Seriously?

Ok, a little angry at the moment, and I'll explain why. Pro-GG supporter and adult actress Mercedes Carrera was intending on doing a stream for a charity drive, for a charity for disabled gamers. Well, apparently this made some people on the anti-GG side very angry, and they went and basically ruined it, they made it a political issue, and the charity is refusing the money, thankfully the stream hasn't happened yet.

I'm going to say this, I can't stand the idea that out there, there are people who are so...vacant emotionally that they will basically turn a charity into a political tool. We just wanted to do something good for the world, and this is basically what happens. Do these people have so much hatred in their hearts that they don't understand how fucking hypocritical they are? That they'll rant and rave about privilege and then see that a charitable donation is denied to people who could use it.

But, you know what? I pity them, and I forgive them for pushing themselves so far in the darkness that they can't see the light, that they forgot that people can be good, and do good things of their own accord, that life isn't some game, and that charity can be done for no reason other then to do good in the world.

Okay, so let's look at what you said:

Does your "hypothetical ISIS" condone despicable behaviors such as beheadings as part of its creed?

If so, the comparison is bullshit: The vast majority of GGers explicitly denounce despicable behaviors such as harassment and threats. As much as a movement such as GG can be said to have a creed, it cannot be honestly claimed that its creed condones these despicable behaviors.

If beheadings are not condoned, is your "hypothetical ISIS" a structured organization having the power to revoke the membership of those who commit such despicable acts, but failing to exercise that power?

If so, the comparison is bullshit: GG is an open movement lacking a central authority. Despite that, where GGers do have the power to do so, they root out, report, condemn, etc perpetrators of despicable behaviors.

Now, if your "hypothetical ISIS" neither condones beheadings as part of its creed nor is a structured organization capable of removing members, then it does not resemble the actual real-world ISIS and is simply a fictionalized GG with a highly offensive name and alternate despicable behaviors in question, and this does not help your arguments against GamerGate, so why would you make such an obviously poor analogy?

You contend that the name was an innocent joke, but I'll be blunt: You strike me as an utter coward, leaping at an opportunity to conflate GG and ISIS (and then the WBC), yet at the same time dropping a "hur-hur, I don't really mean it" to cover your ass.

However... Brasas seems to try to give you the benefit of the doubt, and I suppose I should as well. If you'd like to explain it, I'll listen. Feel free to PM me if you'd rather discuss it privately than here. And of course you have every right to simply not give a shit about my opinion of you and ignore this post. ;)

You're calling me a coward? You sound real tough.

You're post is, once again, a wonderful example of why I can't stand #gg. I cannot abide stupidity, the inability to read subtlety, nuance, understand the importance of language. The discussion Brasas and I were having is not whether the analogy is a good one or not (I've said in that very post it was imperfect - as is the muslim/#gg analogy - excellent reading comprehension though), but whether I think #gg is bad in a moral sense or evil or harrasses people. Thanks for your two cents though….

The really scary thing is that our legal system has proven time and time again to be so deeply flawed that the court of public opinion is often the "better" choice (see: opinion on bankers versus the number of them that went to jail over the 2008 meltdown). Choosing between the two is definitely like trying to decide whether to eat sand or dirt, though, and society's tendency to throw people under the bus before all the facts are in is genuinely sickening a lot of times.

What is it you're objecting to?

I think you are a little too naive here;

If I were talking to a group of feminist saying that the majority (their members and non-members) are the equivalent of "men" and that they (their members) are the equivalent of "pedophiles" (or "rapist") as a an analogy that they only represent a small fraction of the majority of peoples...

Honestly how do you think members of said group would react ? no matter how many "it's not a good analogy or "I am not saying that all feminist are pedophiles" disclaimers I would have put in. And especially if during the past weeks lots of peoples would have insulted said group calling its members by those name.

You talk about understanding the importance of language and subtlety but I think you lacked both with your analogy, it was not "imperfect" it was very badly chosen taking into account the "context" in which you were using it and who you were interacting with.

Some more cynical peoples might even consider that it wasn't an "accident" or a badly chosen analogy, but something done on purpose to "trigger" an aggressive reaction from some members who might have become "sensitive" of being called certain name, even if it not directly.

Ok, a glimpse of understanding seems to evolve in my mind for the reasons why some people express their discontent quite directly to some Anti-GGers, feminsts and SJWs and their statements.

Do you guys actually know what an analogy is? Let me help you with the definition from the Oxford Dictionary:

A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

A correspondence or partial similarity.

A thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects.

Could you explain to me the connection, similarity or comparabilty of the so called analogies you two are proposing, just for clarification? Very often the analogy itself is meant to clarify structures because of shared similiarities with my limited mindset it seems I have problems to grasp the logic there.

What do have religions and Gamers in common? Especially why are pepople who believe in the religion Islam are singled out as Gamergaters in the analogies. Or the "evil" group of muslims you are refering to?

I try to keep myself from ranting, yeah I stay calm, but read what you wrote again and ask again to what I object to. Especially since you seem to count yourself to a group of people fighting for equality and against discrimination.

edit:

This goes htown1980 and you.

Giving favourable coverage to someone on the site you work for just because you have personal relationships with said person is just a matter of stylke, not ethics, right?

Yeah, but according to one of your feminist Gods games do make people misogynist. But you know, double standards and all that.

You're right. GGers clearly don't know what journalistic ethics is. There's obviously no problem at all when journalists give favourable coverage to people they have personal relationships with or that they had donated money to in the past, among many other examples that i won't bother posting again.

Way to miss the point mate...

I want to drop the You topic, because you're absolutely wrong: what I want to believe is you were tired, awake fucking late, and careless with your language, and/or worse at listening than your usual. So let me quickly say three things.

1) It's the second time you're implying* I'm stupid or don't have good understanding of english as a offhand comment. I missed the nuance? Really? I know the difference between an analogy, a comparison, or a metaphor. To be blunt, we are not discusing at such level of precision, and it's not necessary to my points. **

2) How many times do I need to ignore the 76ers? To me your bringing up the 76ers was in context, no more nor less, than you shifting the goalposts of the conversation, trying to pretend there was no moral implication or connotation in what you had said to that point, AND in what you interpreted others as saying up to that point. ***

3) In the post you replied, I said myself that I don't think you had malicious intent (now you say you were joking, I still believe you were earnest and slightly inconsiderate). I said myself you didn't make explicit comparisons, you just allowed the guilt by association to be implied from the analogies, or if you absolutely insist on the precision, implied it by the names of the hypothetical group in your analogy. *4*

So summary restatement:
My point A) yes, you have good intentions. Yes, maybe you can't understand why we are offended at you, you think you were nuanced. Yet, yes, you did actually imply guilt by association.
My point B) yes, you should stop digging yourself deeper, and either move on, or admit that "guilt" and "good", as used in the immediately preceding paragraph (and the whole back and forth I quoted extensivly already) are and were intended as having moral, ethical connotations.

Bottom line, please don't tell me you know better than me what I'm saying. Ok? I've kind of done that to you, but I respect you enough to spend the time and reference why I think so, to make an objective argument. *5*

* nuance! you didn't say, nor state.
** it is necessary to your points, which as I've implied are being cherry picked and taken out of context.
*** I'm even willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, you may believe you are not shifting the goalpoasts.
*4* I've said such things myself, but it wasn't my main part, yet you respond to the whole by repeating what I already admitted without referencing it! Another perfect example of poor listening. Me I'm ignoring what I find less important in your posts. You are ignoring what you care about in mine!
*5* Even in this latest reply of yours, let's consider the word "repulsive". Is this language appropriate to our 'badness' as players of whatever sport those 76ers play? Or is it an indication of your moral disgust? Inquiring minds would like to know... Consider where I said you're worse... at listening. It's not so hard to avoid confusion.

PS: Broadly speaking, inability or unwillingness to attempt to be objective about subjective matters, including aesthetic or ethical topics. This in a nutshell is the problem I see as root cause of a lot of intolerance and repression. I think such inability is bad (in the skill sense) and such unwillingness is bad (in the moral sense).
For examples consider: Inability or unwilligness to engage with ethics in journalism, or subjectivity in politics, or imperfect proxies of value...

Ok, now following up on post #1087. And since I started writing this yesterday, it may ignore some of what you posted in the meanwhile, though I just replied to it higher up. Obviously feel free to correct me.

Journalism

The points you made in the post I'm replying to (1048) are, in order:

1) that people paid to opine (a subjective endeavour) shouldn't be held to ethical objectivity expectations. You go so far to say these expectations are aesthetical, rather than ethical.
Source:
First, there's a bit of a strawman there. Objectivity = Good, does not imply Subjectivity = Bad. When I say something should be objective, that is a relative statement. It both means more objective than they are, and it also means more objective than subjective. I think you're reading something into it that I didn't actually write. Tad ironic :)

Still to go with your point, here are the main ways I see ethical concerns with 'people paid to opine' rejecting objectivity.

a) being paid implies professional standards, and therefore ethical expectations on behavior are inherent.
b) rejecting objectivity implies* an assumption that your opinion is better**, just because it's yours.

I think this holds generically, but admittedly I am thinking in the context of journalism. In that sense objectivity kind of revolves around objective truth. It is characterized by a number of negative attributes: do not misquote, do not mischaracterize, do not assume, do not misrepresent, avoid loaded language, etc... As well by related positive aspirations: give both sides a voice, source and document facts, use neutral language, etc...

Call this style, or methodology... I think it's ethically better. I see no problem with asking objectivity from 'people paid to opine'. I don't think that's actually oppressive.

* nuance!
** both morally and regarding skill
PS: in fact the conflation of the two is precisely the inherent human problem. Meritocracy deriving ethical value from merit is tautological. IMO a democratic mechanism is ethically required, be it democratic voting or a free market of exchange, hopefully both. The journalist ethos of "afflict the comfortable, comfort the afflicted" is imo perverse in its ethical logic (a sort of affirmative action), and inherently conflicts with determining and presenting truth.

2) that suggesting indoctrination is rethorically suspect and apparently hypocritical.
Source:
Again, you are reading a bit more into it than I put there.
-We agree Indoctrination = Bad
-We agree Information = Good *

In point 1) I just detailed on linkages between objectivity and information. Rejecting objectivity is equivalent to applying a polarised filter, whereas objectivity is the method / style that has a goal to provide a holistic view, as independent of filters as possible.

Then to go with your point, a meta argument is that rethorics, in their focus on persuasion rather than information, is immediately somewhat ethically suspect, regardless of intentions to improve the audience. And regardless of whether the doctrinaire effect is achieved. **

More OT, consider this sincere and logical distinction:
-Written media is particularly suited to ideological communication (ethical).
-Visual media is particularly suited to emotional communication (aesthetical).

In my opinion, violence caused by emotional outbursts is usually individual in scale (but may be large in aggregate) and the triggers can be very varied, whereas violence caused by ideas is societal in scale (but rather exceptional) and the trigger is almost always a process of rationalization of some 'other' as immoral. ***

Shit typically hits the fan, when the ideological departs from the abstract other, to some actual other, due to emotional motives. And yes, both sides do this, usually. ****

* for the skill sense, if not morally
PS: topics of awareness are quite relevant to morals though, just consider the ubiquity of "I didn't know" as a moral defense.
** Isn't this almost objectivist philosophy? I haven't really read Ayn Rand, but if anyone can comment I'd welcome it
*** being typical, this demonization process is an excellent bottleneck to identify potential risks, and tolerance its remedy
**** if you think I have denied games influence players you are wrong.
PS: I would argue though, the influence in order of effectual importance is rather: ludic, then emotional, only then ideological. The emotional effect may trigger violence, it may also prevent it. There is no responsibility on the media. It's all the actor's responsibility and guilt, not the creator's or the media's. Unless you can actually demonstrate objectively how alienation is intended, and with games, objectively proving ideological messaging is imo a chimera. As is actually trying to create in games meaningful (ethical) narrative, rather than some tropish (emotional) caricature.


Edit: OK... too much text... I'll try and post the rest later.

3) that video game writers are entertainers or critics. Not news reporters. [you also repeat on point 1]
Source:
Here we have the crux of it don't we? Let me try and convince you it's all journalism, while keeping a limited scope of discussion. The notes on this point are going to be longer than the rest though...

The people we are talking about are for example:
-The Leigh Alexander's who write polemics and opinion pieces, editorials basically *
-The Nathan Grayson's doing reporting on a gamejam, maybe including traditional investigation and interviews.
-The Ben Croshaw's reviewing games, whether you consider them consumer products or art objects. **

Now let me elaborate on journalism. ***
-Journalism's ethos is fundamentally about informing the audience about reality via non fiction *4*
-Journalism's technical must haves: regularity, avoidance of first person content *5*

Let's see how those examples fit this model.
-Reporting I assume we both see as journalism, so I'll skip going into detail.
-Reviewing is also meant to inform. *6* It is information about the value of a certain object, hence the typical score. It requires a person to experience the product, hence the level of subjectivity will be higher than for reporting. *7* An important contrast here is between a regular publication, purposed to help the consumer make informed purchasing decisions and a store purposed to help the consumer purchase. *8* Only the first is journalism.
-Editorials are intended to inform you about opinions on particularly important topics. Their subjectivity is quite high both in defining the importance of the topics, *9* and in the content being published. *10* They are therefore the most subjective journalism, *11* yet still journalism, meta journalism if you will.

Ok, so even if you don't think reviewing and editorials must be journalism, I hope this argues well that they may be journalism. In which case, the ethical arguments come into play. *12*


* Could be actual editorials by permanent staff editors, or freelance pieces. Doesn't really change the point.
** Review or critique I'm considering synonyms here, the distinction I see usually hinges on some diffuse border between commercial product (to review) and artistic object (to critique). If you want to make a point that critiques are not journalistic, go ahead.
PS Some would say a review is superficial, whereas a critique is deeper, to me this is anyway connected to the above, via bias against commercial products, or via bias toward artistic (or political) narratives.
*** Huge caveat, this is my "original research", as per wiki jargon.
*4* Hopefully it's obvious how this informs point 1). Also consider how this excludes anything with even a bit of fiction, like social novels a la 19th century French realism, or 20th century US stuff (Kerouac's "On the Road", Capote's "In Cold Blood")
*5* Regarding regularity, consider the etymology, which I believe comes from the french for diary. Regarding first person, journalism should be inherently impersonal, a perfct narrator of sorts, which contrasts with unreliable narrators in literature. Consider how auto-biographies are not journalism, neither are letters by readers - or in the net, forum and posts and comments likewise don't make the cut.

PS i: I don't think journalism is necessarily about the news, rather the news are by their nature something the public will want to be regularly informed about. So in economics language, it's not that journalism supplies only news, it's that demand for news coverage creates suppliers. Conflation of journalism with news, is a consequence of what journalism is at a deeper level, so I'd rather avoid prescribing journalism as about news.
PS ii: Consider how journalism and science are intimately connected (or justice systems, more on which later). Methodologically, the focus on objectivity and revealing truth is particularly obvious to me. My argument on ethics is basically that anything you would consider bad history (the science closest to journalism I think), is bad journalism. This type of thought process only requires imagining the piece outside of its contemporary period.
PS iii: Scientific journals are therefore, a particuarly pure example of journalism, incuding the news aspect. Their naming reflects as much, despite their technical content implying audiences are obviously niche.

*6* Even Zero Punctuation which is so heavy on entertainment intent is still fundamentally a review. (I can point to my monster edits of a ZeroPunctuation piece if needed.) Compare with Conan O'Brien playing games on TV, that's not informative, that's comedy (and advertising) aping some of the trappings of reviews.
*7* This is not different than investigation where the journalist's person is more relevant and a certain 1st person element is implicit.
*8* Gaming sites or magazines will also partially be entertaining, and partially about helping purchase (also via advertisements), still this is a fundamental difference with reviews found in Steam, or GOG. The stores inform you as a side efect, whereas the journals sell to you as a side-effect. This is fundamentally an ethical distinction.
*9* Which importance increases the gain from perverting the objectivity
PS iv: Ability to influence political outcomes the typical gain. Political authority the coin being bartered. Authority derived from meeting ethical expectations as per my 1). Self identification as journalist does not prove you're a journalist, but this is of course why individuals do it.

*10* There's still elements of objectivity available. For one justifying the opinions with as many facts as possible, for another arguing in as neutral way as posible.
PS v: Another approach is adversarial, have a number of different viewpoints presented given equal weight. This of course is the methodological approach of most justice systems, with the judging capability for journalism being implicitly part of the editor role, which provides the authority on ethical and technical aspects.

*11* Increased subjectivity goes hand in hand with increased required professionalism.
PS vi: However, editorials by their nature (assuming diversity is desired) are ideally suited for democratic journalism, in that the individuals offering opinions need not be trained professionals. The presumed increased editorial input on forms and standards (not on content) would mitigate risks.
PS vii: I found Brad Wardell's observation I quoted a while back in this thread, re the freelance amateur writer phenomena, as triggered by the economic downturn quite insightful. Maybe a bit more professionalism and a bit less passion would be desireable? Wink wink ;) /innuendo
PS viii: There is an interesting topic here, on how the call for honesty in journalism is somewhat perverse. Instead of honesty meaning aligning to the truth, per objectivity, what is meant is an idolization of sincerity, and a privileging of the journalists' ego over their subject, which is the object(s) that should be more important. With editorials, the object should be the controversy, not a particular viewpoint on it.

*12* Unfortunately, particularly in editorials and what is called institutional mission of the publications, conflicting ethical standards to objectivity have become the norm, which justify not even attempting to present fairly the opinions on the "other" side (theoretically the "powerful", or "confortable"). Needless to repeat, political influence is the goal, and today's media is clearly partially responsible, and I'd say guilty, of creating positive feedbacks that increase political polarization to their own benfit, both economical, and political.
PS ix: Let's consider further the alternatives to an ethics of information, objectivity and truth, which you seem to consider very relevant. Broadly speaking they are to amuse or to accuse. The first, hedonistic entertainment, is associated with frivolity, superficiality and distraction of the masses. The second, belicose justice, is associated with power, control and consequence. Hence journalism which isn't really journalism, rather the opium of the masses, or an instrument of ideological dominance.
PS x: These alternatives to truth in media are actually kind of old, they're called comedy and tragedy. Now the greeks were stereotypically philosophers, so their notions of the purpose of comedy and tragedy were somewhat moralistic, and intended to reveal deeper truths. We as a society have definitively turned away from that, whether that's due mainly to scientific materialism or secular arrogance, and we are gradually keeping comedy and tragedy for purely emotional (pathos) motives. In journalism of course, this is called sensationalism, and everyone knows about it as modern trend. The ironic tragedy of journalism, is that sensationalism inflames passions when it should calm them, and soothes the public when it should engage them. In my view, all mostly due to abandoning objectivity, and therefore trying to take shortcuts to some greater truth, which may not even exist.

4) that it is illogical to be both: against enforcing tolerance of some speech, and against intolerance of some speech.
Source:
Here of course we are completely into moral political philosophy. And this argument is completely independent of journalism, though it can apply to it, as a part of a larger logical truth. *

We have two axes of possibility space:
-enforcing hosting
-actual hosting

Now let's consider semantics. I'm assuming you'll agree with equating "actually hosting" speech to tolerating said speech.

Option X: FOR enforcing, FOR tolerance
Option Y: FOR enforcing, AGAINST tolerance
Option Z: AGAINST enforcing, AGAINST tolerance
My Option: AGAINST enforcing, FOR tolerance

They are all logically possible. Their ethical significance remains undetermined, since we have not postulated ethical value to tolerating speech.

With X and Y, we have a belief that others** may be forced to host something. X is similar to a "common good" setup, with a mechanism to prevent anyone from stopping anyone else's speech. Y is strange, but imagine a situation where the enforcement mechanism is tragic, since the intention is to tolerate, yet the result isn't tolerance.

With the remainder, we (literally me and you) consider enforcement is wrong *** and you then you are fine if this results in intolerance (the speech was not actually hosted = the speech was not actually tolerated). Whereas I am not.

Let's leave it at that. If you are fine so far, I don't think getting from intolerance to either repressive or unethical is a big leap. You'll just need a bit of imagination regarding what I believe. ****


* It's also broader than speech. Similar logic applies to action in general.
** others and yourself, if we assume universal beliefs for added logical consistency.
*** reason not important, but as I understand private property seemed paramount to you, it is to me.
**** certainly we can discuss what specifics may result that intolerance of certain speech be ethical.



Ok, there you go. It was a pleasure to give this so much thought, and I hope you can let the part about You drop and engage on the Journalism stuff. It's quite a topic huh?

I think the problem with Journalism isn't JUST regulated with games journalism. If you take things like Ferguson, or Eric Garner, or even the Rolling Stone UVA article, the media has been guilty of not doing their job and not doing the research. This is a problem, these journalists are free to write the articles they want, but if they aren't doing their job regarding research and neutrality, then what separates them from some yahoo with a tumblr account or a facebook page? The issue comes even farther when something like the UVA case, or the Duke Lacrosse Team comes up, where people get upset by the fact that an accusation gets thrown around, they react angrily, and then suddenly there's no proof, the person lied to enough of a degree that their story is entirely suspect.

Now, here's my problem. All of the reports for the Eric Garner case kept talking about a choke hold, even when it was revealed that the grand jury didn't indict the guy. So many of the reports about Ferguson, I honestly couldn't tell you the full story if I wanted to, everything I saw was so disjointed that it felt like the media made this shit up themselves. And truthfully, the New York Times published the address of Wilson for a reason I can't even tell you.

The Media is broken, PERIOD, it pushes the Court of Public Opinion to the degree where it's disgusting, and the best part? They don't get in any trouble, they fade into the background and no one really cares to notice. This is fucked up, I'm very big on responcibility, which includes, admitting you fucked up and dealing with the consequences.

The thing with starting with Gaming is, it's our hobby, our passion, and it's small enough to feel like it's something we can fix. It feels like a problem that we can do something about, and we are, we're building up new sites, TechRapter, Niche Gamer have been coming up strong in this, and there are others that are fighting for a piece of the pie that's there.

Fixing the larger problems in the media, is going to require a lot more people, and it's going to require proof that it can be done. Hey, if we can fix Games Journalism then maybe that's proof that it can be done. And you know what? The same shit is going to happen, media in control is going to spew whatever mud they can find to keep a revolt down, it's going to scare off a lot of professional people because they can't afford that. In fact that's not just Gamergate's biggest strength, it's been our best weapon. We've endured because Gamers have already been treated like shit and scum in the mainstream media, it's lasted because that's all they have, they can't bring out any actual bit of proof...and the more they rant, the more people look into the details and realize what's going on. In fact they do us a favor everytime they sling mud at us.

That's impressive too, the more they sling mud, the longer this goes on and the more mistakes that get made, the more people who end up seeing how wrong things are. Hell, here's an example, Kotaku...two years or so I believe, published a article about how a 'strong independent black woman' learned to drive through GTA IV. That article was recently revealed to be a hoax, with this as the proof and reasoning http://i.imgur.com/iLNDWSf.png, so yeah, we do have a problem, especially considering the writer has a Masters Degree in Journalism but didn't bother to do any research but instead take the person at face value.

A number of different sects (casual gamers, hardcore gamers, console gamers, PC gamers, etcetera), each with plenty of denominations (DRM-free GOG fans, "no Steam no buy" people, those fighting in the console Blood War, GG, anti-GG, and other such subsets of gamers). Plus there's a constant opposition from those who feel that the whole thing—either gaming or religion—is responsible for many of society's ills.

I only compared GG to that particular religion because of the fairly recent backlash against Bill Maher after his comments about Islam. It demonstrates a double standard because our opposition is unwilling to hold one group responsible for its fringe while condemning another for the very same thing. Salon actually ran a piece calling GG terrorists while at the same time criticizing Maher's comments.

I don't know if these people believe that self-awareness is a tool of the patriarchy or what, but how these people live day-to-day without the cognitive dissonance driving them mad is beyond me.

If I might suggest most respectfully to everyone on this thread ... stop feeding the Neo-feminist trolls!!!

If you step back and take a look at just the last few pages of this thread you will realize there are several people posting here who are making random attempts at "winding up" people who are supporters of or sympathetic to gamergate.

Once you take a look at the circles they're leading you in its most obvious that it is far better to channel your efforts and energy into something else. Just sayin'



And now ... let this nice chap from The Sarkessian Effect talk about reality. (This might be especially helpful for the Neo-feminists watching.)

Enjoi! ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz2m3XDFeYQ&list=UUhi4TtLzwVnMQ5xHwaxWD-g