Superman 64 Discussion Thread

[SeanDMan]

Long time lurker around here. Just wanted something clarified from the pro-GG types around here like Troy:

Ultimately, if we are to assume this has to do with ethics in journalism, what does that really matter in the video game industry? Hobo kind of touched on this (how it's simply a form of entertainment) and I get that video games are a multi-million dollar industry but what does one reviewer mean in the grand scheme of things? Would him giving a game that was getting mixed reviews an 8 instead of a 5 really going to impact anything? Would Zoe Quinn be receiving, say, a million more dollars than she would have otherwise? I just don't understand why this apparently mythical review even mattered to begin with, let alone enough to cause threats. If it was journalism about ethics in politics or war or something that really, truly mattered, I get the point of being upset. But I'm confused on what it is about the gaming journalism industry that is sacred and had to be preserved.

Maybe I just don't care enough about video games, but I'm genuinely interested in getting more info on GamerGate's significance. You know, aside from the insanity that came out of it.

I'm skipping a lot of the back and forth with Troy because ugh but this is a valid question so I'll address it:

It's not, to me, an issue with one particular reviewer or even one publisher or even one industry, but a symptom of wider spread corruption in media in general. It goes beyond games journalism, to things like Brian Williams and Leslie Roberts, to things like the Daily Mail hacking phones and spying on celebs. Media is designed to inform the public, but somewhere along the way it became a for-profit venture. Making money and informing the public are not mutually exclusive but the emphasis should always be on delivering information as free of bias as is possible, and that hasn't been happening. There are too many cases of nepotism, cronyisim, corruption and collusion, etc in our media lately and this (gg) is an example of people who have had enough and are fighting back.

It's hardly the only problem in media nor maybe is it even the most important, but people saying "Why do you have issues with this and no this", is a false dichotomy: it's not one or the other, it's both. I dislike the issues in other forms of journalism and have no issue calling them out, and if there were a movement devoted to getting the bias out of, say, wrestling journalism, I'd be all for that. (but what would that movement be called? Ringgate? Squaredcirclegate? Meltzergate? DragonGate?)

[Troy Maskell]

Mostly to Troy on this one:

If you really think GamerGate is about something else, ethics in journalism or whatever the fuck, why don't you just state your point about that plainly and not associate with a toxic group like GamerGate at all? Stand up for views you have, don't throw in with a bunch of shit heads who might believe something similar and then get pissed off when people rake you over the coals for all the shit they do.

Do you actually read any of my posts or do you just randomly quotemine and move on?

We go out there all the time and say "I Support Gamergate. I do NOT support Harrassment", we report people who use the tag to threaten those people and get their accounts banned, but do you know how easy it is to create a twitter account? If we change the tag do you really think the trolls aren't going to follow us?

[Quom]

It's a flawed premise anyway, because you totally can be angry at the Nazis for shooting soldiers, because they started the wars with their invasions.

Either way, the attempts to 'reclaim' GG are flawed as well, because, as has been pointed out, as hard as you attempt to retcon history, the whole fucking thing started out as an attack on a single woman, and 'ethics' was simply the cover used. It never was about that, was never intended to be about that, and anyone who legitimately thinks it is, or ever was, are the sheep the wolves are hiding in.

People have been scammed, and it's very hard for them to admit that, because then they'd have to admit they were duped. Nobody likes to have to do that, you feel like an idiot, and it sucks. Still, better to admit your mistake than cover for blatant misogyny.

Like I said, none of it really effects me any more since instead of getting involved it was more after the first week 'fuck all this noise I've felt put off by your content for ages and don't really trust the truthfulness of anything you say' and me no longer reading much of anything.

You are right though, it would require retconning history to connect the two. The shit with preorders/hype and anti-consumer stance and questionable ethics of some of the gaming press pre-dates the tag by a fair margin as I've already stated (and can't really be debated since plenty or articles were produced on all of these issues prior to the Zoe Quinn saga, but if you want to debate it then you win since I really can't be bothered finding the articles). The only real thing that came from the tag and the increased interest was most of the sites scrambling and updating their codes of ethics, it just turned a comparably small movement into something huge.

I'm not saying that the ends justify the means, they don't. Lots of things have happened and very few of them have been positive. At the very best a lot more people have taken notice, now shit like 'no pre-orders in 2015' have been a thing, which again you could say would have happened without GG but I'm not so sure, as it certainly seems to have got a lot more people talking about anti-consumer stuff.

The only truth in the whole thing was the 'death of a gamer', at least for me. I no longer read gaming press so I have no idea what's coming out or when. The only time I hear about a new game is either when it pops up on youtube or if it's mentioned on Reddit or here. To tell you the truth I don't really have much interest in new games any more because of the lack of hype caused by not reading about games before they come out. Well that and I don't have the time with all the women hating I get up to.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Quom

[SeanDMan]

Hating women really does take a fuckload of time doesn't it. I barely have any time left over to hate ethnic minorities.

[Plubby]

Mostly to Troy on this one:

If you really think GamerGate is about something else, ethics in journalism or whatever the fuck, why don't you just state your point about that plainly and not associate with a toxic group like GamerGate at all? Stand up for views you have, don't throw in with a bunch of shit heads who might believe something similar and then get pissed off when people rake you over the coals for all the shit they do.

Do you actually read any of my posts or do you just randomly quotemine and move on?

We go out there all the time and say "I Support Gamergate. I do NOT support Harrassment", we report people who use the tag to threaten those people and get their accounts banned, but do you know how easy it is to create a twitter account? If we change the tag do you really think the trolls aren't going to follow us?

I don't understand. Gamergate IS harrassing females. They don't do anything else. Those two sentences are mutually exclusive. Any of the the subsequent times a gaming journalist - PARTICULARLY a male gaming journalist does something even slightly questionable, Gamergate is nowhere to be found. And that's the thing that they never seem to be able to answer. "If you're truly in support of ethics in games journalism, then where were you when *this* happened?"

[Troy Maskell]

Mostly to Troy on this one:

If you really think GamerGate is about something else, ethics in journalism or whatever the fuck, why don't you just state your point about that plainly and not associate with a toxic group like GamerGate at all? Stand up for views you have, don't throw in with a bunch of shit heads who might believe something similar and then get pissed off when people rake you over the coals for all the shit they do.

Do you actually read any of my posts or do you just randomly quotemine and move on?

We go out there all the time and say "I Support Gamergate. I do NOT support Harrassment", we report people who use the tag to threaten those people and get their accounts banned, but do you know how easy it is to create a twitter account? If we change the tag do you really think the trolls aren't going to follow us?

I don't understand. Gamergate IS harrassing females. They don't do anything else. Those two sentences are mutually exclusive. Any of the the subsequent times a gaming journalist - PARTICULARLY a male gaming journalist does something even slightly questionable, Gamergate is nowhere to be found. And that's the thing that they never seem to be able to answer. "If you're truly in support of ethics in games journalism, then where were you when *this* happened?"

Does everyone see now why I said a couple of pages back that trying to provide my point was a pointless exercise? We can't win with you because you only see what you want to see. Confirmation Bias like I said

As for your question. We have plenty of people calling out the stupidity of gaming journalists who try and attack Sarkeesian, Quinn and Wu. But saying "I think you're full of shit and here's why" ISN'T FUCKING HARRASSMENT! Despite them saying otherwise, they don't even debate the points, they just cry "harassment" and count their money.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Troy Maskell

[SeanDMan]

Yeah this topic is always going to go one of two ways:

1. "Here is what gamergate means to me, I have issues with the ethics in games journalism" "YOU FUCKING MISOGYNIST, ALL YOU DO IS HATE WOMEN, FUCK OFF".

2. "Here is what gamergate means to me, I have issues with the ethics in games journalism" "HERE IS A LIST OF BEN AFFLECK MOVIES".

In order to have a proper discussion you have to have two sides with people who have moderate views who want to come together to form some kind of consensus. Here, we have a bunch of people who have already made up their mind, so they will shout down the other side without actually participating in a discussion, and then Rich will close the thread and people will cheer in Donators that truth, justice, and liberty prevailed again.

[Gazz]

We donators don't have ethics so we will cheer and maybe club some baby seals in celebration.

[SeanDMan]

If you're not going to discuss this in good faith and all you want to do is say "Side X is all about Thing Y, fuck whatever you are saying", by all means do it, but if you want to actually talk issues and shit, that would be great.

Either way, I will be locked in behind a padlocked "gamergate".

[Rich]

Yeah this topic is always going to go one of two ways:

1. "Here is what gamergate means to me, I have issues with the ethics in games journalism" "YOU FUCKING MISOGYNIST, ALL YOU DO IS HATE WOMEN, FUCK OFF".

2. "Here is what gamergate means to me, I have issues with the ethics in games journalism" "HERE IS A LIST OF BEN AFFLECK MOVIES".

In order to have a proper discussion you have to have two sides with people who have moderate views who want to come together to form some kind of consensus. Here, we have a bunch of people who have already made up their mind, so they will shout down the other side without actually participating in a discussion, and then Rich will close the thread and people will cheer in Donators that truth, justice, and liberty prevailed again.

Why would I close this thread? It keeps me entertained

[Gazz]

My question would be if Gamergate is so passionate about ethics in journalism, why are they so concerned with gaming journalism, literally the lowest rung on the journalistic ladder. Why aren't they storming the battlements of the major news channels or Rupert Murdoch's skull shaped volcano lair?

[Troy Maskell]

If you're not going to discuss this in good faith and all you want to do is say "Side X is all about Thing Y, fuck whatever you are saying", by all means do it, but if you want to actually talk issues and shit, that would be great.

Either way, I will be locked in behind a padlocked "gamergate".

We die for the sins of our people

[brenchill]

But what is GamerGate?

[SeanDMan]

My question would be if Gamergate is so passionate about ethics in journalism, why are they so concerned with gaming journalism, literally the lowest rung on the journalistic ladder. Why aren't they storming the battlements of the major news channels or Rupert Murdoch's skull shaped volcano lair?

There is an overlap of people who are doing both (I certainly am just as vocal about violations in other forms of journalism as I am in games journalism; I have tons of posts in the Fox News thread which is dedicated to absurdities in politics and news), but part of the issue is is that games is an escapist hobby for a lot of people; it created and fostered, for better or worse (likely a bit of both), a culture, and they saw things like the Leigh Alexander articles about "gamers are dead" as a personal attack on them. It made them angry, and not without cause.

Say someone wrote an article about BJJ, titled "MMA and the cromagnons who enjoy it", and painted all MMA fans as douchey, alpha male dudebros who drink too much beer, go out to the pubs with their brahs for shawts, and were just generally absolute dregs of society. Those people exist, and they should be ashamed of themselves, but the article implies that if you call yourself an MMA fan, you are one of those people.

That was a big problem for me; a series of articles that said if you identify as a gamer, your identity is something to be ashamed of and you should be ridiculed and bullied. No one should be ridiculed and bullied, least of all people who are already socially awkward and with trouble fitting in.

[Rich]

My question would be if Gamergate is so passionate about ethics in journalism, why are they so concerned with gaming journalism, literally the lowest rung on the journalistic ladder. Why aren't they storming the battlements of the major news channels or Rupert Murdoch's skull shaped volcano lair?

Didn't I make this point yesterday?

Though the reality is that the people aren't likely to be that passionate about the news in general, just this niche area which they are extremely passionate about.

Say someone wrote an article about BJJ, titled "MMA and the cromagnons who enjoy it", and painted all MMA fans as douchey, alpha male dudebros who drink too much beer, go out to the pubs with their brahs for shawts, and were just generally absolute dregs of society. Those people exist, and they should be ashamed of themselves, but the article implies that if you call yourself an MMA fan, you are one of those people.

Me.

Ever-day.

Forever.

[The Lusophone]

Yeah this topic is always going to go one of two ways:

1. "Here is what gamergate means to me, I have issues with the ethics in games journalism" "YOU FUCKING MISOGYNIST, ALL YOU DO IS HATE WOMEN, FUCK OFF".

Except no one is saying that. People are saying that the most prominent GamerGators, the ones who are organising shit, the ones you could conceivably call 'leaders' of the movement, have and are organising and engaging in harassment campaigns, getting as many people as they can who aren't their own masturbatory little sockpuppets to engage in it as well - until they doxx their own leaders.

The weapon of choice for most Gamergaters isn't petitions or letters or campaigns to get game journalists to change their methods. It's doxxing, hacking, harassment and in extreme cases, swatting (although swatting isn't something that's limited to GG nor is it a problem that's arisen out of GG or something GG - or the anti-GG side - particularly engages in).

GamerGate is a harassment movement that is pretending to be about games journalism. Ethics in games journalism might be what gamergate is to you, but if you believe that's what gamergate is about, then you are drinking the kool aid. This isn't confirmation bias, this is clear, verifiable fact. GamerGate started as a movement to harass Zoe Quinn and ruin her career and her life. It has since expanded to include supporters of Quinn, opponents and critics of GG, and even their own leaders and supporters - seriously, KingofPol, Lizzyf620, the Mangotron site owner, InternetAristocrat, developer Rogue Star.

GamerGate's targets are almost all women, with male victims of doxxing by GG happening as either an afterthought or after they themselves point it out (Chris Kluwe, for example, was doxxed 70 days after posting about GG and only after he pointed this out and challenged GG to doxx him). Hell, they even try to doxx themselves. The creator of the #notyourshield hashtag, tried to doxx himself on /baphomet/ GG's hit squad messageboard on 8chan, in order to rile things up even more.

They organise now - after having been thrown out of 4chan - on 8chan, which functions also as a repository for child porn, something 8chan's owner allows because 'free speech'. Said owner and GG supporter then goes onto doxx those who report 8chans new domain to CloudFlare for hosting child porn, just days after its first domain is seized for exactly the same reason. Blogger Foldablehuman was doxxed by GGers the day after they expose the child porn hosting on 8chan. Washington Post journalist Caitlin Dewey is doxxed the same day she publishes an article about the same subject.

You can say 'to me GamerGate is about x' or 'i dont care about the harassment because y happens' or whatever else people are using (and this isn't directed at Sean) but GamerGate is clearly a harassment movement.

[Troy Maskell]

I love how "Less than 10 percent" somehow translates into "most of Gamergate" and how "Leaders of Gamergate are doing this' When Gamergate doesn't have a fucking leader.

I swear talking to Anti Gamergaters sometimes feels like talking to children.

[The Lusophone]

Troy Maskell: single-handedly keeping Kool-Aid in business.

[Troy Maskell]

Troy Maskell: single-handedly keeping Kool-Aid in business.

Kool-Aid has nothing to do with my views. It's called common sense, you might want to use it one day, I hear it helps

[Plubby]

Troy Maskell: single-handedly keeping Kool-Aid in business.

Kool-Aid has nothing to do with my views. It's called common sense, you might want to use it one day, I hear it helps

I trust that you're only repeating it as rumour on account of having never encountered it yourself.