Why do you want me to defend it though? I don't want to. I already said I can't win. According to the rules of Scott 100% of gg supporters are misognizers. So any arguments I make against the press would still be considered 100% misogyny. It's unwinnable when everyone is against you, there are way more of them than you, and they set the rules for argument.
Why do you want me to defend it though? I don't want to. I already said I can't win. According to the rules of Scott 100% of gg supporters are misognizers. So any arguments I make against the press would still be considered 100% misogyny. It's unwinnable when everyone is against you, there are way more of them than you, and they set the rules for argument.
We're not asking you to argue against the press. We're not asking you to defend them. We're just asking you one simple question:
I think that says a lot about what you're achieving here. You get told put up or shut up. Everyone else sees it as asking to actually bring something forward for your arguments, or stop making them. You see it as being told, you personally, to shut up.
I get where you're coming from, but surely you see how people might see this as an all but open refusal to actually try and argue your case, and trying to play it into how you're so put upon, when you refuse to make even the slightest attempt to answer any question asked. You ask for guarantees, but when asked for anything that could make it worth even thinking about, you start howling persecution.
Surely you can see the position you're putting yourself in, here. You're making demands, but giving nothing to justify giving you anything you're demanding. Say people give you anything you're asking for, are you going to actually answer the question, or are you just going to keep complaining about how bloody persecuted you are for being asked to give more detail on your opinions? Because so far, you've given no indication you'll do anything else, so why on god's green earth would anybody give in to your demands?
Why do you want me to defend it though? I don't want to. I already said I can't win. According to the rules of Scott 100% of gg supporters are misognizers. So any arguments I make against the press would still be considered 100% misogyny. It's unwinnable when everyone is against you, there are way more of them than you, and they set the rules for argument.
Yeah, buddy, you know the fact that you keep using a mocking term for "Mysoginist" that's common in gg/redpill/alt-right circles is not helping your case that you're not.
Nobody wants you to defend it. Read the fucking question - What parts of the GG movement do you support, and Why do you support them? It's people asking, specifically, to expand on the beliefs that you've already expressed in this thread. People just want to know more, not put you in the pillory for what you think - shit, the only reason you're being pilloried now is because you're refusing, and acting like you're hard done by because of it, when you've been told the simplest way in the world to make it stop.
Yes, it was also unwinnable. You can win by just answering the question. To borrow your own analogy and make it accurate, this isn't the Kyobashi Maru, this is you being put in front the dean because you refused to even step into the simulation, because you weren't just going to be allowed to win, and then acting like you're being persecuted when given a failing grade, despite refusing to take the assessment.
Except you don't ACTUALLY know what we'll say. You're refusing to even start the conversation because, in your head, you think we're gonna twist your words and play dirty.
No.
The first thing we'd do is tell you "lose", "ad", and "they", then we'd ask what you define as a dishonest deal and that you should provide real-world examples with evidence to support them.
But that can't happen until you actually SAY something. Right now you're just shadowboxing and, oddly, losing.
If I say "I think the gaming publications should loose add revenue when the take part in dishonest deals."
You'll say:
"You mean you threaten to kill reviewers who give high scores to games you don't like."
We'll say, it's a fucking video game review. Why are you even reading those? Who gives a shit? Hardly any journalism is ethical these days. How old is FOX News, and how come you haven't been made about that since it came into existence?'
The only people who pay attention to video game "journalism" are middle school kids reading Game Informer. Game Informer, which by the way, is owned by GameStop. it's very existence is unethical. Nobody in GG seems to care about that. They weren't complaining about ethics in journalism back in 2001 when GameStop bought the magazine. If ethics were so important, where were they for all those years?
Hell, Nintendo Power, when it existed, was unethical. It was journalism owned by the game publisher! Nobody in GG seems to have had a problem with that.
I think the gaming publications should lose add revenue when the take part in dishonest deals.
Can you provide some examples of dishonest deals that the gaming press has taken part in?
Also, here's the end-run answer you should probably be taking: "I support points X, Y, Z, which GamerGate claimed to agree with, although they spent most of their time harassing women and feminists in the gaming press," you admit to having been fooled into thinking GamerGate was actually primarily about X, Y, and Z, and then you disavow GG.
To paraphrase a Scott-ism: "If Hitler saved a baby, say that he saved that baby! But he's still Hitler."
See look you only asked me that so you could say I'm wrong.
It's dishonest when there isn't disclosure. It's public knowledge that GameStop owns GameInformer. It's wasn't public knowledge when Microsoft made a behind the scenes deal with Machinima to work in favorable coverage for payment. It only became public when someone leaked their contract.
It's wasn't public knowledge when Microsoft made a behind the scenes deal with Machinima to work in favorable coverage for payment. It only became public when someone leaked their contract.
And where was "gamergate" protesting that specific thing? How does that relate to their constant harassment of people who did nothing of the sort elsewhere, and who happened to be exclusively women?
See look you only asked me that so you could say I'm wrong.
We asked. You answered. Your answer happens to be wrong, so we let you know. If you don't want to be told you are wrong, don't be wrong. Alternatively, if you think we are wrong, and you are right, back your shit up with evidence. That is how arguing works.
It's dishonest when there isn't disclosure. It's public knowledge that GameStop owns GameInformer. It's wasn't public knowledge when Microsoft made a behind the scenes deal with Machinima to work in favorable coverage for payment. It only became public when someone leaked their contract.
And when that came up, it was games news sites that talked about it and exposed it, not Gamergate.
If I say "I think the gaming publications should loose add revenue when the take part in dishonest deals."
You'll say:
"You mean you threaten to kill reviewers who give high scores to games you don't like."
We'll say, it's a fucking video game review. Why are you even reading those? Who gives a shit? Hardly any journalism is ethical these days. How old is FOX News, and how come you haven't been made about that since it came into existence?'
The only people who pay attention to video game "journalism" are middle school kids reading Game Informer. Game Informer, which by the way, is owned by GameStop. it's very existence is unethical. Nobody in GG seems to care about that. They weren't complaining about ethics in journalism back in 2001 when GameStop bought the magazine. If ethics were so important, where were they for all those years?
Hell, Nintendo Power, when it existed, was unethical. It was journalism owned by the game publisher! Nobody in GG seems to have had a problem with that.
This is the weirdest part of some of this. We live in an age where people who, as a hobby, stream hours of video game content. There is tons of raw video that allows any consumer to make educated guesses on whether or not they like something. Generally the people who rely heavily on reviews don't want to spend the time to make these decisions themselves, so they open up to people who are making assessments based on their opinions. The inherent decision to base your opinions purely based on other people's opinions is pretty dangerous and can even be mitigated by seeking multiple opinions if you're skeptical. The common denominator is time, and if you don't devote the time to do some cursory research then how much do you really care about the hobby?
Why do you want me to defend it though? I don't want to. I already said I can't win. According to the rules of Scott 100% of gg supporters are misognizers. So any arguments I make against the press would still be considered 100% misogyny.
I'm not saying anything in regards to Scott's position on the matter one way or another. But if you've spent even a few minutes on this forum or listened to any episode of GeekNights then you should already be familiar with the fact that Scott occasionally makes sweeping statements on a subject that even many people on this forum disagree with. Just because any one person makes such statements it's not difficult to challenge them in even a minimal capacity.
See look you only asked me that so you could say I'm wrong.
Sort of trying to let you get out of this alive. It's the consensus of this forum that, despite paying lip-service to "ethics in journalism," the primary activity of GG was harassing women and feminists who did gaming criticism (and then harassing everyone who called them out on it). That consensus is not one you're going to change.
However -- it is possible to speak in support of those calls towards transparency in gaming journalism without supporting GG. But to support GamerGate is to tacitly support their harassment of women and their attempts to police the voices in games criticism.
We'd like you to enumerate why you do/did support GamerGate at the time. We can understand if you thought that "ethics in gaming journalism" was actually the primary aim of GGers.
And where was "gamergate" protesting that specific thing?
There was a public outcry. It was pretty widely publicized after it was revealed. We saw the same kind of response that T Martin got after the CS:Go skin gambling debacle.
How does that relate to their constant harassment of people who did nothing of the sort elsewhere, and who happened to be exclusively women?
It doesn't. This is a perpendicular argument. Some people argue against the media doing these kind of things while others wanted to take down those "infringing" on their tree houses. The two groups felt like they had a common enemy.
I like media transparency, but I don't hang an "Boys Rule Girls Drool" sign on my tree house.
If I say "I think the gaming publications should loose add revenue when the take part in dishonest deals."
I absolutely agree, though I would put it as "Fined", but in reality, what revenue do you think goes to pay those fines in the end, really.
But I also think that should actually be proven, and put in the hands of some sort of regulatory body like the ACMA or the Press Council(Both of which, as a professional, I can be subject to), not a bunch of yahoos who are easier to touch off than a jar of nitro on a hotplate.
Here is an example I think everyone can understand. Rym and Scott are "Influences". They have an audience, people listen to their advice on what games to buy. I got into Android: Netrunner because of how fun they explained it. It was fun while I played it! I ran a Criminal Deck, but it got a little too expensive.
So imagine they do a "Beyond D&D" Panel at a convention. A game printer sees it and approaches them and offers them a free copy of the game if they talk about it on their podcast. That is perfectly fine, as long as they mention they got it for free. I think they would because they are quite honest.
Now if we had people less honest than Rym and Scot the deal could be bad. Lets say they not only provide a free game, but also give money, gifts, or meals in exchange for the coverage. If these podcasters don't disclose it, that's dishonest.
So in this alternate universe Nega-Rym and Nega-Scot have a podcast topic about how this new game is great and everyone should buy it. The evil versions of Rym and Scot have Goatees that they rub while scheming (Just like Evil Spock). These fiends don't reveal that they were Paid for the Content. That's dishonest.
But the real Rym and Scot wouldn't do that. I think we can agree.
Hey guys I'm a Nazi, I thought you should know that. I don't agree with all the bs those other Nazis do they're all missing the point. Nazism is about animal cruelty. Did you know that we were the first in the world to ban vivisection? It's true:
An absolute and permanent ban on vivisection is not only a necessary law to protect animals and to show sympathy with their pain, but it is also a law for humanity itself…. I have therefore announced the immediate prohibition of vivisection and have made the practice a punishable offense in Prussia. Until such time as punishment is pronounced the culprit shall be lodged in a concentration camp.
So yeah I just joined this forum to advance my pro-Nazi stance, the mod said I could. I don't get why you're all ganging up on me, and I don't want to talk any more about it.
I like the removal of animal cruelty, but don't hang a "kill all the jews" sign on my tree house.
Here is an example I think everyone can understand. Rym and Scott are "Influences". They have an audience, people listen to their advice on what games to buy. I got into Android: Netrunner because of how fun they explained it. It was fun while I played it! I ran a Criminal Deck, but it got a little too expensive.
So imagine they do a "Beyond D&D" Panel at a convention. A game printer sees it and approaches them and offers them a free copy of the game if they talk about it on their podcast. That is perfectly fine, as long as they mention they got it for free. I think they would because they are quite honest.
Now if we had people less honest than Rym and Scot the deal could be bad. Lets say they not only provide a free game, but also give money, gifts, or meals in exchange for the coverage. If these podcasters don't disclose it, that's dishonest.
So in this alternate universe Nega-Rym and Nega-Scot have a podcast topic about how this new game is great and everyone should buy it. The evil versions of Rym and Scot have Goatees that they rub while scheming (Just like Evil Spock). These fiends don't reveal that they were Paid for the Content. That's dishonest.
But the real Rym and Scot wouldn't do that. I think we can agree.
New flash: The kind of dishonesty you are talking about has existed in all media for as long as it has existed, and will never not exist. Even outside media. Your doctor is schmoozed by the prescription drug companies. Even the corner store gets schmoozed by Coke and or Pepsi. Most of the stories you see on the local news are actually videos made by PR companies and then given to the news. The news channel didn't make that story.
If this makes you mad, prepare to be mad forever at everything.
Comments
And in the spirit of the thread:
What, specifically, do you support in the GG movement and why?
According to the rules of Scott 100% of gg supporters are misognizers. So any arguments I make against the press would still be considered 100% misogyny. It's unwinnable when everyone is against you, there are way more of them than you, and they set the rules for argument.
At least the Kobyashi Maru was educational.
"I support aspects A, B, and C of the GG movement because X, Y, and Z, respectively."
I get where you're coming from, but surely you see how people might see this as an all but open refusal to actually try and argue your case, and trying to play it into how you're so put upon, when you refuse to make even the slightest attempt to answer any question asked. You ask for guarantees, but when asked for anything that could make it worth even thinking about, you start howling persecution.
Surely you can see the position you're putting yourself in, here. You're making demands, but giving nothing to justify giving you anything you're demanding. Say people give you anything you're asking for, are you going to actually answer the question, or are you just going to keep complaining about how bloody persecuted you are for being asked to give more detail on your opinions? Because so far, you've given no indication you'll do anything else, so why on god's green earth would anybody give in to your demands? Yeah, buddy, you know the fact that you keep using a mocking term for "Mysoginist" that's common in gg/redpill/alt-right circles is not helping your case that you're not.
Nobody wants you to defend it. Read the fucking question - What parts of the GG movement do you support, and Why do you support them? It's people asking, specifically, to expand on the beliefs that you've already expressed in this thread. People just want to know more, not put you in the pillory for what you think - shit, the only reason you're being pilloried now is because you're refusing, and acting like you're hard done by because of it, when you've been told the simplest way in the world to make it stop. Yes, it was also unwinnable. You can win by just answering the question. To borrow your own analogy and make it accurate, this isn't the Kyobashi Maru, this is you being put in front the dean because you refused to even step into the simulation, because you weren't just going to be allowed to win, and then acting like you're being persecuted when given a failing grade, despite refusing to take the assessment.
You'll say:
"You mean you threaten to kill reviewers who give high scores to games you don't like."
No.
The first thing we'd do is tell you "lose", "ad", and "they", then we'd ask what you define as a dishonest deal and that you should provide real-world examples with evidence to support them.
But that can't happen until you actually SAY something. Right now you're just shadowboxing and, oddly, losing.
The only people who pay attention to video game "journalism" are middle school kids reading Game Informer. Game Informer, which by the way, is owned by GameStop. it's very existence is unethical. Nobody in GG seems to care about that. They weren't complaining about ethics in journalism back in 2001 when GameStop bought the magazine. If ethics were so important, where were they for all those years?
Hell, Nintendo Power, when it existed, was unethical. It was journalism owned by the game publisher! Nobody in GG seems to have had a problem with that.
Also, here's the end-run answer you should probably be taking: "I support points X, Y, Z, which GamerGate claimed to agree with, although they spent most of their time harassing women and feminists in the gaming press," you admit to having been fooled into thinking GamerGate was actually primarily about X, Y, and Z, and then you disavow GG.
To paraphrase a Scott-ism: "If Hitler saved a baby, say that he saved that baby! But he's still Hitler."
It's dishonest when there isn't disclosure. It's public knowledge that GameStop owns GameInformer. It's wasn't public knowledge when Microsoft made a behind the scenes deal with Machinima to work in favorable coverage for payment. It only became public when someone leaked their contract.
However -- it is possible to speak in support of those calls towards transparency in gaming journalism without supporting GG. But to support GamerGate is to tacitly support their harassment of women and their attempts to police the voices in games criticism.
We'd like you to enumerate why you do/did support GamerGate at the time. We can understand if you thought that "ethics in gaming journalism" was actually the primary aim of GGers.
EDIT: your disclosure point was good, by the way.
I like media transparency, but I don't hang an "Boys Rule Girls Drool" sign on my tree house.
Why don't you decry specific issues while simultaneously denouncing gamergate for what it is?
But I also think that should actually be proven, and put in the hands of some sort of regulatory body like the ACMA or the Press Council(Both of which, as a professional, I can be subject to), not a bunch of yahoos who are easier to touch off than a jar of nitro on a hotplate.
So imagine they do a "Beyond D&D" Panel at a convention. A game printer sees it and approaches them and offers them a free copy of the game if they talk about it on their podcast. That is perfectly fine, as long as they mention they got it for free. I think they would because they are quite honest.
Now if we had people less honest than Rym and Scot the deal could be bad. Lets say they not only provide a free game, but also give money, gifts, or meals in exchange for the coverage. If these podcasters don't disclose it, that's dishonest.
So in this alternate universe Nega-Rym and Nega-Scot have a podcast topic about how this new game is great and everyone should buy it. The evil versions of Rym and Scot have Goatees that they rub while scheming (Just like Evil Spock). These fiends don't reveal that they were Paid for the Content. That's dishonest.
But the real Rym and Scot wouldn't do that. I think we can agree.
I like the removal of animal cruelty, but don't hang a "kill all the jews" sign on my tree house.
If this makes you mad, prepare to be mad forever at everything.