Quote from: Spinachcat;797171Please post a review of Virtual BlizzCon in Other Games! I want to hear more about Overwatch...even if its not StarCraft Ghost

Sunday, after it's all over and I've had some time to digest it.

Quote from: JRT;797168The best way to "do" GamerGate is to not be part of GG, and just focus on playing and enjoying games without getting involved in the drama.

And that's what I predict will happen, long term.

That would be kind of short sighted for us, wouldn't it?  I mean, those of us involved want things.. and they don't magically happen when we don't act.  A shift toward disclosure by major sites such as IGN would not have happened had we not acted.  Gamasutra's drubbing and the repudiation of Leigh Alexander as a voice in gaming would not have happened otherwise.  Gawker's drubbing and Nick Denton's humiliation in the business world might never have happened had we not acted.

"The ride never stops" is a slogan born of the observation that because gamers were not engaged, not looking out for our interests, we were soft targets for many things.  I don't fault anyone for not getting involved personally, particularly given the vile innuendos anti-GG types are so quick to sling around.  I don't see myself disengaging any time soon.

Besides, not only has GG made real progress in our goals, there is near-infinite entertainment to be had.

Quote from: Snowman0147;797156Got to give Marilyn Mansion props.  During that time he was getting death threats like a heavy down pour of rain and he still did his concerts.  Man is gifted and a lot more braver than social justice jack asses.

Marilyn Manson also enjoyed round the clock bodyguard presence, band security, and site security that was put into contract riders and whose failure would result in insurance liability and the possibility of tort lawsuits.  

Doing the job I do, I've gotten the odd death-threat, and I would kill to have as much "bravery" as Marilyn Manson, if it came with the big guy in the black tee-shirt with "SECURITY" written on it.  Also, groupies.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;797195Marilyn Manson also enjoyed round the clock bodyguard presence, band security, and site security that was put into contract riders and whose failure would result in insurance liability and the possibility of tort lawsuits.  

Doing the job I do, I've gotten the odd death-threat, and I would kill to have as much "bravery" as Marilyn Manson, if it came with the big guy in the black tee-shirt with "SECURITY" written on it.  Also, groupies.

FVB, Dimebag Darrell, the guitarist of Pantera was murdered by pistol fire during a concert despite security and police presence.

So even if Marilyn Manson did have all those security measures, I was not safe from a determined killer.

Quote from: Will;796727I WILL apologize for making that initial post without better framing or indications of what I was thinking.

I was rather shocked by the story, particularly coming two weeks after a high school shooting near here.


I don't believe spree killers or murders in general are caused by media stuff (videogames, Catcher in the Rye, or otherwise). Looking at shootings and other killings, they are basically done by a particular kind of CRAZY PERSON (not a ding on people with mental problems generally, the vast majority of whom only hurt themselves).
Shooting sprees are all over the place, and the killers show little commonality beyond often being youngish males.
They are also, statistically, utterly unimportant in number of deaths in the country, but fuel a lot of hysteria.

My reason for linking it HERE was... well, I was somewhat naively thinking every 'side' can go 'oh fucking great, just what we needed.'
It wasn't intended as an attempt to take pot-shots at GGers.


You can disagree with me or think I'm a fucking idiot, that's your prerogative.

But if you decide I'm 'up' to something or that I'm flat-out lying and misrepresenting my views, you can go fuck yourself.

Thank you, that was a clear response, and I believe you.

Quote from: yabaziou;797227FVB, Dimebag Darrell, the guitarist of Pantera was murdered by pistol fire during a concert despite security and police presence.

So even if Marilyn Manson did have all those security measures, I was not safe from a determined killer.

Nobody's safe from a determined killer, but I seriously question the idea that Marilyn Manson is "braver" than a "social justice warrior jackass" in the face of death threats, like Sarkeesian at her Utah speech.  Somebody who's a celebrity at that level has a) better security, and b) more incentive to take the stage.  

The very fact that nobody's safe from a determined killer means I'm not gonna go online and call somebody out for not having balls to go onstage when somebody makes a threat to kill them.  I don't blame anybody for taking that shit seriously.

I would argue it's also a little easy to be blasé when you aren't some random academic who is suddenly getting a constant torrent of hate, everyone around you.

And particularly a few months after some misogynist fuckhead killed a bunch of people ranting about the same stuff that sounds very similar.


How many of us would actually step in to have everyone around us be subjected to constant invective and the attention of highly enraged people, some of whom might be murderous psychopaths?

Quote from: Will;797270How many of us would actually step in to have everyone around us be subjected to constant invective and the attention of highly enraged people, some of whom might be murderous psychopaths?

But I already vote Republican.

Quote from: jeff37923;797274But I already vote Republican.

And I'm Libertarian.  

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;797280And I'm Libertarian.  

I lodged a protest vote this year, does that count?

Quote from: Will;796727I WILL apologize for making that initial post without better framing or indications of what I was thinking.

I was rather shocked by the story, particularly coming two weeks after a high school shooting near here.


I don't believe spree killers or murders in general are caused by media stuff (videogames, Catcher in the Rye, or otherwise). Looking at shootings and other killings, they are basically done by a particular kind of CRAZY PERSON (not a ding on people with mental problems generally, the vast majority of whom only hurt themselves).
Shooting sprees are all over the place, and the killers show little commonality beyond often being youngish males.
They are also, statistically, utterly unimportant in number of deaths in the country, but fuel a lot of hysteria.

My reason for linking it HERE was... well, I was somewhat naively thinking every 'side' can go 'oh fucking great, just what we needed.'
It wasn't intended as an attempt to take pot-shots at GGers.


You can disagree with me or think I'm a fucking idiot, that's your prerogative.

But if you decide I'm 'up' to something or that I'm flat-out lying and misrepresenting my views, you can go fuck yourself.

Yeah, seeing how you previously stated, in this very thread* how "one side has ready to go mass murderers", I can see why people could be confused. :rolleyes:

*

Quote from: Will;792277I don't think any group is intrinsically immune.

There are certain phrases and views which often herald bullshit arguments, though. One is 'both sides!'

When one 'side' has hateful invective from a few folks, and the other side has pervasive social power, loads of hateful speech, and mass killers eager to do it's bidding, the argument of 'both sides do it!' comes across as a bullshit ploy.

There can be legitimate commentary. But when it overwhelmingly isn't, one is inclined to look for extraordinary evidence that THIS TIME it's not going to turn to vile crap.

Also, isn't giving in to death threats kind of letting the other side win? If you think they are terrorists, aren't silencing you and making you live in fear mean they've won? Of course, on the other hand, Sarkeesian wasn't afraid that some GGing Jack Ruby will shoot her, when she was on her way to a much bigger stake than Utah University interview.

Let's face it - if GG had any credibility as an actual threat, they'd cover her with security - nobody's letting anyone without airtight watch if police thinks the threat is credible - Theo van Gogh refused the security, and look what happened to the South Park guys over Cartoon Wars.

It might have something to do with the fact that the Outrage Brigade isn't ready to actually put anything on the line seeing as how their chosen method of achieving "Social Justice" is through equalizing representation in First World Entertainment Media. :rolleyes:

Of potential interest:

http://www.sciencealert.com/definitive-study-finds-zero-link-found-between-video-game-and-youth-violence

My absolute favorite part of #GG is the reaction of mainstream media outlets.

Their pants are blasting off their ankles from the shockwave of shit flying out of them over a bunch of gamers suggesting the possibility there could be issues of collusion in their sacred industry.

I think this is because we live in an age where embedded & native advertising is the only financial hope for online "news" outlets. Nobody wants to pay for content, nobody gives a fuck about banner ads (or blocks them) and whether we like want to admit it or not, content creation and hosting isn't free. Bills have to be paid to keep the lights on.

That leaves embedded & native advertising where the subject of the article is paid for by the subject. AKA, Coke can pay Time to write an article about the three super tasty flavors of Coke coming out next month. Without embedded or native adverts, I wonder how many magazines (online and off) could even exist today?

People like their glossy mags and their flashy websites with "brand new exclusives!", but don't like to pay for them and if #GG were to gain any traction on the collusion issue, there could be problems for native advertising in the future...and thus "news" outlets will fold.  

I don't know the answer to this problem.

BTW, if you don't know what I am talking about. Here's John Oliver talking about native advertising with his proper English accent and some F-bombs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_F5GxCwizc

Quote from: Future Villain Band;797267The very fact that nobody's safe from a determined killer means I'm not gonna go online and call somebody out for not having balls to go onstage when somebody makes a threat to kill them.  I don't blame anybody for taking that shit seriously.

I fully agree.

I am happy to disagree with Anita's positions, but I am never gonna blame anyone for valuing their life higher than their politics.

RIP Dimebag and the 3 others killed that night. And let's remember that they never figured out WTF caused Gale to kill Dimebag. Maybe crazed fan, maybe just fucked in the head.

Quote from: Will;797270How many of us would actually step in to have everyone around us be subjected to constant invective and the attention of highly enraged people, some of whom might be murderous psychopaths?

Not me, no way, no how, but I'm not an attention seeking drama queen*  

Twitter and YouTube offers those people their 15 minutes of fame, er I mean victim status. For many SJWs and drama queens, death threats are creamy frosting on the attention cake.

Brianna Wu is a case in point. I don't blame her for fleeing her home after death threats (I might have done the same), but her Twitter junk about trying to tie the "4chan Killer" in with #GG? That's a drama queen desperately trying to stretch out her moments in the spotlight.

*and while some drama queens are actually female, I use the term for anyone of any gender who acts like a drama queen, regardless of their crotch junk or lack thereof.

Quote from: Spinachcat;797318I think this is because we live in an age where embedded & native advertising is the only financial hope for online "news" outlets. Nobody wants to pay for content, nobody gives a fuck about banner ads (or blocks them) and whether we like want to admit it or not, content creation and hosting isn't free. Bills have to be paid to keep the lights on.

That leaves embedded & native advertising where the subject of the article is paid for by the subject. AKA, Coke can pay Time to write an article about the three super tasty flavors of Coke coming out next month. Without embedded or native adverts, I wonder how many magazines (online and off) could even exist today?

People like their glossy mags and their flashy websites with "brand new exclusives!", but don't like to pay for them and if #GG were to gain any traction on the collusion issue, there could be problems for native advertising in the future...and thus "news" outlets will fold.

True.  That's one of the biggest problems right now.  More broad based coverage gets paid for because there are people willing to pay for in-depth news, but that doesn't really exist because video game journalism is more or less akin to the Entertainment industry in terms of coverage.  There's only a few main things that are covered in video game sites.

* Hype for the latest releases--news about upcoming games.  Outside of the majors, some will decide to plug a kickstarter or an indie game.  This is the majority of what people will want to read.

* Reviews for games.

* Walkthroughs and Guides.

* Op-ed pieces.

There's very little coverage of things like stockholders or the business side of things.  Occasionally stuff like a creator getting fired or legal troubles gets coverage, but it's rarer.

Not to mention there's not a lot of respect for exclusives.  Even those places that get an exclusive, such as Game Informer, which is a magazine I pay for--just as soon as an issue comes out somebody decides to line-list all the info on NeoGaf and then every large and small blogger reposts it.  

To create something that would be removed from the industry influence would take money.  And I haven't seen any talk about decide to pay X dollars a year to create a non-profit organization to cover games.  Without that, the only people who'd do it would be bloggers doing it "for free" as a side hobby--but those things are incredibly unstable as it can only last as long as the person maintains an interest and/or has to give it up for his "real job".  

There's talk about YouTube replacing traditional media, but that's risky--Google might someday embed ads, or require the producers to pay fees based on traffic.  Not to mention the big traffic guys would make it their living and need to get paid as well.  It's the same as a blogger.

That's why I have a lot of trouble with the general targets of GG.  You're going to call for a ad boycott of Polygon because they gave Bayonetta a lower score based on some subjective opinions (which is what exists in a review)--in other words, you're going to the advertiser and saying "Hey, they gave you a poor review and insulted your game, pull the ads"--which is giving them a license to do the type of thing you don't WANT to have happen.  Or Gamasutra--GS is one of the few sites that isn't just doing hype--it's basically a collection of opinion columns and takes into account a lot of developer perspective--I find the articles there much more interesting and informative.  But one woman--a developer--writes a single unpopular opinion column and all of the sudden the entire site is corrupt and needs to be punished?  So let's kill the advertising to one of the few sites that gives a different perspective on the gaming world than other sites?


That's why I have a lot of trouble with it--it seems it's more about cutting off the stories that people disagree with rather than fixing things, or actively trying to collapse them.  For instance, this kind of "enemies list" really troubles me.  http://makealist.com/content/quinngategamergate-boycott-list    

Good journalism to me means allows other opinions, and publishing articles that the audience may not want to hear or may anger the audience.  The big problem with the world today is everybody doesn't just want to agree to disagree, they want to remove all the elements that disagree with them.  I see this GG thing as a part of a much larger problem with society.  Unless it's more about actively fixing the problem--either by engaging the media and asking for reforms, or having a solid plan that involves more that just listing enemies and acting defensively towards any criticism, I don't see much getting done here.