Quote from: JRT;793705If you're talking about the boycotts, if they are successful, I see journalism in gaming actually becoming worse due to the following.

If they force media outlets to be less forthcoming with opinions, you end up with an organization that becomes fearful to do one thing journalists should do--challenge their audience, sometimes telling people what they don't want to hear.

If they get advertisers to pull based on pressure, you are actually increasing the possibility of corrupting the process further.  Because the biggest corruption complaints in the past were about advertisers pressuring people to give their games good reviews.  I can't fathom why people think doing this is going to help journalism.

Don Imus, Rush Limbaugh and Faux News would love this rationale.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;793719It will force a division between commercial business and ethical journalism; you can't have both in the same place. There's a reason for why you see so much approval for the BBC, CBC, NPR, Pacifica, and other media outlets that are not run as commercial enterprises. (Some are tax-supported, some are listener-supported, but the insulation is the same.).

I would not mind if these media outlets went the reader/ listener supported route.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;793770I would not mind if these media outlets went the reader/ listener supported route.

Doubtful--probably because there's not enough significant content outside of mostly hyping and providing previews of upcoming games, then reviews, then misc content.  Already many of the outlets try to broaden their base by reporting on other related genres.

The problem is most people aren't willing to pay for journalism anymore, and if they are, it's probably not going to be on the gaming industry but rather serious news--you might get people paying for the WSJ or NYT, but it's a lot harder to get people to pay or fund a consumer-reports styled independent publication dedicated to video games.

Quote from: S'mon;793756Interesting analysis, which ties into the 4th generation war theory I've read - in this case it's a virtual war. I agree that it is an insurgency against an established power structure. The pointing & sputtering from the anti-GG media & SJW, and their accusing the GGs of using the bullying tactics they routinely employ themselves, is amusing and ironic.
The SJW are not used to encountering a target that fights back, and this is causing them a lot of consternation. They are trained in Alinskyite tactics, which work great against bureaucratic organisations, but are not designed to work against the diffuse mass of the peasantry; Alinsky assumed the peasants were on his side, at least passively. One thing the SJW can do though is target companies like Intel, since these are formal bureaucratic structures - so the GG push for an advertising boycott by companies can be countered by SJW counter-attacks directed against those same companies, using the standard methodology.

Targetting Intel against "Gamergate", however, doesn't matter. At best, they might convince an advertiser to stay with a publication. But, gamergate is at its best when it has something solid to bring to an advertiser to say "we do not think your ad dollars should support this", which is why Sam Biddle and Max Read have made Gawker into a common target.

Those who are against gamergate are using every tool in their box to try to silence gamergate, and they've made it pretty clear that's what their goal is, and that is a hard target to hit. But, gamergate's goals aren't much simpler. While it's easy to say something like "gaming journalists should adopt a code of ethics, like the one published by the Society of Professional Journalists", that is a sea change for game journalism as it currently exists.

http://gawker.com/how-we-got-rolled-by-the-dishonest-fascists-of-gamergat-1649496579

As a libertarian, I see this very response as the core problem with modern leftists. Disagree with them on any level and they label you quite literally as a nazi. It is not limited to gaming. I am involved in the hardcore/oi scene in NYC and have witnessed SJW types call in threats to venues because a band flew an American flag. Flag= nazi. I've seen Central Americans labeled as white supremacist nazis for the crime of not outwardly supporting socialist revolution.

Quote from: Pmir;793796http://gawker.com/how-we-got-rolled-by-the-dishonest-fascists-of-gamergat-1649496579

As a libertarian, I see this very response as the core problem with modern leftists. Disagree with them on any level and they label you quite literally as a nazi. It is not limited to gaming. I am involved in the hardcore/oi scene in NYC and have witnessed SJW types call in threats to venues because a band flew an American flag. Flag= nazi. I've seen Central Americans labeled as white supremacist nazis for the crime of not outwardly supporting socialist revolution.

I love how he asserts that GG is a "small, contemptible crusade" - as if the Sarkeesian/Quinn axis were some large, admirable crusade.

He's staring so hard at the bark of one small tree that he can't see the Ents gathering around him....

And the classic defense - "It was a joke!" - brilliant. And, and - meanies putting together advertiser lists and trying to get them to pull their advertising! That's a tactic ONLY THE LEFT is allowed to use!!! Wahhh!

Also, attacking a former advertiser in the manner he has chosen will likely cause remaining advertisers to... well, re-examine their relationship. Corporations don't like controversy, after all. I think that if GG wants to gain some more skins, this op-ed might be sent to other advertisers so they can see just what Gawker et.al. really thinks of them behind closed doors.

Quote from: Pmir;793796http://gawker.com/how-we-got-rolled-by-the-dishonest-fascists-of-gamergat-1649496579

Quote from: Max ReadFailing to adequately cover this act of spinelessness was the first big fuck-up we at Gawker committed. Intel surrendered to the worst kind of dishonesty, and we allowed it to do so without ever calling it out. So let's say it now: Intel is run by craven idiots. It employs pusillanimous morons. It lacks integrity. It folded to misogynists and bigots who objected to a woman who had done nothing more than write a piece claiming a place in the world of video games. And even when confronted with its own thoughtlessness and irresponsibility, it could not properly right its wrongs.

Nice way to talk about a former advertiser... :rolleyes:
And the last sentence, is pure unadulterated irony, coming from "Bring Back Bullying" Gawker.

I just read that.  There is no way in hell your gonna get your advertisers back after posting that shit.  All those insults are just going to ruin you in the end and won't do any thing against companies that want to avoid any thing that would ruin their brand.  

This is a good method for gamergate to win.  We just tell advertisers that the people they support are pissing off customers and show them the evidence.  All we have to do is just wait for the "journalists" to spew out their shit, collect it as evidence, and present it for our case.

Quote from: Pmir;793796http://gawker.com/how-we-got-rolled-by-the-dishonest-fascists-of-gamergat-1649496579

As a libertarian, I see this very response as the core problem with modern leftists. Disagree with them on any level and they label you quite literally as a nazi. It is not limited to gaming. I am involved in the hardcore/oi scene in NYC and have witnessed SJW types call in threats to venues because a band flew an American flag. Flag= nazi. I've seen Central Americans labeled as white supremacist nazis for the crime of not outwardly supporting socialist revolution.

Yeah, comparisons to Nazis are always stupid, and they are annoyingly common. (Godwin's Law and all that.) That's a dumb article.

That said, I've also seen plenty of fascist comparisons come from libertarians as well as the modern right, where any federal control = Nazi.

Gawker is taking the strategy of doubling down and applying more spin.

As an aside, Gawker is basically another TMZ as far as I'm concerned. It's not serious journalism by any stretch of the word.

But seeing NPR come up with biased articles like this sucks:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/09/24/349835297/-gamergate-controversy-fuels-debate-on-women-and-video-games

Take this quote for example:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/10/22/357826882/pew-gaming-is-least-welcoming-online-space-for-women

QuoteSome Gamergaters contend that what they're really rallying for is ethics in journalism, but New York Magazine's Jesse Singal calls that into question in a thoughtful piece, in which he writes, "Despite the fact that Gamergate 'isn't about' feminists or ... social justice warriors in general, all these figures and subjects have a weird, pesky habit of continuing to pop up wherever gamergaters assemble."

Gee, do you think that has to do with the fact that supporters are being pegged as mysogynists a priori?

Quote from: Snowman0147;793803I just read that.  There is no way in hell your gonna get your advertisers back after posting that shit.  All those insults are just going to ruin you in the end and won't do any thing against companies that want to avoid any thing that would ruin their brand.  

This is a good method for gamergate to win.  We just tell advertisers that the people they support are pissing off customers and show them the evidence.  All we have to do is just wait for the "journalists" to spew out their shit, collect it as evidence, and present it for our case.

I find it's interesting that the 'how dare you attack us' crowd are constantly cranking out these attack pieces. Ignoring the trolls that infect both sides, and the mass of crazies this kind of things draws in, I don't see any attack pieces on the GG side.

Plenty of criticism, certainly, but nothing decrying the fan base as misogynistic children with a helping of cis scum and the usual hate speech that gets cranked out.

Quote from: Pmir;793796http://gawker.com/how-we-got-rolled-by-the-dishonest-fascists-of-gamergat-1649496579

As a libertarian, I see this very response as the core problem with modern leftists. Disagree with them on any level and they label you quite literally as a nazi.

Yeah, I read that article this morning. I'm not a gamer and originally couldn't care less about Gamergate. I'd probably tend to agree with the SJW that the hyper-sexuallisation of female characters in modern video games is obnoxious. The last game I played was Medieval 2: Total War, the sexist treatment or ignoring of women in the Total War games always annoyed me.
But seeing stuff like that from the anti-GG, or really vile stuff directed against pro-GGers, including women, certainly pushes me to support the Gamergaters.

Quote from: jhkim;793818Yeah, comparisons to Nazis are always stupid, and they are annoyingly common. (Godwin's Law and all that.) That's a dumb article.

Occasionally there are real Nazis, but they are easy to miss amid the noise. Eg Golden Dawn in Greece actually are (originally) a Neo-Nazi organisation. But it took me a while to realise that, because Nazi is so over-used as a simple term of abuse. I think it was reading some not-so-Nazi white nationalist explaining GD's Nazi origins that finally convinced me.
Neo-Nazis use this to try to infiltrate right-wing organisations, much as Maoists & such far-left try to infiltrate left-wing organisations.

Quote from: JRT;793763I mean, Anita a threat?  All she does is point out tropes that are a bit cliched and how gaming writers might be able to treat women better in the future.

Right. That's all she does. Never mind the veritable mountains of documented-and-sourced evidence of her being a con artist who's never met a logical fallacy she didn't like, a raging hypocrite who calls out these tropes as being bad then embraces them whole-cloth when it benefits her and, my personal favorite, the literal video footage of her candidly admitting she's not a fan of video games several years before claiming in her Kickstarter, in her TED Talk and everywhere else she was able to wrangle up a public speaking engagement that she's been an avid hobby gamer since she was a little girl.

The only context in which Anita Sarkeesian could be accurately described as a victim is when listing her chosen profession. She's not just an innocent li'l critic trying to highlight legitimate issues and make gaming better for everyone. She's a fucking con artist and the mouthpiece for an ideological bigot, and the fact people who may mean well but who aren't (as) invested in the hobby and don't really know what's going on keep telling gamers they're wrong to criticize Anita because she's just fighting the good fight is precisely why you see so much anger directed outward at damn near everyone who isn't part of GG. The same goes for Brianna Wu, Literally Who, Leigh Alexander and everyone else in the video games division of the Outrage Brigade.

I don't mean this as an attack at you, JRT, and I apologize if my response here seems excessively heated. I don't get the impression you're trying to antagonize anyone, but you're displaying a pretty clear and all-too-common ignorance of things that are fairly common knowledge among many gamers and which I've run into damn near everywhere GG is discussed.

Quote from: woodsmoke;793864Right. That's all she does. Never mind the veritable mountains of documented-and-sourced evidence of her being a con artist who's never met a logical fallacy she didn't like, a raging hypocrite who calls out these tropes as being bad then embraces them whole-cloth when it benefits her and, my personal favorite, the literal video footage of her candidly admitting she's not a fan of video games several years before claiming in her Kickstarter, in her TED Talk and everywhere else she was able to wrangle up a public speaking engagement that she's been an avid hobby gamer since she was a little girl.

When she wraps everything with the neat label of "misogyny" as she cherry picks and distorts "evidence", she just does a disservice to whatever legitimate beef she might have.