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

[Puppycow]

Possibly relevant to this thread:

GamerGate’s Archvillain Is Really A Trolling Sketch Comedian

Jace Connors is infamous on the internet for threatening a female game developer. Now the man who created the Connors character says he himself is afraid for his safety.

Actually I never heard of "Jace Conners" before seeing this article. Has anyone here heard of him?

The internet knows Jace Connors as a gun-loving YouTube personality who last month became the latest symbol of GamerGate’s escalating extremism when he released a bizarre, rambling video in which he claimed to have crashed his car while en route to the home of Brianna Wu, the game developer who has become, along with Anita Sarkeesian, the public face of GamerGate persecution.
“Jace Connors” is in fact Jan Rankowski, a 20-year-old living in Maine who is affiliated with Million Dollar Extreme, a provocative cult comedy group based in Rhode Island, and far from being the archfiend of GamerGate, Rankowski is himself now the subject of a campaign of harassment.
In an exclusive interview, Rankowski told BuzzFeed News that he intended to satirize “the over-the-top, super-hyper-macho armed GamerGater” but that harassment in recent days, as doxxing forums and GamerGate image boards have started to suspect he is behind the Connors character, has left him terrified.
“They realized I was making fun of them with those videos,” Rankowski said. “I started it as a joke, but it’s become far too real and I wish I could take it all back.”

 

[colander]

The funny thing about federal law is that it actually prohibits threatening to go over to someone's house to knife them even if your friends all thought it was hilarious.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The trend I see here is that you do not engage with any arguments that are actually being presented. You're addressing arguments that you pull out of thin air. That's the real problem.

What I'm actually doing is criticising the actual #gamergate movement that exists, in response to your revisionist version.

That's a great example of said behavior. Please point out the place I have said so, otherwise I'm forced to conclude you're lying.

This kind of behaviour is why the hypothesis that you are simply trying to waste our time has evidence to support it.

You're talking about Quinn and Grayson. Their relationship was confirmed. Grayson did not disclose the relationship when he covered Quinn's work.

At the time he covered Quinn's work they were not yet in a relationship. This has been explained to you repeatedly.

What's your problem here? That I corrected myself that I don't necessarily think she made the forum posts/phone call to herself? You seem to be against honest and open discussion when people adding nuance to their arguments and correcting themselves is bad.

It's not "adding nuance" to retain your conclusion that Zoe Quinn is a justifiable target for a hate campaign after your evidence for that conclusion has fallen over. It's not remotely ethically acceptable to accuse someone of fabricating harassment against themselves as if you knew it to be a fact that they had done so, when the truth was that you had no evidence to support that claim at all. That's spreading malicious lies. That's not okay. You're not a journalist so what you did isn't unethical games journalism, it's just plain unethical.

I imagine you would grasp this distinction very quickly if, for example, I said "TeapotCavalry is a liar" and when you asked me to support that claim, I said "TeapotCavalry said things, and I do not have proof those things are true". Lack of proof that a claim is true is not proof that claim is false, especially when the claim is far from extraordinary (a feminist claiming to be harassed by #gamergaters) and the claimed event is one that does not normally leave convenient proof (a harassing phone call).

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The funny thing about federal law is that it actually prohibits threatening to go over to someone's house to knife them even if your friends all thought it was hilarious.

You clearly don't understand comedy. When someone is living in fear because of death threats from mentally unhinged people, it's super hilarious to pretend to be mentally unhinged and make more death threats! That's, like, the last thing anyone would expect!

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Actually I never heard of "Jace Conners" before seeing this article. Has anyone here heard of him?

First I heard of him was when Brianna Wu got a restraining order against this persona. A'isha introduced him to this thread. From post #513 onwards we discussed his 'coming clean'. The buzzfeed interview you linked to and subsequent articles repeating the same are in all likelihood him still trolling the media.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

What I'm actually doing is criticising the actual #gamergate movement that exists, in response to your revisionist version.

Who are you arguing with? This amorphous Gamergate or specific individuals in this thread? You know, we can have Gamergate as the topic while actually addressing each other's arguments.

This kind of behaviour is why the hypothesis that you are simply trying to waste our time has evidence to support it.

How cheap. Am I to conclude you lied? You're being extremely dishonest when responding to my posts.

At the time he covered Quinn's work they were not yet in a relationship. This has been explained to you repeatedly.

I'm well aware of the timeline. They were not in a sexual relationship at the exact time of DQ coverage. This is something that was discussed 6 months ago, maybe you're not up to speed with what's going on.
http://geekparty.com/how-i-know-zoe-quinn-did-not-exchange-sex-for-a-game-review/
Scroll down to comments section, start with the topmost one.

They had a relationship before the date it that was confirmed it was sexual in nature. Even if all they were was buddies, disclosure would have been necessary.

It's not "adding nuance" to retain your conclusion that Zoe Quinn is a justifiable target for a hate campaign

And this is why you're completely destroying any semblance of good-faithed discussion. You are making up what I retain, conclude or argue.

And I'm waiting for you to show me where did I say or imply "Zoe Quinn traded sex for a good review".

And I'm waiting for you to show me how I'm here only for "reactionary feminist-bashing".

Any time's good.

 

[quadraginta]

Proof by analogy?

<snip>

Um ... no.

It was a counter-example intended to demonstrate why I viewed your assertion with great skepticism.

You might want to re-visit the site you cited and try to understand the content more clearly.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Who are you arguing with? This amorphous Gamergate or specific individuals in this thread? You know, we can have Gamergate as the topic while actually addressing each other's arguments.

That was entirely a non sequitur. My point was that you misrepresent #gamergate, then cry straw man when we talk about the real #gamergate as opposed to your revisionist history version. I am arguing with you, the person who misrepresents #gamergate.

You don't have to be Sherlock bloody Holmes to go to Kotakuinaction or 8chan or wherever and see the misogynist idiots wittering on about their "culture war" against feminism. It's not like this is ancient history or a national secret.

How cheap. Am I to conclude you lied? You're being extremely dishonest when responding to my posts.

I'm well aware of the timeline. They were not in a sexual relationship at the exact time of DQ coverage. This is something that was discussed 6 months ago, maybe you're not up to speed with what's going on.
http://geekparty.com/how-i-know-zoe-quinn-did-not-exchange-sex-for-a-game-review/
Scroll down to comments section, start with the topmost one.

I did so, in the perhaps foolish belief that there might actually be some evidence there instead of the usual #gamergate conspiracy theories and idiotic shouting. There is absolutely no evidence there of any improper relationship with Quinn or any improper behaviour whatsoever. Nobody thinks that journalists are responsible for disclosing conflicts of interest that simply didn't exist at the time a story was filed.

As a result you have no ethical basis whatsoever to spread claims to the effect that you know that Quinn was sleeping with someone to get favourable coverage of her game. That is simply a despicable lie.

They had a relationship before the date it that was confirmed it was sexual in nature. Even if all they were was buddies, disclosure would have been necessary.

You don't even have evidence they were buddies.

This is why #gamergate and its defenders have the reputation they do. They absolutely unapologetically spread malicious lies. By an amazing coincidence, almost exclusively about feminist women.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I thought that this was Jace

Maybe I need to check spelling more carefully.

In other news, video game industry is alive and well. Diablo III season 2 is up an running, League of Legends has released yet another patch, and nobody seems to have shut it down, bullies or not.

Looks like the internet vitriol wars aren't having an impact on games.
This is good.

 

[Wildy]

Don't you think it's a bit presumptuous to tell businesses what they are "supposed to be"?

No. But then again this question is designed to stifle discussion.

Do they appear to provide good, consumer-oriented coverage, while actually being industry shills? Help educate the uninformed about the reality of the situation.

Harm minimisation like this has been gong on informally for years now, but it's been more or less limited to certain websites.

Gamergate has done a marginally good job revealing that many web sites that cover the game industry are not completely independent. To that extent, it has done some good consumer education.

I'm amazed you'd say that, since you said having expectations of businesses was "presumptuous"?

And if none of the sites are any good at providing information to consumers, you can always start one that is independent and trustworthy. Surely consumers would flock to a site that is not plagued by all of this alleged corruption, wouldn't they?

That's already happening. But then visiting those websites doesn't preclude someone from wanting a more ethical gaming media overall and trying to get those changes implemented.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Um ... no.

It was a counter-example intended to demonstrate why I viewed your assertion with great skepticism.

You might want to re-visit the site you cited and try to understand the content more clearly.

My "assertion" was a statement of personal recollection, ie anecdotal evidence, how I've seen the term being used. As was the statement that I responded to.

Whether people legitimately fighting for civil rights in the 60s were called "****** lovers" seems a bit disconnected how the term SJW is used today.

 

[Meadmaker]

A phrase popped into my head today, and although I don't ever remember hearing it, I instantly realized that it was the sort of phrase that an awful lot of people had probably used in recent years. Therefore, I found myself googling "customer entitlement".

You know what it means. People who think that they don't have to put 2 bucks down for their waitress at Denny's because she was a little slow getting them refills of their beverage of choice. People who complain loudly and/or pompously that they have to wait ten minutes while trying to return one of the two outfits they bought, having decided which one they would keep. That sort of thing.

I think gamergate shows an awful lot of customer entitlement. Lots of people demanding that web sites change their ways to make the web sites' practices more in line with their expectations. Indeed, it isn't merely what they want, it is, by gum, an ethics issue!

The ironic thing is that the complainers aren't even customers. Back when I had a subscription to Computer Gaming World, maybe I would have had at least some sort of excuse for righteous indignation because I was paying for a subscription, but if you read web site content you don't even pay for it, and yet they expect, nay demand, that the operators of those sites conform to their very stict standards for other people's behavior.




Meanwhile, I've been reading Kotaku lately. It's pretty darned cool in some ways. There was an article yesterday that showed a really amazing Femshep cosplay. I still don't know what a Femshep is, but they seemed to, and she seemed like she stepped right out of the video game. Really impressive. I have to admit, I really feel too old for it. My online gaming consists mostly of Chess. Still, it's pretty darned cool stuff.

 

[Dissolution]

FemShep is short for Female Shepherd, Meadmaker.
Commander Shepherd is the hero of the Mass Effect trilogy.
There are two voice actors for the main character in the series, dependent on the sex that the player picks, and the highly experience Jennifer Hale is widely seen as the better choice.

I can't say that I agree with you at all about costumer entitlement on this matter.
Expecting journalists to maintain some standards is neither strict, nor whining.

 

[quadraginta]

My "assertion" was a statement of personal recollection, ie anecdotal evidence, how I've seen the term being used. As was the statement that I responded to.

As was I. Although I have to admit that since I had a black girlfriend while I was in high school in the 60s the epithet "****** lover" may have carried a certain amount of utterly unintended truth.

Whether people legitimately fighting for civil rights in the 60s were called "****** lovers" seems a bit disconnected how the term SJW is used today.

Not to me. I might discern a small difference of degree, but the purpose and the emotions behind that purpose seem identical.

 

[spin0]

In their reporting some game journalists have recently started to disclose their affiliations to the people and companies making the games the writers give coverage for.

Some game websites have started to make their journalistic code of conduct public.

Eurogamer is the forerunner here by revamping their editorial policy which as of now includes disclosure of relationships and a right of reply policy (which is normal in journalism but for some reason novel in games journalism): Eurogamer.net Editorial Policy

The digital game distribution platform Steam has now revamped their policies: All Steam users must now disclose paid recommendations

Of course, none of those sites cite the recent consumer revolt as a reason for their change of behavior.

And of course, as correlation is not the same as causation, anyone is free to believe their sudden change of policies is not due to gamergate loudly calling attention to such issues but merely a coincidence.

 

[A'isha]

Gamergate is currently too busy trying to sue people for blocking them on Twitter.

 

[spin0]

^ No, I don't think so.

I think gamergate has had an impact already and will continue to do so. But as I already said:
of course, as correlation is not the same as causation, anyone is free to believe the sudden change of policies is not due to gamergate loudly calling attention to such issues but merely a coincidence. It *is* possible that it is a coincidence that those changes happen to be what gamergate has been calling for.

 

[Donal]

Those issues were being called out for years. Gamergate just added the fun of rape threats.

That says tons about the videogame industry if that is what it takes to fuel a change in policy.

 

[Babbylonian]

If the efforts of the KKK resulted in high-quality immigration reform, they'd still be the KKK.

 

[kookbreaker]

That's a shockingly limited amount of 'achievements' for the price that was paid.