biased against GG, which I don't believe to be true, but for the sake of argument, let's go with it. If that's the case, where is the "op" against Greg Tito? Or more appropriately, where is the letter-writing campaign demanding that Bob Chipman be fired for his "anti-GG" remarks or allegedly unprofessional, hateful behavior toward the audience/consumers? It sure seems like he's written/Tweeted just as much stuff, if not more, about GG over the last few months as any LW or other anti-GG journalist. So where is the op to take HIM down? Or the Escapist and Tito for "censoring" RogueStar by taking his interview off line? How come RogueStar told GG supporters to lay off the Escapist and instead focus on...Gamasutra??? Does that make ANY goddamn sense to you? How come every time I turn around KiA has a new operation against females like Leigh Alexander? How come GG folks in these forums, and in fact this VERY THREAD, can't help but come back to Zoe Quinn? How come I NEVER see ops or campigns against Dan Golding, who's literally started the whole "Gamers are over" wave? Why is it that so few men like Sam Biddle raise the ire of GG? Why does it always seem that GG is focused discrediting/firing women? Is it my imagination? (answer: it's not.)

I'm not here to defend or argue about GG itself or the legitimacy of any "op" from either side, other than to say that there's a reason I identify as "former GGer". I don't like either side for a lot of reasons (which is best discussed elsewhere and at another time), and frankly I'm not in a state of mind where I could argue for or against either group in a rational, civil way without my anger at both sides getting the better of me.

I'm simply trying to counter the notion that the Escapist is somehow biased in favor of GG. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Captcha: "pants on the ground" Lol.

Edit: As for Greg Tito being against GG personally, just ask him. It's something he's openly admitted to many times in the past, both in these forums and on Twitter.

Edit 2: Re-editted the above edit to fix a goof-up in my wording.

I know you are, sorry. I'm just venting frustration about the stunning inconsistincies and glaring hypocrisy of the movement. Didn't mean for all that to be directed at you, or to sidetrack the discussion (which I did). Deep breaths...count to 10....

Exley97:

I know you are, sorry. I'm just venting frustration about the stunning inconsistincies and glaring hypocrisy of the movement. Didn't mean for all that to be directed at you, or to sidetrack the discussion (which I did). Deep breaths...count to 10....

Apologies for discussing GG itself now and sidetracking the discussion further, but you're starting to sound a lot like me. It's a long story about my own thoughts on GG, why I was a part of it, and why I'm still heavily outspoken against most of the anti-GG crowd despite not being part of GG anymore. However, the massive amount of hypocrisy in GG is one of the main reasons why I don't support it anymore outside of TB. My own frustrations with both it and the anti-GG crowd on top of my less-than-steady state of mind lately are pretty much why I'm avoiding discussing it much atm, as I get the feeling that my emotions will get the better of me and make myself the exact same thing I'm against (something I've done before while arguing against GGers while I was still in GG).

I may disagree with you on a lot of things like both sides being just as guilty of harassment as well as the stance of the Escapist in all of this, but it can't be said that we don't have some common ground here. :)

He's already making more then 8000$ a month?! Well it seems I'm in the wrong racket.

Good for him. Will check out.

My take-away from this is that both Game Journalists and gamers are still struggeling, quite hard, to find and maintain their own 'voice' in matters. And each of them are dealing with the inevitable and difficult strings upon them.

As much as I frequently disagree with Jim's views, I support his gusto in taking a stance for his own viewpoints - to the degree of not worrying about sponsors or memberships. It will be an interesting to see how far his way of doing things go and if it is sustainable.

My fear about his move however, is that what he will accomplish by this is simply creating an echo chamber of approval for himself, where only the most loyal fans will be able to commentate or criticize where he will be most often looking - and that can be poor for Journalistic evolution and development.

We'll see.

The strings on the Gamer Community side is what has been there for a long time and is tied to most sense of communities: The haters and trolls. It's hard to find a unified voice when that voice is often dragged down by the loudest extremes that will go to any lengths to be heard, rather than allowing the moderates to speak the majority voice as it should be heard. It dosen't matter if its Mass Effect 3 ending protest, or Gamer Gate, or any other sort of movement before or after said notes: There's just no way to adequately represent the whole without getting barred down by the fringes. Which is ultimately where the hypocrisy lies in any open movement.

In this case, if Gamer Gate wishes to legitimize itself, it has to have a clear organisation, leadership, and membership that enforces a conduct code to follow. That does mean it has to separate itself from the swell of voices.

We're in a very turmoil-ed time in Gaming and Games Media, one that saddens me greatly to witness. However it is rather inevitable in the growth of our culture and I have good faith that the goodwill and genuinely forthcoming natures of the majority will win over.

There will be a dawn.

Nikolaz72:
It'd be grand if Jim Sterling could earn enough to invite Moviebob along for the new site and maybe we could get some new blood on the Escapist to freshen things up abit.

Whatever happened to that Unforgotten Realms guy? I'd like to see more of him.

(But not Zero Punctuation, watching british sounding guys firing shots at games never gets stale.)

Off topic: I haven't read the last two pages yet, but the guy who created unforgotten realms is also making youtube videos now. He hosted a few minecraft multiplayer games and worked with mindcrack on youtube a bit before there was some tension there. He now has a video group with his friends called buffalo wizards. His youtube name is BruceWillakers. He primarily makes lets play videos with minecraft and gary's mod.

On topic: I haven't watched many videos of Jim's but the few I saw were entertaining. I just hope it doesn't hurt the escapist community all too much.

Strazdas:
Oh, yes, you have plenty of evidence, none of which you have shown here still.

You misunderstand. The "plenty of evidence" is his financial support for prop 8. Throwing money at the cause of depriving homosexuals of their rights because you don't think they should have them simply because they're homosexual seems like plenty of evidence of bigotry to me.

Contacting advertisers is exactly what boycotting of internet websites is. you can physically stand at the door with shitty T-shirts and hand-drawl-posters. the internet alternative of that - DDoSing is only legal in Germany, so what people are doing is telling advertisers why they cannot buy products if they give money to people they dont like.

Umm no. Boycotting of the internet is exactly the same as boycotting in real life: you don't patronize whatever it is your boycotting. In real life you don't go to the store. On the internet, you don't go to the site. Physically standing at the door with shirts and posters would be protesting, and even then I don't believe you're allowed to actually block the door.

People boycotting Mozilla DID contact advertisers and developers to pull out from their support, so yep, same methods.

Since you want me to provide evidence at every step, where's yours? I've already said that I hadn't seen it and that, if they did, I don't think they were right to do so, so show me and I'll say that they were wrong just as I'm saying those who did it over GamerGate are wrong.

Lightknight:
Their goal was to try and get away from the five guys bit. Not to stop talking about her at all since she was still relevant to the discussion due to the media letting her control them by falsely accusing Wizard Chan without fact checking and later she managed to actively blacklist TFYC from even getting interviewed when they'd already been signed up for them. I mean, someone tells journalists not to interview a group they've already set up an interview with and they drop the interview cold turkey? Why? How? Then after they couldn't get a voice she offered her services (for hire) to TFYC as a consultant. I mean, wow...

And none of this discussion requires giving her a new name so people can pretend that they're definitely not talking about her anymore and that the only time she's ever brought up is when some anti-GamerGate person brings her up.

Again, this should have been an issue for everyone. A feminist charity getting black listed by someone who had their own "Jam" funding request in the works and who tried to then monetize the black listing? The only reason why she isn't being demonized on all sides for this is because of the whole five guys red herring that most of us (on the escapist) dismissed early on as needing more evidence of actual intentional bribery on her part (since otherwise it'd just be the journalist's fault which is also something I pointed out and others agreed because we're not mindless idiots). Had this been a man convincing journalists to not cover TFYC we would have seen blood. "A man stopped journalists from interviewing a charity trying to give development resources to women to give them a voice in gaming?". What's more is that the journalist in question did write an article regarding a conflict Zoe had with a TV producer within two weeks of them "making out" by Zoe's own words. So there was a failure to recuse oneself there so even the five guys's wasn't a total bust even if it was told from the completely wrong side of the equation (it's not Zoe's job to make sure somebody she kissed is able to maintain professional ethics afterwards, it's his fault)

And the thing about TFYC is that it came forth with absolutely zero fucking evidence and was claimed as absolute fact the moment that accusation was made. I was part of the discussion at the beginning, and when asked, the only proof anyone could give me was a link to the accusation. And, since it was shown that they outright lied about her doxxing them, I would like to see the evidence that she did any of this.

Look, this was a dropped ball on the fellow feminists' side (yes, I want gender equality and would qualify as a feminist). We should not defend someone who actively harms feminist causes for personal gain. That should be obvious and yet somehow people honestly think that just because she's a woman she's a positive force in feminism.

And yet, the people I saw didn't defend her for being a woman, they defended her because it was little more than a bunch of slutshaming stupidity at the beginning laced with lies and slander.

You do realize that this is an awful lot like you saying it's a hate group, right? "I would call it a hate group but they can claim that the haters are extremists" is all that comes across as rather than a denial of it.

I would call it a hate group, but it's unproductive to do so. I do not believe everyone in the group hates women or whatever, or even that they are the majority.

There's a few things I would say to this:

1. I am in no way intellectually dishonest or hypocritical. If you're going to address the whole set of an anonymous group then you're going to need to address the individuals. You are currently pointing to a group you yourself called nebulous and are now claiming that it is X. Perhaps you can see the duplicity in that? To acknowledge that it is indeed a nebulous group but then to make firm statements about its cause from your perspective just doesn't follow. So which is it? Are we a unified front with an iron leader and a clear cause or are we a nebulous group with several loosely affiliated fragments that all evolved on various parts of the internet with differing causes and perspectives? Hell, I might as well call myself an Escapist Journalism Ethics GG member to be more precise but even that may require further breakdowns. Seriously, this is a consumer revolt. If you go up to many members of a typical consumer revolt and get 10 things they're upset about you'll get a ton of different answers with only some overlap. This is typical unless the revolt is for one very specific thing (like lead in a child's toy).

1. Is there any reason why I should believe your personal opinion about your own honesty and complete lack of hypocrisy?

2. I am basing this on what I've seen GamerGate do and what they seem to be spending all of their time on. They're not focusing on corruption, they're whining about "SJWs." They're whining about how censored they were, while working to get people who say things they disagree with fired. They like to claim they care about journalistic ethics and integrity, before they start following the words of Yiannopoulas and touting every bit of gossip as fact under the guise of "trust but verify." And they complain about articles without bothering to even try and read them, simply taking the word of the first Vivian James avatar they see and running with it. I think that covers intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy if I haven't gotten my terms mixed up.

2. I'm sure that "looters" have grabbed a hold of our coat tails and are using this as a means to further an anti-feminist agenda. I'll continue to stand with you against them but just because they likely exist doesn't make the point of our movement irrelevant. Just like the anti-GG crowd has members in their mix that do all the same things you can accuse GG of and more when you count cyber-attacking a charity webpage. So to throw one group out for it's looters you'd have to throw out both.

Anti-GamerGate is not a crowd. It does not have "members." It is not a movement. It is a collection of people whose only relation to each other is their disagreement with GamerGate and that they've all been lumped together by GamerGate. As far as I can tell, members of GamerGate choose to associate with GamerGate and be called its members.

And, quite honestly, I'll consider the point of your movement relevant when it seems to actually accomplish more to do with corruption in journalism rather than simply defending its concept of legitimacy and whining about those who disagree with you. When GamerGate seems like it cares more about ethics, I'll believe that ethics is the point of the movement. Until then, it's what it's always been, a reactionary movement against the "newcomers" to gaming who dare bring their thoughts and ideas into the industry.

3. I believe that both sides have a credible reason for existing. GG has positions that are clearly acknowledged as issues by all sides. I mean, everyone acknowledges the severe issues of ethics in journalism before then going on to discuss something else they think is the real problem without realizing that they just conceded our point. Anti-GG have a clear reason to denounce any elements of GG that support harassment or that attack legitimate social causes that have every right to exist. In a lot of ways, I think the people with legitimate causes are talking past each other to the crazies in the other group when a lot of good would be done if the rational spoke with the rational.

The thing is, if you are only doing this for the ethical issues, and that is the only thing you talk about and get into and the only interactions you have with people whining about "SJWs" or "biased reviews" is saying they should focus on a real issue, that's great. Good for you. Keep up the good work. But, as far as I'm concerned, you are not representative of GamerGate.

I'll stop you right there. This means that you acknowledge that some of us DO care about journalism so it is "Bad" to us. Just bear that in mind, you're convicting the righteous along with the unrighteous without any concern for individualism in a "nebulous" group.

No, I'm convicting a movement based on what seems to be the majority of its members. Since people like using this analogy, it's not condemning the peaceful protesters for the few looters in their ranks, it's condemning the riot despite there being a few peaceful protesters in their ranks.

That's your prerogative to think. But how about we try to deal with the actual corruption so that anyone who is left are the ones you know are in the latter category? If people would stop saying, "Sure, of course there's a major corruption in gaming journalism but..." before discussing the other topics then maybe we could get to the actual issues at hand and those of us on the rational side of things can go along on our merry way and leave the group to its own devices afterwards. In only addressing the irrational components or the misguided components then they're only getting more polarized while those of us who are specific to cronyism, nepotism, and outright corruption in journalism keep seeing a legitimate complaint by consumers acknowledged but ultimately ignored. That's why it's a standstill.

Sure, let's discuss actual corruption in gaming journalism. No SJWs. No whining about reviews that take points off for things you don't care about. Actual corruption. When that discussion happens, good for them. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be happening. But hey, show me if it is, though please avoid overly long videos because I don't really have the time to spend on them.

Also, I do believe that some people who are just legitimate proponents of social justice have been inappropriately labeled as "SJW" by these definitions. So I absolutely agree that there's a problem there. But you've got to understand that if someone is upset with the "SJW" (again, the negative definition of it, not mere social justice) agenda being rammed down their throats, they aren't necessarily talking about feminism or legitimate causes. Some of them are talking about the likes of Zoe being given too much power over the media in a way that harms everyone, including actual feminist organizations.

And there's the word, some. People can't be expected to react to "SJW" as if the person using it only has a grievance with obscure freaks out to destroy everyone, because a lot of the time it's used completely differently. It's used to refer to anyone who includes feminist critique in things, or who advocates diversity, or who thinks Gone Home is a game. I'd suggest that if you want to talk about Zoe Quinn to just stop and throw an adjective onto a noun to get your point across. You're using a vague term and it will not be received well; it basically just comes across as code that whoever uses it unironically should not be regarded with any sort of seriousness now.

However, even attempting to address people's arguments or motives results in such a huge backlash that a review of those things is nigh impossible. As Liana Kerzer said, for a female journalist to critique someone's argument, like Anita Sarkeesian's damsel trope discussion, the female journalist would instantly be pigeon holed and defined as being the anti-Anita and their fame would rise and fall with Anita. A male would immediately be placed into the same role but also would be slapped with the anti-feminist label or whatever so it would likewise be detrimental for their career.

The problem with this is that this simply doesn't seem to be happening at all. People always talk about how Sarkeesian has an army of rabid fans and how the entire media has hoisted her onto a golden pedestal, but the most support she gets around here is people saying she's boring, inoffensive, and has a point despite not having the best argument for it. The defense of Sarkeesian mainly comes as a result of a bunch of people going on and on about how she doesn't play games, or how she's a con artist, or how everything she says is wrong because Thunderf00t said so.

We use minorities and women as a shield? Are we hiding them in our basement and only feeding them if they come forward? Do you really think that minorities and women can't think for themselves and come to their own conclusions? That really sounds pretty sexist/racist to me. That they couldn't have their own qualms with ethics in journalism. They started using the #notyourshield to stop your side from deflecting the issues of ethics in journalism by using them. Why do you believe they're being controlled in doing that? Have you considered that they, like me, are latching onto the ethics issue as something needing to be addressed?

Their ability to think for themselves is irrelevant. It's not their actions that I care about. If they want to say that other people can't speak for them, fine. The problem comes when people start pretending that #NotYourShield's existence makes GamerGate completely incapable of anything that could even be considered racist or sexist. Using the fact that women and minorities agree with you on some points as a defense is rather reprehensible.

There's a huge difference between pushing to censor and pushing for fair coverage. I want accusations made to actually be fact checked. I don't want some buddy behind the scenes being able to stop interviews for competing businesses. I just generally don't want bias to control news and we need to be able to criticize anyone and any position safely.

The problem is, once again, that not everyone is pushing for fair coverage. People aren't pushing that the person who loves every single pose Bayonetta makes be allowed to review games alongside someone who dislikes them, they're pushing for the latter person to stop talking. You want accusations to be fact checked, and that's good, so long as you understand that reporting on an accusation made is not the same as saying the accusation is true. Also, go back in time and stop certain groups of people who are totally and completely unrelated to GamerGate from touting every accusation about Zoe Quinn as fact and the accusations about the "Gamers are Dead, unless you can read" articles condemning all gamers, if you could.

I'm against corruption, but when a movement seems to be more concerned with telling me how my opinion and my concerns within gaming shouldn't be allowed than dealing with actual corruption, you can't expect me to take part. When a movement responds more to Shadows of Mordor than Anita Sarkeesian, I might consider it to be about corruption, but such a thing doesn't seem to exist right now, sadly enough.

Exley97:

See, this is the problem with GG. If you're not with them, you're against them (A point Sterling made in a video on this very site). If you even criticize them just a little or god forbin poke fun at their absolutely absurd notion of "objective" game reviews, then you're an enemy of the state. You're "Anti-#GG" because you won't accept the phony notion that the group is about journalism ethics and isn't harassing females. You're anti-#GG if you call out their faux outrage at two-year-old tweets. You're anti-GG if you refuse to believe the wild conspiracy theories about "collusion." You're anti-GG if you stand up for industry colleagues and refuse to idly sit as people are threatened and harassed.

or perhaps there just the little chance that people think Jim is Anti-GG because of his antiGG tweets and continuos attempts to insult GG? no, that cant be it. surely thats just being balanced right?
And yes, Jims worst strawman he ever posted in Jimquisition was the objective review one, one that even first page of commenters proved wrong.

Lightknight:

Personally, I'm all for the abolition of the government issued marriage license in general. I don't think the government should have any say in what union two consenting adults decide to enter. The marriage license only became required towards the civil war era in American history as a means to prevent interracial marriage (before then, common law marriage was the norm and licenses were only required in circumstances where the marriage would otherwise be illegal like underage or breaking of a mourning period). So it's astounding to me that Jim Crow-esque laws have existed all the way to today and continue to harm/control society. Likewise, using the term "marriage" in the license actually evokes a cultural and religious term in people's minds. They associate changes with it as though they were changes to their actual personal practice (albeit a false association). This is why I can understand why someone like that would want marriage defined in a certain way because to them it means that. It would do a lot less harm if civil unions had the exact same rights too. Regardless, in a further attempt to separate church and state they should at the very least change the name of the license anyone gets. Either everyone should get a civil union or it should be called something dumb like a "105c License" or whatever neutral crap name they can create. That would avoid the confusion and division within the US. It seems like most Americans are fine with a "civil union" but draw the line at the term "marriage". Semantics are a hell of a thing and just because we understand what terms actually mean doesn't necessarily translate into the general population understanding that.

Agree with you there, but try telling that to those "dont believe in religion but must marry in the church" people.

Flutterguy:
He's already making more then 8000$ a month?! Well it seems I'm in the wrong racket.

He learned from the best. Make controversy, set up donation drive, get rich. Reminds you of someone? Hes a good friend of hers you know.

LifeCharacter:

Strazdas:
Oh, yes, you have plenty of evidence, none of which you have shown here still.

You misunderstand. The "plenty of evidence" is his financial support for prop 8. Throwing money at the cause of depriving homosexuals of their rights because you don't think they should have them simply because they're homosexual seems like plenty of evidence of bigotry to me.

Then you have none. Using your legal right to donate money to a paw proposition that was heavily liked (majority voted for) is hardly being a massive bigot.

Marriage is a religiuos thing, always were. Just because US perverted it with tax deductions thus forcing people to use it does not change it. Marriage is not some massive right of everyone.

Since you want me to provide evidence at every step, where's yours? I've already said that I hadn't seen it and that, if they did, I don't think they were right to do so, so show me and I'll say that they were wrong just as I'm saying those who did it over GamerGate are wrong.

Im not the one making claims - you are. so you should be providing the evidence.

Strazdas:
Then you have none. Using your legal right to donate money to a paw proposition that was heavily liked (majority voted for) is hardly being a massive bigot.

How does it being his right, or it being a popular opinion have anything to do with whether or not he's a bigot?

Marriage is a religiuos thing, always were. Just because US perverted it with tax deductions thus forcing people to use it does not change it. Marriage is not some massive right of everyone.

Marriage is a religious thing according to people who'd like it to be a religious thing. Just because you'd like it to just be a religious thing means absolutely nothing because reality does not bend to your whims. Marriage is a legal thing that can carry religious significance for some people. I know, because I understand how laws work.

Oh, and marriage is an incredibly massive right for everyone. It makes up Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so I'd say that's a pretty good sized right which applies to humans, which, at this point, means everyone.

Im not the one making claims - you are. so you should be providing the evidence.

Strazdas:
People boycotting Mozilla DID contact advertisers and developers to pull out from their support, so yep, same methods.

That's a claim you made, not me.

I can't help but feel that this is an example of a problem with The Escapist as a business.
They throw themselves behind internet personalities and then have giant issues when they can't keep their producers.

The inclusion of shows such as Extra Credits and Jimquisition is a clear attempt to elevate (or appear to) the site to something more than a simple review hub. "we aren't just an advertising outlet, we are for the intellectuals who want to discuss the deeper ideas of the subculture!" And that's a good thing, even if some might find it disingenuous. Having "intelligent" material alongside the more heavily entertainment-based work of Yahtzee and MovieBob (not to diminish either, merely meaning they are more for light viewing) both improves the image of the magazine and, hopefully, inspires people to actually think critically about their hobbies and the culture surrounding them. But then something comes up that puts them at odds with a producer, and they come out looking like the bad guy. What's worse is that it makes them rely more heavily on other content or new, unproven content.

I don't want this site to go back to churning out half-baked video ideas or pushing personalities so hard they become the center of cult worship independent of quality (such as the music-based series that preceded Miracle of Sound and the producer attached to it) because IT MAKES US LOOK BAD. The Escapist is WIDELY, though perhaps unfairly, ridiculed and decried on the Internet. Saying you're a forum member here often leads people to dismiss you outright for any number of reasons (real or imagined).

So can the Escapist bosses please do some forward thinking to mitigate this issue? Right now, The Escapist is "that website that has that cartoon review show and that one nerd guy who talks about old comic books, and keeps firing anyone who disagrees with them"
You may notice that that statement is unfair and almost entirely false. It also fails to recognize the contributions of all the other people who submit content for this site. But that's what actual people who have only heard of the site through other sources think.

And I think that sucks.

Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out... :p

To quote a friend 'if you've got nothing nice to say, don't say anything nice!'. Ahhh words to live by :)

Jim will be fine, look on his patreon and he is getting about $8000+ a month.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 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