Superman 64 Discussion Thread

[Lint]

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

Just going back to this...PLEASE tell me your not comparing getting a public appearance cancelled to receiving threats of RAPE AND MURDER

[Troy Maskell]

This is the worst thread on EWB.

I disagr--

And once again the hypocrisy and confirmation bias of those on the Anti-GG side never ceases to amaze me...

HOF.

Look I'm not looking for an argument. I thought I explained this perfectly clear earlier in the thread, have there been trolls in GamerGate? Of course, just as there has been on the other side of the argument. There are plenty of white knights out there who've doxxed GG'ers in the name of Quinn, Sarkeesian and Wu. But I don't believe everyone against GamerGate is that way, because I have common sense, yet everytime GamerGate comes out and takes against this shit (Like the Doxxing of Felicia Day, which was later discover was not done by a Gator) we all get tarred with the same brush. Like I said, Confirmation Bias, you believe GG is a hate group and thus only listen to the arguments that support that view

[apsham]

You're not looking for an argument, just to come in here and make snippy comments? You're not looking for an argument because you can't MAKE one.

[Troy Maskell]

You're not looking for an argument, just to come in here and make snippy comments? You're not looking for an argument because you can't MAKE one.

I could make one just fine, but why waste my time? You lot clearly have made up your mind and thus won't listen.

As for the "Snippy" comments, I apologise, I just find it a tad hypocritical that people who believe that things should more open for females in the industry and want more inclusion could be so close-minded

Edited February 21, 2015 by Troy Maskell

[apsham]

Then do us all a favour and stay out altogether.

[RPS]

You're not looking for an argument, just to come in here and make snippy comments? You're not looking for an argument because you can't MAKE one.

I could make one just fine, but why waste my time? You lot clearly have made up your mind and thus won't listen

So you just entered the thread to say "you all are wrong, but there is no way I'm going to convince you because you won't listen, so I'm not going to waste my time explaining why I'm right."

Fantastic.

[Hobo]

It always seems a bit weird to me that a cultural critic got such ire out of guys who play video games. That's video games being treated as something worth talking about and the end result is rape threats. It's a bit like wanting to rape Theodore Adorno because of his opinions on jazz.

I tend to assume most of GG is adolescent males (because it's such an adolescent male reaction to feminism) and terrible old conservatives with a axe to grind manipulating the whole thing.

[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

Just going back to this...PLEASE tell me your not comparing getting a public appearance cancelled to receiving threats of RAPE AND MURDER

I'll answer this point.

I'm not comparing the two for a second, my point was this: Has Baldwin himself ever given threats of Rape and Murder? What exactly is his sin besides creating the hashtag? And more importantly what does Gamergate have to do with a pop culture festival where he's there to talk about Firefly? Just because he's associated with the movement he should get harassed and his livelihood threatened? Or is just once again the confirmation bias of "If you're with GamerGate you must hate women"? My point is simply this is NOT a one way street, yet one side gets a pass because "Misogyny"

[DMN in the House]

This is the worst thread on EWB.

I disagr--

And once again the hypocrisy and confirmation bias of those on the Anti-GG side never ceases to amaze me...

HOF.

Look I'm not looking for an argument. I thought I explained this perfectly clear earlier in the thread, have there been trolls in GamerGate? Of course, just as there has been on the other side of the argument. There are plenty of white knights out there who've doxxed GG'ers in the name of Quinn, Sarkeesian and Wu. But I don't believe everyone against GamerGate is that way, because I have common sense, yet everytime GamerGate comes out and takes against this shit (Like the Doxxing of Felicia Day, which was later discover was not done by a Gator) we all get tarred with the same brush. Like I said, Confirmation Bias, you believe GG is a hate group and thus only listen to the arguments that support that view

Gators get 'tarred' with that brush because people actually know the real stated goals of those who started the fucking 'movement'! The originators do not care about 'ethics', never have, never will, and you do not get to defend a concentrated effort to drive a woman to suicide simply because you believe their propaganda.

Your position is like being a member of ISIS and saying it's about the defense of the Islamic religion.

The cognitive dissonance is strong in you.

On another note, since Nick Adams responded to it, the fact that Christians in other countries are facing very real persecution does not give you, an American, a Christian in the most Christian nation on earth, the right to co-opt it. They face persecution (and, for the record, that's horrible), you do not, and to act like you do is to have a persecution complex.

[Bobfoc]

Let's remember (although I'm sure we'd rather not) that Zoe Quinn was being harassed months before the issue of her alleged affair with Nathan Grayson was brought up, with the main lines of complaint being that Depression Quest wasn't really a game and that, according to more extreme commenters, "women don't suffer from depression". The thing to notice was that other so-called "notgames", like Proteus and Dear Esther, drew criticism, but at no point were their (predominantly male) developers the subject of death wishes, disclosure of personal details and the harassment of their family members.

Fast-forward to the so-called scandal that followed, and it's clear once again that Quinn's detractors were so quick to pounce on anything that might discredit her and serve as the basis for a hate campaign. Now, even with the accusations having been debunked, the nastiness is still being concealed (somewhat poorly) behind the notion that journalistic ethics are at the heart of the matter, regardless of how most men suspected of flaunting such ethics have never garnered anywhere near as much vitriol. It reminds me of the counter-argument against gay marriage that it's not a matter of homophobia, but a matter of there being more important issues to discuss in the world than the distribution of equal marital rights. It's so often a superficial self-affirmation that they're trying to do something noble whilst simultaneously propping up a much more pressing drive against basic human dignity, and that's why find it hard to drum up sympathy for such movements.

[Daniel Bryan]

oh my god, "Gators"

[Troy Maskell]

This is the worst thread on EWB.

I disagr--

And once again the hypocrisy and confirmation bias of those on the Anti-GG side never ceases to amaze me...

HOF.

Look I'm not looking for an argument. I thought I explained this perfectly clear earlier in the thread, have there been trolls in GamerGate? Of course, just as there has been on the other side of the argument. There are plenty of white knights out there who've doxxed GG'ers in the name of Quinn, Sarkeesian and Wu. But I don't believe everyone against GamerGate is that way, because I have common sense, yet everytime GamerGate comes out and takes against this shit (Like the Doxxing of Felicia Day, which was later discover was not done by a Gator) we all get tarred with the same brush. Like I said, Confirmation Bias, you believe GG is a hate group and thus only listen to the arguments that support that view

Gators get 'tarred' with that brush because people actually know the real stated goals of those who started the fucking 'movement'! The originators do not care about 'ethics', never have, never will, and you do not get to defend a concentrated effort to drive a woman to suicide simply because you believe their propaganda.

Your position is like being a member of ISIS and saying it's about the defense of the Islamic religion.

The cognitive dissonance is strong in you.

On another note, since Nick Adams responded to it, the fact that Christians in other countries are facing very real persecution does not give you, an American, a Christian in the most Christian nation on earth, the right to co-opt it. They face persecution (and, for the record, that's horrible), you do not, and to act like you do is to have a persecution complex.

That's where you're wrong though. Gamergate wasn't started. You're thinking of the #Quinnspiracy. The group that attacked Zoe Quinn over those proven to be false allegations of exchanging sex for positive reviews of depression quest

Gamergate started from Baldwin and sites like Kotaku posting articles that screamed "Gamers are Dead" while all the while doing deals with developers for first access and positive reviews. Which got a lot of people upset.

The narrative is Gamergate is a misogynistic hate movement filled will adolescent young men who are scared women like Sarkessian, Quinn and Wu will take away their games, their damsel in distress tropes, their power fantasies. While there are people like that who have used the hashtag, they're quickly called out by most Gamergaters and attempted to be shut down, also there are plenty of women, transgender, young, old, whatever race, creed or sexual state you want that are part of Gamergate. You never hear about it for two reasons.

1. Gamergate doesn't have a leader. The Anti GG saide has plenty, Sarkessian, Quinn, Brianna Wu, numerous female journalists who worked for Kotaku and the like. The closest GG has is the youtube critic John "TotalBiscuit" Bain, who incidentally has been raked over the coals, had his family threated, his address doxxed, gotten messages that there would be people waiting at his stepson's school to kidnap him and kill him, his wife threatened to be raped and his own throat cut, but you never hear those things in the mainstream media why? Because he doesn't want to give those people power by publicising the threats and in turn turning his audience on them, which is more than can be said for Sarkessian, who's Retweeted numerous threats to her followers.

2. Even if GG had a leader what good would it do, you show one threat to Sarkessian that she'll be raped or killed, or one anonymous threat that had NOTHING to do with Gamergate, just a troll who used the tag and was quickly called out and banned from Twitter thanks to GG'ers not standing for it that forces a cancelation of a speaking appearance and the argument is over, it's the same tired argument over and over and over, it's called Syllogism, if the first two statements are fact then the conclusion must also be fact. In this case we have this example.

Statement 1. Misogyinistic statements and Threat to rape and murder Sarkeesian is made by anonymous twitter user

Statement 2: Anonymous Twitter User uses Gamergate Hashtag

Conclusion: Gamergate is a misogynistic hate movement who threaten women.

It's easy to say go to another tag. We tried. We moved from the Quinnspiracy to Gamergate, you know what happened? The trolls followed, and since they keep getting attention they keep going. Do you really think things would be any different if we who actually want change and aren't taking part in hate changed the hashtag to something like #EthicsInGamesJournalism? What would the narrative be? Would there be rational discourse finally at that point? Or would it simply be "Look at the misogynists changing their slogan to try and avoid their label"?

Do I get defensive about being labelled as a misogynist and a member of a hate group just for saying I support what Gamergate are aiming for? Of course I do. Am I going to sometimes have my anger come out and attack people who believe that without actually taking the time to know me> You're goddamn right I am. You'd do the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.

I've never said Gamergate was perfect, no group is. Do we have problems controlling our own sometimes? Of course we do. Could we perhaps try harder to weed out the trolls and the people who are threatening these women? Probably yes. But are we all in the same boat as those people? Hell no. Yet all we hear constantly is "You're Gamergate. You're a hate group". That's not only unfair, it just shows to us you don't want to find a common ground and that is why we fight.

[Daniel Bryan]

The term Gamergate was created specifically in reference to Zoe Quinn, what are you even talking about.

[brenchill]

Gators gonna gate

[Bobfoc]

All these references to "Gators" are sullying the good name of Titus O'Neil.

[BubbRubb]

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.

[Troy Maskell]

The term Gamergate was created specifically in reference to Zoe Quinn, what are you even talking about.

Baldwin started GamerGate by adding a hashtag to two videos that mentioned Quinn and the alleged collusion, amongst other things, to say it was created specifically about Quinn is disingenuous, if it was solely about Quinn it would have died after a day or two, what kept it alive and continues to keep it alive was the evidence of Video Game Developers buying favourable reviews and op eds, not to mentions the infamous "Gamers are Dead" articles that popped up at the same time the Gamergate hashtag began. Quinn was a part of it, I don't deny that, the roots are in the Quinnspiracy, but to say it was specifically about her is deceptive at best, a bald faced lie at worst.

[Troy Maskell]

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.

The whole point of Gamergate, well the ones of us who are serious have this point and that is simply that we don't know who to trust any more. Which is what makes it different from things like Iraq, Fox News, etc. You ask a fair question in "What does it matter?" It matters this way, we don't know any more what review or what content is real and what content is paid. Is the reviewed giving the mixed review game an 8 because he genuinely feels that way or is he being told to say because the website is getting money from the developer. On the other hand, is the reviewer who gave the same game a 5 saying that because they genuinely didn't like or did they miss out on the deal?

Ultimately though what this all boils down to is they won't admit they're wrong, they don't see the problem in having a reviewer who is a friend of the developer review the game, or someone who is still getting money from said developer doing the review, without a hint of disclosure. As much as people want to make it about Zoe Quinn she's not even in the argument any more to us, she was simply the catalyst for us to look deeper into things and what we found we didn't like.

When we took those concerns to places like reddit and youtube because we got no response when we talked to them what was the response we got? We didn't want wholesale changes, we still don't. Just tell us there's a conflict of interest there and if you've ever taken money for reviews or not. But what we got was a whole string of articles with the same premise: Gamers are Dead. THAT'S what created the "monster" that is Gamergate, like I said if this was solely about Zoe Quinn we wouldn't have being dancing around this for over a year now. It would have died two days after it started. The thing that keeps Gamergate going right now is two things

1. The refusal of the majority of those implicated to admit they may have been wrong

2. They won't even come to the table and hear our concerns. Why? Because "You're Gamergate. You're a hate group. We won't give in to misogyny and hate" even when they see that the majority is not that way.

It's easy to say it's not a right fight, or to say maybe you should back off, but at the same time when you've been marginalised like we have eventually you turn into Jean Lue Picard in First Contact "The line must be drawn HERE, this far no further and I will make them pay for what they've done". Does that mean we're going to go off on those we hate with murder and death threats? No. Does that mean we're going to go to people like Quinn and attack her? No. Are we going to back down? Of course not. Because in the end we know we are right. And no matter how much they try to marginalise us, eventually people will come to our argument, it's already happening. We fight because we're right, that doesn't mean Sarkeesian, Quinn and Wu are wrong, in the end they're not part of the argument, although we would like to debate Sarkeesian on her points, we're aware that ship's probably sailed.

I think most Gamergaters would be happy if the big sites just came to us and said "Okay we're listening" and slowly but surely they are, Kotaku has changed their policy, the Escapist did. a few smaller sites have as well. In the end all we're asking for is a seat at the table, but right now we're not even getting table scraps.

[Lineker]

Heh.

Expected more gates.

[Lint]

On my phone now so I can't go through that... but simply stating again HE DIDN'T REVIEW THE FUCKING GAME TO BEGIN WITH