Merged Continuation - Feminist Bullies Tearing the Video Game Industry Apart Part II

[Edx]

Really? Okay, I will explain it to you using simple words.

Suppose there were a gang of people who did a specific thing, say they sprayed graffiti on walls. A different group of people complained about it, and got graffiti all over their walls. The graffiti gang acted innocent and said "Can you prove it was us? We are totally unrelated! Anyone could have done it!". However everyone who wasn't a moron knew they had done it, and the graffiti gang started to get a bad reputation.

Right so your first error in your analogy here is in presuming the "gang" could accurately be described as "gang" at all, and you're assuming they actually did spray graffiti on walls.

 

[Edx]

...I'm not the one spinning wheels about nonsense. Don't blame me if you can't stay focused.

How many time have I specifically invited you (both in this thread and the other) to make this conversation about ethics in games journalism?

When we have tried you did your best to hand wave, change the subject or spend thousands of words on ridiculous semantics and pedantry. I'm bored of it. If you guys cant understand or deal honestly with the simplest of concepts Im really not interested in a serious conversation about the ins and outs of things much more complex than this. Even if I were to show you examples of ethics in journalism being talked about by GG and showed to your satisfaction that they were legitimate issues, you'd just say it's still a hate movement and they were using that as an excuse (like Meadmaker did with Mundane Matt's video about Zoe Quinn which he said made legitimate points, but that he was still a misogynist) so I just dont see the point.

 

[banquetbear]

When we have tried you did your best to change the subject or spend thousands of words on ridiculous semantics and pedantry. I'm bored of it. If you guys cant understand or deal honestly with the simplest of concepts Im really not interested in a serious conversation about the ins and outs of things much more complex than this. Even if I were to show you examples of ethics in journalism being talked about by GG and showed that they were legitimate issues, you'd just say it's still a hate movement and they were using that as an excuse, so I just dont see the point.

...Gamergate purports to be about ethics in games journalism. But you can't be bothered to talk about it?

You can spend pages debating whether or not some person is a real life troll or not, but you can't be bothered to talk about what the issue is all about? Because it bores you? Because its just too hard? Are you being serious?

Unbelievable.

The latest interview with Peter Molyneux with Rock, Paper, Shotgun has been criticised by many for being to rough on him. Do you think that the way Molyneux was treated by John Walker was an ethical way for a journalist to act?

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Minimizing, rather than distancing yourself from, the worst behavior of members of a group you self-identify with is a pretty poor attempt. The majority of that message does indeed sound reasonable, but it's quite severely undermined by that minimization of rape and death threats. It reveals a rather unreasonable attitude possessed by the writer.

The problem with this interpretation is that it does not minimize rape and death threats, unless you're claiming whoever sent the email or people trying to engage in a reasonable discussion (ie people who he/she is saying shouldn't be blocked) have sent death and rape threats.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Right so your first error in your analogy here is in presuming the "gang" could accurately be described as "gang" at all, and you're assuming they actually did spray graffiti on walls.

This is like a wolf with a very minor wolf-bite on its paw saying "I have no idea who ate those sheep! It can't have been me, look, a wolf bit me!".

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Apparently you still haven't cottoned on that he is still trolling...

I'm not sure why this didn't tip everyone off:

"I received a letter in the mail with a picture of me from my high school yearbook. It said I shouldn't have ********** with 8chan. Some kid stood outside my window throwing pebbles. And someone knocked on my door - it's a closed apartment, you shouldn't be able to get in. And then there was no one there."

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to properly mask forbidden word

Seriously? If you believe someone with a long history of trolling, right after he successfully trolled you, is now being serious when he is saying things as ludicrous as the above you have really lost all sense of reality. I mean he already managed to practically gift wrap the truth in the original video lacing it in what seemed like the most obvious indications that it was a prank/satire I have seen in a while, and now he drops these absurdities into the interview like this and somehow it is still is being treated as truthful. I don't expect much from the media but this is meant to be a "skeptic" site, and this apparently still goes unnoticed. How much does this guy have to troll before people stop believing him? But it seems like so long as it appears to implicate GG in some kind of wrong doing some people seem to be willing to believe just about anything. So they all get trolled again and every word he says is gospel and they are like putty in his hands.

Just sit back and enjoy the ride I know I am. There will always be people who will ignore reality if it shatters their fragile beliefs. I just hope we get more media covering the story the way they do now, it will be hilarious when (if?) they realize they got trolled again.

 

[jimbob]

I'm really having a hard time seeing the pro-gamergate spin on this story.

Is it that "See--he wasn't really dangerous after all. He was just making stuff up. He's still doing it!" Is that it?


To me, it seems just like an example of some rather severe harassment. Yeah, pretending to be a psychopath bent on harming someone is not nearly as bad as actually being a psychopath bent on harming someone, but it's still mighty darned awful.

It looks to me to be a case of eating his cake and having it* as he gets to threaten people and then pretend it didn't matter because it was just a joke.





*the phrase makes sense that way.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

I'm really having a hard time seeing the pro-gamergate spin on this story.

Is it that "See--he wasn't really dangerous after all. He was just making stuff up. He's still doing it!" Is that it?

The pro-gamergate "spin" is that the "harassment" that was attributed to gamergate came from a guy who is not in any way supportive of gamergate (if you believe him, he was satirizing your typical gamer), but a self-confessed third party troll, you know, the kind of troll we've been saying all along are trolling the special snowflakes for silly laughs (because it's so easy) or clicks from the beginning. Like the Brazilian journalist who threatened Sarkeesian. And now when it's clear this big, big danger to Wu was actually acting and not in fact representative of GG, the press still blames GG for, well, everything.

It's like you convict a man for murder and throw him in jail, but then it turns out he was innocent as you find the real criminal. But you become best pals with the real criminal and leave the man in jail, because... reasons and narrative. Nothing to see, move along.

 

[Butter!]

You are for some bizzare reason accepting that it is true a kid was throwing pebbles at him at all, and that this suspicious person that entered his apartment block without a key and knocked on his door and then vanished actually existed. You are also accepting that for some reason that this sounds like behaviour 8chan would do. If you didn't start laughing when he said a kid was throwing pebbles at him you need to get a hold of reality. This is a dedicated troll who does this for a hobby, why would you believe he is suddenly telling the truth when it makes no sense and is directly contradicted with comments we can find on his twitter and Facebook? Perhaps it is because you are so willing to believe negative press about Gamergate you are willing to believe anything, even from the guy who just dedicatedly crafted the most successful troll I've seen in a while.

You also don't appear to have followed those links and cross referenced it with what he told Buzzfeed. Get a grip, this guy spent a lot of effort trolling everyone that came to a head a couple of months ago and now he is trying to milk the last bits out of it. Stop giving him what he wants for gods sakes, you're making yourselves look ridiculous.

I asked a question. Jesus! I haven't even posted in here previously. I don't support anybody, I barely know what GamerGate is. I came in here to find out.

You are being mean for no reason. For all you know, I could have agreed with your answer. Stop assuming everyone has an agenda. I do NOT.

 

[jimbob]

I asked a question. Jesus! I haven't even posted in here previously. I don't support anybody, I barely know what GamerGate is. I came in here to find out.

+1

 

[TeapotCavalry]

I asked a question. Jesus! I haven't even posted in here previously. I don't support anybody, I barely know what GamerGate is. I came in here to find out.

You are being mean for no reason. For all you know, I could have agreed with your answer. Stop assuming everyone has an agenda. I do NOT.

This conversation is extremely polarized, so don't take it too personally. Gamergate supporters are in a vast minority in this thread and occasionally being dogpiled. If we come off as antagonizing, I apologize, at least on my behalf. It's because we're constantly being forced to be on the defensive. I personally have given up with having any reasonable dialog with a handful of people here.

Why is it ludicrous? Help me regain my sense of reality.

I can see how a kid throwing pebbles at his window or someone knocking on his door could sound like minor things. But I wouldn't be happy if someone did that to me.

That's the thing, if this is true, and I seriously doubt it is, they're minor things and it's just stretching it to call these things 'harassment'. Again, pretending the account is true, this could've been a random kid playing with pebbles and a drunk neighbor/guest knocking on the wrong door. But, as said, everything indicates this being another ruse.

And the quote might not be word-for-word what he actually said either. That's always a possibility.

Yes, which gives rise to more skepticism given that the author is obviously biased against GG, trying to tar them as feverishly as he can.

I don't want to argue, I'm just curious why you think what you think. You could be right, I don't know. But nothing's jumping out at me as ridiculous or as obvious trolling.

You'd need to be familiar with the Jace character, the person playing him and MDE group. They're professional trolls.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I asked a question. Jesus! I haven't even posted in here previously. I don't support anybody, I barely know what GamerGate is. I came in here to find out.

You are being mean for no reason. For all you know, I could have agreed with your answer. Stop assuming everyone has an agenda. I do NOT.

Heh. Edx complains about Brianna Wu treating everybody who doesn't immediately agree with her with contempt. Edx treats everybody who doesn't immediately agree with him with contempt.

Shocker.

Or maybe this is just that "too antagonistic" behavior the other side is supposed to overlook in the name of reasoned discussion.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Suppose there were a gang of people who did a specific thing, say they sprayed graffiti on walls. A different group of people complained about it, and got graffiti all over their walls. The graffiti gang acted innocent and said "Can you prove it was us?

Tsk tsk. How do you know the highlighted? What may be common sense to you is just unevidenced fantasy to others. You know we've been over this. I don't care if it's incredibly hard to prove it one way or the other, I still want some kind of evidence to support the claim that GG is harassing women. It's not our fault that you can't prove your accusations. We're not asking mathematical proof here, any evidence will do.

So far all you've done is made bare assertions.

Seriously? It's not like this is ancient Greek history or something, all this happened in the last couple of years. Hoping that everyone would just forget #gamergate's origins and history, or ignore the ongoing shenanigans carried out in public forums, is just naive. The downside of a decentralised, anonymous movement is that you can't effectively exclude non-members from your deliberations... oh sorry, you're not a #gamergater, are you? My mistake, I have no idea why I thought you were. It must have been the way you are trying to rewrite history to whitewash the #gamergater phenomenon.

All nice and lovely, yet we never see the specifics of those horrendous GG crimes. Because they don't exist.

ETA:

This is like a wolf with a very minor wolf-bite on its paw saying "I have no idea who ate those sheep! It can't have been me, look, a wolf bit me!".

Do you not realize how you are simply not providing us with anything convincing that what you say is true? Wolf bites or not, there's no reason to think gamergaters are a gang of women harassers.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

How many time have I specifically invited you (both in this thread and the other) to make this conversation about ethics in games journalism?

You're addressing the wrong side. Remind me who's spinning the "women are victimized by evil gamers" narrative again?

 

[banquetbear]

You're addressing the wrong side. Remind me who's spinning the "women are victimized by evil gamers" narrative again?

...hey, its the guy who asked for evidence and when supplied it refused to read it!

And I see you are complaining again that people aren't supplying you evidence!

I'm just starting to think that maybe you aren't taking this whole evidence thing seriously.

But as you've decided to engage, its your chance now.

Edx has made it clear he doesn't want a discussion on ethics on gaming journalism.

How about you?

 

[TeapotCavalry]

...hey, its the guy who asked for evidence and when supplied it refused to read it!

This should be amusing. What evidence have you supplied for which claim?

Edx has made it clear he doesn't want a discussion on ethics on gaming journalism.

How about you?

He made it clear you're not worth having this discussion with, and given your posting history I agree.

 

[banquetbear]

This should be amusing. What evidence have you supplied for which claim?

...forgotten already? You asked for evidence of harassment, I supplied the blog post by Zoe Quinn. You read about a paragraph, started whining about "SJW's" and then asked for the condensed version. When I refused to do your work for you (because you asked for the freaking cite, so I provided it) you simply refused to read it.

He made it clear you're not worth having this discussion with, and given your posting history I agree.

And thats about the fifth time you've said you would stop engaging me, yet you keep on engaging me.

You are welcome to discuss ethics in games journalism. This is your floor. I'm not stopping you. Why are you now blaming me for your inability to talk about ethics? I even provided a starter topic: John Walker and his interview style.

So either stop engaging me to complain that I'm not worth engaging with, or start talking about ethics in games journalism. Because that is apparently what this is all about, isn't it? Surely your not still angry that someone six months ago said "gamers are dead?"

But if you don't start now, to be frank, you argument is starting to look really silly. Its almost as if all these demands for evidence and rants about SJW's are all a deflection from the fact that you really don't care about ethics in journalism at all. Because you simply can't bring yourself to talk about it. Even when I'm not involved in the thread.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

I asked you if you could point to any equivalent anti-gg group with a similar history of using #gg tactics. The fact that you can't point to any such group indicates to me that your belief that #gg and non-#gg harass equally is naive at best and mendacious at worst.

I have not stated I cannot name any such group, it's nice of you to assume. But you are right that there is no such anti-GG group that I know of that would fall into your fictional graffiti gang behavior, because this fictional graffiti gang behavior is fictional. It thought about Ghazi, but they're just a silly group dedicated to mocking GGers with no actual nor ostensible other objective. Which I'm fine with, as I'm fine with groups mocking SJWs.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

...forgotten already? You asked for evidence of harassment, I supplied the blog post by Zoe Quinn. You read about a paragraph, started whining about "SJW's" and then asked for the condensed version. When I refused to do your work for you (because you asked for the freaking cite, so I provided it) you simply refused to read it.

Oh, the personal account of woe and fear that you yourself didn't even read. Or if you actually did, you refused to recount the actual point you were trying to make with it. Certainly there was no evidence you presented us.

I read it a couple of paragraphs and found no evidence of harassment, because this wasn't supposed to present evidence of harassment, it was supposed to show how she feels. I stopped reading where she whined about having to prove her accusations to a judge when she gag-ordered her ex she cheated on. Talk about manipulative psychopath...

You are still absolutely welcome to provide real evidence. If it was in the parts that I did not read in the article, be so kind and copypaste the exact parts or at least say exactly where it is in that wall of text.

And thats about the fifth time you've said you would stop engaging me, yet you keep on engaging me.

See, that's the kind of silly thing that keeps people from having an actual conversation with you. I'm free to comment on your posts without actually wasting my time on stuff I deem silly. And this is becoming one of them, again. If it bothers you I selectively engage you, stop engaging me, or try to stop playing these games.

But if you don't start now, to be frank, you argument is starting to look really silly. Its almost as if all these demands for evidence and rants about SJW's are all a deflection from the fact that you really don't care about ethics in journalism at all. Because you simply can't bring yourself to talk about it. Even when I'm not involved in the thread.

I'm under no obligation to limit my topics of interest to ethics in gaming journalism, that's rather preposterous of you to think so. Right now I'm more interested in the absolutely biased media coverage GG has received. There's KiA subreddit for talking about ethics in gaming journalism, feel free to contribute, as everyone is welcome there.

Feminism and gaming industry is what this thread is about (or how it's ruining gaming industry), and right now the extreme feminists are having quite a lovely time tarring the gaming industry. I will talk about that for as long as that interests me. You cool with that? If you want to exclusively talk about ethics in gaming journalism without including derails about SJWs, feminism, MRAs, manbabies, fedora nerds, trolls, misogynists and professional victims, maybe you should start a new thread. Or maybe not. For all I care, discuss it here. So, what's on your mind regarding ethics in gaming journalism? Anything new? If you want people to chime in, make a start.

 

[banquetbear]

Oh, the personal account of woe and fear that you yourself didn't even read. Or if you actually did, you refused to recount the actual point you were trying to make with it. Certainly there was no evidence you presented us.

...of course I read it. Quoting points out of context is a gamergate speciality: its not something I'm gonna do here.

If I can sit through twenty minute long gamergate rants I'm sure you can take five minutes to read her post. Just read the thing.

I read it a couple of paragraphs and found no evidence of harassment, because this wasn't supposed to present evidence of harassment, it was supposed to show how she feels. I stopped reading where she whined about having to prove her accusations to a judge when she gag-ordered her ex she cheated on.

That is a misrepresentation of what she said, and a misrepresentation of what happened.

For anyone who wants to read what she actually said and not something that was made up, the blog in question is here.

http://ohdeargodbees.tumblr.com/post/107838639074/august-never-ends

Talk about manipulative psychopath...

Eron Gjoni is a manipulative psychopath? I agree. Zoe Quinn? Not at all. There is a reason why she was granted that restraining order.

You are still absolutely welcome to provide real evidence. If it was in the parts that I did not read in the article, be so kind and copypaste the exact parts or at least say exactly where it is in that wall of text.

Evidence has been provided. Your continued refusal to read that evidence has been noted for all to see. Stop complaining if you can't be bothered to read it. If I can sit through Thunderfoot then you can read a few paragraphs of text.

And calling Zoe's blog a "wall of text" is laughable, especially when compared with the wall of text that started the whole thing, which I'm pretty sure that you have read.

https://thezoepost.wordpress.com/

And even more laughable is the fact that the entire case against Zoe Quinn is contained in the Zoe Post, and that was more than enough evidence for a whole movement to start up based on it. And you can't take five minutes to read Zoe Quinn's side of the story? Really?

See, that's the kind of silly thing that keeps people from having an actual conversation with you. I'm free to comment on your posts without actually wasting my time on stuff I deem silly. And this is becoming one of them, again. If it bothers you I selectively engage you, stop engaging me, or try to stop playing these games.

It doesn't bother me at all if you choose to engage me or not. But you keep saying you won't engage me any further, then you decide to engage me. I'm wondering exactly: why are you doing that?

I'm under no obligation to limit my topics of interest to ethics in gaming journalism, that's rather preposterous of you to think so. Right now I'm more interested in the absolutely biased media coverage GG has received. There's KiA subreddit for talking about ethics in gaming journalism, feel free to contribute, as everyone is welcome there.

KIA is talking about ethics in games journalism?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Omigosh, I'm bent over backwards laughing!

We have given you a running commentary on the top threads at KIA, and they aren't about ethics.

If you aren't talking about it there, and you aren't talking about it here, you aren't talking about it.

Feminism and gaming industry is what this thread is about (or how it's ruining gaming industry), and right now the extreme feminists are having quite a lovely time tarring the gaming industry. I will talk about that for as long as that interests me. You cool with that?

Well finally you are coming out and admitting the truth.

If you want to exclusively talk about ethics in gaming journalism without including derails about SJWs, feminism, MRAs, manbabies, fedora nerds, trolls, misogynists and professional victims, maybe you should start a new thread. Or maybe not. For all I care, discuss it here.

We have barely talked about games journalism at all. In this thread Wildy is the only one who actually cares about it and is discussing it seriously.

But I think you've finally been honest with us and dropped all pretence that, with at least as far as you are concerned, that gamergate is not about "ethics in game journalism" but feminism and the gaming industry. So lets finally stop pretending you care about ethics, when all you want to do is "point and laugh at the silly feminists", agreed?

So, what's on your mind regarding ethics in gaming journalism? Anything new? If you want people to chime in, make a start.

Apparently you care so little for ethics in games journalism you don't have a clue about the topic I bought up once in conversation with Edx and once in conversation with you. The latest interview with Peter Molyneux with Rock, Paper, Shotgun has been criticised by many for being to rough on him. Do you think that the way Molyneux was treated by John Walker was an ethical way for a journalist to act?