Quote from: Will;794420Like I said, no point bothering with evidence with a dishonest conversant.

Oh, those don't COUNT. Oh, that's not representative. Oh, they meant something else. etc. etc.

Part of the standard bullshit internet argument toolchest.

So that means that you see radfem's transphobia as representative of all feminism. And you also see the black panthers as representative of civil rights struggles. Terrorism as representative of Islam.

Or you're admitting to measuring all these with a different standard. Understood.

I got a hashtag movement for you: #doublestandard.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794421So that means that you see radfem's transphobia as representative of all feminism. And you also see the black panthers as representative of civil rights struggles. Terrorism as representative of Islam.

Or you're admitting to measuring all these with a different standard. Understood.

I got a hashtag movement for you: #doublestandard.

Different standard:
Radfems didn't invent feminism, black panthers didn't invent civil rights, terrorism didn't invent Islam.

GGers started as misogynist slut-shaming and rolled on from there.

But do continue 'proving' your points.

Quote from: Will;794423Different standard:
Radfems didn't invent feminism, black panthers didn't invent civil rights, terrorism didn't invent Islam.

GGers started as misogynist slut-shaming and rolled on from there.

But do continue 'proving' your points.

So, now give us the history of how #notyourshield started.

Quote from: Will;794419Which is one reason why the GGer thing is spreading to other, similar stuff (tabletop gaming, culture in general). Because it's not about the journalism, it's about the feminism.

By "feminism" of course, you really mean "coordinated attempts at social engineering to remove "problematic" elements from games and media", right?

That is either some weak reasoning or some excellent weaseling.

Let's disband the Democratic party, because it was founded by pro-slavery racists. For that matter, le'ts disband the united states whose origin is genocide.

#doublestandard

Quote from: CRKrueger;794425By "feminism" of course, you really mean "coordinated attempts at social engineering to remove "problematic" elements from games and media", right?

It's anti-feminism, you know, because GG'ers are reacting to organized libel  by guess who...feminists.

I think this thread kind of shows what problems I have with the whole GamerGate thing.  People are getting way too angry over this and it sort of spins over to a point where you can't have a dialog with others over any of the good points.  And for something that is supposed to be about what is supposed to be the primary complaint (ethics is journalism), it's become more about the whole SJW controversy--considering this is the key area people are arguing about here.

Honestly, I think even some of the hardcore gamers are getting sick of it.  Talking to a group of people where we all play the same game, most people just want both sides to be quiet and go back to normal.  I doubt this will seriously do anything long term--I doubt the gaming media will disappear, for instance, though I hope it might increase some better dialog and an increase in the media's self-policing.

Here's a link to what I feel is the best essay on the whole situation:

http://www.popehat.com/2014/10/26/ten-short-rants-about-gamergate/

That's a great article, JRT, thanks!

Well, one thing is certain about all this GG drama.  The internet has no shortage of douchebags.

Quote from: Werekoala;794335Important side note: A lot of the people calling for “journalistic ethics” quite transparently don’t know anything about journalism — to say that sites should clearly label what is and isn’t opinion, for example, is just plain weird, because a) that distinction is less and less relevant and is mostly a relic of newspaper days; and b) it’s a basic reading-comprehension thing; anyone who reads on a daily basis can tell, pretty simply from various cues in the narrative, whether they’re reading a work of “straight” journalism [outdated, troublesome term], “pure” opinion [again, bleh], or some combination of the two [which is what a lot of games coverage is].)

Oh, I SEE - the trouble isn't objectivity in journalism, it's just that we've moved beyond such quaint notions. If you keep moving the goalposts motherfucker, you'll have to move the whole team half-way across the country to keep up (pithy NFL reference there).

A FUCKING RELIC OF THE NEWSPAPER DAYS?! You fucking agenda-driven MORON.

Fuck the author and fuck their new-age bullshit. OBJECTIVITY IS WHAT JOURNALISM WAS ALL ABOUT - who what where when why - and not "what I fucking think about it and what you should, too". That's called an Editorial, or an Opinion Piece.

Again - degree in journalism here, so I do know quite a fucking lot about what "journalism" is, or what it's supposed to be.

I have a degree in journalism too, and have worked in the field. Objectivity is what some kinds of journalism are about. Namely, hard news. Entertainment journalism has never been about objectively reporting facts. How could it be? Was Roger Ebert an objective reviewer?

Video game journalism is pretty much previews and reviews. Previews, by their nature, are fluff PR pieces. Reviews are opinions. So I would no more expect objectivity on the part of gaming journalists than I would expect to see it on Entertainment Tonight.

However, if reviewers are receiving some kind of compensation from publishers for favourable reviews, then that is an ethical issues (though it's an issue of transparency, not objectivity). Getting an early release or a free copy of a game (which I assume is pretty standard practice) should probably be disclosed as well. The closest parallel in traditional journalism is travel pieces, where the trips are almost always provided gratis by a tourism board.

Yes, Haff, I understand and that's why I pointed out that opinion IS allowed in Journalism as an Editorial or Opinion Piece. The person whom I quoted, however, said that stating up front that there's a difference is "just weird", and a relic of newspaper days, and really you guys just get with the times!

Not enough eyeroll smilies in the world for these morons... (not you, him/them)...

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794418I'll set aside the fact that I mentioned no one had said anything of the sort prior to Will jumping in with wild accusations.

So you got me there, you found 3 out of [delete]51[/delete] 49  posters who've mentioned LW's sex life in the negative. And it took approximately 164 posts to get the first one.

Do you think that supports Will's apparent point about the supposedly widespread slut shaming of LW at present?

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794426Let's disband the Democratic party, because it was founded by pro-slavery racists. For that matter, le'ts disband the united states whose origin is genocide.

Fair enough. Going back over what people said earlier is not very productive. I think the important thing is what people stand for now. For example, Democrats have for a long time renounced slavery and believe it was wrong.

I guess my question for you is, are you opposed to what S'mon and Novastar said about Zoe Quinn within this thread? In general, are pro-GamerGaters now opposed to the initial attacks on her that were the origin of the hashtag, in particular bringing in her sex life and the accusations of trading sexual favors for positive coverage of her game?

I am opposed to dragging in people's personal lives into debate in general - and this part was particularly vicious and personal. For example, I will argue with RPGPundit, but I oppose spreading his real name.

Quote from: Haffrung;794449I have a degree in journalism too, and have worked in the field. Objectivity is what some kinds of journalism are about. Namely, hard news. Entertainment journalism has never been about objectively reporting facts. How could it be? Was Roger Ebert an objective reviewer?

Objective enough to be aware of possible issues of reviewing and giving a rating to a movie based on a script he wrote.

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/beyond-the-valley-of-the-dolls-1980

Quote from: JRT;794440Here's a link to what I feel is the best essay on the whole situation:

http://www.popehat.com/2014/10/26/ten-short-rants-about-gamergate/

I appreciate this new article for pointing out an important fact (read point 4):

The worst element of internet discussion, the hyperbole and venom of trolling, is starting to eat itself. While the article doesn't go all the way, it follows a pet theory of mine:

Note: This is based on an axiom that "trolling" is that category of hyperbolic speech and acts (e.g. doxxing) online, that is a bad act committed by assholes that is less about debate or persuasion, but more about winding a target up and rhetorically beating them about the ears.

- Generally, internet trolling was perpetuated by people who are generally conservative white guy assholes; "Reds". While they surely targeted each other, you get bonus points when you trolled people who were not generally conservative white guy assholes: Liberals, women, minorities, etc; "Blues".

- After being targeted by such trolling, the assholes among the liberals/women/minorities/etc. decided to steal the trolling playbook and give it back. They're the SJWs, or as El Pundiño puts it "pseudo-activists".

Gamer-gate is now the great Thunderdome duel for both sides.
- Red trolls kickstart things by taking Zoe Quinn's private life and using it as the powder keg to hoist banners against the corrupt relationship between gaming journalism and game developers.
   - Sorry folks, but it's true. Right before Gamer-Gate was the whole "Five-Guys" meme, and that meme was as much about calling Quinn a whore as her actions in the closely knit gaming community

- Blue trolls see the shady origins of Gamergate as a strategic overreach by the Reds. Blue trolls join in with the intent of tarring all gamers as assholes to permanently discredit them in the internet gaming sphere.'

With any luck, everyone will start to notice how ridiculous the trolls on both sides are, and start realizing that they are not worth listening to.

Quote from: jhkim;794460Fair enough. Going back over what people said earlier is not very productive. I think the important thing is what people stand for now. For example, Democrats have for a long time renounced slavery and believe it was wrong.

I guess my question for you is, are you opposed to what S'mon and Novastar said about Zoe Quinn within this thread? In general, are pro-GamerGaters now opposed to the initial attacks on her that were the origin of the hashtag, in particular bringing in her sex life and the accusations of trading sexual favors for positive coverage of her game?

I am opposed to dragging in people's personal lives into debate in general - and this part was particularly vicious and personal. For example, I will argue with RPGPundit, but I oppose spreading his real name.

I disagree with them. Who you sleep with is no one's business. I thought it was true for Clinton, and I think it's true in this case. That's for her and her conscience to sort out. End of story.

Still, this brings to mind  debates with people who think that, for example, John Edwards' cheating disqualified him from being president because his dishonesty would somehow carry over into that office. I disagree that is the case necessarily, but do people have a point that it might show a pattern of dishonesty? I don't usually have a good answer to that other than some people have more integrity in some areas than others.