But people keep on harpping on about ethics and stuff like that. Now you might not think its part of it but people keep on going on about it so it bears discussion.
Dude, I don't want to sound mean, but it is real hard to take what you just said seriously. It is pretty obvious that the "ethics" discussions happening are literally just copy/pasted talking points that have nothing to do with what these people are actually mad about. They organized #notyourshield specifically to muddy the issue. The ethics talk is the exact same thing.
Scores for games are worthless. As with all reviews across all forms of media, once you identify the writers bias you can better use the review.
Reviewer A likes all the games I like? I can use his review ad a proxy for me having played the game.
Reviewer B hates all the games I like? Then I can use his dislike for a game as a proxy for how much I will like the game!
The only potential problem with your mailing list situation is if it is used to blacklist games. Reviewers trading views on a game to come to a final review score sounds like a good thing.
But people keep on harpping on about ethics and stuff like that. Now you might not think its part of it but people keep on going on about it so it bears discussion.
Dude, I don't want to sound mean, but it is real hard to take what you just said seriously. It is pretty obvious that the "ethics" discussions happening are literally just copy/pasted talking points that have nothing to do with what these people are actually mad about. They organised #notyourshield specifically to muddy the issue. The ethics talk is the exact same thing.
So to be clear you fundamentally believe that there is no fault in how gaming journalism conducts its self?
Im just trying to get to the bottom of this thing. I couldn't give two shit about the whole thing. The reason I keep bringing it up is because when ever I talk to other people that is what they bring up. So the people in not your shield are wrong then? How do they muddy the issue?
I've gone and found some sources, yeah they are copy and pasted as I found them from other places. They aren't "my sources" this isn't something that I believe in. Hell in looking them up any one can see that they are not the strongest in the world. What I was hoping for was an actual discussion on the matter, obviously that was the wrong thing. If anything I don't know why I brought it up. When ever you ask either side about this you get bombarded with a shit storm then told to fuck off.
I've gone and found some sources, yeah they are copy and pasted as I found them from other places. They aren't "my sources" this isn't something that I believe in. Hell in looking them up any one can see that they are not the strongest in the world. What I was hoping for was an actual discussion on the matter, obviously that was the wrong thing.
Discussion about what specifically? What do you want there to be discussion about?
So far you have a "mailing list conspiracy" of game reviews with zero evidence.
I've gone and found some sources, yeah they are copy and pasted as I found them from other places. They aren't "my sources" this isn't something that I believe in. Hell in looking them up any one can see that they are not the strongest in the world. What I was hoping for was an actual discussion on the matter, obviously that was the wrong thing.
Discussion about what specifically? What do you want there to be discussion about?
So far you have a "mailing list conspiracy" of game reviews with zero evidence.
For fuck sake how many times do I have to say this. This isn't my argument. This is stuff that I have found when looking up arguments. How would you disprove this then? Other than personal opinion what sources do you have other wise? have the people on the list come out and said that it was fake (its not the dude who made the dam thing admitted to creating it). If you want to be niggaly, you still haven't answered the question of if there is anything wrong with gaming journalism, only posing alternate questions, whether the actions by "Anti-gamergaters" is ok, or providing any sources save for your own opinion. Its exhausting having to defend something against a personal opinion with out evidence.
This is stuff that I have found when looking up arguments. How would you disprove this then? Other than personal opinion what sources do you have other wise? have the people on the list come out and said that it was fake (its not the dude who made the dam thing admitted to creating it).
You just brought it up again. If you want to discuss it as a concern, provide some evidence that it's real and explain what you find troubling about it. Until you do that, there's nothing to discuss.
I brought it up because strangely in a forum of people who can have creative and interesting arguments I thought it would be interesting. Obviously I was wrong.
I did provide a couple of sources, you disregarded them, didn't answer any questions just said they were wrong and provided no sources beyond own personal opinion.
I brought it up because strangely in a forum of people who can have creative and interesting arguments I thought it would be interesting. Obviously I was wrong.
It's not interesting to have an argument over something that is probably not even true to begin with.
You linked to Brietbart for starters. What the fuck is wrong with you? Breitbart is a laughable right wing joke. Linking to a site like that as evidence of anything belies any real argument you might make.
Further, there's nothing in those threads about score fixing at all. There's nothing untoward in those emails that I can see at all.
You also linked to gamergate's wikia. That thing is so full of nonsense that I have a hard time taking you seriously anymore.
You finally linked to Milo Yiannopoulos's personal blog. He is the author of the Breitbart article, and they say the same thing (AMAZING!). He's the primary source of basically all the arguments around this "email list." He's also incredibly problematic.
So, what about these emails do you think is worthy of discussion?
I brought it up because strangely in a forum of people who can have creative and interesting arguments I thought it would be interesting. Obviously I was wrong.
It's not interesting to have an argument over something that is probably not even true to begin with.
You linked to Brietbart for starters. What the fuck is wrong with you? Breitbart is a laughable right wing joke. Linking to a site like that as evidence of anything belies any real argument you might make.
Further, there's nothing in those threads about score fixing at all. There's nothing untoward in those emails that I can see at all.
You also linked to gamergate's wikia. That thing is so full of nonsense that I have a hard time taking you seriously anymore.
You finally linked to Milo Yiannopoulos's personal blog. He is the author of the Breitbart article, and they say the same thing (AMAZING!). He's the primary source of basically all the arguments around this "email list." He's also incredibly problematic.
So, what about these emails do you think is worthy of discussion?
Well I thought the whole thing was worth discussion, what with it taking up the internet at the moment. As I have said so many times, I haven't invested in this so don't know the back ground to the various people involved. I didn't know that Breitbart was a nutter site or that Yiannopoulos seems like a bit of a hack, I was looking up the sources that those people use. So why then do people, who aren't misogamists, bring up journalism ethics then? What sources are there then to disprove this stuff then?
But people keep on harpping on about ethics and stuff like that. Now you might not think its part of it but people keep on going on about it so it bears discussion.
Im just trying to get to the bottom of this thing. I couldn't give two shit about the whole thing. The reason I keep bringing it up is because when ever I talk to other people that is what they bring up. So the people in not your shield are wrong then? How do they muddy the issue?
As I have said so many times, I haven't invested in this so don't know the back ground to the various people involved. I didn't know that Breitbart was a nutter site or that Yiannopoulos seems like a bit of a hack, I was looking up the sources that those people use. So why then do people, who aren't misogamists, bring up journalism ethics then? What sources are there then to disprove this stuff then?
Addendum; The whole thing with both sides DDOsing one another, SWATing and death threats1 is insane, no logical person would do that regardless of reason or justification.
Sort of mate, but sort of not. One side is provably getting doxxed, Swatted, getting death threats, and taking DDoS attacks. The other claims they are, but every time they claim it, it's either provably false, not able to be proven true, or just such a wild misinterpretation of what an attack actually is, just to justify saying the other side is as bad as they are. For example, posting someone's already publically known name and twitter handle being called "Doxxing".
Also an interesting video from Christian Hoff Sommers;
Christina Hoff Sommers is a noted anti-femninst, and is an employee of a right-wing think tank, the same that architected a lot of bush policy. This isn't sense, it's saying whatever she thinks people want to hear, to try and get them on board with her cause. It should tell you something that the people who cite her the most are Men's Rights Activists, Redpillers, and particularly crusty conservatives.
And interestingly, Anders Behring Breivik. Go figure.
She's well known for misrepresenting any situation where her ideas are challenged academically, Ignores any evidence that contradicts her assertions, and outright inventing evidence when it suits her, or more accurately, her right-wing causes.
She calls herself a feminist, but the only time she ever actually supports women's rights is when she can use it as a club to beat feminism over the metaphorical head, for example, "Why are you worrying about this, there's women with no rights in (other country), why aren't you fighting for them instead of (whatever the current cause she's opposing is)."
Another question that I'd love to know the answer too, what is this "Not your shield" side then? They seem to be another side.
Nope, they're pretty much just another part of gamergate. It's not so much "Not your shield" as "Not your shield", as it's pretty much just meant to be a group of women and minorities who primarily exist to shield gamergate from criticism as a misogynistic and/or racist movement, because they think that having a woman say "No no, these guys who are attacking women are not mysoginists" means they're beyond reproach, because a woman said they're not misogynistic.
No worries mate. I know you're on the up-and-up, and that you're asking because you don't really know(and would like to), rather than trying to trip people up or owt.
The reason that you're getting this reaction is partially because of that, in fact - well, not anything you've done, I mean the last bit. GamerGate True Belivers and evangelists tend to do something similar, except they don't want to know, they think they already have the answers, they're just cack-handedly trying to set up conversational traps to make people who disagree look foolish, or otherwise just batter them down while shouting "Civil Debate! Why are you refusing Civil Debate?!"
Addendum; The whole thing with both sides DDOsing one another, SWATing and death threats is insane, no logical person would do that regardless of reason or justification.
Sort of mate, but sort of not. One side is provably getting doxxed, Swatted, getting death threats, and taking DDoS attacks. The other claims they are, but every time they claim it, it's either provably false, not able to be proven true, or just such a wild misinterpretation of what an attack actually is, just to justify saying the other side is as bad as they are. For example, posting someone's already publically known name and twitter handle being called "Doxxing".
The latter, naturally, are the gamergaters.
Yeah, people tell me all the time that the feminists and Anti-GGers are just as toxic and harmful to people by doxxing them and sending them rape threats...yet, I have never ever seen any proof that. It might exist, but I have not been pointed to any documented footage or proof of it happens. It all boils down to conspiracy theory bullshit trying to connect one offside point to another person's misery.
If anything else is being created, I'm seeing a real "Anti-Intelligence" movement in gaming. Where gamergaters don't want "Fucking feelings simulators" and that games are not meant to have any merit aside from mindless fun. Even in those videos trying to slander Extra Credits, so many people want to be like "How dare those San Fransisco-Hipster types try to tell me that games are art! I don't blame games to feel! I don't go to a museum to play games!"
Dumbass, every single game can be classified as art, no matter how shitty or mainstream it is. Even really high-budgeted games like Red Dead Redemption, Mass Effect, and Spec Ops: The Line can make you feel. Then again, this acknowledgment of "feelings" would be considered womanly and Pro-GGs can't bend on that!
We met a sea lion at magfest. He overheard us discussing Far Cry 3, (apparently failed) authorial intent, racism, sexism, colonialism, and the tired trope of white messiah. However, He thought it was a successful critique of escapism. The words tar and brush were also used. After some moments of should-we-engage?-limbo, I brought up Stanley Parable as an interesting exploration of video game escapism; he assumed I was changing the topic to rid him.
Side note: Highlights of the conversation include him challenging me (and only me) as to whether I was familiar with Evangelion. I wasn't sure whether to be annoyed that he didn't interrogate the men, as well, or congratulate him on not being racist.
We met a sea lion at magfest. He overheard us discussing Far Cry 3, (apparently failed) authorial intent, racism, sexism, colonialism, and the tired trope of white messiah. However, He thought it was a successful critique of escapism. The words tar and brush were also used. After some moments of should-we-engage?-limbo, I brought up Stanley Parable as an interesting exploration of video game escapism; he assumed I was changing the topic to rid him.
Side note: Highlights of the conversation include him challenging me (and only me) as to whether I was familiar with Evangelion. I wasn't sure whether to be annoyed that he didn't interrogate the men, as well, or congratulate him on not being racist.
Damn, I can totally see the should-we-engage expression on your face. Classic.
Nah, your should-we-engage face is less annoyed and more...concerned? Like at any moment you're ready to say "Excuse me, I need to go to the bathroom."
Comments
Reviewer A likes all the games I like? I can use his review ad a proxy for me having played the game.
Reviewer B hates all the games I like? Then I can use his dislike for a game as a proxy for how much I will like the game!
The only potential problem with your mailing list situation is if it is used to blacklist games. Reviewers trading views on a game to come to a final review score sounds like a good thing.
Im just trying to get to the bottom of this thing. I couldn't give two shit about the whole thing. The reason I keep bringing it up is because when ever I talk to other people that is what they bring up. So the people in not your shield are wrong then? How do they muddy the issue?
I've gone and found some sources, yeah they are copy and pasted as I found them from other places. They aren't "my sources" this isn't something that I believe in. Hell in looking them up any one can see that they are not the strongest in the world. What I was hoping for was an actual discussion on the matter, obviously that was the wrong thing. If anything I don't know why I brought it up. When ever you ask either side about this you get bombarded with a shit storm then told to fuck off.
So far you have a "mailing list conspiracy" of game reviews with zero evidence.
There is nothing wrong with gaming journalism. Show me something you think is wrong with it, and I'll happily discuss it.
Ask whoever is making these claims to provide proof to back them up.
I did provide a couple of sources, you disregarded them, didn't answer any questions just said they were wrong and provided no sources beyond own personal opinion.
You linked to Brietbart for starters. What the fuck is wrong with you? Breitbart is a laughable right wing joke. Linking to a site like that as evidence of anything belies any real argument you might make.
Further, there's nothing in those threads about score fixing at all. There's nothing untoward in those emails that I can see at all.
You also linked to gamergate's wikia. That thing is so full of nonsense that I have a hard time taking you seriously anymore.
You finally linked to Milo Yiannopoulos's personal blog. He is the author of the Breitbart article, and they say the same thing (AMAZING!). He's the primary source of basically all the arguments around this "email list." He's also incredibly problematic.
So, what about these emails do you think is worthy of discussion?
Don't link me to some batshit sites elsewhere. Post a coherent issue (some "stuff") here which is worth discussing.
It's worth noting that it has had exactly zero presence at any gaming convention to date.
The latter, naturally, are the gamergaters. Christina Hoff Sommers is a noted anti-femninst, and is an employee of a right-wing think tank, the same that architected a lot of bush policy. This isn't sense, it's saying whatever she thinks people want to hear, to try and get them on board with her cause. It should tell you something that the people who cite her the most are Men's Rights Activists, Redpillers, and particularly crusty conservatives.
And interestingly, Anders Behring Breivik. Go figure.
She's well known for misrepresenting any situation where her ideas are challenged academically, Ignores any evidence that contradicts her assertions, and outright inventing evidence when it suits her, or more accurately, her right-wing causes.
She calls herself a feminist, but the only time she ever actually supports women's rights is when she can use it as a club to beat feminism over the metaphorical head, for example, "Why are you worrying about this, there's women with no rights in (other country), why aren't you fighting for them instead of (whatever the current cause she's opposing is)." Nope, they're pretty much just another part of gamergate. It's not so much "Not your shield" as "Not your shield", as it's pretty much just meant to be a group of women and minorities who primarily exist to shield gamergate from criticism as a misogynistic and/or racist movement, because they think that having a woman say "No no, these guys who are attacking women are not mysoginists" means they're beyond reproach, because a woman said they're not misogynistic.
The reason that you're getting this reaction is partially because of that, in fact - well, not anything you've done, I mean the last bit. GamerGate True Belivers and evangelists tend to do something similar, except they don't want to know, they think they already have the answers, they're just cack-handedly trying to set up conversational traps to make people who disagree look foolish, or otherwise just batter them down while shouting "Civil Debate! Why are you refusing Civil Debate?!"
If anything else is being created, I'm seeing a real "Anti-Intelligence" movement in gaming. Where gamergaters don't want "Fucking feelings simulators" and that games are not meant to have any merit aside from mindless fun. Even in those videos trying to slander Extra Credits, so many people want to be like "How dare those San Fransisco-Hipster types try to tell me that games are art! I don't blame games to feel! I don't go to a museum to play games!"
Dumbass, every single game can be classified as art, no matter how shitty or mainstream it is. Even really high-budgeted games like Red Dead Redemption, Mass Effect, and Spec Ops: The Line can make you feel. Then again, this acknowledgment of "feelings" would be considered womanly and Pro-GGs can't bend on that!
Side note: Highlights of the conversation include him challenging me (and only me) as to whether I was familiar with Evangelion. I wasn't sure whether to be annoyed that he didn't interrogate the men, as well, or congratulate him on not being racist.
(probably more like this).