This is the same guy who, upon getting admitted to a white house press briefing, used it whinge to the white house press secretary about losing his verified checkmark on twitter.
This is the same guy who, upon getting admitted to a white house press briefing, used it whinge to the white house press secretary about losing his verified checkmark on twitter.
I can't wait to see the tantrum this causes.
People are trying to gather together for him with a hashtag called "FreeMilo" but I sincerely doubt that'll get anything done. If Twitter were to buckle under pressure against that, there will be irreparable damage. People continue to misunderstand "Free Speech" when under the umbrella of a private business.
This is the same guy who, upon getting admitted to a white house press briefing, used it whinge to the white house press secretary about losing his verified checkmark on twitter.
I can't wait to see the tantrum this causes.
People are trying to gather together for him with a hashtag called "FreeMilo" but I sincerely doubt that'll get anything done. If Twitter were to buckle under pressure against that, there will be irreparable damage. People continue to misunderstand "Free Speech" when under the umbrella of a private business.
There were quite a few people I saw calling for a DDOS of twitter, but good luck with that - I know about Twitter's CDN, and they're fucking hardcore.
Wow It's been such a long time. I didn't think this thread would still be active since, in my opinion, Gamergate lost hardcore. All the big names early on moved on to bigger and better things. With that in mind do you guys still enforce the "Don't listen to our podcast if you support Gamergate" Rule? These new people rub me wrong way.
There were valid issues that people were upset about. People aren't so one dimensional that if you agree with someone on one issue you have to agree on everything.
I've been following the movement since day one, since the day Zoe Quinn started tweeting about how her ex posted a thing online defaming her. Everything was focused on her and how she "used sex to get good reviews" even though it didn't happen. The name "Gamergate" came from Adam Baldwin using a hashtag on a video talking about Zoe Quinn's sex life and how it got her positive coverage (that doesn't exist). Then, Leigh Alexander wrote an article about how "Gamers are over" and talked about how "gamer" is a brand identity that has been used to sell you products and shouldn't be how anyone defines themself solely. Then everyone claimed she wrote "Gamers are dead" and that the bevy of response articles were a journalistic secret plan to discredit poor, stepped on gamers.
The consumer revolt has always been a backlash against women being a part of games space. There was never any ethics problems in journalism that any of gamergate's targets really committed. There's also been no SJW conspiracy to ruin video games, just people writing commentary and critique online.
If you supported it early on, it means you were easily duped and roped into a narrative about how corrupt all of these journalists were, when really none of it was happening and the only thing that was happening was the harassment of women and minority groups.
People like you who try to pretend Gamergate didn't start (and continue to live off of) Zoe Quinn piss me off.
I don't deny that is was started off with Zoe Quin. I really have no disrespect for her, and know barely anything about her.
It isn't fair however to take the opposite extreme and suggest Journalists never do anything wrong. It was appealing to follow a group that promised better journalism. I won't apologize for being offended by publications that took a more aggressive stance than Leigh Alexander, but I do regret not being able to reel people in from extreme actions.
I just wanted transparency and feel more trusting of a journalist when I get it. After I got burned on the whole thing I found Jim Sterling, who really fills my needs.
I came a bit late to the whole gamergate party, by the time it crossed my radar, it was already a joke to even think that it had anything to do with ethics in games journalism and was just a bunch of the worst sort of people terrorizing decent folk.
Nowadays I just see the word and associate it with asshole, I'm not saying there's not a chance there's some morsel of a good intention somewhere in there, but I'm also not willing to dive to the bottom of an olympic swimming pool of shit for maybe some cookies that may or may not be there, and even if they are, they're still covered in shit.
It isn't fair however to take the opposite extreme and suggest Journalists never do anything wrong.
No one argued that. "Journalism" was never at any point a serious goal of those morons.
But gamergate used that as their narrative. People like me, "Not you Sheild", and others believed that Gamergate would make Games Journalism better. It's a lot like people following the "Make America Great Again" narrative.
If you'd like Rym you could educated me or at least suggest a better outlet for my frustration?
By journalists do you really mean reviewers? I never really understood what "games journalism" was supposed to mean.
I'd break them down into categories:
Influencers- People who are popular/have an audience - Just by playing/talking about a game they generate buzz. Reviewers- People who give games a score - Critical review can influence purchase decisions. Journalists- People who report news about games or the industry
The simple fact is, people in the games press didn't do anything that Gamergate ever accused them of. Having qualms with them is one thing, but qualms with the games press have literally nothing to do with Gamergate, unless your qualms involve the types of things I already discussed, which are almost entirely sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or otherwise alt-right garbage.
But gamergate used that as their narrative. People like me, "Not you Sheild", and others believed that Gamergate would make Games Journalism better. It's a lot like people following the "Make America Great Again" narrative.
If you'd like Rym you could educated me or at least suggest a better outlet for my frustration?
Question: Do you also follow the "Make America Great Again" narrative like you follow the "Game Journalism" narrative?
The only people to "succeed" from holding onto the ideals of Gamergate are Milo Yiannopolis (who might be the most corrupt, immoral journalist living right now) or people like Sargon of Akkad & TheAmazingAtheist who spew anti-feminist/neo-reactionary rhetoric in order to make money.
Games Journalism didn't change one iota. Even if you were to see places like Kotaku or Polygon admit when they receive donations or described "ethics policies" for creating game reviews; these never changed the structure or style of the websites. The websites kept producing content. People still went and didn't complain. The big website to change was The Escapist that essentially imploded by corrupting itself in Gamergate culture by obsessing over demagoguery and "censorship." Seriously.
I don't know why you'd want to connect yourself to the shitheels referred to as Gamergate supporters when you clearly realize that anyone who wanted to support them in the name of "journalistic ethics" left immediately. Gamergate is still talked about to some extent because it's part of a cultural divide going on right now in politics, about the fear of feminism and "political correctness" ruining culture...that far too many people actually believe.
The simple fact is, people in the games press didn't do anything that Gamergate ever accused them of. Having qualms with them is one thing, but qualms with the games press have literally nothing to do with Gamergate, unless your qualms involve the types of things I already discussed, which are almost entirely sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or otherwise alt-right garbage.
Yep. The only actual Ethical issue they went after? Turns out, Gators just lied, and used it as an excuse to attack Zoe Quinn. Every other case they claim as one of their victories for journalistic ethics either doesn't involve them in the slightest, wrapped up before they were ever really involved(and in one case, before gamergate ever existed), they only got involved well after it was public knowledge and they were criticized for their silence, or is simply a complete fiction.
But gamergate used that as their narrative. People like me, "Not you Sheild", and others believed that
Kid, no. Stop. We know you joined this forum and specifically to do this. You started your pro-gomergate shitposting right about when that "op" was going on to "infiltrate" forums and spread that vile garbage. We know.
"Not Your Shield" was a similar "op" designed solely to muddy the waters, consisting of fake accounts and nonsense. There aren't other people. No one even tangentially related to this movement is "legitimately" concerned about anything other than punishing a random woman for no particular reason, and everything that snowballed from that.
There was never a legitimate narrative. You're either pretty dumb, dangerously naive, or trolling ineffectually.
When a crusade is founded using stupid internet drama where big whopping lies obscured everything, that should have been a pretty good signal not to get involved.
It seems like most of you, Rym especially, just don't like me and don't want me to change. I loved your podcast for almost two years. You guys were able to to change a firmly held hatred of Gundam Seed for me. But with this I'm the punching bag.
I'm not some kind of spy. I've never tried to harass a woman out of the industry. I just wanted Rym and Scott senpai to notice me and say "Hey you're not evil. Here's how to be good." When I listen to a podcast every week I start to feel familiarity/one sided friendship. It was like being dumped when I was told to not listen. I'm trying to say I'm willing to make some compromises to get that show back in my life.
If you want to earn the respect of anyone on this forum, the first place to start is to not defend Gamergate and its shit. You know it's controlled by alt-right nonsense, you know the horrible things it's done, you know that around here we're pretty pro everything that Gamergate rails against.
This isn't about "compromises." We just don't tolerate you posting Gamergate bullshit. It's a waste of everyone's time.
You also can't just have an echo chamber that repeats your own beliefs. Also when I had told the moderator that I wanted to join to defend my opinion on Gamergate. He was fine with that as long as I didn't get mean.
When they posted that Utena video about gamergate it scared off a lot of fans of the show. I felt like as content creators it would have been better for them to use their influence to convince them to change their mind, instead of barring them from the podcast.
I just wanted Rym and Scott senpai to notice me and say "Hey you're not evil. Here's how to be good."
Don't tacitly justify harassment. That's how to be good. This entire issue is bullshit. It was bullshit from the beginning, it's still bullshit, and it will always and forever be bullshit. It was never anything more than an anti-woman crusade by a bunch of butthurt shitlords.
Either you know better, or you don't. If you know better, stop defending these people or trying to legitimize any aspect of this. If you don't know better, now you know.
I don't particularly want MRAs, Trump supporters, Nazis, the alt-right, etc... to listen to the show. They can if they want to, but they have to understand that they can, officially, EABOD. Fuck them. I disrespect them and everything they stand for.
If someone with abhorrent views somehow listens to the show for years and doesn't realize that we disapprove of harassment or Nazis, well, I don't know what to say. Is it because we're two white guys? Is that why someone would just assume we agree with them?
Guess what? Black Lives Matter. The Police in the US are broadly racist in their enforcement of the law. The Republican Party is abhorrent. Trump is a monster. Selling fake medicine should be a crime. Chiropractic should be banned. Online harassment of women by men is a massive problem.
You know what's not a problem? The "ethical" status of "games journalism."
I'm not really sure what you're looking for. People have given pretty solid evidence against what you believe in.
And honestly I fail to see how "ethics in games journalism" is even an issue. Even in the worst case scenario where everyone is deeply flawed in their journalistic integrity, how does that matter? It's not like there aren't millions of people trying to make a living streaming games, or just doing it as a hobby. You have so many avenues to choose from, and on top of that you have raw stream data, not doctored videos. As far as a "review" goes anyone should be able to consume that data and make a decision for themselves. Which is exactly what a review is, someone's opinion.
Off topic, but I think that's is kinda generalizing. You could consider THC "fake medicine" and yet it's a great alternative to painkillers. There have also been minor studies in using psilocybin in treating cluster headaches and others. But none of them have been regulated by the FDA. And will they ever? Most likely not.
Comments
I can't wait to see the tantrum this causes.
With that in mind do you guys still enforce the "Don't listen to our podcast if you support Gamergate" Rule? These new people rub me wrong way.
I've been following the movement since day one, since the day Zoe Quinn started tweeting about how her ex posted a thing online defaming her. Everything was focused on her and how she "used sex to get good reviews" even though it didn't happen. The name "Gamergate" came from Adam Baldwin using a hashtag on a video talking about Zoe Quinn's sex life and how it got her positive coverage (that doesn't exist). Then, Leigh Alexander wrote an article about how "Gamers are over" and talked about how "gamer" is a brand identity that has been used to sell you products and shouldn't be how anyone defines themself solely. Then everyone claimed she wrote "Gamers are dead" and that the bevy of response articles were a journalistic secret plan to discredit poor, stepped on gamers.
The consumer revolt has always been a backlash against women being a part of games space. There was never any ethics problems in journalism that any of gamergate's targets really committed. There's also been no SJW conspiracy to ruin video games, just people writing commentary and critique online.
If you supported it early on, it means you were easily duped and roped into a narrative about how corrupt all of these journalists were, when really none of it was happening and the only thing that was happening was the harassment of women and minority groups.
People like you who try to pretend Gamergate didn't start (and continue to live off of) Zoe Quinn piss me off.
It isn't fair however to take the opposite extreme and suggest Journalists never do anything wrong. It was appealing to follow a group that promised better journalism. I won't apologize for being offended by publications that took a more aggressive stance than Leigh Alexander, but I do regret not being able to reel people in from extreme actions.
I just wanted transparency and feel more trusting of a journalist when I get it. After I got burned on the whole thing I found Jim Sterling, who really fills my needs.
Nowadays I just see the word and associate it with asshole, I'm not saying there's not a chance there's some morsel of a good intention somewhere in there, but I'm also not willing to dive to the bottom of an olympic swimming pool of shit for maybe some cookies that may or may not be there, and even if they are, they're still covered in shit.
It was a sexist lynch mob against a specific woman with no cause from the literal beginning.
If you'd like Rym you could educated me or at least suggest a better outlet for my frustration?
Influencers- People who are popular/have an audience - Just by playing/talking about a game they generate buzz.
Reviewers- People who give games a score - Critical review can influence purchase decisions.
Journalists- People who report news about games or the industry
Games Journalism didn't change one iota. Even if you were to see places like Kotaku or Polygon admit when they receive donations or described "ethics policies" for creating game reviews; these never changed the structure or style of the websites. The websites kept producing content. People still went and didn't complain. The big website to change was The Escapist that essentially imploded by corrupting itself in Gamergate culture by obsessing over demagoguery and "censorship." Seriously.
I don't know why you'd want to connect yourself to the shitheels referred to as Gamergate supporters when you clearly realize that anyone who wanted to support them in the name of "journalistic ethics" left immediately. Gamergate is still talked about to some extent because it's part of a cultural divide going on right now in politics, about the fear of feminism and "political correctness" ruining culture...that far too many people actually believe.
"Not Your Shield" was a similar "op" designed solely to muddy the waters, consisting of fake accounts and nonsense. There aren't other people. No one even tangentially related to this movement is "legitimately" concerned about anything other than punishing a random woman for no particular reason, and everything that snowballed from that.
There was never a legitimate narrative. You're either pretty dumb, dangerously naive, or trolling ineffectually.
I'm not some kind of spy. I've never tried to harass a woman out of the industry. I just wanted Rym and Scott senpai to notice me and say "Hey you're not evil. Here's how to be good." When I listen to a podcast every week I start to feel familiarity/one sided friendship. It was like being dumped when I was told to not listen. I'm trying to say I'm willing to make some compromises to get that show back in my life.
This isn't about "compromises." We just don't tolerate you posting Gamergate bullshit. It's a waste of everyone's time.
When they posted that Utena video about gamergate it scared off a lot of fans of the show. I felt like as content creators it would have been better for them to use their influence to convince them to change their mind, instead of barring them from the podcast.
Either you know better, or you don't. If you know better, stop defending these people or trying to legitimize any aspect of this. If you don't know better, now you know.
I don't particularly want MRAs, Trump supporters, Nazis, the alt-right, etc... to listen to the show. They can if they want to, but they have to understand that they can, officially, EABOD. Fuck them. I disrespect them and everything they stand for.
If someone with abhorrent views somehow listens to the show for years and doesn't realize that we disapprove of harassment or Nazis, well, I don't know what to say. Is it because we're two white guys? Is that why someone would just assume we agree with them?
Guess what? Black Lives Matter. The Police in the US are broadly racist in their enforcement of the law. The Republican Party is abhorrent. Trump is a monster. Selling fake medicine should be a crime. Chiropractic should be banned. Online harassment of women by men is a massive problem.
You know what's not a problem? The "ethical" status of "games journalism."
And honestly I fail to see how "ethics in games journalism" is even an issue. Even in the worst case scenario where everyone is deeply flawed in their journalistic integrity, how does that matter? It's not like there aren't millions of people trying to make a living streaming games, or just doing it as a hobby. You have so many avenues to choose from, and on top of that you have raw stream data, not doctored videos. As far as a "review" goes anyone should be able to consume that data and make a decision for themselves. Which is exactly what a review is, someone's opinion. Off topic, but I think that's is kinda generalizing. You could consider THC "fake medicine" and yet it's a great alternative to painkillers. There have also been minor studies in using psilocybin in treating cluster headaches and others. But none of them have been regulated by the FDA. And will they ever? Most likely not.
Anything homeopathic should specifically be banned, for sale, offer, treatment, advertising: anything.