Very interesting points. The firing of Jeff Gerstmann was very interesting at the time and, in my view, something many times more significant than what seemed to cause #gamergate.

Here we had a journalist being fired for not writing a positive enough review about a game, the devs of which were directly paying the website. Whilst there was certainly some outcry about this, when the firing first happened and when the reason for the firing was subsequently received, it was nothing like the gamergate.

I wonder why that is. I suspect it is a combination of a number of things including that internet activism is more organised now so it is easier for being genuinely concerned about journalistic ethics to get together, because certain members of gg hate zoe quinn/feminists/SJWs/people who aren't "gamers" and she is a more unifying force to fight against than the faceless execs at gamespot and because some members joined the movement because they felt disrespected.

Oh my mistake, Gamersgate must have wrote all the "Gamers are Dead" articles and everyone else is just so gullible to follow the invisible lead from one or two forums and started my a handful of irrational people.

But keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

It's funny how you now try to paint this as a decades long attack on women. The truth is closer to certain groups looking for every angle to attack male culture, from the 70's and 80's attempts to censure rock music false-claiming how it was leading teens to suicide and violence; then the 90's-00's attacks on violence in action movies claiming the same. Now onto video games, with the same false-claims. The same issues which have been studied for decades from rock music to movies and now to video games and the same unproven claims about the link to violence against women, which study after study have shown no link. Unfortunately when a study shows there is no link to violence, that doesn't deserve a headline...

And frankly at this point, the only people really talking about sex for reviews seems to be your side in a vain attempt to change the issues.

I love how Gamersgate should just drop everything and start over because you say so. Get real and find some balance. Nothing is every as one-sided as you try to make it seem.

So, today on Twitter...

Brianna Wu, outspoken (bordering on troll) opponent of Gamergate, posts this:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BzoKKRqIMAA8kaf.png

Which is legitimately awful.

anti-GGers are outraged.

Gamergate immediately mass reports the account and it is suspended.


Take from that what you will.

It's not about excuses. He was simply stating that it's extremely easy to be tolerant of people you don't have to deal with.
It's like that old joke about the Soviet farmer who was willing to give away all his cows, sheep, and chickens to the state but not the goats. Why not the goats? Because he actually HAD goats ;P.
Also - cultural note - in Poland one's "feelings being offended" (especially of the religious sort) is almost 100% of the time used as sarcasm. The underlying assumption is that if you let something offend you, you probably need to grow the hell up.

Yes, she had relationships with journalists. The reports indicate that she had relationships with Nathan Grayson (from Kotaku) and Ben Kuchera (from Polygon).

Oh, and i won't even mention the relationship between Quinn and Brandon Boyer (the chairman of IGF), but he isn't a journalist.

Oh, really? Then, please, tell me why Ben Kuchera posted an article about the harassment of Zoe Quinn AFTER he contributed money to her and her projects through Patreon. Again, even if we assume that there was a minimum level of relationship between the two (let's assume they didn't have sex or anything), just the fact that he donated to her in Patreon and then wrote an article about her already is a pretty clear example of conflict of interests. He should have disclosed that information. But again, why the fuck care about ethics in journalism?

You're talking exclusively about Nathan Grayson here. Ben Kuchera did donate money to Quinn's Patreon projects before writing an article about her.

Agreed, you really need to do a little bit of research yourself because you're clearly talking about things you know nothing about. It's really not that difficult.

Hmmm, are you sure i'm the one accusing people without evidence? If you want to know about the Patreon thing, just look at ben Kuchera's Patreon profile, check the date of when he started supporting Zoe Quinn and check the date of the article. It's not that hard. But you know, these misogynist fat nerds from GG probably made that up as well. Only the SJWs are telling us the truth.

I disagree completely. It really doesn't feel right when you have a group of people from different sites coming toghether to address something in the same way. I think it makes them kind of biased. It would be like a bunch of reviewers sitting down and talking to decide which score they should give to the game X they are reviewing and how negative/positive the review should be. Don't you think that the review would be slightly biased?

Just look at how coordinated the attack on gamers was with all those "Gamers are dead" articles being posted exactly in the same day and saying exactly the same things.

Not to mention that this "discussion" was just about what was the bestway to censor their critics.

I'm talking about the harassment pro-GG people are receiving constantly and the fact that journalists completely ignore it (while they made a HUGE fuss over harassment when Anita or Zoe Quinn were harassed). Harassment is not ok, be it from GG or anti-GG supporters, but the thing is that the press is extremely biased, they will only cover and condemn harassment when it's targeted at someone they support.

Heck, just look at the DDoS attack launched against The Escapist just because they kept the GG thread open.

Let's just agree to disagree here. I don't believe moderation should be about censoring anything that they don't agree with. I believe in freedom of speech. I believe that a democracy is about debating different ideas. And if you are going as far as to censor anyone who disagree with you, why the fuck do you have a forum or a discussion board? Isn't that the place where people should be allowed to discuss stuff?

Taking into consideration what you have just said here, i take it that you also agree when developers ban users who criticize their game on the Steam forum? I guess you are also agree with EA when they banned users from the forum who dared to complain about ME3?

I think you are contradicting yourself here. Before you accuse me of not reading your post properly or "accuse people without evidence", let me quote an excerpt from your previous post:
Weren't you saying that criticism healthy? Weren't you saying that debate is a good thing? Having said that, how do you defend people being able to decide what should or what shouldn't be discussed? I guess debate is not as good as you said? Or maybe criticism is only "healthy" when you agree with it. Let's be clear here, it's one thing to have rules that should be followed by the forum members, but it's completely different from banning users and threads just because you don't agree with them.

Oh, now i get it, you think criticism is healthy when you agree with it. How convenient. It's ok to have articles saying that gamers are lonely basement kids, shitslingers and whatever, but we can't defend from the mindless "criticism" thrown at us because whenever we do, we get banned.

I'm sorry, but i don't support censorship and never will. That's the biggest reason why i support GG.

I'll admit that i'm using the word "journalists" in a broad meaning when i want to refer to anyone working for the press, be it a journalist, a reviewer, a forum moderator, or people who work for public relations.

So, please, tell us where the criticism you're talking about is. I'm curious to know more about it.
So, you admit that these articles are completely useless?

Ahhh, by the way, i finally found the article i was talking about:
http://badassdigest.com/2014/08/31/why-i-feel-bad-for-and-understand-the-angry-gamergate-gamers/
The author even goes as far as to compare GG tactics to Neo-Nazi groups. It's absolutely hilarious.

You still couldn't do a good job checking your facts. No gold sticker for you.

I am so fucking angry right now. There are so many reactionary morons on Twitter that have no fucking clue what they are talking about.

This thing is going to be the death of me, I swear.

I'm not even going to try posting anything coherent, because it's just going to turn into an angry, useless rant.

Did anyone forward those tweets to Brianna Wu to authorities? The person who posted that stuff should face real-life consequences for being a disgusting human being.

You really shouldn't try to reason with unreasonable people. Best to just forgive them for being awful and move on. Worst case scenario, you're classy and nothing happens. Best case scenario, enough people follow suit and we get articles decrying our "weaponized forgiveness." Both outcomes are wonderful.

It's almost entirely due to censorship. People being banned off of forums and told that it's a topic that they can't even bring up, combined with the opposition's apparent need to throw gas on the fire (take the "gamers are dead" articles, or the DELL guy comparing us to ISIS), is largely responsible for driving what would have likely died out otherwise.

The Gerstmann thing wasn't a banned topic that regular users got in trouble for talking about, nor was the Wainwright/Tomb Raider controversy or the Eurogamer.fr Call of Duty review by someone who did the PR for an earlier CoD game. That's why those things died out while Gamergate continues on—many fans felt personally slighted at being punished for voicing their often-innocuous opinions where those other things didn't directly impact them.

hahaha, yeah it was pretty funny how people started throwing around how she had a relationship with Ben Kuchera after all this happened without any evidence. Just goes to show that people will believe what they want. again, if you really cared about ethics, you wouldn't accuse other people of being unethical without evidence.

What has that got to do with there being no positive articles published about Quinn after she slept with the people she is accused of sleeping with (not the guy you just added)? Are you moving on to a completely different point because we are agreeing on that? There were no positive articles published by any of the people she slept with, after she slept with them.

Moving to the different point you are now making, I agree that journalists should not donate to patreons of game devs and if they do, they should disclose that in articles they write about them. That said, here is the article:

http://www.polygon.com/2014/3/19/5526114/developer-zoe-quinn-offers-real-world-advice-support-for-dealing-with

There is nothing in that article that suggests that he is presenting zoe quinn's games in a positive light. Its just about internet harassment. Not corruption.



The patreon thing is something you are just raising now. It wasn't part of the previous discussion. I appreciate that when you are wrong on one issue, you like to move the focus to a different issue, that's just human nature, but don't pretend like our previous discussion had anything to do with patreon. You asked me for proof that no positive articles were published about Zoe Quinn after she slept with those people. I responded. You didn't ask me for proof that there were no positive articles published about Zoe Quinn after she received money on Patreon. Jumping around from one point to another makes it really hard to have any kind of a discussion/argument on this.

It is nothing like a group of reviewers sitting down and deciding which score they should give a game. It would be like a group of reviewers sitting down and saying why they all like a game or dislike a game or some like or dislike a game. It happens all the time. When giant bomb have people from other sites on their podcast and they discuss how they love a particular game, its not a sign of them influencing each other, its just a discussion.

Just as violent computers games don't make you a violent, discussing something with someone doesn't make you automatically change you views on things. Just because you are discussing something with someone and agreeing with them, doesn't mean you are colluding. The fake concern about that email chain from Breitbart (not the first time they have tried that argument, mind you) is another example why the gamergate movement seems to be so reactive and lacking of aforethought.

I know what you are talking about. I haven't defended harassment.

For me, an important part of freedom of speech is the freedom to say to someone "this is my house/my office/my forum", I don't want you discussing this topic here. Whether its racism, criticism of the republican party or gamergate. If you want to discuss it, go somewhere else. That does not prevent the discussion from taking place.

That is important for a number of reasons, including because if people post defamatory material on your website, and you do nothing to moderate it, you can be liable as a third party for publishing it. It really shouldn't be that controversial that people should be allowed to decide what is and is not discussed in the forums they control and are responsible for.

To me, that is very different from a situation where someone says, this is my house/my office/my forum and you can discuss that topic there, and people who are not in control of that house/office/forum say "that topic should not be discussed there or anywhere else". Its nuanced for sure but there is a distinction.

Oh god. forum moderators and people who work in PR are not journalists. That is absurd. "broad meaning"...

That's good, though. Blindly accepting anything one side puts out without questioning it is a surefire way to frustrate everyone, as a certain amount of malleability is required for any discussion to be more than a shouting match between two intractable sides. As StingingVelvet said a few pages back, "Staying classy and open for compromise and discussion is how you stay rational in such an environment."

I just feel sick of the whole thing right now.

I'm sick of seeing anti-GGers claiming stupid stuff about gamergate, sick of seeing garbage articles that don't cover both sides of the issue, sick of GGers over-compensating and overreacting, and most of all, afraid that I might be shooting myself and/or my future in the foot by participating at all.

I guess this is the sort of mental breakdown that occurs when you spend too much time on Twitter.

So I take it that joking that, say, your aunt would be rather fine with sending her son to have an abortion in Germany would be considered witty and charming?

Meanwhile, in case you maybe did not see my post to which Brasas replied, this part: "Right to vote, necessity to work, religious equality..." is about generic principles, cum ideals, not about persons. Assumes civil society, for sure, though, that is democratic.

For the rest, concerning OP, I still wonder what is factual, but the backlash for sure is hostile, and I suspect bigoted.


Edi: replace "he" with Brasas - might be "she" too

The point at which internet drama starts to affect your real life is the point where you should probably take some time off to relax and work on slaying the backlog (or whatever). I don't think any sane person could fault someone for taking a breather, especially given how emotionally charged this issue tends to be. Outside of taking a break, I always enjoy watching Socks' videos when all of this stuff starts getting to me. She's firmly in the GG camp, but her sense of humor always helps to lighten the mood a bit.

Ah, Twitter: the death of subtlety in 140 characters or less. Definitely one of the more draining areas of the internet, especially these days.

I had to google what a K-Bar is to understand the post, I guess some guy likes to call weapons by ther "little name"...

BTW, with all the doxxing and threats thrown around, was there ever any real agression case in this whole GG "debate"? Seems like a bunch of Keyboard Jockeys to me from both sides, in my area someone would have already been dead by now (just yesterday, one my neighbours got attacked by four guys with baseball bats in front of my house).

Are you seriously trying to argue the Nordic countries are relatively heterogeneous? This is not a black and white globe, so compared with other countries (hence why it's important to notice I say relatively) the Nordics are extremely homogeneous. Some immigrant communities in Sweden are the only exception that comes to mind.

I hope at least you won't go to a point of denying there are genetic clusters associated with ethnicities.
Going from that to a natural selection hypothesis for one mechanism of group dynamics is obvious enough.
I'm sure you don't dispute there are human instincts that make you more at ease around people like you, less so if they are different.
This is all quite established science in biology and psychology...

Now please note I didn't excuse anything. I offered an explanation, not an excuse. The exculpatory motive is your projection.
Likewise the implied projection of homophobia, which I think is the second time you bring up Polish society while talking with me; again, I'm not polish. I'm in fact an immigrant minority if you will.
And lastly, I'm not describing any dictates. There are tendencies and inclinations, which do not subsume free will. Human action is not dictated, even if it is instinctual. Accidental would be a better word. This actually is an interesting point I usually do not argue against the political left: you anthropomorphize nature way more than the right. Things which just are are given a will. Like sexual based behaviors suddenly are morphed into something much more extreme, misogyny.
I'll repeat, because the 'personal is political' crowd love to jump from explaining to excusing (another sign of intellectual arrogance, like it's impossible things are complicated) I'm not saying accidents excuse someone of responsibility, but they do excuse one of malice.

By the way, you didn't actually answer what was your argument earlier.