We don't assume every person who has nice things to say about GG is a misogynist. We assume everyone is either:
A. Misogynists who want women to suffer B. Duped by misogynists into helping them make women suffer.
You are B. Hopefully this thread has made you see that.
So A is evil, B is stupid? I'm intelligent, I can be reasoned with. Why must you use negative reinforcement?
GG uses positive enforcement, and that's why it's so popular. "Want to fix Gamining? Join GG." Vs "Everyone who dissagree's with us is either evil or stupid."
A is evil. B is duped by evil. I never brought up intelligence or stupidity, you did.
Also, remember that intelligent people are often very easy to dupe, but their intelligence is the thing that makes them so hard to convince they have been duped.
In the word of James Randi:
"A magician will instantly see the truth behind any colleague’s illusion. But we have a bit of an advantage: We know we are being fooled. Scientists are instinctive doubters who employ a rigorous method to zero in on the truth, but they aren’t necessarily trained to expect deception by subjects and collaborators."
Or Jamy Ian Swiss:
"Any magician worth his salt will tell you that the smarter an audience, the more easily fooled they are. That’s a very counterintuitive idea. But it’s why scientists, for example, get in trouble with psychics and such types. Scientists aren’t trained to study something that’s deceptive. Did you ever hear of a sneaky amoeba? I don’t think so. You know, they don’t get together on the slide and go, “Hey, let’s fool the big guy.”"
These are in a different field, but the same is true of all deception. Intelligent people are VERY good at rationalizing their beliefs, especially when they are pointed out to be wrong. A stupid person isn't good at that, and gives in to intellectual heavyweights... even if the thing they are giving in to is also wrong.
So no, I'm not saying you're stupid, though the outcome might be the same. I'm saying you've been duped, and because you insist you're intelligent, I'll take you at your word. You've certainly impressed everyone on this forum by your language and style, and believe me when I say this is rarely the case with a new forum member with an axe to grind.
Even with your above post you're finding good reasons why the GamerGate movement is attractive, and why even intelligent people might be swept up in it. Fixing things does sound intrinsically good!
However, you being duped is also blinding you to the fact that the messaging is working on you too, and too well. You're coming up with defenses against something I didn't accuse you of. That is a sign of a duped intelligent person, not someone stupid.
There's an online store for games called GamersGate, who had to release a statement pointing out that they were in no way, shape or form affiliated with gamergate despite the name.
So A is evil, B is stupid? I'm intelligent, I can be reasoned with. Why must you use negative reinforcement?
GG uses positive enforcement, and that's why it's so popular. "Want to fix Gamining? Join GG." Vs "Everyone who dissagree's with us is either evil or stupid."
Do you see how that position is unattractive?
Being an generally intelligent person and being stupid about a certain thing are not exclusive. People are complex beings and they can easily be smart about one thing and stupid about other. So if you, after all this, still want to protect and defend gamergate for some reason, then you are stupid about it. And you can ether realize and accept that stupidity and maybe do something to be less stupid, or you can go the feel good route, fall back into ignorance and decline that you are a faulty human being.
Being an generally intelligent person and being stupid about a certain thing are not exclusive.
Case in point - Ray Kurzweil, an incredibly respected figure in computer science, believes in the incredible health benefits of Alkali water, and takes about 200 vitamin supplements a day.
So A is evil, B is stupid? I'm intelligent, I can be reasoned with. Why must you use negative reinforcement?
GG uses positive enforcement, and that's why it's so popular. "Want to fix Gamining? Join GG." Vs "Everyone who dissagree's with us is either evil or stupid."
Do you see how that position is unattractive?
Being an generally intelligent person and being stupid about a certain thing are not exclusive. People are complex beings and they can easily be smart about one thing and stupid about other. So if you, after all this, still want to protect and defend gamergate for some reason, then you are stupid about it. And you can ether realize and accept that stupidity and maybe do something to be less stupid, or you can go the feel good route, fall back into ignorance and decline that you are a faulty human being.
So if I pulled a Peter and denied the good of GamerGate (accepting that there's problems like in all movements), knowing that the alternative; which consists of a rabble of snake-oil salesmen, assholes of both genders acting upon both genders, twats with their "Actually" bullshit (the insane hobos that get in your face and scream "hoodly" of the lot) and straight up liars, is what it is, I'd be allowed in the hollowed halls of "Not Stupid"?
You talk like there are two groups; gamergaters and non-gamergaters, but that's wrong. Not belonging to a group does not make you a member of some opposite group. Also not associating with gamergate does not mean that you hate everything they say they represent.
Let's use an overly simplified example. Imagine that there is an group which does two things, they help old ladies cross busy roads and they shoot kittens. But publicly they only talk about the helping old ladies thing, but everyone knows that they shoot kittens. Now, not associating yourself with that group doesn't mean that you dislike helping old ladies across the road nor does it mean that you can't still do it it just means that you dislike their practice of shooting kittens and thus don't want to associate with them.
And helping old ladies is actually a good deed instead of whatever "the industry kinda almost might be corrupt or something we don't know" -bullshit the gamergate spews from it's sewage of a mouth.
We don't assume every person who has nice things to say about GG is a misogynist. We assume everyone is either:
A. Misogynists who want women to suffer B. Duped by misogynists into helping them make women suffer.
You are B. Hopefully this thread has made you see that.
So A is evil, B is stupid? I'm intelligent, I can be reasoned with. Why must you use negative reinforcement?
GG uses positive enforcement, and that's why it's so popular. "Want to fix Gamining? Join GG." Vs "Everyone who dissagree's with us is either evil or stupid."
Except GG has demonstrated that second part.
Also, you're using positive reinforcement incorrectly. Positive reinforcement is using an incentive, or perceived incentive, to get a desired behavior. They range from a gold star on a chart to consumable rewards to unlocking something. It can also be earning time or use of a game system for a child.
Conversely, negative reinforcement is taking something away to get a desired behavior. An example would be telling a child they need to clean their room or you'll take away their game system.
But I'm going to keep harping on the key point of this entire issue. Ignore GG, and any involvement they have had. You claim that there is an issue with journalists who focus on games. Specifically, that they are too cozy with developers and publishers, and there is a negative effect of some kind.
If you are going to convince anyone here that you have a base for an argument, you're going to have to throw down some evidence to show that the ethical beaches are both happening and having an effect.
I'm going to say what others have said: I don't think you're stupid, but I don't think you thought your position or the issues through.
I find it amusing that a large proportion of news and political journalism is compromised in many countries yet there is a trusty group of rebels fighting for 'ethics in games journalism'.
'Games Journalism' which does not exist or is incredibly limited in scope, as many have already stated.
Reviews and opinions are not journalism and no ethics are required for an opinion other than possible malice than could be construed in the message.
As others have recommended I'm not sure why GG people who believe they are in an ethical battle don't divorce themselves of the larger group. I agree with the prior analogies of the Teaparty and Kitten Shooting Klan.
What compels people to stay in this group?
What are the 'good' parts that the group has been able to achieve or strive to achieve?
GamerGate claims to be about ethics in journalism, when in fact it is about the opposite: Bullying gaming journalists until they get in line with a corporate-friendly agenda of uncritically marketing “games pitched at the intellectual and emotional level of a 16-year-old suburban masturbator“. Anyone who actually tries to talk about anything interesting or intellectually engaging, particularly if female, will be drilled out with harassment.
When people complain that they are being associated with misogyny and threats for waving the GamerGate banner, I feel (on a different scale) about the way I do when people complain that they are being misjudged for flying the Confederate battle flag. Sure, maybe it means Southern pride and heritage to some of them. But I'm not sympathetic when many see it another way based on its history. If you fly the Confederate battle flag, people may reasonably think you intend to send a message that contradicts your spoken claims of harmony and equality.
In addition to the full articles linked above, I wonder why so many are calling for enforcement of "gaming" journalism ethics, specifically. If you really care about ethics in journalism, there are so many topics - including war/conflict reporting and political reporting - that impact peoples lives in profound ways. While, yes, journalistic ethics matter regardless of the specific subject - buying a mediocre game based on a slightly biased review is not a life or death issue. If you want to care about the cause - care about the WHOLE cause.
I think a couple of people here approach this from a wrong angle. I think there are legitimate ethical concerns about gaming media, such as the paid reviews of Kane & Lynch a couple of years back, or the Shadows of Mordor payola bullshit. Even Zoe Quinn would qualify, if the guy she slept with on Kotaku had actually written a review about it. Whether product reviews can be classified as "journalism" from a strict taxonomical standpoint is immaterial, because that is what the general public perceives gaming journalism constitutes.
The problem with GamerGate isn't that they don't have a point, but that they are a grassroots movement in the worst way possible. They have no leadership, no focus and no barrier to entry. As such anybody can claim virtually anything as long as it is remotely related to video games and do so under the banner of GamerGate, regardless of whether they are even interested in what the group is even supposed to be about. As such, mysoginists, racists and all other sorts of assholes managed to hitch their wagon to the movement.
Because of this, GamerGate is constantly battling itself in order to keep its message straight, and it is absolutely losing that battle. Any outside observers can only see the bullshit hissy-fits and muddle messages, rather than anything substantial. And I can't really fault them for this because I've tried digging down and see what the core message is, and some of the most vocal and prominent figures speaking out for GamerGate are just complete assholes that hitched their wagon to it. Examples include but aren't limited to Thunderfoot, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Adam Baldwin.
If the most prominent figures in your movement are those that want to exploit it for their own purposes rather than the core message it is supposed to be about, you have a problem. That's also the reason why "it's actually about ethics in games journalism" has become a punchline.
Again, why is gender in any way relevant to "ethics in games journalism?" Why did you bring it up again?
Because that is the progenitor of a lot of this, like it or lump it, the whole five guys debacle is the pin on this messy frag grenade we call gamergate. To ignore it (and other gender related factors like, for example, The Fine Young Capitalists getting their shit wrecked because of Quinn in spite of them acting on a morally sound ground) would be akin to talking about WW1 and saying that it just happened as opposed to the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand being the lynchpin to the hostilities (and subsequent horrors). In addition it keeps getting dragged into focus by the opposition so, much like the PETA and Mario situtation of yore, I will do as I did there and put the spotlight where they say they want it.
[Note: This is not to say the GG scenario is in any way similar to WW1 in scope or lives wasted in senseless tragedy. That should be obvious but I know that some arse will try it on for size so I'm just jumping on that grenade now]
Though, considering the talk out of the Anti-GG side, I will absolutely approve of mocking that post as if it were some weighty tome that rivals the classic epics in length, since it clocks in at over 4000 words.
there are legitimate ethical concerns about gaming media
Honestly? I don't really think there are.
1. If you actually believed that game reviewers (not journalists) were ever in any way independent from game creators or game enthusiasts, you really need to live longer in this world. See also: movies, novels, television, toys, restaurant reviews. There is literally nothing special about video game reviews compared to reviews of all other human media.
2. If there are paid reviewers, and you can't spot them from a mile away (games or otherwise), then that is just sad. Most restaurant reviews are fakes paid for by the restaurants themselves or as part of a solicitation by the reviewer to receive special treatment or free meals.
Didn't it trigger your spider sense that the Assassins Creed Destiny reviews were embargoed until the game was on sale? Anyone who bought a game like that day one deserves the mess they bought. It was obvious that anyone who had an advance copy was barred from reviewing it in a timely fashion.
(There was almost no reaction from "gamergate" on the review embargoes. I thought they cared about "game journalism" or whatever).
3. I review games. Did you know that I'm personal friends with a lot of the people who make those games? I talk to the people who make the games that I review on a regular basis. I don't "disclose" anything about my friend circles. Are you concerned about MY ethics? (s/MY/everyone else's, because that's the closest thing to "collusion" anyone has ever uncovered here).
4. "paid reviews of Kane & Lynch"? Who cares. There were also "real" reviews. Opinions posted on blogs, and even in magazines, aren't subject to any real ethical considerations in this sense, and are fully protected as free speech. You can have and express any opinion you want for whatever reason, even duplicitous, that you want. It's not fraud if you say you liked a videogame but secretly didn't.
That "scandal" doesn't even register on any scale.
5. Shadows over Mordor?" The media outlets that "gamergate" is so mad at were the ones who broke and publicized it. So who exactly are they mad at here? Shouldn't they be mad at the "youtubers" who took money to talk about the game? Do you really expect "some kid on youtube" to give "media disclosures" for his ranty let's play videos? That's ridiculous: you're treating this medium with way more gravitas than it deserves or requires.
6. "Even Zoe Quinn would qualify, if the guy she slept with on Kotaku had actually written a review about it. "
But he didn't. And most "gamergate" discussions act as though this "transaction" is a proven fact. And most of it focuses on the sex side, not the completely-made-up review side. That "Five Guys" video was a fucked thing made by a fucked person who has no place in civil discourse.
If people are getting their news, gaming related or otherwise, from news sources that do not have and enforce an ethical code that they find acceptable, then the consumers are at fault.
Also, these are game reviews. If you think the reviews are coming from questionable sources, don't patronize said news source or buy said game. These are opinion pieces - not fact based reporting.
Most importantly, have we ever seen foodies make en masse rape and death threats on food reviewers that may have taken bribes? No. This GamerGate as a group makes the gaming community look awful - much like (to a greater extent) the KKK makes the South look awful. If you really care about ethical journalism join/make a seperate group that is created by knowledgeable, credible, reasonable men and women that distances itself from GamerGate as much as is posdible.
The Kane and Lynch thing was a big deal in a way. It lead to a massive departure from Gamespot in the light of Gerstmann's firing which resulted in Giant Bomb.
The Kane and Lynch thing was a big deal in a way. It lead to a massive departure from Gamespot in the light of Gerstmann's firing which resulted in Giant Bomb.
Most people, even gamers, have never heard of that "scandal." It was a big deal only in very small circles.
Chaos, I actually compared GG to the tea party. A group of people angry about taxes and for some reason it grew into contraception :-p. Why do all leaderless "movements" default to hating single women?
Yeah... That web site is a morass of mostly unrelated articles. What evidence of actual, real, specific problems with game journalism do you want to discuss?
Comments
GG uses positive enforcement, and that's why it's so popular.
"Want to fix Gamining? Join GG." Vs "Everyone who dissagree's with us is either evil or stupid."
Do you see how that position is unattractive?
Also, remember that intelligent people are often very easy to dupe, but their intelligence is the thing that makes them so hard to convince they have been duped.
In the word of James Randi:
"A magician will instantly see the truth behind any colleague’s illusion. But we have a bit of an advantage: We know we are being fooled. Scientists are instinctive doubters who employ a rigorous method to zero in on the truth, but they aren’t necessarily trained to expect deception by subjects and collaborators."
Or Jamy Ian Swiss:
"Any magician worth his salt will tell you that the smarter an audience, the more easily fooled they are. That’s a very counterintuitive idea. But it’s why scientists, for example, get in trouble with psychics and such types. Scientists aren’t trained to study something that’s deceptive. Did you ever hear of a sneaky amoeba? I don’t think so. You know, they don’t get together on the slide and go, “Hey, let’s fool the big guy.”"
These are in a different field, but the same is true of all deception. Intelligent people are VERY good at rationalizing their beliefs, especially when they are pointed out to be wrong. A stupid person isn't good at that, and gives in to intellectual heavyweights... even if the thing they are giving in to is also wrong.
So no, I'm not saying you're stupid, though the outcome might be the same. I'm saying you've been duped, and because you insist you're intelligent, I'll take you at your word. You've certainly impressed everyone on this forum by your language and style, and believe me when I say this is rarely the case with a new forum member with an axe to grind.
Even with your above post you're finding good reasons why the GamerGate movement is attractive, and why even intelligent people might be swept up in it. Fixing things does sound intrinsically good!
However, you being duped is also blinding you to the fact that the messaging is working on you too, and too well. You're coming up with defenses against something I didn't accuse you of. That is a sign of a duped intelligent person, not someone stupid.
I'd rather be labelled a retard, thanks.
Let's use an overly simplified example. Imagine that there is an group which does two things, they help old ladies cross busy roads and they shoot kittens. But publicly they only talk about the helping old ladies thing, but everyone knows that they shoot kittens. Now, not associating yourself with that group doesn't mean that you dislike helping old ladies across the road nor does it mean that you can't still do it it just means that you dislike their practice of shooting kittens and thus don't want to associate with them.
And helping old ladies is actually a good deed instead of whatever "the industry kinda almost might be corrupt or something we don't know" -bullshit the gamergate spews from it's sewage of a mouth.
Also, you're using positive reinforcement incorrectly. Positive reinforcement is using an incentive, or perceived incentive, to get a desired behavior. They range from a gold star on a chart to consumable rewards to unlocking something. It can also be earning time or use of a game system for a child.
Conversely, negative reinforcement is taking something away to get a desired behavior. An example would be telling a child they need to clean their room or you'll take away their game system.
But I'm going to keep harping on the key point of this entire issue. Ignore GG, and any involvement they have had. You claim that there is an issue with journalists who focus on games. Specifically, that they are too cozy with developers and publishers, and there is a negative effect of some kind.
If you are going to convince anyone here that you have a base for an argument, you're going to have to throw down some evidence to show that the ethical beaches are both happening and having an effect.
I'm going to say what others have said: I don't think you're stupid, but I don't think you thought your position or the issues through.
'Games Journalism' which does not exist or is incredibly limited in scope, as many have already stated.
Reviews and opinions are not journalism and no ethics are required for an opinion other than possible malice than could be construed in the message.
As others have recommended I'm not sure why GG people who believe they are in an ethical battle don't divorce themselves of the larger group. I agree with the prior analogies of the Teaparty and Kitten Shooting Klan.
What compels people to stay in this group?
What are the 'good' parts that the group has been able to achieve or strive to achieve?
GamerGate is an attack on ethical journalism Ten Short Rants About GamerGate
In addition to the full articles linked above, I wonder why so many are calling for enforcement of "gaming" journalism ethics, specifically. If you really care about ethics in journalism, there are so many topics - including war/conflict reporting and political reporting - that impact peoples lives in profound ways. While, yes, journalistic ethics matter regardless of the specific subject - buying a mediocre game based on a slightly biased review is not a life or death issue. If you want to care about the cause - care about the WHOLE cause.
I knew I married you for a reason.
The problem with GamerGate isn't that they don't have a point, but that they are a grassroots movement in the worst way possible. They have no leadership, no focus and no barrier to entry. As such anybody can claim virtually anything as long as it is remotely related to video games and do so under the banner of GamerGate, regardless of whether they are even interested in what the group is even supposed to be about. As such, mysoginists, racists and all other sorts of assholes managed to hitch their wagon to the movement.
Because of this, GamerGate is constantly battling itself in order to keep its message straight, and it is absolutely losing that battle. Any outside observers can only see the bullshit hissy-fits and muddle messages, rather than anything substantial. And I can't really fault them for this because I've tried digging down and see what the core message is, and some of the most vocal and prominent figures speaking out for GamerGate are just complete assholes that hitched their wagon to it. Examples include but aren't limited to Thunderfoot, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Adam Baldwin.
If the most prominent figures in your movement are those that want to exploit it for their own purposes rather than the core message it is supposed to be about, you have a problem. That's also the reason why "it's actually about ethics in games journalism" has become a punchline.
[Note: This is not to say the GG scenario is in any way similar to WW1 in scope or lives wasted in senseless tragedy. That should be obvious but I know that some arse will try it on for size so I'm just jumping on that grenade now] I have seen more confirmed "Cat shooting" from the Anti GamerGate side (again, FYC vs Quinn) by a large margin.
Further exchanges between Quinn and TFYC.
Quinn says even more on the topic, in a lengthy tumblr post incorporating both of the above.
Though, considering the talk out of the Anti-GG side, I will absolutely approve of mocking that post as if it were some weighty tome that rivals the classic epics in length, since it clocks in at over 4000 words.
1. If you actually believed that game reviewers (not journalists) were ever in any way independent from game creators or game enthusiasts, you really need to live longer in this world. See also: movies, novels, television, toys, restaurant reviews. There is literally nothing special about video game reviews compared to reviews of all other human media.
2. If there are paid reviewers, and you can't spot them from a mile away (games or otherwise), then that is just sad. Most restaurant reviews are fakes paid for by the restaurants themselves or as part of a solicitation by the reviewer to receive special treatment or free meals.
Didn't it trigger your spider sense that the Assassins Creed Destiny reviews were embargoed until the game was on sale? Anyone who bought a game like that day one deserves the mess they bought. It was obvious that anyone who had an advance copy was barred from reviewing it in a timely fashion.
(There was almost no reaction from "gamergate" on the review embargoes. I thought they cared about "game journalism" or whatever).
3. I review games. Did you know that I'm personal friends with a lot of the people who make those games? I talk to the people who make the games that I review on a regular basis. I don't "disclose" anything about my friend circles. Are you concerned about MY ethics? (s/MY/everyone else's, because that's the closest thing to "collusion" anyone has ever uncovered here).
4. "paid reviews of Kane & Lynch"? Who cares. There were also "real" reviews. Opinions posted on blogs, and even in magazines, aren't subject to any real ethical considerations in this sense, and are fully protected as free speech. You can have and express any opinion you want for whatever reason, even duplicitous, that you want. It's not fraud if you say you liked a videogame but secretly didn't.
That "scandal" doesn't even register on any scale.
5. Shadows over Mordor?" The media outlets that "gamergate" is so mad at were the ones who broke and publicized it. So who exactly are they mad at here? Shouldn't they be mad at the "youtubers" who took money to talk about the game? Do you really expect "some kid on youtube" to give "media disclosures" for his ranty let's play videos? That's ridiculous: you're treating this medium with way more gravitas than it deserves or requires.
6. "Even Zoe Quinn would qualify, if the guy she slept with on Kotaku had actually written a review about it. "
But he didn't. And most "gamergate" discussions act as though this "transaction" is a proven fact. And most of it focuses on the sex side, not the completely-made-up review side. That "Five Guys" video was a fucked thing made by a fucked person who has no place in civil discourse.
If people are getting their news, gaming related or otherwise, from news sources that do not have and enforce an ethical code that they find acceptable, then the consumers are at fault.
Also, these are game reviews. If you think the reviews are coming from questionable sources, don't patronize said news source or buy said game. These are opinion pieces - not fact based reporting.
Most importantly, have we ever seen foodies make en masse rape and death threats on food reviewers that may have taken bribes? No. This GamerGate as a group makes the gaming community look awful - much like (to a greater extent) the KKK makes the South look awful. If you really care about ethical journalism join/make a seperate group that is created by knowledgeable, credible, reasonable men and women that distances itself from GamerGate as much as is posdible.
All I got in reply was a link to it, http://gamergate.me/
Wow there's even feminists writing for them.
Edit: its an aggregation. The writers are not writing articles for that site. I also keep getting error messages when I try to read the articles.