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.
2014/09/24 20:34:59
Subject: The Gamergate, Scandal, Conspiracy, and Journalism Corruption
VorpalBunny74 wrote: Peregrine, I'm wondering if we've had a failure to communicate.
You're right. You quoted a post aimed at someone else who was talking about "censorship" of video games and responded to it as if I was responding to something you said. I wasn't.
When I was talking about it, I meant in regards to the attempted silence of debate about GamerGate. For example, the Reddit graveyard, the recent 4chan purge, Ben Kuchera trying to convince Greg Tito to shut down the Escapist thread.
But that isn't really silencing, because there are countless other places to discuss the subject. A host saying "we don't want this on our site" is not the same thing as someone saying "you can't discuss this".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slarg232 wrote: Actually, you don't have to tell someone to stop or else in order to censor them.
Yes you do, because that's what censorship is: the removal of content by force.
By not giving certain games a voice, you essentially censor them by not giving them a megaphone in the sea of other people you've given megaphones.
Err, lol? So now it's censorship if people don't make a special effort to help you speak and reach a larger audience? That sounds like a pretty entitled attitude to have.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/24 20:37:47
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2014/09/24 21:28:51
Subject: The Gamergate, Scandal, Conspiracy, and Journalism Corruption
CorporateLogo wrote: Comic books were not destroyed by Fredric Wertham, and I'd say the fact that books like Saga and Sex Criminals can exist alongside superhero stories shows that comics are doing alright for themselves these days in terms of content variety.
They technically where. They had a massive drop in sales and places no longer carried them.
They were hurt for a very long time. And they still haven't recovered.
In fact, according to your own standards here, YOU are guilty of censorship. You keep telling people to get out of the thread if they post something you consider off-topic, you celebrate the "death" of game journalism websites that are on the "wrong" side of the issue, and you expect people who are advocating more gender equality in games to shut up and stop making demands that you don't approve of. So how do you justify this hypocrisy?
I am only guilty of being an idiot sometimes. But sometimes saying two people need to rethink their stances and actually read statements said by others instead OF cherry picking a conversation apart.
I have said that there is alot of issue with trying to get gender equality in games. I support it, but the realist in me says no. It won't happen. We have to do it slowly.
We can't just sit down and say. "Okay everyone lets make every character female from now on!
That doesn't help the issue. And that is what many people advocating for in multiple threads. Its not only stupid, but it is the most childish idea ever. That is ignoring 95% of the problems.
We do not need more female characters. We need better characters in general.
And don't even start with me Peregrine. You have made quite a few statements that are quite false and hypocritical.
But hey at least I admit my faults.
There are many things in the gaming industry that need to change. Mostly representation of women. But that is a issue that will come back.
But that is not an issue in gamergate.
The feminist side makes it out to be like that. Or the hipster side is trying to make that a major point and it is flat out wrong. It is not what this movement is about. Read the articles and stop cherry picking statements. Argue THE WHOLE statement. Not just the statements you disagree with.
Sigh. How many times do I have to say this? NOBODY IS CENSORING VIDEO GAMES. You, along with every game developer, are still free to publish whatever games you want. You might get criticized for your choices and you might not make much money if the customers don't like your product, but they can't stop you from publishing your game and selling it to anyone who wants to buy it. A for-profit business voluntarily making changes to their product to maximize sales is NOT the same thing as censorship. And you know this just as well as I do, because you don't start an epic crusade against censorship every time gamers demand that a console game be released for PCs, criticize the ending of a video game that disappointed them, etc.
That is technically censorship. Not allowing someone to do something or criticizing them and pressuring them into doing something you want because you don't want that thing to be covered.
Is censorship. It is the worse type of censorship, it prevents artists from displaying their opinions on the matter.
A few years back there was a designer who made a game about the holocaust and was banned by the united states from making the darn thing because it might hurt peoples feelings. He did it anyway.
And guess what. The game never came out, and his career was destroyed.
He was using the game to teach people about the holocaust. what people went through, It was going to be a tool to do this.
Yes you do, because that's what censorship is: the removal of content by force.
Not all the time it can be as suddle as marking someone out.
a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively
: a person who examines books, movies, letters, etc., and removes things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc.
It does not require force. IT requires action. Two different words.
Action can be as suttle as marking it black. Or blurring something It does not have to be large and extravegant,
It is a huge issue.
Err, lol? So now it's censorship if people don't make a special effort to help you speak and reach a larger audience? That sounds like a pretty entitled attitude to have.
Technically it is censorship just a lower form of it. It happens and you unwillingly block out that groups voice.
Hence why it is better to generalize in certain situations. I.E. Opinion pieces on how to improve your house... Or who to vote for.
But that isn't really silencing, because there are countless other places to discuss the subject. A host saying "we don't want this on our site" is not the same thing as someone saying "you can't discuss this".
Oh that is silencing someone's voice. A large public forum just decided to say. "NOPE! CAN'T Talk about that!"
Is silencing.
It is like that either because the moderator doesn't agree at all, or they are being asked to do it because someone else disagrees.
It does not happen because some idiot makes a stupid post and insults someone. That doesn't happen in 4chan or reddit.
Those are public forums. Not telling your users why you are doing that is a huge problem.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/09/24 21:34:30
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
2014/09/24 21:36:31
Subject: The Gamergate, Scandal, Conspiracy, and Journalism Corruption
Asherian Command wrote: But sometimes saying two people need to rethink their stances and actually read statements said by others instead OF cherry picking a conversation apart.
Censorship.
We can't just sit down and say. "Okay everyone lets make every character female from now on!
Censorship.
Its not only stupid, but it is the most childish idea eve.r
Censorship.
We do not need more female characters.
Censorship.
But that is not an issue in gamergate.
And yet you, and other people on "your side" keep bringing it up.
Read the articles and stop cherry picking statements. Argue THE WHOLE statement. Not just the statements you disagree with.
Censorship.
It is the worse type of censorship, it prevents artists from displaying their opinions on the matter.
It does no such thing. "Artists" are still free to display their opinions on the matter, they just aren't entitled to collect a paycheck and other support from their employers while doing so. You need to learn the difference between censorship and declining to offer support to something you disagree with.
A few years back there was a designer who made a game about the holocaust and was banned by the united states from making the darn thing because it might hurt peoples feelings. He did it anyway.
No such thing ever happened. Nor would it even be possible for it to happen, as the US has no power to ban games with legal but offensive content.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote: Action can be as suttle as marking it black. Or blurring something It does not have to be large and extravegant,
Oh FFS, you still don't get it. The person marking something black is doing it with government authority behind their actions, and the threat of jail time or other consequences if you don't submit your work to be censored. That's why it's done by force, not because someone is literally holding a gun to a person's head and saying "take this out".
And, like it or not, the simple fact here is that no such thing is happening in the case of games. People are saying "we don't like X" and for-profit businesses are potentially deciding that including X is not a good business decision, but nobody is being forced to remove X against their will. If you want to publish a game with X in it you are free to do so, and nobody can stop you.
Technically it is censorship just a lower form of it. It happens and you unwillingly block out that groups voice.
And now your definition of "censorship" has gone far beyond any conventional definition. It seems like the real issue here isn't censorship, it's that you're unhappy that your opinion isn't shared by the majority and you feel entitled to an equal share of the discussion even if it means that other people have to help you publish your ideas.
A large public forum just decided to say. "NOPE! CAN'T Talk about that!"
I don't think you understand the difference between public and private forums. A website's comment section is a private forum, and the people running it have every right to determine what is and isn't allowed there. This is no different than having guests over for dinner and asking them to refrain from talking about politics.
Is silencing.
No it isn't. If you want to speak you are free to do so. Declining to provide someone a platform to speak from is not the same thing as silencing them.
Those are public forums. Not telling your users why you are doing that is a huge problem.
And again with the entitlement. The fact that you want something does not mean that someone else is obligated to provide you with it. If you don't like how a private website runs their discussion area then don't participate in it. The fact that you disagree with their policies does not mean that you are being oppressed, or that there is any moral issue here.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/24 21:47:23
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2014/09/24 22:27:30
Subject: The Gamergate, Scandal, Conspiracy, and Journalism Corruption
Peregrine wrote: You're right. You quoted a post aimed at someone else who was talking about "censorship" of video games and responded to it as if I was responding to something you said. I wasn't.
My mistake and apologies.
Peregrine wrote: But that isn't really silencing, because there are countless other places to discuss the subject. A host saying "we don't want this on our site" is not the same thing as someone saying "you can't discuss this".
It isn't 'countless places' when you can count them on one hand. The Escapist is the only major video game news website that has allowed a continued discussion on GamerGate.
Also, a host saying "we don't want this on our site" should hopefully clarify why.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: It isn't 'countless places' when you can count them on one hand. The Escapist is the only major video game news website that has allowed a continued discussion on GamerGate.
That's only because you're arbitrarily limiting it to places where you can have a large audience for your opinion. "None of the people who have a large audience want to give me a platform to speak from" is not the same thing as censorship. You're still free to post your opinion on the countless smaller sites, start your own site, etc. And hey, that's exactly what you're doing right now.
Also, a host saying "we don't want this on our site" should hopefully clarify why.
You might want that clarification, but you aren't entitled to receive it. And you aren't being censored or oppressed if they don't give it to you.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2014/09/24 23:14:14
Subject: The Gamergate, Scandal, Conspiracy, and Journalism Corruption
Peregrine wrote: That's only because you're arbitrarily limiting it to places where you can have a large audience for your opinion. "None of the people who have a large audience want to give me a platform to speak from" is not the same thing as censorship. You're still free to post your opinion on the countless smaller sites, start your own site, etc. And hey, that's exactly what you're doing right now.
Well, yes. I want to know what other gamers are thinking about these issues. As far as GamerGate goes, that's increasingly hard to do on video game websites, due to rigorous censorship. If certain video game websites are concerned about discussing corruption that they might have been involved in, they could take a page from actual journalism:
This is the NY times NOT burying its head in the sand over a scandal they were involved in.
Peregrine wrote: You might want that clarification, but you aren't entitled to receive it. And you aren't being censored or oppressed if they don't give it to you.
And yet you, and other people on "your side" keep bringing it up.
I do not bring up female representation other people do. And I clarify and say no.
Censorship.
Nope. You can think that but it doesn't make you right.
I don't think you understand the difference between public and private forums. A website's comment section is a private forum, and the people running it have every right to determine what is and isn't allowed there. This is no different than having guests over for dinner and asking them to refrain from talking about politics.
Incorrect. A public forum can be used by anonymous users.
4chan is a public a forum. It is not private in the least anyone can get onto 4chan and discuss things. It is controlled and maintained but it is still an open public forum.
It does not allow the moderators to attack someone.
Private forums are invite only.
There is a huge difference between a public forum and a private forum.
And now your definition of "censorship" has gone far beyond any conventional definition. It seems like the real issue here isn't censorship, it's that you're unhappy that your opinion isn't shared by the majority and you feel entitled to an equal share of the discussion even if it means that other people have to help you publish your ideas.
I think most people here have agreed with me on several issues. And where are you getting these ideas from? O.o
I said there are multiple layers of censorship. Which in itself is a true statement.
No such thing ever happened. Nor would it even be possible for it to happen, as the US has no power to ban games with legal but offensive content.
Censorship does not have to be by a governmental body. It just has to be a group of people saying nope. That won't work.
I don't think you understand the difference between public and private forums. A website's comment section is a private forum, and the people running it have every right to determine what is and isn't allowed there. This is no different than having guests over for dinner and asking them to refrain from talking about politics.
Heres the difference unlike a public forum which everyone can join in. A private forum is invite only. Those people were invited by you, so you have every right to say no political discussions. But if it is not invite only, and it is not your house, and anyone can walk in and say anything they want. Then it is no longer private.
Its public.
No it isn't. If you want to speak you are free to do so. Declining to provide someone a platform to speak from is not the same thing as silencing them.
Hahaha. That is censorship. All you have to do is have a public debate and say no you we won't let you speak. That is again CENSORSHIP. and silencing discussion.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/24 23:33:16
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
2014/09/24 23:34:18
Subject: The Gamergate, Scandal, Conspiracy, and Journalism Corruption
They are. My point. It apparently went over your head.
Asherian Command wrote: If you can't censor a book, you should not be able to decide what goes into a game or a comic book.
And what is preventing me from criticizing a book and saying what I would like to read?
Asherian Command wrote: Comic books were destroyed by a moron who was very much like jack thompson.
Comic books are very much alive.
Asherian Command wrote: I don't think it works Hybrid. Though I am extremely biased. I see games as an art form. IT is never really a product. IT is a labor that makes an artwork that will last for generations.
You certainly seem to forget who is paying your bills, here.
Now, if you want to live the way of Picasso, you will get total artistic freedom.
The artistic image of having every goddamn female character in the game extremely sexualized, while non of the males are?
Ah ah.
Slarg232 wrote: Actually, you don't have to tell someone to stop or else in order to censor them.
By not giving certain games a voice, you essentially censor them by not giving them a megaphone in the sea of other people you've given megaphones.
OMFG PICASSO WAS SO MUCH CENSORED, NOBODY GAVE HIM A VOICE IN HIS WHOLE LIFE.
We all know how this ended.
Asherian Command wrote: We do not need more female characters. We need better characters in general.
We talked about that enough already. You like fully fleshed out, no customization possible characters. Some people like customizable or placeholder characters. Both should exists to satisfy everybody, and both should provide a wide range of female options.
So, this is about Nintendo. But looking through the whole article, it seems to me the real problem is that he sadly did not get the funding he needed from the indiegogo campaign, rather than Nintendo. Also, you must be so mad at Apple .
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/24 23:42:05
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
2014/09/24 23:43:30
Subject: The Gamergate, Scandal, Conspiracy, and Journalism Corruption
Remember that image you posted that contains an argument about how female representation in games isn't an issue?
Censorship.
Nope. You can think that but it doesn't make you right.
I don't just think that, I'm indisputably correct. You have made it very clear that you consider it censorship if someone says "stop doing X, I don't like it" (as the feminist groups are doing to video game developers). And yet you keep saying "stop doing X, I don't like it". So I can conclude from this that either you're in favor of censorship, or that your definition of censorship consists of "saying something I don't like".
4chan is a public a forum. It is not private in the least anyone can get onto 4chan and discuss things. It is controlled and maintained but it is still an open public forum.
Wrong again. It's a private forum because it is owned and controlled by an individual (or private corporation, in other cases), and you are only permitted to post there as long as the owner(s) allow you to. They might currently have a policy of granting permission to post very generously, but they are under no obligation to continue that policy.
Oh FFS, did you even read anything about this game? You claimed that the developer "was banned by the united states from making the darn thing because it might hurt peoples feelings", and no such thing ever happened. Some people thought the subject was controversial, and the publisher (a private corporation, not the US government) decided not to sell it. Meanwhile the developer decided to take their work elsewhere, and the US government continued to do absolutely nothing to prevent them from making it.
Censorship does not have to be by a governmental body. It just has to be a group of people saying nope. That won't work.
Only because you're using your own personal definition of "censorship" that has nothing to do with the real one. A company saying "nope, we don't think that will be a good business decision" is NOT censorship because you are still free to publish your ideas elsewhere. This is just your entitled opinion that everyone is obligated to help you publish your ideas, and if they don't they're censoring you.
Heres the difference unlike a public forum which everyone can join in. A private forum is invite only. Those people were invited by you, so you have every right to say no political discussions. But if it is not invite only, and it is not your house, and anyone can walk in and say anything they want. Then it is no longer private.
This is just laughably wrong. The fact that someone is generous in allowing people to come onto their property and speak does NOT mean that you have an inherent right to continue speaking even when the owner doesn't want you to. This is an appallingly entitled attitude, more like something I'd expect to hear from a spoiled child than a mature adult.
All you have to do is have a public debate and say no you we won't let you speak..
And that's not what is happening here. There is no public debate because the conversation is happening on a private website. This isn't censorship, it's you acting like you're entitled to have someone help you present your opinion to a major audience and claiming oppression when they say no.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/24 23:44:47
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2014/09/25 02:53:23
Subject: Re:The Gamergate, Scandal, Conspiracy, and Journalism Corruption
But for those of you that can't be bothered, he's a full transcript:
We are Gamers We are alive.
We believe that games are an art form that should be allowed to flourish and evolve naturally and freely and should thus be protected from the dogmatic rhetoric of a clique of totalitarian ideologues who seek only to reign over an intellectually monolithic empire.
We believe that the free flow of ideas and information is necessary for an informed, free democratic society to function and condemn all attempts to use disinformation, censorship and bullying to disrupt free discussion.
We believe that a Fifth Estate worthy of that name needs to be ethical, transparent, free from conflicts of interests and independent from undue outside influence to merit the trust of the public, the real and only source of its legitimacy.
We denounce the mercantilization of debased social justice and thus believe it is our responsibility to inform sponsors and partners of the moral corruption they implicitly endorse through their advertisements.
We resist the careerist writers who sacrifice social harmony, human ethics and intellectual honesty on the altar of Controversy, in their quest for clicks in attempt to please their corporate owners’ cupidity.
We refuse to forego our legitimate right to think for ourselves, and resist those who want us to serve as a passive, obedient, subservient audience whose only function is to listen and believe the propaganda of culture war profiteers and patented gurus who prey on the gullible.
We reject harassment, threats, abuse; and the use of those terms to mislabel questions, dissent and criticism which are all essential parts of any rational, logical, respectful social discussion.
We reject the Industry of Outrage and its shame-based economic model which parades calculated victimhood and fabricated martyrs to distract from its own sins while panhandling for the sympathy of the morally manipulated masses.
We reject the ideological megaphones who perpetually parrot their prejudiced hate which they attempt to masquerade as progressive political preferences to disguise their own self-centered ethically bankrupt behavior.
We reject the meticulous and deliberate manufacturing of self-fulfilling prophecies by self-aggrandizing and recognition-starved academics who have neither knowledge nor care for games, developers and gamers.
We believe that misogyny does exist, is toxic, and that trivializing its true gravity by throwing the term around as a ready-made decoy to stonewall any constructive dialogue is intellectually dishonest and immoral.
We believe that we are humans first; and that the use of our gender, sexual orientation, religious or ethnic identities as mere commodities, to be traded on the open market, in return for ideological brownie points objectifies, exploits and ultimately dehumanizes us all.
We are of all genders, skin colors, sexual orientations, cultures, creeds, ages, education levels and social classes To you, those things should divide us Yet here we stand, united.
Because we are not divided by those identities we didn't choose We are united by the one identity we did choose.
We are Gamers We are alive
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/25 03:20:29
I dear hope you are joking. I didn't like the article XD.
Not because of the writing style but because shesh really?
Way to go on a neutral standing NPR. XD
I'm just going to throw this out there. But maybe they did?
Being fully serious here too. This person may not be nearly as attached to the topic as you and is presenting what they found. Or you know feminist conspiracies and such.
I'm waiting for the third group to arise out of both sides and notices either side isn't innocent or inherently right.
@H.B.M.C : that is the best argument I've seen for the Gamergate movement. Unfortunately it is a lot of vague wording as to what exactly are they implying. Other then deliberately saying we do not approve of the Anita person. Which isn't really that relevant to them she has the right to do what she does as much as the Gamergate movement does too.
Really they just need to leave that stuff behind as it is just miring the whole situation in politics. Or maybe they could reach across the isle and start enlisting the opposite end with good honest points of view.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/25 03:49:07
2014/09/25 03:49:38
Subject: Re:The Gamergate, Scandal, Conspiracy, and Journalism Corruption
BrotherGecko wrote: I'm waiting for the third group to arise out of both sides and notices either side isn't innocent or inherently right.
We've acknowledged that:
1. Trolls exist fanning the flames against both sides.
2. Pro-GG starting out of the Quinnspiracy thing was not ideal as it's not what GG is about but makes it seem like it's about being anti-feminism or anti-female.
3. There are many individuals on our side, and since we've been repeatedly censored and have no gaming media publishing our side, that makes some people go further than they should to try to get their voice heard.
Neither side is innocent, but one side is *far* more wrong when you add up collusion amongst journalists to present a unified anti-gamer viewpoint (proven with gamejournolist), collusion to censor the topic on most popular discussion forums (proven with banned mods on reddit, 4chan and gamejournolist requests for the same and so on) which combine to a vast disparity in the strength of our voices which greatly helps sell their side of the story primarily by silencing ours. Zoe Quinn was possibly doxxed (possibly faked) - it got huge gaming media coverage. Boogie, Baldwin and several others were doxxed... media silence. People have been fired and others have had attempts to get them fired because they spoke out for gamergate... media silence. We're relying on outside coverage to get our voice heard.
2014/09/25 03:51:56
Subject: Re:The Gamergate, Scandal, Conspiracy, and Journalism Corruption
BrotherGecko wrote: I know right. Why would a journalist interview a major player in the event when that person is somebody you don't like. Like fer realz yo!
Don't be intentionally obtuse. Leigh Alexander is a hateful, spiteful person who has done nothing but put out hate-mongering tweets/articles since this began. This isn't just because it's "somebody I don't like".
We believe that games are an art form that should be allowed to flourish and evolve naturally and freely and should thus be protected from the dogmatic rhetoric of a clique of totalitarian ideologues who seek only to reign over an intellectually monolithic empire.
Ah ah ah!
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
2014/09/25 03:59:25
Subject: Re:The Gamergate, Scandal, Conspiracy, and Journalism Corruption
These are indie developers also responding to GamerGate. Majority on this list wished to remain anonymous, for fear of attacks.
Update: also, went to the gamergateharrassment tumblr, but it's been inexplicably replaced by some bodybuilder gak. It's spelled gamergateharassment, with just ONE "R". The one with 2 "Rs" is the fake.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/09/25 04:14:31
Lord Judicator Valdrakh of the Atun Dynasty (6th Ed: W:3, L:4, D:0)
H.B.M.C. wrote: Well GW were mostly responsible for the Berlin Wall, so it's natural for some people to harbour resentment towards them.
2014/09/25 04:00:02
Subject: Re:The Gamergate, Scandal, Conspiracy, and Journalism Corruption
I'm waiting for the third group to arise out of both sides and notices either side isn't innocent or inherently right.
I don't think that is going to happen. The third rational side isn't coming to the rescue. They are staying the heck away from this whole mess. No one with half a brain would want to jump in and try to be the reasonable one. There is simply too much gack involved to get at the handful of meaningful issues. (You might end up getting the third side that goes kill half the puppies, but ya.)
2014/09/25 04:19:48
Subject: The Gamergate, Scandal, Conspiracy, and Journalism Corruption
We believe that games are an art form that should be allowed to flourish and evolve naturally and freely and should thus be protected from the dogmatic rhetoric of a clique of totalitarian ideologues who seek only to reign over an intellectually monolithic empire.
Ah ah ah!
I'd ask you to stop trolling, but that would require more effort that I'm willing to expend on you at this point...
Slarg232 wrote: Actually, you don't have to tell someone to stop or else in order to censor them.
Yes you do, because that's what censorship is: the removal of content by force.
By not giving certain games a voice, you essentially censor them by not giving them a megaphone in the sea of other people you've given megaphones.
Err, lol? So now it's censorship if people don't make a special effort to help you speak and reach a larger audience? That sounds like a pretty entitled attitude to have.
Come back when you study Politics.
Particularly the practice of Pigeon Holing.
I've never feared Death or Dying. I've only feared never Trying.
2014/09/25 07:15:39
Subject: The Gamergate, Scandal, Conspiracy, and Journalism Corruption
We believe that games are an art form that should be allowed to flourish and evolve naturally and freely and should thus be protected from the dogmatic rhetoric of a clique of totalitarian ideologues who seek only to reign over an intellectually monolithic empire.
Ah ah ah!
I'd ask you to stop trolling, but that would require more effort that I'm willing to expend on you at this point...
What's trolling about it? That quote is just hilarious, laughing at it is the only reasonable response. I mean, really, "totalitarian ideologues"? Games as a "freely flourishing art form"? Someone doesn't seem to understand that games are a for-profit business built around milking the cash cow as efficiently as possible, not great works of art made by poor persecuted artists who just want to let their voices be heard. And it just gets better from there. The whole thing is the kind of dramatic speech you'd expect to hear in a rebellion against an evil dictatorship, not a mess of twitter drama where the core argument seems to be outrage that the equivalent of celebrity gossip magazines aren't respectable enough in their Real Serious Journalism about the latest toys.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/25 07:17:55
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2014/09/25 07:16:36
Subject: The Gamergate, Scandal, Conspiracy, and Journalism Corruption
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'd ask you to stop trolling, but that would require more effort that I'm willing to expend on you at this point...
All it takes for him to gracefully exit a thread though is to call him out on his blatantly false stances and unjustified insults, which is relevant to this thread too thankfully:
Yonan wrote: It looks like there may have been more to the whole "4chan against Emma Watson" thing:
The people behind the "Emma Watson your next" thing, currently trying to frame 4chan, might be a company called rantic. Seems like it's a company that basically creates drama and then profits from it. Or perhaps they were doing it at the behest of some third party. What else have they done? Evidence in the thread I linked. Wait for more evidence before completely freaking out though. The research is in progress. If you can help them out, by gathering and (as importantly) archiving evidence, do so please.
If this pans out, it looks like there are outside groups with agendas to push that's seriously impacting online/gamer culture which is pretty fethed.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Damn. I would not have guessed my analysis of Yonan was that much spot-on. I hear tinfoils hat protect from gaming journalists mind control devices!
I shouldn't reply to you, but did you at least look at the evidence collected so far? "emmayouarenext.com is owned by a PR/marketing firm by the name of http://www.rantic.com/ " which funnily enough if you go there is now "Rantic Social Media Marketers. is currently undergoing scheduled maintenance."
" We have been hired by celebrity publicists to bring this disgusting issue to attention. The recent 4chan celebrity nude leaks in the past 2 months have been an invasion of privacy and is also clear indication that the internet NEEDS to be censored. Every Facebook like, share & Twitter mention will count as a social signature -- and will be one step closer to shutting down www.4chan.org. "
Sincerely, Rantic.com
Third parties muddying the waters, blatantly lying and running interference during GamerGate. 4chan is still regarded by most to be on the pro-GG side (though this is no longer the case since Moot cleaned house and banned all discussion of it). By blatantly lying and saying 4chan were threatening to leak nudes of Emma Watson straight after her - awesome - speech on feminism at the UN, it's clearly going to have an unjustified negative impact on the pro-gamergate stance. Multiple news outlets jumped on the "4chan is the bad" when the threat went up. No apologies after proven false, and only one or two sites have covered the Rantic admission of having done it. Screw the media.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/25 07:17:55
2014/09/25 07:20:04
Subject: The Gamergate, Scandal, Conspiracy, and Journalism Corruption
Yonan wrote: Multiple news outlets jumped on the "4chan is the bad" when the threat went up.
Was it too hasty? Perhaps, but you should consider asking why the "4chan did it" story seemed so plausible and nobody was protesting that they would never do such a thing.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2014/09/25 07:27:34
Subject: The Gamergate, Scandal, Conspiracy, and Journalism Corruption
This really has nothing to do with the thread. And it doesn't even have anything to do with his argument. Guys, why are you even bothering with Peregrine, a person who self-admittedly said he only posts when he's certain he's right? I mean, do you think he's going to suddenly change his mind? Or even be open to other peoples opinions that don't coincide with his?
My warmachine batrep & other misc stuff blog
http://sining83.blogspot.com/
.
3000
4000 
