Quote from: TristramEvans;795244From this whole situation Ive seen two good things come out of it, and both of those come from the GG side. While I'm still not going to join in GG, which I still see as a futile enterprise, the anti-GG crowd has proven themselves to be nothing more than hatemongerers, so I will say I most definitely am anti-anti-GG. If that means Im labeled "anti-feminist", well, thats ok, because being antifeminist doesnt mean being anti-women or anti-equal rights. Geeks have had to deal with pernicious stereotypes and social ostracization since long before I was born, and this is no different IMO. Sarkeesian misewell be Professor Wertham testifying that comics cause juvenile delinquency.

I consider this lot to be worse than the Jack Thompsons of the world in that they have media pull, a network of allies to call on across 2nd tier media, and to some degree in regular media.  I still think they can be beat, and moreover that a crushing victory is possible (if improbable in the next couple months) because they're so thoroughly dishonest and in particular abusive to their own followers.  Continued scrutiny serves gamers far better than it does the anti-GG lobby.  But, futile in that it's not a winnable fight, or futile that we're tilting with the wrong windmill, or what?

Yes, it's not that we interpret evidence, distrust certain sources, or simply see things differently, it's that we are willfully blind to the truth.

Considering people might just... disagree is scary, I realize.

Okay you nailed me there on the bike training.  I just believe there is a difference between riding a bike and denying the truth after seeing evidence that supports that truth.

I just refuse to talk to people that will not believe the evidence that is laid before them.  They are a waste of time and I might as well save myself from the head aches to come in trying to reason with them.  They don't want to be reason with.  They want you to drink their damn kool-aid and be a follower.  To them it is listen and believe.  Frankly that shit will not fly with me.

Alathon we will win.  History had shown we will win because there reasonable people using their critical thinking skills to fight this.  These reasonable people will defeat the corrupt social justice media in the same manner how they defeated the Salem Witch trails and McArthyism.  With facts, evidence, and reason.

Salem Witch Trials and McCarthyism?

... oooo kay.

Quote from: Snowman0147;795260Alathon we will win.  History had shown we will win because there reasonable people using their critical thinking skills to fight this.  These reasonable people will defeat the corrupt social justice media in the same manner how they defeated the Salem Witch trails and McArthyism.  With facts, evidence, and reason.

Dude, when was the last time you stepped outside and got a deep breath of fresh air? Or kissed a girl?

Okay the scale is way off, but the point still stands that reasonable people will eventually win over the nutters.

Also to answer your question Machinegun Blue I would say earlier today so shut the fuck up.  Seriously you try to insult me instead of debating my points shows a lot more about you than it does me.

Quote from: Will;795261Salem Witch Trials and McCarthyism?

... oooo kay.

Dude, The Purple just instituted a mass ban policy for anyone openly declaring support for GamerGate.  People have been calling it a "Hate Group", and making comparisons to ISIS, the KKK, and Neo-nazis.

Let us agree to disagree as to the exact ratio of trolls to non-trolls who use the GamerGate banner.  Heck, let us even, for the sake of argument, stipulate that there is a core of deeply cynical, deeply subversive, misogynistic assholes, surrounded by many who aren't misogynistic, but care about the state of gaming journalism and/or excessive political correctness (what Scalzi called "useful idiots").

Why should those people get banned from Purple or other places?  Why must they be called idiots?  Why must they be insulted online, and lumped in with the misogynistic assholes, even after repudiating the words and actions of the misogynistic assholes?

At what point does the diversity of GamerGate get recognized?  At what point does a majority of people saying its about gaming journalism get recognized for having shifted the message?  Because it's not hard to find pro-GG media that is not at all misogynistic, nor even really concerned with Anna Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn.  It's not hard to find pro-GG material created by women, people of color, and LGBT people.

And if the answer is, "It doesn't matter who they are or what they say; if they are supporting GG they are supporting misogyny and harassment," well, congratulations.  That's McCarthyism.  That's where people are judged not by their words or their actions, but by a label they've identified with, and the people they associate with.  Or even, the people other people associate them with.

On a more serious note, David Pakman has done some interviewing of pro and neutral GG people.

TotalBiscuit
http://youtu.be/WaMccosnRMc?list=UUvixJtaXuNdMPUGdOPcY8Ag

Milo
http://youtu.be/ljIMMCQyexA?list=UUvixJtaXuNdMPUGdOPcY8Ag

Jennie
http://youtu.be/kqwLyjcQ6SU?list=UUvixJtaXuNdMPUGdOPcY8Ag

And CH Sommers is threatened via twitter for supporting GG.

https://twitter.com/chsommers/status/527985254192398337

By the SJW Rules of Engagement, I hereby and forthwith declare anyone critical of #GamerGate to be a misogynist, neo-nazi who supports violence against women, and they're probably jaywalkers too. I call for the eradication of this toxic movement of dangerous people.

Quote from: Snowman0147;795260Alathon we will win.  History had shown we will win because there reasonable people using their critical thinking skills to fight this.  These reasonable people will defeat the corrupt social justice media in the same manner how they defeated the Salem Witch trails and McArthyism.  With facts, evidence, and reason.

Reason is a great tool for ethics but is surely not bounded by ethics.  Corruption is engaged in because it's often hugely advantageous and the potential costs may never be imposed.  I think we have the means at hand to achieve substantial victories (and already have with gawker), but should not count our chickens before they hatch.

Though it's not a bad thing to keep inevitable victory in mind when the anti-GGers are razzing us.  It makes it easier to smile and discuss while they spit and snarl, to focus on constructive activism while they smear us on twitter.  We can score a minor victory for ourselves and a minor defeat for them every time we stay cool when they want us to get hurt.  We're practicing being chill while they're practicing being angry, again and again.

Quote from: Will;795261Salem Witch Trials and McCarthyism?

Merely a difference of scope.  It's remembered as McCarthyism because a United States Senator decided to do it.  If someone like Dianne Feinstein decided to cash her chips to throw in with the anti-GGers, then it'd be exactly like McCarthyism.

Quote from: Alathon;795252But, futile in that it's not a winnable fight, or futile that we're tilting with the wrong windmill, or what?

I guess wrong windmill. I don't think "ethics in gaming journalism" is the right rallying cry.

Quote from: Iosue;795277Dude, The Purple just instituted a mass ban policy for anyone openly declaring support for GamerGate.  People have been calling it a "Hate Group", and making comparisons to ISIS, the KKK, and Neo-nazis.

Let us agree to disagree as to the exact ratio of trolls to non-trolls who use the GamerGate banner.  Heck, let us even, for the sake of argument, stipulate that there is a core of deeply cynical, deeply subversive, misogynistic assholes, surrounded by many who aren't misogynistic, but care about the state of gaming journalism and/or excessive political correctness (what Scalzi called "useful idiots").

Why should those people get banned from Purple or other places?  Why must they be called idiots?  Why must they be insulted online, and lumped in with the misogynistic assholes, even after repudiating the words and actions of the misogynistic assholes?

At what point does the diversity of GamerGate get recognized?  At what point does a majority of people saying its about gaming journalism get recognized for having shifted the message?  Because it's not hard to find pro-GG media that is not at all misogynistic, nor even really concerned with Anna Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn.  It's not hard to find pro-GG material created by women, people of color, and LGBT people.

And if the answer is, "It doesn't matter who they are or what they say; if they are supporting GG they are supporting misogyny and harassment," well, congratulations.  That's McCarthyism.  That's where people are judged not by their words or their actions, but by a label they've identified with, and the people they associate with.  Or even, the people other people associate them with.

*Channels Darth Vader*

You are a member of Game Gate and a traitor. Take him away!

Quote from: TristramEvans;795281I guess wrong windmill. I don't think "ethics in gaming journalism" is the right rallying cry.

I want things far beyond just ethics in gaming journalism, but I think it's an excellent short term goal for a few reasons.  I want things like "ethics in journalism" and "the American public agrees that bigotry against men is not okay" and "the American school system looks after boys".  These are huge things that I absolutely need, but which sadly are also huge asks which will require years of work by tens of millions of people.

By going for ethics in gaming journalism, I chip away at unethical conduct in journalism.  If I tried to take on everyone I think is being unethical directly at the start, I'd lose hilariously.  I focus on media outlets near to my interests and with limited ability to survive contact with serious opposition.  Gawker and Vox are far less durable than the NYT or Washington Post.  Once the theoretical consequences of corruption are being enacted for real, calculations change and positions adjust.

Gaming journalism is simpler than political or business journalism, I can do things like walk away from every single adverjournalism outlet and still get my info from youtubers, whose interests can be aligned with their viewers through micropatronage.  Just the basic costs, and the risks associated with crossing up real interests, make it difficult for a TotalBiscuit or Boogie to deliver in that space the way they can in gaming journalism.  Consequently I can get good results quickly in gaming journalism, accellerating progress towards more long term goals.  

Given the choice, I'd much rather chunk out a few godawful tabloid media companies like gawker, than put someone like the New York Times or Washington Post out of business.  If I can convince them to do less liberalizing and more reporting, that would be ideal.  If I can get them to treat bigoted feminist activists like bigots rather than heroes, that would be a tremendous start.

Finally, the gender feminists are brittle, a defeat in a mainstream hobby like video gaming will wound them terribly.  They need to look as undefeated as they can for their more coercive tactics to work, and they love them some coercion.  I think I'll take that toy away.

Quote from: Alathon;795288By going for ethics in gaming journalism, I chip away at unethical conduct in journalism.  If I tried to take on everyone I think is being unethical directly at the start, I'd lose hilariously.  I focus on media outlets near to my interests and with limited ability to survive contact with serious opposition.  Gawker and Vox are far less durable than the NYT or Washington Post.  Once the theoretical consequences of corruption are being enacted for real, calculations change and positions adjust.

So, what's your solution to the fact that games media is funded by the major games publishers? How are you going to fix the fact it is "corrupt" by design, has been for decades, and the majority of the audience appear to like the gushing fanboy reviews and lengthy preview articles? Or does running ad content as editorial no longer count as corruption...

QuoteGaming journalism is simpler than political or business journalism, I can do things like walk away from every single adverjournalism outlet and still get my info from youtubers, whose interests can be aligned with their viewers through micropatronage.

Yeah, about that...