Gamergate, Feminisim, and Journalistic Ethics

by **Ashmoria** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:13 pm

Hirota wrote:
Ashmoria wrote:so have gamergaters started talking rationally about what to do about gaming journalism yet? is there any actual action on what is supposed to be their reason for existing as a group?
We always have. We're just busy trying to ward off the lies told in the press and by certain people, at the same time.

Their arrows may blot out the sun, but the brothers and sisters of gamergate continue to fight in the shade.

Some people would like you to think that Gamergate is nothing more than a rag-tag bunch of neckbeard misfits from 4chan and 8chan with no organised agenda other than a general mysogny and anger towards women in the industry. This is a lie, perpetrated by key members in the gaming industry (and naively swallowed and recycled by some people) because they are incapable of debating on an equal footing about the purpose of Gamergate, and would rather try and bury the movement under a smear campaign.

If I'm honest, the truth is probably somewhere inbetween what I'm saying, and what you'd see in the press - its not as simple as looking at one source and relying upon that for an answerr. What I would suggest is you look at some of the resources who have tried to stay neutral in the debate - particularly the escapist and the huffington post web casts - and keep an open mind.

If you have questions which I can answer for you, I can't guarantee to give you an impartial answer, but I can promise to try and give you a fair answer.

I just want to know if anyone is working on improving gaming journalism and if so what are they doing? I don't care what is being reported. I want to know what is being done.

by **Delmonte** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:16 pm

Ashmoria wrote:
Hirota wrote:We always have. We're just busy trying to ward off the lies told in the press and by certain people, at the same time.

Their arrows may blot out the sun, but the brothers and sisters of gamergate continue to fight in the shade.

Some people would like you to think that Gamergate is nothing more than a rag-tag bunch of neckbeard misfits from 4chan and 8chan with no organised agenda other than a general mysogny and anger towards women in the industry. This is a lie, perpetrated by key members in the gaming industry (and naively swallowed and recycled by some people) because they are incapable of debating on an equal footing about the purpose of Gamergate, and would rather try and bury the movement under a smear campaign.

If I'm honest, the truth is probably somewhere inbetween what I'm saying, and what you'd see in the press - its not as simple as looking at one source and relying upon that for an answerr. What I would suggest is you look at some of the resources who have tried to stay neutral in the debate - particularly the escapist and the huffington post web casts - and keep an open mind.

If you have questions which I can answer for you, I can't guarantee to give you an impartial answer, but I can promise to try and give you a fair answer.

I just want to know if anyone is working on improving gaming journalism and if so what are they doing? I don't care what is being reported. I want to know what is being done.

We are waiting with baited wallets to sponsor any journalistic enterprise that doesn't play into this bullshit. However none has appeared as of yet. There is talk of starting a sort of... wikipedia-esque crowd-sourcing game review project. I'm intrigued by that.

Acting like it is the duty of people who are victims of/have acknowledged the problem to fix it is kind of a flawed outlook. That would be like looking at Edward Snowden and saying "Well, aside from flinging accusations what are you going to do to fix the problem?!"

by **Page** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:17 pm

Tahar Joblis wrote:
Page wrote:- Whiny exes are the most honest and reliable sources ever. Especially pretentious ones who write ten thousand word manifestos.

This "whiny ex" wrote a lot of things that were not public knowledge.

None of those things have been falsified; a large number of them have been confirmed by other sources, such as Zoe Quinn, her boss, her boss's wife, etc.
- Are alleged people sleeping together consenting adults? Yes? Then you can't say they "shouldn't" be.

I can say they "shouldn't" be.

Go sleep with your married boss without his wife knowing and get back to me. Heck, you generally disapprove of infidelity, calling it a "shitty thing to do," it's in your record. It also can be a major professional problem for your co-workers if you're having an affair with your boss. You also shouldn't be judging a contest where one of the contestants is someone who has a close undisclosed personal tie with you... or offering sexual favors, monetary favors, or anything else in order to get preferential treatment.

An assortment of violations of personal and professional ethics, in other words, surround the questions of who slept with Zoe Quinn. Should they be of great public interest? No. It's in the interests of people who might work with her in the future, people who pay attention to indie game awards, and people who think Kotaku is something other than a yet another clickbait operation in the Gawker media family.
Indeed, we're taking about someone being personally horrible - Quinn's ex, whose manifesto is about on the same ethical level of revenge porn considering its intent.

Its intent is to warn anyone intending to date or work with Zoe Quinn of what kind of person she is. It has had the unintended effect of spurring some discussion between her ex and other abuse victims about their experiences with abusive partners. It has also had the unintended effect of stirring up a clickbait-fueled media shitstorm. He does not approve of threats or harassment.

However, here you are, rallying to defend Zoe Quinn, labeling her ex's break-up post - explaining, essentially, that Zoe Quinn is an emotional abuser (without actually using the phrase until it's pointed out to him) and that this is why he's breaking up with her - as being something somehow equivalent to "revenge porn."

No, it's something much simpler. It's a burden-unloading for the sake of his own sanity and for the future sanity of anyone else making the mistake of being with Zoe Quinn. If we switched the two genders, you would not be describing this as a horrible thing.
How are male gamers an "unsympathetic target" when they have an entire circle jerk in their favor all over the net?

The only "circle jerk" male gamers have is other male gamers. And not even all other male gamers.

The gaming community has a certain amount of solidarity against external attacks. This is most of what we're seeing on the "Zoe Quinn is evil" side of things. MRAs are involved because feminists are involved on the "Zoe Quinn is an angel who needs your money!" side of things. The "Zoe Quinn is an angel who needs your money!" side of things ranges from some insiders to an array of professional feminists, clickbait specialists, and (now) more mainstream journalists, as they line up to cover the sensational news about hau horribule the ebul gamurz R.

Websites like Kotaku get a lot of their clickbait revenue by drumming up the gaming community as a vile cesspool of darkness. Anita Sarkeesian made a business model out of trolling male gamers to get donations from people who think the gaming community is a vile cesspool of darkness. (It worked really well for her.) Yes, male gamers are an unsympathetic target. Women are automatically more sympathetic. Especially young white women with faces. The vast majority of the population has a strong bias in favor of [random identified woman] vs [group of people presumed to be men who are referred to but not actually shown directly].

Male gamers are an "unsympathetic target." It's fashionable to bash male gamers. It's been fashionable pretty much since gamers became a thing.

I said infidelity is a shitty thing to do and in the same post said I don't give a fuck if people who aren't in my life do it because that has nothing to do with me - I remain consistent.

Eron Gjoni was and remains a liar. If he had the least bit of remorse for the harmful actions of his antisocial, degenerate, Eliot Rodger - esque, loser fans, he'd have taken down his blog long ago. I only can find it amusing his future relationship chances will be ruined by future partners' awareness of his tendency to act like a histrionic psycho. And that his internet fame will probably cause him as much pain as he inflicted on Zoe in the long run.

by **The Black Forrest** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:20 pm

Ashmoria wrote:
Hirota wrote:We always have. We're just busy trying to ward off the lies told in the press and by certain people, at the same time.

Their arrows may blot out the sun, but the brothers and sisters of gamergate continue to fight in the shade.

Some people would like you to think that Gamergate is nothing more than a rag-tag bunch of neckbeard misfits from 4chan and 8chan with no organised agenda other than a general mysogny and anger towards women in the industry. This is a lie, perpetrated by key members in the gaming industry (and naively swallowed and recycled by some people) because they are incapable of debating on an equal footing about the purpose of Gamergate, and would rather try and bury the movement under a smear campaign.

If I'm honest, the truth is probably somewhere inbetween what I'm saying, and what you'd see in the press - its not as simple as looking at one source and relying upon that for an answerr. What I would suggest is you look at some of the resources who have tried to stay neutral in the debate - particularly the escapist and the huffington post web casts - and keep an open mind.

If you have questions which I can answer for you, I can't guarantee to give you an impartial answer, but I can promise to try and give you a fair answer.

I just want to know if anyone is working on improving gaming journalism and if so what are they doing? I don't care what is being reported. I want to know what is being done.

Indeed. It seems to be all conspiracy, accusation, feminism, anti-feminism, MRA, Zoe and Anita talk.

Maybe the real gamers are too busy playing?

The review business is volatile (well back when I used to follow it) money hurts. If they are unethical ban together and stop supporting them.

by **Ashmoria** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:22 pm

Delmonte wrote:
Ashmoria wrote:
I just want to know if anyone is working on improving gaming journalism and if so what are they doing? I don't care what is being reported. I want to know what is being done.

We are waiting with baited wallets to sponsor any journalistic enterprise that doesn't play into this bullshit. However none has appeared as of yet. There is talk of starting a sort of... wikipedia-esque crowd-sourcing game review project. I'm intrigued by that.

Acting like it is the duty of people who are victims of/have acknowledged the problem to fix it is kind of a flawed outlook. That would be like looking at Edward Snowden and saying "Well, aside from flinging accusations what are you going to do to fix the problem?!"

so the answer is "nothing"? then whats the point of bringing up this stuff over and over again. if you aren't going to work on it, let it go.

by **The Black Forrest** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:23 pm

Delmonte wrote:We are waiting with baited wallets to sponsor any journalistic enterprise that doesn't play into this bullshit. However none has appeared as of yet. There is talk of starting a sort of... wikipedia-esque crowd-sourcing game review project. I'm intrigued by that.

Acting like it is the duty of people who are victims of/have acknowledged the problem to fix it is kind of a flawed outlook. That would be like looking at Edward Snowden and saying "Well, aside from flinging accusations what are you going to do to fix the problem?!"

That's the thing of it though. Not all gamers are going to pay for reviews. Even then. Sure the money is a great deal to you but to the company? Not that much.

by **Page** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:24 pm

Also, the Edward Snowden comparison is bullshit. Snowden didn't say "the government is spying on you", he provided proof. There remains to this day not one shred of proof for gamergate's allegations.

by **The Sanguinian Islands** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:28 pm

funny how people are still calling 4chan "muh sogynist" when they funded The Young Capitalists

by **Fezkovia** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:28 pm

Page wrote:Also, the Edward Snowden comparison is bullshit. Snowden didn't say "the government is spying on you", he provided proof. There remains to this day not one shred of proof for gamergate's allegations.

What about the censorship on Reddit and 4chan?

by **The Black Forrest** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:30 pm

The Sanguinian Islands wrote:funny how people are still calling 4chan "muh sogynist" when they funded The Young Capitalists

by **Delmonte** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:30 pm

Page wrote:Also, the Edward Snowden comparison is bullshit. Snowden didn't say "the government is spying on you", he provided proof. There remains to this day not one shred of proof for gamergate's allegations.

Are you familiar with what prima facie is? It's a legal concept where, correct me if I'm wrong, if something looks convincingly sketchy at first glance, it is up to the accused to prove it incorrect. Essentially, it means that a convincing first impression can be accepted until disproven.

Handing out beneficial reviews to your roommates and close friends? Prima facie, that's Goddamn sketchy. Even if it wasn't related, the ethical thing to do would have been to recuse themselves because they clearly wouldn't be unbiased.

by **The Black Forrest** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:30 pm

Fezkovia wrote:
Page wrote:Also, the Edward Snowden comparison is bullshit. Snowden didn't say "the government is spying on you", he provided proof. There remains to this day not one shred of proof for gamergate's allegations.

What about the censorship on Reddit and 4chan?

About? Snowden? Let the tangent go.

by **Page** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:34 pm

Delmonte wrote:
Page wrote:Also, the Edward Snowden comparison is bullshit. Snowden didn't say "the government is spying on you", he provided proof. There remains to this day not one shred of proof for gamergate's allegations.

Are you familiar with what prima facie is? It's a legal concept where, correct me if I'm wrong, if something looks convincingly sketchy at first glance, it is up to the accused to prove it incorrect. Essentially, it means that a convincing first impression can be accepted until disproven.

Handing out beneficial reviews to your roommates and close friends? Prima facie, that's Goddamn sketchy. Even if it wasn't related, the ethical thing to do would have been to recuse themselves because they clearly wouldn't be unbiased.

Except there was only one person who Quinn ever allegedly slept with who mentioned Depression Quest in an online publication, and it was before the alleged affair, and he didn't even review but just casually mentioned it.

by **The Black Forrest** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:35 pm

Delmonte wrote:
Page wrote:Also, the Edward Snowden comparison is bullshit. Snowden didn't say "the government is spying on you", he provided proof. There remains to this day not one shred of proof for gamergate's allegations.

Are you familiar with what prima facie is? It's a legal concept where, correct me if I'm wrong, if something looks convincingly sketchy at first glance, it is up to the accused to prove it incorrect. Essentially, it means that a convincing first impression can be accepted until disproven.

Handing out beneficial reviews to your roommates and close friends? Prima facie, that's Goddamn sketchy. Even if it wasn't related, the ethical thing to do would have been to recuse themselves because they clearly wouldn't be unbiased.

Linking Snowden to the gamer thing?

Can you name one site completely unbiased in the game arena? Can you name one source that was ever unbiased?

by **Page** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:40 pm

I still find it conceptually funny people think ethical capitalism can exist at all. A for profit entity - even, especially one which obeys the law will do everything within the law to maximize their profits. Even acts of philanthropy only serve to garner good publicity with the ultimate goal of maxing profits.

You live in a world where the FDA is bought and sold by agribusiness and pharmaceuticals - things related to your very health, and are horrified at supposed quid pro quo video game reviews. Ethics in capitalism is nothing but a tool for a good reputation for maxing profits.

by **Hirota** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:51 pm

Ashmoria wrote:I just want to know if anyone is working on improving gaming journalism and if so what are they doing? I don't care what is being reported. I want to know what is being done.

We are trying to ensure that gaming journalists recognise there is a problem first. Many already do (and a list is below). Some of us have started our own sites.

by **Hirota** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:59 pm

The Black Forrest wrote:
The Sanguinian Islands wrote:funny how people are still calling 4chan "muh sogynist" when they funded The Young Capitalists

Sanguinian is talking about this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fine_Y ... ts#History

Read it, and then ask yourself why a supposedly mysogonistic group of "4chan kiddies" would decide to support and donate to an self-described radical feminist group.

by **The Black Forrest** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 3:29 pm

Hirota wrote:
The Black Forrest wrote:

Sanguinian is talking about this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fine_Y ... ts#History

Read it, and then ask yourself why a supposedly mysogonistic group of "4chan kiddies" would decide to support and donate to an self-described radical feminist group.

So you are saying there are no kiddies and or misogynists in 4chan?

by **The Black Forrest** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 3:33 pm

Hirota wrote:
Ashmoria wrote:I just want to know if anyone is working on improving gaming journalism and if so what are they doing? I don't care what is being reported. I want to know what is being done.
We are trying to ensure that gaming journalists recognise there is a problem first. Many already do (and a list is below). Some of us have started our own sites.

Gaming Sites:-

Games Nosh
N4G
Gamer Headlines
Game Revolution
Niche Gamer
Bright Side of News
Geekscape
Invision Game Community
TechRaptor
GamesReviews
Brutal Gamer
Evil Avatar
Revue Labs
GoodGamers.us
All Games Beta
Siliconera
Gamnesia
Gematsu
Super Best Friends Play
Operation Rainfall
Geimaku
IncGamers
Blue's News
WTB Fun
Indie Juice
Gather Your Party
Everybody Plays
XboxMAD
Attack of the Fanboy
Original-Gamer.com
Gamersyde
Shacknews
The Escapist

Geek/Pop Culture News/Review/Opinion Sites:-

Word of the Nerd
NerdyRaptor

Other Special Interest Sites:-

APGNation
The Ralph Retort
Encyclopedia Dramatica
Know Your Meme
mindlesszombiestudios

That's nothing revolutionary. I remember people starting their own websites for gamers 20 years ago.

-edit-
Sorry distracted.

So what I was going to say is where these tend to fail is when the articles become more about the writers awesomeness versus a neutral review of the game. Some people simply can't write.

Time will tell and good luck to them.

by **Gauthier** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 3:43 pm

The Sanguinian Islands wrote:funny how people are still calling 4chan "muh sogynist" when they funded The Young Capitalists

Just like how donating to the NAACP makes it okay for someone to be a white supremacist. *nod nod*

by **The Sanguinian Islands** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 8:03 pm

Gauthier wrote:
The Sanguinian Islands wrote:funny how people are still calling 4chan "muh sogynist" when they funded The Young Capitalists

Just like how donating to the NAACP makes it okay for someone to be a white supremacist.

look a teter hahahaha laugh

snark beside i'm bout to drop mad wisdom on you

If you donate money to the NAACP, but denounce some black guy fucking people to get his agenda up to the top, it does not make you a white supremacist
your friends, however, ruin it by calling said african a nigger. Does not mean your group of friends is a horrible group.

by **Gauthier** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 8:13 pm

The Sanguinian Islands wrote:
Gauthier wrote:
Just like how donating to the NAACP makes it okay for someone to be a white supremacist.

look a teter hahahaha laugh

snark beside i'm bout to drop mad wisdom on you

If you donate money to the NAACP, but denounce some black guy fucking people to get his agenda up to the top, it does not make you a white supremacist
your friends, however, ruin it by calling said african a nigger. Does not mean your group of friends is a horrible group.

Of course when the only notable events involve calling black guys "nigger" and threatening to lynch them, it generally makes the whole movement look very, very bad even if there might be a few good people in it.

Face it, the only notable events that #rapehergate has been associated with is threatening women with rape and/or murder, especially if one has the uppity gall to question the noble integrity of #rapehergate. No new exposures of serious journalistic nepotism on the grade of the Gamespot Kane and Lynch scandal. Nope. Just "bitches ruining gaming" and their relatives threatened with rape and/or murder.

by **Delmonte** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 9:35 pm

Gauthier wrote:
The Sanguinian Islands wrote:look a teter hahahaha laugh

snark beside i'm bout to drop mad wisdom on you

If you donate money to the NAACP, but denounce some black guy fucking people to get his agenda up to the top, it does not make you a white supremacist
your friends, however, ruin it by calling said african a nigger. Does not mean your group of friends is a horrible group.

Of course when the only notable events involve calling black guys "nigger" and threatening to lynch them, it generally makes the whole movement look very, very bad even if there might be a few good people in it.

Face it, the only notable events that #rapehergate has been associated with is threatening women with rape and/or murder, especially if one has the uppity gall to question the noble integrity of #rapehergate. No new exposures of serious journalistic nepotism on the grade of the Gamespot Kane and Lynch scandal. Nope. Just "bitches ruining gaming" and their relatives threatened with rape and/or murder.

Thank God we can still trust you, Gauthier, to bring a moderate, reasonable voice to discussions. Some things never change.

by **Hirota** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 10:35 pm

The Black Forrest wrote:
Hirota wrote:Sanguinian is talking about this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fine_Y ... ts#History

Read it, and then ask yourself why a supposedly mysogonistic group of "4chan kiddies" would decide to support and donate to an self-described radical feminist group.

So you are saying there are no kiddies and or misogynists in 4chan?

Strawman much? That's not what I said.

I'm suggesting you challenge your own preconceptions about the membership of 4chan.

by **The Black Forrest** » Thu Oct 16, 2014 10:58 pm

Hirota wrote:
The Black Forrest wrote:
So you are saying there are no kiddies and or misogynists in 4chan?
Strawman much? That's not what I said.

I'm suggesting you challenge your own preconceptions about the membership of 4chan.

Strawman? I don't think you understand what that means.

The fact you found some people in the TFYC doesn't prove others aren't doing what is claimed.

The fact you have feminists? That doesn't prove much. There are feminists and non-feminists in the anti-gamer side.

This crusade will most likely fail since your attention is focused on correcting peoples "misconceptions" about your fanbase; focusing on Zoe, Anita and the "feminazis...."

The question of validity of Reviews is a valid argument. Again sitting there and going OMG the lack of ethics! This is not a new thing. As mentioned again. If they have ads for games; their reviews are questionable.

Again; this business is volatile. Disappearing readership is deadly.

Forget about Zoe, Anita and the feminists. Focus on the publications. Drop their readership. Less readers; less ads. They fail.

Gamergate, Feminisim, and Journalistic Ethics

Who is online