Sweet sweet schadenfreude in the chatlogs from the “Gamergate’s Heroes Disappoint It” story currently on the front page:
So, your point is that you admit you were wrong, and that your feelings are hurt because you commented on something you:
a) Admit did not know much about
b) View knowing/not knowing as “having different information”
c) say this:
Which implies that you have no agency then follow up with the nonsequitir: Its your fault gamertaint keeps going. (even though you admit to just finding out about it, and accepting the information that was provided by you.)
Then proceed to chastise somebody you also admit might have a pretty good reason to suspect you? Call a “reverse troll” argument?
Talk about needing to step up your game.
So, whats your take on this gamertaint thing? I’d like to know where you stand on this.
In your original message you seem to believe that people have a point.
Yet, to address that point you need to wade through some serious shit to maybe even see it.
Do you believe the games journalism thing is worth putting people through this? Why do you think misoginy has been the only outcome?
Why do you think that activists are being targeted?
So, what is your point of view on this?
No no no, I was misinterpreting on the intentions of a group as being more rightfully than they are actually.
And I was hurt because you implied that I shared these values of this group even-trough I never said such a thing. At no point I endorsed the opinions of GamerGate, being before of after I got the whole picture.
I’m sorry I can’t make myself clearer.
Thanks for taking time to try to clear thing up.
I need more info about this gamertaint thing. Not sure what you are talking about. Is that a synonymous for GamerGate?
You belived wrong. I stated “there are still some real constructed arguments here and there”, and I meat just that CONSTRUCTED, not valid or invalid. I meat there are people you can discuss with and convince by providing evidence. Nothing more.
Again, where did I said such a thing? Please point me to my own sentences.
Where did I said I think that? The only outcome of what exactly? the gamergate, my statements?
Activist are being targeted because they are at the frontline of the fight. But I fail to see the connection with anything i said.
This is great news! Ubisoft blamed the less than pixel perfect graphics found in Assassins Creed on the demands of AI. Eliminating AI might make for better looking games, so yes, this hatred might well be heathy.
You’re just giving me the Eliza response, nice touch, but I never said you said such things, I asked you why GameTaint has not resulted in better journalism, I’ve asked you why its only given us hate. You can disagree with me all you like, but you’ve not done that either.
Does it bother you that I called it gamertaint? Why? Or did you just ask me to not use rhetorical devices/insult your intelligence?
But really, we’ve just spent two posts clarifying what we didn’t say, and the most you’ve said is that other people may have constructed some arguments for which you can’t even claim to endorse their validity, much less lend your support. (You can go back and read your own posts, I don’t need to do the work for you)
Arguments are made all the time, and even when wrong they can be valid, you won’t even vouch that they are valid! Then why bring them up? And why not share those arguments?
(Mind you, it would be pretty senseless to give me arguments that you don’t even think are valid)
Until you actually say what you mean, you are trolling, that is, attempting to bait people into meaningless conversation for a one sided payoff.
Once you state your position, you’ll be out of troll territory and might possibly engage in meaningful conversation
…en français, si necessaire pour atteindre la clarté - je peux le traduire assez aisément pour les autres. J’ai l’impression que vous êtes francophone. Ai-je raison?
No I genuinely don’t know what gamertaint means, I’m just asking you. I’m not giving you any Eliza-treatment. You assuming my questions have a deeper agenda is precisely the kind of things that hurts me. Do you really see me as those despicable persons?
The only thing I meant with my intervention is when there is someone participating in a mob, and this person is not making non-sensical death threat or just spilling insults, but is trying to construct a argument (event if it founded on false assumptions, or what-not), there is a great chance to be able to talk and argue with this person. That’s all.
I had some false assumptions about these tweeter posts presented in the article (not containing death threats or insults) and I’m happy I learned something about it, but I didn’t stated any opinion on the subject of GamerGate precisely because my subject was not GamerGate itself.
If you want to know my personal position about the GamerGate, I’m obviously against it and I condemn all the despicable actions associated with it. But I see this a separate subject to the point I was trying to make in the first place which is just about systematic processing of a group of people.
Effectivement bravo, je suis assez impressionné que tu ai vu ça.
Il est très probable que j’ai fait des fautes d’anglais ou des contre-sens sans m’en rendre compte. Si tu en as vu dans mon texte je te serais très reconnaissant de me les pointer.
#gamertaint is a replacement hashtag/reference for
#gamergate, folding in the idea that the latter has become tainted. Amongst other things.
Not sure if the other definition of taint is entirely appropriate as it’s all way more towards the asshole end of things.
No, you are trolling. I recognized you as trolling and even called out the behavior that shows you are trolling.
In actually attempting to engage you it could be said that I was attempting to troll you back since I already knew the conversation was going nowhere and all I was doing was getting you to post again (Just like the Eliza bot! ), except that I did actually offer you a chance for real discussion. (If you missed my olive branch, go back and read, its there).
So I believe my position on GG (Read it as you will I know what I meant to write) is clear. If not, ask me about it.
I ask again, what is your view on this?
I realize you wrote this:
My question rather is how you can be against the despicable actions associated with it and then miss the point that what you call “Systematic processing of people” is precisely what the people involved in GG are doing?
What do you make of the fact that the intent of people associated with GG (Gamertaint Thanks @OtherMichael ) has been hijacked for other purposes. Namely, Hostility toward women?
Do you think that at this point, anybody using the GG hashtag can disassociate themselves from the real assholes who also use it? Because I don’t think its possible.
Wrong approach, IMO. I prefer smart over pretty any day. And other factors such as physics and collisions are more intensive anyway. Game AI tends to be fairly simple scripting.
Mon plaisir. Je vais continuer en anglais. Si, parfois, tu trouve mon anglais difficile, n’hésite pas à m’interroger.
A number of people call it “gamertaint” because the cause was tainted (entaché) from the start: the motivation of the movement had nothing to do with its stated purposes, as you saw from the article link that @longname gave you.
The pretext used to jump on Ms Quinn was a blog post by an ex-boyfriend that essentially accused her of infidelity, of sex in return for good game reviews, that he put up knowing full well that a storm would ensue. Not very gentlemanly, eh? Also not true, as the ex- himself was forced to admit later. The lady was dating a journalist, but during a break in her relationship with the ex-, and the only review the journalist ever wrote about one of her games was long before they dated. The ex- is a real piece of work (très méchant).
Since then, there have been death threats and [doxing] of women who have objected to this or to the sexism that is a large part of the games scene. (Actually, death threats with doxing - the people making the threats knew where the women lived). The most recent threat was aimed at the game critic Anita Sarkeesian: it threatened a massacre of the sort that happened at the École Polytechnique de Montréal in 1989 if she went through with scheduled public lecture. (Je viens de Montréal. Je garde un vif souvenir de ce massacre.)
Do you see why I doubt that there are “moderate” people following that hash tag? The threats have multiplied enough that any sane person who perhaps supported the ostensible goal (l’objectif apparent) of the movement should have bailed out (ils auraient dû se retirer) long ago, especially when that ostensible objective was shown to be camouflage for a campaign of harassment (une campagne de harcèlement).
Edit for typo.
No, no, it’s merely in between.
Hmmm… Anonymous rape and death threats (actually, any rape/death threats, anon or otherwise) all show a distinct lack of balls to me but OTOH there is also a huge amount of utter bollocks being spouted… so yeah, perhaps you’re right.
Add your suggestions over here. I haven’t made a fourth bot yet; feeling dry, so these are some great ideas!
I was jealous and impressed by the Elizabot thing. Simple, and brilliant. I, on the other hand, think too much, and not enough.
Eliza picked the right level of interaction – not taking advantage of it for publicity (“wheee! look at these trending hashtags!”), and not doing much other than the judo of using the #gater’s own words. Sweet.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.