Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794469I 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.
.

No it's not.  I'm not speaking specific to this case, but fraternization is a very real, very concerning thing.  You can't just make a sweeping generalization that who someone sleeps with is nobody's business, ever.  In most cases, sure.  But if your boss is sleeping with one of your coworkers and they keep getting preferential treatment, there's an issue there.

And if someone is sleeping with someone who reviews their products that influences consumer's decisions to buy said product (again, in general terms here, no ZQ specifically), then that's important too.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;794470No it's not.  I'm not speaking specific to this case, but fraternization is a very real, very concerning thing.  You can't just make a sweeping generalization that who someone sleeps with is nobody's business, ever.  In most cases, sure.  But if your boss is sleeping with one of your coworkers and they keep getting preferential treatment, there's an issue there.

And if someone is sleeping with someone who reviews their products that influences consumer's decisions to buy said product (again, in general terms here, no ZQ specifically), then that's important too.

That's not how I meant it, but you got me.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;794461Objective 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

But not objective enough to get over his hard-on for the actress when he reviewed The Graduate. Seriously, read that review, he managed to completely twist around the whole film to support his crush. Its  wierd and sad and made me just a bit uncomfortable.

Man, his old man ranting about art in video games.

Mmph.

Quote from: JamesV;794464- 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

True, and that wasn't just incidental. The "Five-Guys" meme was directly used in Internet Aristocrat's "Quinnspiracy" videos - which Adam Baldwin linked to in coining the "GamerGate" hashtag.  (The videos went beyond Eron Gjoni's post to track down *more* of her personal life.)

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794469I 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.

Good to know.

I was arguing earlier with S'mon and Novastar about this, and no one from the pro-GamerGate side spoke out against what they were saying. So yes, I did get the impression that pro-GamerGaters here generally agreed with them.

While objectively, I think that one can certainly learn about someone's character by cracking open their personal life and looking at how they interact with their children, their spouse, their family, and so forth. However, I don't think that this is an ethical thing to do, and not something to be done for politicians - much less for frickin game developers.

Are other pro-GamerGaters here on board with rejecting this?

I didn't like Clinton because he was riding the power of position (and it's hard to get much more powerful than POTUS) to pick up chicks. That's horrible.
And he's using the power the US people gave him.


Even if 'collusion to get good reviews through sex' were _true_, women typically have less power to do that and we're talking about some minor indie game in an industry dwarfed by almost everything.
It's like a huge movement triggered by a waitress sleeping her way into a better shift at the local Stuckey's. Which turns out to be a lie spread by an ex-boyfriend.

I mean, ok, fine, come back to me if you have evidence that the CEO of EA was demanding sexual favors to allow reviewers to be permitted to review EA games.

Quote from: Will;794419I'm saying the topic of GGers is anti-feminism, however members decide to take that.

No, I think it is closer to the truth to call it anti-radfem.

Quote from: TristramEvans;794491But not objective enough to get over his hard-on for the actress when he reviewed The Graduate. Seriously, read that review, he managed to completely twist around the whole film to support his crush. Its  wierd and sad and made me just a bit uncomfortable.

Nobody is 100% objective, but having about a dozen gaming sites all come out with "Gamers are dead" articles within the same day was downright bizarre and troubling. It's not just one guy putting up for an indie dev here. It's a community of people with the same narrative.

Quote from: jhkim;794494True, and that wasn't just incidental. The "Five-Guys" meme was directly used in Internet Aristocrat's "Quinnspiracy" videos - which Adam Baldwin linked to in coining the "GamerGate" hashtag.  (The videos went beyond Eron Gjoni's post to track down *more* of her personal life.)


Good to know.

I was arguing earlier with S'mon and Novastar about this, and no one from the pro-GamerGate side spoke out against what they were saying. So yes, I did get the impression that pro-GamerGaters here generally agreed with them.

While objectively, I think that one can certainly learn about someone's character by cracking open their personal life and looking at how they interact with their children, their spouse, their family, and so forth. However, I don't think that this is an ethical thing to do, and not something to be done for politicians - much less for frickin game developers.

I've been mulling it in my head, and I think it's a really murky area. I think you would want to know if your candidate or a person whose product you might buy beats his wife or kids (or vice versa). Sacrosanct is right about the area of sex too in the contexts he mentioned.

In other contexts, such as this,  I don't like it so much, but some people do claim to have a "right" to be "protected" from getting involved with people who cheat. That's the rationale that EG gave for posting about LW.

I disagree with that logic, though, honestly, I used to enjoy seeing cheaters get caught on the TV show by the same name.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBjuxjsCeV0 You tend to feel righteous anger for the cheated on if you have any empathy. At the same time, in a sense, no matter how much you emphatize, their pain is being used to entertain the audience.

Quote from: jhkim;794407Actually, in post #218, S'mon posted,

Yeah, the allegation made against Quinn and the journos who allegedly had sex with her was certainly a spark that lit the fire.
From what I can tell now (and I still don't know a huge amount about this whole thing), it wasn't a particularly accurate allegation. If she did anything bad it was apparently being mean to the Fine Young Capitalists women. She clearly has issues but she doesn't seem to be a particularly bad person or worthy target of ire - I get the impression that Anita Sarkeesian by contrast is a rogue, the kind of predatory personality that flocks to the SJW movement because they know it's a rich hunting ground.

Quote from: jeff37923;794500No, I think it is closer to the truth to call it anti-radfem.

I think calling Sarkeesian a 'radical feminist' is inaccurate and arguably unfair to radfems. Actual radical feminists strongly dislike men and generally want nothing to do with men and their activities. They want exclusion, not inclusion - a safe space for them to get away from men. Sarkeesian and allied SJWs want the opposite, to be included in what they perceive as a previously male-dominated space, on terms determined by them.

Personally I tend to think radfems are generally a lot easier to accommodate, in a Rodney King 'can't we all just get along' sort of way. As long as you don't accidentally (or deliberately) trespass into their 'safe space', they'll generally leave you alone.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;794501Nobody is 100% objective, but having about a dozen gaming sites all come out with "Gamers are dead" articles within the same day was downright bizarre and troubling. It's not just one guy putting up for an indie dev here. It's a community of people with the same narrative.

That more than anything else points to the fact that these supposed competitors who work for different companies are in collusion to spread a coherent and unified narrative and have an agenda.  Giving good reviews to games that promote social ideas they agree with is one thing.  Giving good reviews to games they like enough to back with their own money, and treating DepressionQuest as a 1. Game (which it is not) and 2. A Good Game (which it REALLY is not) simply because it meets the criteria of female designer takes us back to the days of quotas.

(Personally, before I knew about any of this, I took a look at Depression Quest, and frankly, I didn't find it useful or enjoyable as a game, therapy, or anything else. I don't read gaming mags, but seeing attention given to the game would have been very surprising.)

I hate hashtag campaigns and I think Twitter may very well herald the end of civilization, but any internet movement is filled with assholes, and it's a shame because the #gg movement did demonstrably prove collusion among the gaming journalists through their unified response if by nothing else.  It shined a light on something that needed shining light on.  The fact that it also sent a bunch of cockroaches scuttling is immaterial, and claiming that's all it did (ie, it's only about misogyny) is a deliberate and outright dishonest obfuscation from people like Will, who want the rest of the story (Social Engineering) to go unexamined.

There's a good way and a bad way to go about addressing social problems in media.  
Calling for a boycott on Paizo because you don't like how Golarion covers pseudo-Africans = Bad Way.
Writing Spears of Dawn = Good Way.

In other words, be the change you want to see rather then ban everything else.
We know which way the Outrage Brigade works, and it's time for us to say "Stop trying to alter our hobbies to fit your political views."

That's NOT anti-feminist.
That's anti-trying to alter our hobbies to fit your political views.

Quote from: CRKrueger;794508Giving good reviews to games they like enough to back with their own money, and treating DepressionQuest as a 1. Game (which it is not) and 2. A Good Game (which it REALLY is not) simply because it meets the criteria of female designer takes us back to the days of quotas.

For what it's worth, we don't know if the people who gave good reviews did it for that reason. They may well have loved the game.

QuoteThere's a good way and a bad way to go about addressing social problems in media.  
Calling for a boycott on Paizo because you don't like how Golarion covers pseudo-Africans = Bad Way.
Writing Spears of Dawn = Good Way.

I'm not sure. It's up to the people to decide how they want to effect change. It's like someone I know who disagrees with how detractors approached the issue of offensive native american caricatures in sports. He approved of this way of fighting it, but not of the boycotts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_Whites

I still think boycotting is valid. If their ideas (meaning Outrage Brigade posers) are wrong, they will eventually lose, because people will eventually backlash, and with good reason: https://www.facebook.com/salon/posts/10152442731106519

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794513because people will eventually backlash

ie. the support for #gamergate.

I think it's important when talking about how bad Anita is or isn't, to keep it into context.  Maybe there is plenty of legitimate stuff out there to question her motives.  I don't know, I don't follow her.  But I'd be hesitant in lumping her in with the more extreme radicals unless she has engaged in similar behavior as them.  You know stuff like this:



So if she hasn't, I personally wouldn't lump her into the same as this person.