I don't support Gamergate, because I think the beginning of the movement was wrong. But, did you check that there are MANY women there too?

Agreed... it all started eons ago in a big bang, expansion happened, etc...

Like, people still argue what caused WW1, the assassination? The ultimatums? The mobilizations? The invasion of Belgium? Or the arms race? Or the imperialist zero sum game?

For an US example Fort Sumter, slavery, tariffs, western states, industrialization, republican senate, federalism...


Whoever you are, pretending the heavy moderation didn't happen (ethics!), or the personal relations are not factual and should inherently somehow be above suspicion (ethics!), or the actors have no conflicts of interest whether economical or ideological (ethics!) is disingenuous at best and consciously in bad faith at worst. Your unwillingness to accept the valid points of your opponents only reinforces the polarization and manicheanism which are in evidence. Much as you like to ignore it, the GG side does not ignore harassment, confronts threats, etc...

Your insistence the misogyny is THE issue, to the exclusion of other values and priorities, to the detriment of objective evaluation of the evidence, is precisely the ethical main problem. We don't want OUR personal to reflect YOUR politics. Your intolerance, based on the unproven assumption we are responsible for some distributed social evil, is again THE ethical core issue to our side.


Here's an hot off the press example of the superficiality. Tom Bramwell in an exit interview, which I recommend for its humane warmth if nothing else, says:
I think I'm inherently sexist, as I think probably all men are, because of the way we're conditioned by society to regard women as objects rather than people. I see this all the time. ...

I think it's darkly hilarious, working in a company that has been unwittingly assembled almost exclusively of men, in an industry with a terrible gender imbalance in its make-up and output and a wage gap you could drive a bus through, that it's even considered a debate now rather than just a blindingly obvious truth hiding in plain sight, ...

Consider the specific evidence provided. It's superficial. Correlation does not imply causation. Statistical inequality may represent actual and factual differences in the phenomena, rather than conscious or subconscious 'problematic' intent.

Consider an alternative postulate. All humans are inherently empathy limited. They are conditioned by biology to regard all others (regardless of gender) as objects, except for reduced circles of acquaintances, no more than circa 2/3 hundred strong at most (usually rather dozens I believe).

Whatever, I felt like going on into cultural norms, but whatever...

I didn't seen that part.

Oh, you should have seen it, it was amazing to see! Here's a screengrab I took.

I also saved a bunch of comments before those got deleted as well. They pretty accurately represent the most common reactions to the mass deletion of comments on reddit.

For most people, such as myself, we didn't know, or simply didn't care about who slept with who, let's be honest, that's small potatoes in the long run. The problem is is that most of us have known about the rather unethical behavior, we simply didn't think there was anything that we could do about it, you'd hear about someone grumbling here, or someone getting angry there, but you'd never get the sense of a group of people who could actually do something. It sucked.

Once the 'Gamers are Dead' posts when out, once you saw DMCA takedowns go out, hell TotalBiscuit got chewed out for only saying 'If the DMCA takedown was done in bad faith then the person needs to be condemned for abusing it', then you really started to see the gamers of the internet hit their boiling points. But then you have 10+ articles that say that we're white, misogynistic neckbeards who don't want to see strong women, and all of this crap, and it slanders entire groups of us for no reason whatsoever. I mean seriously, why do this? Doesn't take a genius to see that crapping on your audience is wrong.

As far as I've seen, the harassment charge tends to feel trumped up, I rarely see actual legal definition harassment, often I see people calling harassment over just a simple 'I'm sorry, you're mistaken', and honestly most people don't even give an answer when I ask about showing me what was so harassing. I keep my eyes open but anytime I've seen it, it's a brand new account that gets shouted down rather quickly, or some troll on twitter who thinks that they can get some free, easy lulz.

I can understand both moderators (I think talking about the private life of someone on a forum is not correct) and the rage because of the massive censorship in the part of the people that posted. But I still consider the privacy of a person is more important than the free of speech in this case.

What I cannot understand, is the "Gamers are Dead THING" that happened later, that as you can see made that even make people like me, I consider Zoe whatever she did or not did needed to be "defended", been pissed off and feel attacked by the great stupidity that some "hipster" and "cool" gaming websites throw to their own readers.

More when some of these "Cool" websites are capable of p... and p... in some developer's projects that took years, effort, and will to be done... and then suddenly a crappy game with an opportunistic topic "Depression" , becomes "interesting"

But I either understand the harassment and the push vs Zoe, because we should NOT CARE about Zoe's Life. Her game would be the THING we should be talking or not, not HER, whatever if she push the game having a nice friendship without sex with that journalists, or f-word the whole North America, that is not the point. That is why I think this is a bad High School Drama Movie... in both sides.

Yeah, I agree. But I consider that Zoe was actually harassed, and this is the point some dumb people should understand in order to stop the other dumb people blaming everyone for harassment.

On a personal level, I think she got angry messages, I don't know the number, but actual harassment is continuous messages over time by a person, it's hard to simply say that a group of people sending one message is harassment.. It's hard when dealing with the internet because every person sends messages like they think they're the first (seriously, look at most comment sections, a vast majority really don't read what others have written). Again, I don't know the full details there, I know there's a lot of shit that as I notice it's painting a very weird picture (Including ZQ mentioning something about a free game, researching this had a known troll offering Smash Bros demo codes for people who would tell Zoe to die...that I definitely think is fishy).

The big problem I have is that on the internet and social media...it takes two to tango. Block the assholes, set your account to private (granted I know little of twitter), or simply step away from a few days, they lose power almost immediately. I know I seem a bit insensitive, but I honestly feel like I've seen this before in other situations. It's unhealthy and no one needs to be in the situation, but I want to be honest about what I'm seeing, and you know what? It's the same on the other side, and I have taken days where I've walked away from following this for my own health.

But that leads to the question of this topic in general, she was basically not even a factor for a while, why bring up the topic to drag her name back in again? I don't think there's a good reason personally, honestly just let people bow out of this if they want (although, judging from her and her followers going after Stardock's CEO tonight, I think she doesn't want to leave this either *Sighs*)

I have a lot of confusion about people claiming things with Gamergate...it just strikes me as weird that people will believe that tens of thousands of people, men and women of all different races and creeds, just to harass two virtual nobodies out of gaming in a quest to rid gaming of women (Although none of the larger names get touched, or came out), but people won't believe that a handful of games journalists got greedy and power hungry and simply fucked up. Maybe I'm not meant to understand, this seems less like reality and more like some fucked up fiction.

That's the SJW tactic: create problems that don't exist and then sell the solution. The lesser SJWs do it just to feel smug, the higher ones do it for money. Quinn wasn't getting any attention, so better drag her back her into the spotlight again to fit the narrative.

Damn, you made me explore her twitter page... To get something helpful out of this thread, does anybody know if there is a way to zoom in or whatever on photos posted on Twitter. It's so small that I have troubles reading them on my small laptop and the "zoom in" function of Firefx is just an upscale :(
Example:
https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy/status/540047576935194624
(in fact, it's to more appreciate Jodi Taylor's ass when she tweets about it... hum....)

Now you made me click on that stupid feed...
Guess I'm having a hard time seeing how any satirical web comic can constitute "revenge porn."
But again, another incident of harassees becoming harassers. I read up on the whole Brad Wardell court drama. From all accounts, he won straight up. The accuser was asked to apologize by the court. He's been harassed about this for years. But still because someone sued him, he "must" be guilty of something despite what the court decided...or so people like Zoe think...

My OP was about hating vitriolic and cruel internet harassment campaigns.

Especially when reposting that filth to "generally okei" sort of fora tends to create "benefit of a doubt" that is hardly deserved.

Gamergate I have not followed, but... based on the counter-reaction, they must be doing something none too poorly, eh? :-D

You seem none too source critical, as you would imply these "SJW" to be. (SJW=Social Justice Warriors, a fashionable slight of sorts for anyone whom is not ,,, ...???)

For example, Ubisoft required that Assassin's Creed Unitiy professional reviews could only posted from noon onwards from the publication, when this title was unfit for use.

What say you?

I don't understand what you are trying to say. I also don't see what Ubisoft has to do with anything, but if your point is that game publishers use underhanded tactics and abuse their power, then yes, I completely agree with that (although their approach is different than that of SJWs). But again, I don't see how that is relevant here, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

The thread you know, right? Here:

http://www.gog.com/forum/general/the_zoe_quinn_scandal_highlights_how_gaming_journalism_is_corrupt_and_has_turned_to/page1

My question is:

If you are a gaming fan, or even generally would prefer good journalistic standards, why would you bring forth a cruel and piss-poor internet hate campaign, as opposed to relevant issues in gaming journalism / game reviews?

Ubisoft topic: Assassin's Creed Unity was not fit for release, and the critics had to agree to a four hour window between release and publishing their views per default. Wish they had all thought "up yours" in unison (or "unity" lol), but they did not, did they...

Why is there such a monumental rift between peer reviews of Dragon Age Inquisition (PC version) vs professional reviews? Because only the root level haters vocalize, or...?

And I do recall reading that a publisher bought out significant advertisement space with a reviewer and withheld payment until seeing a sufficiently favourable review.

How's that for proper gaming journalism issues?