Superman 64 Discussion Thread

[Sousa]

Oh man Sean if you think professionals talking to each other on a mailing list demonstrates corruption then I have horrible things to tell you about education.

[Dan]

Hashtags suck though, on all sides of the argument or any argument.

I'd probably use Twitter a lot more if it wasn't covered in them.

[SeanDMan]

That or you can't see the forest because your binoculars are zoomed all the way in on the mush on the floor.

Really, it's chicken and the egg. Are the extremists all we talk about because they're all that is there, or does it seem like the extremists are the only ones arguing because they're the only ones that people ever talk about?

There are reasonable people in the middle on both sides and there are fucking lunatics at the fringe of both sides as well.

Oh man Sean if you think professionals talking to each other on a mailing list demonstrates corruption then I have horrible things to tell you about education.

Have you seen some of the stuff that ended up on that mailing list? Things like "hey, this guy is going to come talk to you, I'm not telling you what to do but we should probably blackball him from this industry"?

If that isn't collusion, corruption, and probably criminal I don't know what is.

Edit: I just think we should hold our media to higher standards. I'd say the same about education but then they hired you so obviously things must be desperate.

Edited February 20, 2015 by SeanDCouturier

[DFF]

That or you can't see the forest because your binoculars are zoomed all the way in on the mush on the floor.

Really, it's chicken and the egg. Are the extremists all we talk about because they're all that is there, or does it seem like the extremists are the only ones arguing because they're the only ones that people ever talk about?

There are reasonable people in the middle on both sides and there are fucking lunatics at the fringe of both sides as well.

I think the problem is that the extreme element has such as a strong grasp on the 'GamerGate' name/phrase/tag/whatever, that anyone arguing that it can/should be able to be used for something less sinister is a little blinkered.

[Troy Maskell]

Here's my two cents on the whole debacle.

If you believe that ALL of GG is misogynistic and hateful and that they don't have a valid point because of it, you are pretty much the living breathing embodiment of "Confirmation Bias"

At the same time, if you believe that no member of GG is guilty of making threats to people like Quinn, Wu, Sarkeesian and co and any women who threatens their video games, then YOU are pretty much the living breathing embodiment of "Confirmation Bias"

Does that mean that the members of GG who don't do that shit actually don't have an argument? No, they have a point, they're going about it the wrong way, but they have a point.

Does that mean if you disagree with Sarkeesian you are automatically a woman hating misogynist who should "Die in a fire with the rest of your gator friends" (Note: Not my words, hence quote marks)? No, she has a lot of points that deserve to be critiqued and debated but at the same time she doesn't deserve death threats, however again just from my own views on it, not all GG'ers are doing that, it's just a shield that the Anti side hides behind because "We won't give in to misogynists" when literally 90 percent of the GamerGaters AREN'T DOING THAT

Like any argument that goes political, the conservatives, the people who actually want to discuss ideals rationally and peacefully are getting lost in a blanket of white noise by the extremeists. Once again, is every GG member innocent? Fuck no, there's plenty of assholes in that movement, just like there are on the Anti-GG side. But assholes do not invalidate the core argument, the Quinnspiracy, the thing that started all this bullshit may or may not be true, don't know, wasn't there, don't care but that doesn't change the fact that there have been shady dealing on games sites in the past and there should at least be some transparency there.

I'm not saying GG is right, there's a lot of things they do wrong, and there are a lot of people that it's hard to actually like because of things they've said or done about Quinn, Sarkeesian and Wu. All I'm saying is that doesn't invalidate the argument, to say that ALL of GG is tainted and misogynist and that the movement is just a hate group is to simply put your head in the sand. Just like saying all of GG is about ethics and parts are NOT misogynistic is to simply put your head in the sand. The problem lies in we're only hearing one side of the argument in the mainstream press, the Anti-GG side. And we keep running around in circles avoiding the issue. The minute that changes is the minute GG dies.

[Hobo]

I'm basically Kirklanding this thread.

 

<iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/AYOvzEoC.x?p=1" width="720" height="433" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#AYOvzEoC" style="display:none"></embed>

[Robsturgh]

I would love for there to be more transparancy in gaming journalism, so I tend to only go to outlets I trust - that's pretty much how I deal with the origin of the issue.

The issue now is so, so far away from what it was "intended" to be, and anyone on either side trying to have that actual discourse is going to get nowhere because of everything that has come since then. Anita isn't going to engage with the GG group, even in a legitimate way, because she has had death threats and rape threats on a near daily basis for months. It is the equivilant of being pushed over by one guy and then another guy coming up to you to talk about why that guy pushed you over - it doesn't matter how reasonable the second guy is being, you aren't going to want to talk about it.

[Lint]

Here's my two cents on the whole debacle.

If you believe that ALL of GG is misogynistic and hateful and that they don't have a valid point because of it, you are pretty much the living breathing embodiment of "Confirmation Bias"

At the same time, if you believe that no member of GG is guilty of making threats to people like Quinn, Wu, Sarkeesian and co and any women who threatens their video games, then YOU are pretty much the living breathing embodiment of "Confirmation Bias"

Does that mean that the members of GG who don't do that shit actually don't have an argument? No, they have a point, they're going about it the wrong way, but they have a point.

Does that mean if you disagree with Sarkeesian you are automatically a woman hating misogynist who should "Die in a fire with the rest of your gator friends" (Note: Not my words, hence quote marks)? No, she has a lot of points that deserve to be critiqued and debated but at the same time she doesn't deserve death threats, however again just from my own views on it, not all GG'ers are doing that, it's just a shield that the Anti side hides behind because "We won't give in to misogynists" when literally 90 percent of the GamerGaters AREN'T DOING THAT

Like any argument that goes political, the conservatives, the people who actually want to discuss ideals rationally and peacefully are getting lost in a blanket of white noise by the extremeists. Once again, is every GG member innocent? Fuck no, there's plenty of assholes in that movement, just like there are on the Anti-GG side. But assholes do not invalidate the core argument, the Quinnspiracy, the thing that started all this bullshit may or may not be true, don't know, wasn't there, don't care but that doesn't change the fact that there have been shady dealing on games sites in the past and there should at least be some transparency there.

I'm not saying GG is right, there's a lot of things they do wrong, and there are a lot of people that it's hard to actually like because of things they've said or done about Quinn, Sarkeesian and Wu. All I'm saying is that doesn't invalidate the argument, to say that ALL of GG is tainted and misogynist and that the movement is just a hate group is to simply put your head in the sand. Just like saying all of GG is about ethics and parts are NOT misogynistic is to simply put your head in the sand. The problem lies in we're only hearing one side of the argument in the mainstream press, the Anti-GG side. And we keep running around in circles avoiding the issue. The minute that changes is the minute GG dies.

Again, the 10% minority is the vocal majority. If I was in the 90% who aren't crazed nutjobs, you damn well know I'd be getting my sane voice out there, letting it be known that "Hey, this crazy fucker doesn't speak for me."

But instead, no the "moderate" GGers say nothing, then wonder why they get lumped in with the insane idiots

[SeanDMan]

Anita makes a lot of money from playing the victim. I used to have respect for her (I didn't agree with her, but at least I respected her opinion) until I found out she's just the pretty face in front of a camera and is working with a script writer, image consultant, and PR team to make herself a brand name. She's just an internet celebrity plying on her status as a victim of a culture war and I don't really care to give her any more of my time. I disliked her videos, I dislike her positions on twitter, I recognize that she has a right to exist but I'd rather she do it where I didn't have to be exposed to her.

Granted I'm sure she'd think I'm a piece of shit too and she's probably right.

[SeanDMan]

Again, the 10% minority is the vocal majority. If I was in the 90% who aren't crazed nutjobs, you damn well know I'd be getting my sane voice out there, letting it be known that "Hey, this crazy fucker doesn't speak for me."

But instead, no the "moderate" GGers say nothing, then wonder why they get lumped in with the insane idiots

Because you can't win. People say "if you're really about debating things, abandon the hashtag, let the whackos have it, get a new one". That will work about as well as dropping a chlorine mint into a septic tank; you can't idiotproof a hashtag. The more you say "These guys represent us" the more people say "they're using your hashtag!" and the more disingenuous that discussion becomes. There will always be an extreme; the smart people look past it and make their truce in the middle. Edited February 20, 2015 by SeanDCouturier

[Troy Maskell]

Again, the 10% minority is the vocal majority. If I was in the 90% who aren't crazed nutjobs, you damn well know I'd be getting my sane voice out there, letting it be known that "Hey, this crazy fucker doesn't speak for me."

But instead, no the "moderate" GGers say nothing, then wonder why they get lumped in with the insane idiots

But they HAVE been, you're just not seeing it and that's my point. There's been campaigns on twitter to report burn accounts that post harassment, there's been countless people in the moderate side who've come out and said "I support GamerGate. I do NOT support Harassment".

And it's not like the Anti-GG side is not innocent in that shell at all, they've bullied and harassed people on the GG side, they tried to get Baldwin banned from the Supernova pop culture festival in Australia because of his views on GG. Yet when the moderates on the Anti side don't stop them, they're given a free pass because "They're misogynists who deserve it anyway". That's not just a confirmation bias, that's a double standard

[SeanDMan]

Zoe Quinn of all people came out and gave thanks to people on Twitter who, while pro Gamergate, organized the "Anti Harassment Patrol" who went and got a lot of burner and harassment accounts banned.

[snowbird]

oh huh ewb has a gg thread now well we're all smart people i'm sure there won't be any--

Anita makes a lot of money from playing the victim.

oh.

for FUCK'S SAKE. sean. buddy. sean. no.

[SeanDMan]

I'm not saying she deserves the abuse she gets, but she certainly makes the most of it.

[snowbird]

so your argument is "take your abuse and shut the hell up"? 'cause that's real shitty.

[The Lusophone]

You can't say "I support GamerGate, I do NOT support Harassment" when harassment is one of largest things GamerGate is engaged in. The leaders of GG have actively engaged and organised it. You can support the principles of fighting corruption in video games journalism and everything that entails but doing it under the GamerGate hashtag/movement means you are implicit in also supporting GamerGate's tactics.

[Pizza]

You can argue for a better games journalism industry without throwing in with gamergate, which implicitly is a harassment against women movement. It was born out of an attempt to destroy a womans life. And even the 'moderates' are writing letters asking advertisers to pull out of websites that run feminist articles for the crime of writing feminist articles. And trying to get advertisers to dictate what can and cannot be written about on a platform is the complete opposite of ethics in journalism. Every single self professed member of gamergate is complicit in that harassment, just as every single member of Isis is complicit in the murders they've committed, even if they don't agree with it. The only thing gamergate has accomplished is to make it impossible to have a legitimate conversation about actual ethical issues in journalism. If you legitimately care about that, you should want gamergate to disappear just as much as I do.

[Troy Maskell]

You can't say "I support GamerGate, I do NOT support Harassment" when harassment is one of largest things GamerGate is engaged in. The leaders of GG have actively engaged and organised it. You can support the principles of fighting corruption in video games journalism and everything that entails but doing it under the GamerGate hashtag/movement means you are implicit in also supporting GamerGate's tactics.

I go back to what I said earlier, if you believe that supporting the main argument of Gamergate and that Gamergate is a harassment movement when the majority aren't doing it, you are the living breathing embodiment of "Confirmation Bias"

Edited February 20, 2015 by Troy Maskell

[SeanDMan]

so your argument is "take your abuse and shut the hell up"? 'cause that's real shitty.

No, my argument is that if you're a victim of abuse you report it through the proper channels and deal with it the way most people do, IE not publicly. She's basically the Kanye West of abuse victims; she's become as much a celebrity because people hate her as because of her work. And it's all tied back to Kickstarters, patreons, paypals, you name it. This is a woman who got six figures to deconstruct video games and that was, what, five years ago, and she's made four or five Youtube videos? Meanwhile, that patreon money keeps rolling in...

Again: if she were a person instead of a carefully cultivated internet brand, I'd be more sympathetic.

There's a reason Jim Sterling is now ultra pro feminist when he used to be the guy making jokes about raping teddy bears. He can smell the money too.

[Mick]