Superman 64 Discussion Thread

[Rich]

It's about ethics in Gamergate thread posting

[Maxx]

Can't we just close this abortion of a thread and be done with it?

[RPS]

Can't we just close this abortion of a thread and be done with it?

Misogynistic language there. How did such a comment escape our new censorship overlords?!

 

[Kaney]

Can't we just close this abortion of a thread and be done with it?

Can't you just not read the thread and be done with it?

[Your Mom]

I'm curious. Did anyone ever try and justify why it was ok to make a game where you just punch Anita in the face? I don't see how this helps their side of the argument 

[Maxx]

Can't we just close this abortion of a thread and be done with it?

Can't you just not read the thread and be done with it?

No, I cannot.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Maxx

[Schlitzbrille]

I'm curious. Did anyone ever try and justify why it was ok to make a game where you just punch Anita in the face? I don't see how this helps their side of the argument 

Not entirely sure that's possible. I think most of the issue around it came from the hypocrisy of the feminists who were going on about doxing then GO RIGHT AROUND AND DO THE EXACT SAME THING.

 

Like I said, that whole situation is a minefield.

[RPS]

I'm curious. Did anyone ever try and justify why it was ok to make a game where you just punch Anita in the face? I don't see how this helps their side of the argument

I think the justification people would use would be that although it is a gross game, it is the individual's freedom of speech and expression to make such a game. They would probably argue that the game itself does not harm anyone and therefore any desire to silence or censor the game would be an attack on freedom of expression or speech. I don't think anyone around these parts would praise the game for it's content, but would just defend it's right to exist.

[Your Mom]

I'm curious. Did anyone ever try and justify why it was ok to make a game where you just punch Anita in the face? I don't see how this helps their side of the argument

I think the justification people would use would be that although it is a gross game, it is the individual's freedom of speech and expression to make such a game. They would probably argue that the game itself does not harm anyone and therefore any desire to silence or censor the game would be an attack on freedom of expression or speech. I don't think anyone around these parts would praise the game for it's content, but would just defend it's right to exist.

It is so gross. And I get it's right to exist I guess. But I mean surely since it's about a specific person without their consent that's all out the window right?

[Bobfoc]

I'm curious. Did anyone ever try and justify why it was ok to make a game where you just punch Anita in the face? I don't see how this helps their side of the argument 

The creator, Ben Spurr, tried to justify it several times, each in a different way. First, he claimed that it was in response to Anita's supposed "scamming" of her Kickstarter backers, and then it became a claim that her videos were poorly researched. He then stated that all he was ever looking for was a response from Anita, who hadn't responded to his criticisms regarding a video she made about Lego. You know, because the best way to start a cordial dialogue with someone is to make a game in which the only objective is to punch said person in the face.

Incidentally, this is the same man whose Steam profile allegedly contained the following pearls of wisdom:

 

I think it's just adorable how absolutely no girls are any good at video games, just like how no woman has ever written a good novel. They are nothing but talk and no action, probably because girls are such emotional creatures and base everything they do on their current feelings and then try to rationalize their actions later. How pathetic.

 

You know what's priceless? When a gamer girl posts a pic of herself looking as slutty as possible and then throws a fake fit when people talk to her like she's a whore. What did you think was going to happen, you dumb broad? Lose thirty pounds.

[RPS]

I'm curious. Did anyone ever try and justify why it was ok to make a game where you just punch Anita in the face? I don't see how this helps their side of the argument

I think the justification people would use would be that although it is a gross game, it is the individual's freedom of speech and expression to make such a game. They would probably argue that the game itself does not harm anyone and therefore any desire to silence or censor the game would be an attack on freedom of expression or speech. I don't think anyone around these parts would praise the game for it's content, but would just defend it's right to exist.

It is so gross. And I get it's right to exist I guess. But I mean surely since it's about a specific person without their consent that's all out the window right?

You could sue them for using your likeness and for defaming her. But you can't get blood from a stone. Why bother suing somebody who you know will never pay you? And Anita, while a popular figure, probably doesn't have the money available to go after him. I'm sure there is probably a progressive lawyer who would take her case on pro bono, but why give somebody more attention then they deserve? And especially that it would play right into their narrative that Anita is out there to silence everyone and censor them.

[Skummy]

Umm The Escapist piece went to print before speaking to the CEO.

Without formulating an opinion either way as to who is more or less ethical in totality, this specific part is irrelevant/not indicative of unethical conduct (sorry to quote you in particular Quom, others have made this point too). They contacted him, the CEO just didn't respond before the Escapist went to print. This is not an uncommon occurrence in electronic journalism, and post-publication comments and edits are made regularly. It's not unethical, it's the "cost of doing business" in a 24/7 journalism world.

For what it's worth, for me - and maybe this is me extrapolating beyond the known facts, admittedly - they only contacted him in the last 24 hours, about an article they'd been working on for weeks. The fact that they didn't consult him, or anyone else in a position to provide a counterpoint to the claims made by their anonymous sources, to me suggests that they had always envisioned the piece as a critical attack on him and his company and only at the last minute realised that, to abide by their own ethics policy, they would need to consult someone else. The fact that they approached him so late in the process, to me, speaks volumes about their intent.

[Pizza]

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/united-nations-apologizes-for-fault-ridden-cyberviolence-report?utm_source=mbtwitter

I am curious to see what the new revision looks like. I think the debate on how to capably police harrassment on the internet without infringing on free speech is an important one and I hope the new version does a much better job.