This by-far the weirdestmost sanediscussdiscourse place, lots of rhetoricalthoughtful relevant questions.
Except there aren’t “two sides”. There is GamerGate, and the general mass of non-affiliated people reacting to the actions of people in GamerGate.
For someone just trying to make sense of it and understand both sides, you spend a lot of time refuting explanations with personal contradictory antidotes, so you come across as someone with a very specific predetermined viewpoint. Couple that with your history of comments, and I can understand why @AcerPlatanoides was skeptical of this statement.
[quote=“Bhobster, post:20, topic:44739”]
this seems to have nothing to do with the real gamergate…I saw how much the press gets in incentives. Isn’t that the real gamergate?[/quote]
That is pretty much the false flag party line and has been refuted and debunked numerous times. No one is giving gamers a bad name, gamers are just about everyone, a diverse group that includes most of us on this site. GamerGate != Gamers.
I think no one is clear on why you’re bringing up your personal experiences to this discussion about the harassment of women? You’ve not seen any - great. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or isn’t a problem, even in places you have worked. What exactly do you think telling us that you have not seen that brings to this conversation?
If you want to see how the media actually demonizes games and gamers, just go back a bit and look at the coverage of school shootings. Nothing remotely similar has happened here.
It’s only if you insist that coverage of harassment is the same as demonizing gamers that you tacitly concede that gamers are harassing women.
Are you saying that ethics in games journalism is so newsworthy that talking about Ms Quinn is a distraction?
Then why does every GG supporter deny that she’s been harassed?
How do you intend to make GG about ethics in game journalism when nobody in the movement will do the grown up thing and apologize?
C’mon, all anyone who is serious about game reviews has to do is say:
“We’re sorry some people have done horrible things in our name, that’s not what we’re about.”
Instead all we get is people denying it never even happened. That it keeps happening.
Look, nobody’s being fooled here. There aren’t two sides to this. There’s just one. And it’s filled with man babies who went and created a cartoon character of an ingenue to put a friendly face on their hate. It’s creepy. Only man babies who have a dysfunctional relationship with women would think a cartoon is a good enough stand in for a real woman.
Yes, this clearly a troll. I’m just trying some new tactics.
In the end, it’ll just write in big bold letters ASS! and feel like it’s won, so I’m not trying to beat it, I’m just egging it on in a sort of reverse troll maneuver. Just keep feeding it because it amuses me.
I think @funruly means well, but we’ve actually refuted this whole idea that one should never “feed” the trolls many times. It’s a dismissive position to take. The biggest problem is that trolls aren’t always as evident, I think, as people seem to think they are. A good troll can go undedecited for a while. @Bhobster is not a very good troll.
And anway, the conversation ended quite lovely when he started to scream about Freaze Peach!! (it was genuinely hilarious tbh) and also @CaptainPedge had a great epiphany and he and I more or less kissed and made up (I gave him a penis cookie!). That in itself is pretty fucking awesome (CaptainPedge realizing some important stuff, not the penis cookie lol) and in my opinion, a great example of how the people in a discussion can take back a conversation involving a troll.
Clearly… Your comment shows exactly why there’s a issue; no one can take any critical comments without accusing someone of something. I have no ‘side’ in this, so you enjoy your win…lol.
True. Though I also think a there is utility in distinguishing between “roughly slapping down trollies” (which I am all for) and “continuing to engage with them when they have shown themselves irredeemable” (which I have misgivings about).
In this instance, bhobster, a new account that wants to talk about the “real gamergate” made 15 posts in his first thread, and garnered 25 responses. All told, that’s 40/91 comments (43% of this discussion) …devoted to someone who claims
That said, marilove, you’ve worked to bring enlightenment to Capt Pedge, who am I to question your miracle-work.
If you have no side, then I can’t accuse you of anything can I?
But I have no idea what it is, is about ethics in game journalism?
Actually, like I said, I’m not in it to win, I’m in it for the amusement. But let me get back to this sides thing. If you don’t pick a side and you still participate in the conversation, it doesn’t mean I can’t get something out of it, I’ve genuinely replied to your arguments, and I am still continuing to hold a conversation with you, does this mean you’re bored now, or do you feel you’ve lost because you’ve not fooled anyone about your real position?
The funny thing is I’m one of those people who believe that not feeding trolls, (Small isolated trolls anyway) actually works.
Just trying out something new.
Yup, the trollies are encouraging demonization of video game players by continuing to support the GamerGate harassment campaign. Like we couldn’t see that coming.
The existentialists, yes. The delusional, no. Existence precedes essence for existentialists. Essence will conflate and invent facts to justify the delusional.
I would argue that a name one chooses for oneself is more “real” than one chosen by one’s parents. Not that this in any way excuses poor argumentation!
