Posted October 29, 2018
Lukaszmik: From what I recall he did publish something along the lines of "monthly indie review" where the only game that had a whole paragraph dedicated to itself was from the conveniently friendly female developer. I think later on there was the "correction" that this happened before they were in a relationship, but it's not like you can reliably verify that claim, either. Nor establish just how friendly they were before the point they decided they were in a relationship to start with.
I found it extremely... silly... that the issue of undisclosed personal relationships affecting business practices was something apparently a lot of people thought irrelevant (presumably because it benefited the woman in question), but since the whole thing was almost immediately hijacked and turned into poo-slinging from questionable elements on both sides, can't say I paid much attention to it afterwards.
The original objection, though, seems as valid as it was the day it came to light. It does not help that, at this point, any information about this is suspect at best, since there is a high interest in pushing specific narratives from both camps.
Pretty much ended my interest in anything "game journalism" related, though.
I never really felt any of it was honest, really. Gamergate went so fast that i didn't even know it was going down until it was already over. However, the battle scars on the market are still very, very apparent. The worst part about the issue is that simply ignoring wouldn't've improved things either: politics likes to seep into your life, whether you are interested or not. It's always sneaking into everything, then dragging you out of the area in which you hide from it. Don't want to talk about taxes? Too bad, your taxes just went up. Just want to have a gaming channel, well too bad, you didn't pay that extra copyright tax to show that little bit of gameplay. Want to talk about something major that just happened in your area, and how scared you were that your school was being shot up? Too bad, you simply plagiarized a news story. Like your games with bouncy titties and sexy babes? Too bad, that's objectifying women, and needs to be stopped. Always sticking their noses into everything. And imagine being unlucky enough that you become a victim of a politically motivated attack for being jewish, christian, white, black, hispanic, asian, male, female, straight, gay, whatever, or for just wearing a red hat that you had no idea stood for a political campaign, or maybe it was just a plain red hat and someone was out "polar bear hunting." Yet people can't help but run to government and media over their personal issues that can be sensationalized for money and power. I found it extremely... silly... that the issue of undisclosed personal relationships affecting business practices was something apparently a lot of people thought irrelevant (presumably because it benefited the woman in question), but since the whole thing was almost immediately hijacked and turned into poo-slinging from questionable elements on both sides, can't say I paid much attention to it afterwards.
The original objection, though, seems as valid as it was the day it came to light. It does not help that, at this point, any information about this is suspect at best, since there is a high interest in pushing specific narratives from both camps.
Pretty much ended my interest in anything "game journalism" related, though.
This out of the way, after reading a bit about GOG's most recent social media fiasco, I think the whole catering to manufactured controversies intended to push specific agendas is long past the point of having gotten out of hand. Not saying the moderator was not at fault. I mean, that's some serious issue deafness involved if somebody does not realize co-opting a tag like that could not have consequences. That said, a single apology from GOG should have sufficed. Ignore "media" whose sole existence seems to be inflaming divisive conflicts for the pure sake of profit, and move on.
I do wonder if the people actually concerned about the issues they claim to represent (in this case the transgender part of our community) do realize that by such ridiculous attacks they merely ensure these issues to receive that much greater resistance from general population.
In america, for every republican accused of rape or sexual assault, there's probably 2 or more democrats (since the narrative is that democrats care more about women's rights, it's safer for a woman abuser to hide where they're assumed not to exist). Which do you hear more about? These people will meet congressmen in an elevator to harass them into making decisions in favor of a woman they don't know, whose accusations have not been verified, yet you won't see these people going after weinstein, anthony weiner, etc. I remember a woman telling me that I was a misogynist for supporting Trump, 'cause he was tied to Epstein and there was a case against Trump for sexual assault allegations, yet "i don't want to talk about it," when bringing up that Epstein and the Clintons were much, much closer. When everyone was going after Moore, what was said about Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, and more? A quick google search on democrats and sexual assault yields some interesting results. Seems more to me like a weapon, 'cause they know the right cares, even if the left (seemingly) doesn't, so it makes an opportune weapon for the left against the right. I do wonder if the people actually concerned about the issues they claim to represent (in this case the transgender part of our community) do realize that by such ridiculous attacks they merely ensure these issues to receive that much greater resistance from general population.
This isn't to say that the left doesn't care about sexual assault allegations, but to point out that those who control the narratives are more interested in controlling the narratives than being principled.
You can't force equality.
You can force equality, but it's a question of whether it's equality of opportunity or equality of outcome. Outcomes do not necessarily correlate with opportunity, in fact they necessarily do not correlate if you accept that individuals are different and have free will. chandra: I can see that there is clearly still a need for a place to talk about the current events, as threads concerning this subject keep on popping up. While I do understand that,
Telika: Hello. Say, while you do understand that, don't you feel that one heads up about what actually happened could be actually precious (and a bit respectful) here? I think that witnessing pages long, days long, speculative discussions around an event that I would know would make me feel a bit bad for the futile, sorry spectacle of well-meaning headless chickens running in circle here. Is that just me ? Is keeping people at that level of ignorance that useful to you ?
Post edited October 29, 2018 by kohlrak