Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Is the gaming community really that desperate for people to join their cause that they'll defend Thunderf00t? Or are you just not familiar with his behavior in the atheist community?

Oh, I want to hear the story!

It's been a while so I might be wrong on the details, but the general summary is that some members/leaders of the atheist community decided that spending all their time screaming "CHRISTIANS ARE IDIOTS" wasn't really enough, and we should consider how we fit into other progressive movements (feminism, anti-racism, etc). This really annoyed the "libertarian" atheists who really don't like those things, and Thunderf00t took their side. He ragequit the blog network he had briefly been invited to, kept his access to the private mailing list (through a software bug) and posted private information, started making videos attacking feminism and complaining about how it ruins everything and atheists shouldn't say anything besides "there is no god", all the "liberal" atheists want to censor everything, etc. TBH even if I agreed with what he had to say I wouldn't want him representing my side.

So, this is why I have to wonder about his motivations here. Does he really care about gaming, or is this just another opportunity to yell a lot about his anti-feminist crusade?

 Asherian Command wrote:
If you really think you are so oh intelligent disprove everything she has.

Why? I don't waste my time refuting every single "argument" 9/11 conspiracy theorists propose, so why should I do the same with someone whose entire argument consists of "I don't play games, but let me tell you how feminists want to destroy them to hurt men"?

Make a seperate thread, but stop coming back here.

I don't think you understand how public forums work. You don't get to just tell me to get out of a thread because you don't like what I posted. And no, don't bother complaining again about how I'm derailing the thread, that post was in response to someone on "your" side who brought up the video again.

She is a feminist. She is more feminist than the 'feminists' under Antia.

She's a feminist in name only. She's the result of even conservatives finally realizing that saying "I hate feminism" isn't a very good plan for winning elections. So they've created a ridiculous division between "equality" feminism which only discusses nice safe uncontroversial issues like having the right to vote, and "gender" feminism which mentions all those uncomfortable things that conservatives really don't want to talk about. It would be like if racists decided to start calling themselves anti-racists because they oppose lynchings, while simultaneously spending most of their time complaining about how "bad" anti-racists hate white people.

Edit: You are right sining.

Can we go back to talking about the gamergate issue and less about what people think a feminist should or shouldn't be. Also, seriously, we need to stop being so worked up about the same people in this thread who keep posting the same denials over and over again lest we get this thread locked again.

Yep, I'd decided to do the same. I've been slowly getting through the material on the KotakuInAction subreddit. There's more going on than I thought... the guy who created the #notyourshield campaign pressured out of his job, 4chan banning discussion, an exodus to 8chan, escapist actually listening to criticism and doing the right thing eventually, being banned on twitter for disagreeing with "them" and so on. The Viral Global News article was a really good, balanced summary of what's been happening. A good starting point to link people to interested in the issue(s) here.

 Peregrine wrote:


Why? I don't waste my time refuting every single "argument" 9/11 conspiracy theorists propose, so why should I do the same with someone whose entire argument consists of "I don't play games, but let me tell you how feminists want to destroy them to hurt men"?

"She is wrong."
"Why?"
"SHE. IS. WRONG."

Classic.

Anyone who ever worked with, is interested in or actually knows something about feminism knows that Zoe knows nothing about it and hides under false pretense and positive sexism and Anita is just cashing out. The latter's scheme is found with a lot of topics and tons of people get fooled by it. Anita was a very vocal pro-woman speaker in the past. She made videos that were supposed to be viewed and liked by two groups: naive radicals and feel-good slacktivists. Right now, she's hired for a lot of conventions and even studios - and people seem to think that this is because everyone's suddenly interested in the topic. It's not. It happens with all popular topics. You "invite" someone who speaks out to a group you do not already have under your wing to represent said group and pretend showing interest in whereas in truth, you don't want any changes at all. It's a perfect deal for all sides - the speaker can cash out on the deal and the listeners are confirmed in their beliefs. The very same thing happens all over the internet and, very obviously, in this thread as well: people are willing to buy anything from anyone if it fits their very personal ideas. There is no need for reflecting or even thinking twice about what you see - if it fits, it sits.

If anything good came out of this mess, then it's that you can clearly draw a line between people you should listen to and should not listen to, solely based on the side they take.

Does anyone know what happened with Mighty No. 9? Apparently everyone is in a huff about that on the Twitter Gamergate page.


Edit: Ah.

The Community Manager for Mighty No. 9 has been blocking people from the page if they support the #GamerGate movement. Apparently she is being undiscriminating and even banning Backers. So the people who payed for and made the game possible can't even give feedback for it because they have tweets about Gamergate.

 Slarg232 wrote:
Does anyone know what happened with Mighty No. 9? Apparently everyone is in a huff about that on the Twitter Gamergate page.


Edit: Ah.

The Community Manager for Mighty No. 9 has been blocking people from the page if they support the #GamerGate movement. Apparently she is being undiscriminating and even banning Backers. So the people who payed for and made the game possible can't even give feedback for it because they have tweets about Gamergate.

Mighty No. 9?

Would this be the Indie spiritual successor to Mega Man that was funded through KickStarter or some other crowd funding site?

And would this be the notorious Community Manager who got the job causing an outcry in the Community over comments she'd made previously about her radical feminist views and desire to make changes to the game (making the protagonist female for one).


I recall hearing about this scandal about a year ago. Given that she was a known radical its hardly surprising that shes abusing her power in this way.

At first, I thought that picking a radical feminist as CM who claimed never having played a MegaMan game before would be a bad idea.

...but then, I read that her boyfriend is working at the company.

Do the math.

 Sigvatr wrote:
At first, I thought that picking a radical feminist as CM who claimed never having played a MegaMan game before would be a bad idea.

...but then, I read that her boyfriend is working at the company.

Do the math.

Maths = misogyny.

Yes, I admit to misogny.

It is apparent that she clearly got the job because of her qualifications.

Huarhuar.

 Slarg232 wrote:
Does anyone know what happened with Mighty No. 9?

The Dina Disaster, you mean?

On the one hand, the Dina Disaster is another example for nepotism.

On the other hand, I think the entire issue was overblown and based around a single (arguably poor) image of an altered protagonist's image with a gender-swap.

"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations." - George Orwell

That more or less sums up all forms of journalism. But the whole gamergate thing made me think of that quote.

 Peregrine wrote:
It's been a while so I might be wrong on the details, but the general summary is that some members/leaders of the atheist community decided that spending all their time screaming "CHRISTIANS ARE IDIOTS" wasn't really enough, and we should consider how we fit into other progressive movements (feminism, anti-racism, etc). This really annoyed the "libertarian" atheists who really don't like those things, and Thunderf00t took their side. He ragequit the blog network he had briefly been invited to, kept his access to the private mailing list (through a software bug) and posted private information, started making videos attacking feminism and complaining about how it ruins everything and atheists shouldn't say anything besides "there is no god", all the "liberal" atheists want to censor everything, etc. TBH even if I agreed with what he had to say I wouldn't want him representing my side.

I see.

Sining wrote:
Can we go back to talking about the gamergate issue and less about what people think a feminist should or shouldn't be. Also, seriously, we need to stop being so worked up about the same people in this thread who keep posting the same denials over and over again lest we get this thread locked again.

Well, she might not be a true feminist, but at least she is a true Scotsman, right? Also would like to point out the previous thread was locked only because of completely pro-GamerGate “slacktivists”. They kept on posting tweets with inappropriate content despite numerous warnings from the mods. So, it had nothing to do with “people posting denials”

More emails from the GameJournoPros mailing list have been leaked:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/22/They-re-on-to-us-gaming-journalists-respond-to-their-critics-in-series-of-new-GameJournoPros-emails

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
More emails from the GameJournoPros mailing list have been leaked:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/22/They-re-on-to-us-gaming-journalists-respond-to-their-critics-in-series-of-new-GameJournoPros-emails

And Brietbart's heirs continue his glorious tradition of ethical journalism, leaking private conversations that have very little, if any, news value in an attempt to create more drama.

 Peregrine wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
More emails from the GameJournoPros mailing list have been leaked:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/22/They-re-on-to-us-gaming-journalists-respond-to-their-critics-in-series-of-new-GameJournoPros-emails

And Brietbart's heirs continue his glorious tradition of ethical journalism, leaking private conversations that have very little, if any, news value in an attempt to create more drama.

Little value? I see a lot of value, especially given the fact that so many publications essentially releasing the same article/narrative, represented by the same pr firm and now direct evidence that the editor's indeed all communicate.

If the few remaining prominent journalistic institutions all released similar articles on the same day, were all represented by the same pr firm and information leaked that showed direct evidence that all their editors communicate you don't think there would be ramifications?

Why make any distinction between journalism and propaganda at that point?

 Peregrine wrote:
And Brietbart's heirs continue his glorious tradition of ethical journalism, leaking private conversations that have very little, if any, news value in an attempt to create more drama.

It is okay if he does this to the bad guys .

 Peregrine wrote:
And Brietbart's heirs continue his glorious tradition of ethical journalism, leaking private conversations that have very little, if any, news value in an attempt to create more drama.

"There's no censorship among games journalists!"

Emails are leaked which show they're trying to censor talk on Gamergate.

"I don't like the website that's from!"

It's less about the website and more about the content

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's less about the website and more about the content

For sure

Also, some folk are bring up comparisons to the JournoList years ago, which caused Dave Weigel to resign

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

Am I missing something? What's wrong with breitbart? As long as the articles are researched and evidence is shown, what's wrong with any articles?

Sining wrote:
Am I missing something? What's wrong with breitbart? As long as the articles are researched and evidence is shown, what's wrong with any articles?

Absolutely nothing. The Right wing in the US has a very bad reputation for making things up and being total bollocks. When conservative voices don't do that but instead use actual facts and research to base and support their opinions, it's actually a good thing and their voice is worth listening to. Fox news and republican politicians tarnish the conservative side pretty badly. I don't think any conservative with opinions based on actual facts would be anywhere near as demonised. So yeah, right wingers relying on facts is a nice change - if that is indeed what's going on, I didn't know the website before this.

I guess NOT being an american, I have no ideas what websites are conservative or not. Hence I just read the articles linked and decide if they're of value

Sining wrote:
Am I missing something? What's wrong with breitbart? As long as the articles are researched and evidence is shown, what's wrong with any articles?

Breitbart (the guy who created the site) was a dishonest right-wing troll who made a joke out of the concept of journalistic integrity. He was the kind of propaganda writer who could post a story about how the sky is blue and any sensible person would still go outside and check. It's theoretically possible that something posted on his website could be true, but it still requires extreme skepticism. And so far everything posted in relation to this subject has been the same kind of right-wing propaganda that is more concerned with making "liberals" look bad than discovering or reporting anything newsworthy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Emails are leaked which show they're trying to censor talk on Gamergate.

I don't think you understand what censorship is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Little value? I see a lot of value, especially given the fact that so many publications essentially releasing the same article/narrative, represented by the same pr firm and now direct evidence that the editor's indeed all communicate.

Exactly, little value. If you already know that game journalism is on the same level of seriousness as celebrity gossip magazines then "these guys talk to each other" is hardly a controversy.

If the few remaining prominent journalistic institutions all released similar articles on the same day, were all represented by the same pr firm and information leaked that showed direct evidence that all their editors communicate you don't think there would be ramifications?

Possibly, depending on the context. It would have to be a major scandal involving "legitimate" news articles, not just fluff pieces like game reviews, and some kind of dishonesty element. But that's not what we have here.

Why make any distinction between journalism and propaganda at that point?

I didn't know that anyone did make that distinction. I've been saying this from the beginning, everyone has known for years/decades that game journalism is a joke. This isn't about any newsworthy events, it's just an opportunity to have more drama.

 Peregrine wrote:


Exactly, little value. If you already know that game journalism is on the same level of seriousness as celebrity gossip magazines then "these guys talk to each other" is hardly a controversy.

Your strawman's are getting lazier, B12 shot man, perk you right back up lol. The latest revelations confirm collusion, you can downplay that all you want and play the subjectivity card.

 Crablezworth wrote:
The latest revelations confirm collusion, you can downplay that all you want and play the subjectivity card.

But the point is that collusion is only newsworthy if you think that game journalism is more respectable than celebrity gossip magazines. And if you've paid any attention to game journalism over the past 10+ years you know that it isn't.

 Peregrine wrote:
everyone has known for years/decades that game journalism is a joke. This isn't about any newsworthy events, it's just an opportunity to have more drama.

And your participation in said drama only to remind everyone what the logical consistency of a tuna sandwich resembles.

Here, let me strawman you "this is nothing new, and as such allow me to downplay everything, I could present evidence but scatter shot value statements should do".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
The latest revelations confirm collusion, you can downplay that all you want and play the subjectivity card.

But the point is that collusion is only newsworthy if you think that game journalism is more respectable than celebrity gossip magazines. And if you've paid any attention to game journalism over the past 10+ years you know that it isn't.

Right, and yet you discard and minimize everything to be "above" this whole topic, while still involving yourself in it. What can we call this, the unargument argument?

 Peregrine wrote:

I don't think you understand what censorship is.

You might have missed it, so I'll post it again.

'Censorship isn't a government only thing. It is mostly done by governments, but also by media outlets (google in China), educational institutions (book banning), any authorities in essence.'

I don't think you understand what censorship is.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

I don't think you understand what censorship is.

You might have missed it, so I'll post it again.

'Censorship isn't a government only thing. It is mostly done by governments, but also by media outlets (google in China), educational institutions (book banning), any authorities in essence.'

I don't think you understand what censorship is.

You're forgetting the most insidious form of censorship:

Self censorship.