All right more responses:

RWarehall
Yes those tweets are real, but there are two things important. Both tweets don't mention video games or censorship at all, and two she is not wrong. In fact she is dead on in her assessment. Particularly in the wake people like Elliot Rogers. It's something needs be addressed by the people, not the government.


Shadowstalker16
Yes she is criticizing games. Is she focusing a certain parts of the games? Yes, but again it's not invalid. And yes it's basic critical theory, but the fact that it's being at all is what's worth talking about. And as for ethics? One of the major rules of the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics is Do No Harm. And again the harassment allegations are not BS: http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/109319269825/one-week-of-harassment-on-twitter
There is very good reason why these threats are taken seriously by the mainstream.

As for the article and the tweet,, it shows that they care about not offending there customers, and offering quality g

Rusty_Gunn
I'd responded to this but I'll let this video speak for themselves(relevant part starting at 11:00)
http://videos.theconference.se/anita-sarkeesian-hate-and-heroism

Tza
She doesn't hate masculinity. She's doesn't like toxic masculinity, and you know what? Neither do I. And for the last time criticism is not a science. It is all subjective. She doesn't need to take into account the characters, and there back story, and the world because (and this is very important) they are not real. They don't exist in the real world.

Gnostic
I fail to see your point. If there is a point that is.

arrjayjee
She has everything right not to have her comments section on. YouTube comments are not the most productive form of conversation. In terms of journalistic relationships, and conflicts of interest there it is only a conflict of interest if there is bribery involved. There is no evidence of bribery from Anita or Zoe. Even if it were true, it would mean very little to the outside world. Games Journalism is not important in the grand scheme of things. The global power structure isn't under threat from a breach in the ethics of games journalism.

Lastly Gamergate was never about ethics:
https://storify.com/strictmachine/gameovergate

dragonbeast
You just proved my point. Thank you.

And finally here is a reaction to the recent UN report from a so called "SJW":http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/09/uns-cyberharassment-report-is-really-bad.html?mid=twitter_scienceofus

You don't seem to be getting it.

No one here said Anita's criticism won't find validity nor that she shouldn't be allowed to express them. Is it that difficult to understand? She should talk about them. People talking will promote discourse and debate and discourse and debate will lead to better understandings of the problems and might help in finding possible solutions.

All you're doing is making loose claims. You say ''do not harm''. So all criticism is harm? If so how does truthful reporting bring harm to her? What does legitimate harassment she receives have to do with anything? If Anita is being harassed; are journos reporting on her obligated to spin the story and neglect the facts?

Yes Anita has received harassment and still continues to do so. You do know that the harassment she received after her tropes vs women announcement was before GG started right? And you can prove that GG harassed Anita at any time? This is just a blame game, and I don't see why you want to focus on it. EVERY public figure on the internet has been harassed. Trying to justify anything just because something while very emotionally damaging yet so trivial to do is BS. Milo Y was sent a dirty syringe and dead animals in the mail. Lizzyf620 was doxxed as well. The SPJAirplay panelists were doxxed on twitter and live in the chat as it took place. Hell; even Roosh was accosted, insulted and sworn at in public, had a drink thrown on him and was harassed into leaving the bar he was eating at and was followed by cussing radfems and their rides into his hotel room. What makes Anita so special that she deserves unethical propaganda journalism to kiss her harassment booboo better?

Anita said many things that are factually and objectively wrong. She should be allowed to say it since it isn't defamatory to a single person / organization. Her opinion however is never discussed and all she does is make claims and not address the criticisms anywhere. Not on youtube, reddit, twatter or facebook, and least of all in a video even though she says she wants to have a conversation. She is lying; the media is supporting her.

Read up man. You're still parroting what they all say; and what you've been saying for the last few posts, without facts to prove your claims and accusing GG with claims that cannot be proven.

Yeah care about not offending. Why do you consider the burden of forgiveness in ''offense'' situations should be on the ''offender''?

Read the rest of this thread and you must realize that you haven't said anything that hasn't already been repeated over and over ad nauseum and refuted, debunked and put in the trash 17 different ways until the wheels fell off. That is, what you're saying is not going anywhere. ;-)

Shadowstalker16

You're right. I don't get it. And it is because you still fail to make any sense. Your basically saying 'yeah she has the right to say what she wants, but she's wrong. ' She isn't wrong about anything really. Art is subjective. It always has been. Even if what she is receiving is criticism, she is not obligated to respond to them. It isn't part of some insidious agenda, it's just her choice.

And the burden of proof isn't me. It's on you. You claim that Gamergate is about ethics in journalism. I and the mainstream media don't really believe it. In fact there have been quiet a few thorough debunking. Just Look up Why Are You So Angry? on YouTube or Google Rationalwiki's list of Gamergate claims.

So I ask you, what is your extraordinary evidence that will back up your extraordinary claim?

noncompliantgame
Is that so? If that's the case why does the mainstream not support Gamergate? Why have major working game developers like Tim Schafer mocked Gamergate?

Well for one, I don't think the media wants to admit the media is corrupt. Though to be honest all the gaming websites had to do when this whole thing started was just admit mistakes were made and that they'd work to correct them, while making sure they wouldn't happen again. Things would have blown over fairly soon and shortly after it would have been considered a non-story to keep bringing up. They didn't though and then The Streisand Effect just went to work on various occasions.

As for Tim Schafer, he openly mocked minorities at GDC 2015 and even did his math wrong while doing it.

The answer is contained within your question.

Time to do this little song and dance again:

thelovebat
Oh, boy. You went there. You just went full conspiracy theorist. So the media are in on it, but no one wants to admit it.

Also what was so racist about Tim Schafer's comments in that video?

noncompliantgame
It really doesn't.

It really doesn't what?

And already crying "conspiracy theory". I told you, it's all been done. You've turned up here a bit too late for this particular brand of trolling. Please find some new shtick. Okay? ;-)

noncompliantgame
It doesn't explain anything.
Me trolling? thelovebat made a baseless assertion, and I was calling him out on it.

Rusty_Gunn
You can't debunk an opinion.

Anita: "Game rewards the player for "certain action". "
Game "lowers player score" ie punishes player for "certain action".

Do you see now? When she presents her opinion as fact she opens herself up criticism as well.

I have yet to see one that wasn't debunked.

Rusty_Gunn
I assume you are talking about her take on Hitman: Absolution.
You can still do what she describes in the game. From her perspective the reward isn't so much the score as much as it's the ability do what you want with the women thanks to the sandbox mechanics. And even if I'm completely off base then well, then it was just a mistake on her part. They happen. Nobody's perfect. No malice was involved. Plus one the main developers of the Hitman games seems to agree with her:
http://kotaku.com/the-new-hitman-s-creative-director-is-saying-all-the-ri-1712709700

Haha, quoting Kotaku, that's rich...not biased in the least...
Look Ryan, you are just being rather evasive. But what I really find rich are your ridiculous claims like "burden of proof". If you had any idea what that actually means...

You yourself have made a number of statements you have failed to "prove". In terms of Anita, she's the one claiming video games are problematic, thus its her burden to prove her claims. Your fallacious assertion that Gamergate has all the burden is completely baseless. And if you are going to make sweeping claims, then you also have the burden to prove your own...

Anita has made any number of silly unproven and factually wrong claims, as discussed and demonstrated in this thread. Including the one you just discussed where Anita claims the designer "intended" that players play that way. She couldn't be more wrong about that.

Just as you try to dismiss her claims of male toxicity having nothing to do with video games. So you are claiming that a video game critic who is trying to make a career out of bashing violent video games, doesn't mean video games when she blames "toxic masculinity" for mass shootings? Seriously? I bet you can't say that with a straight face...

Edit: Nice link, but where in that article does the director even say that? Oh right, he doesn't. not at all. Did you even read the article you linked? Ah look, Ryan making an objectively false claim. Let me guess, he'll claim "it's his opinion, so can't be proven false" haha

It's only a conflict of interest if there's bribery involved? Have you ever even *looked* at a journalism text book? Because I've got a Journalist's Guide to Media Law sitting on my desk beside me and you're way off base. Even the possible perception of bias is cause to recuse oneself from reporting on a subject. And the whole "games journalism isn't even important so ethics don't apply" argument is absolute nonsense. if games journalists are acting as some kind of "megaphone" and telling gamers what's good and what isn't, and influencing purchasing decisions, they're having a real world effect on the consumer, and that comes with an implied duty of care. The letter of the law differs, but the roots are the same in any western country. Except maybe in the U.S. where Fox News argued in a court of law that it is not required to report factual information, but if you're going to use that argument you just dug your own grave.

And the bit about comments being on wasn't the point. The point was she does not open herself to any discussion at all. Any opinion that differs from her own is labelled harassment. There can be no discussion with that mindset. At that point there is no conversation happening, there is only one person saying "this is how it is".

Finally, telling me that gamergate was never about ethics (and I would argue that point) as an attempt to handwave away any ethical concerns is dishonest at best and complicit at worst. And your proof is a handful of screenshots with no sources cited except Zoe herself? That's not compelling evidence. I mean, the argument in that Storify is that someone who was opposed to GamerGate got in to the IRC channels and saw people posting comments that painted GamerGate in a bad light , which begs the question: if Zoe was anti- and could get in there, why couldn't other anti-s get in there and stir shit?

I don't give a toss about GamerGate or any associated hashtag. I do care about ethics. For me, this is an ethical concern. I want to know when I'm reading a review that the reviewer is giving me an honest appraisal and is not shilling for a buddy. GamerGate has been useful because it has exposed quite a few journalists who do not disclose personal relationships with the subjects of the articles. That trolls on both sides are acting like complete tosspots is irrelevant to me. Trolls will troll, both for and against. For me, what I care about is what can be verified, and there have been verified conflicts of interest.