Corruption in gaming journalism discussion and update thread. - General

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;45881362]Was it equally cherrypicking, misinterpreting and taking things out context back then? Also what's going on with this thread. I can't see ratings but I can press them, everything works really slow and I can't see emblemed videos.[/QUOTE] It was. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXkxe1H6F_4[/media]

Currently waiting for Indigogo's response about redirecting my past donation to the Facepunch ref. They are the one I should contact for this, right?

[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;45879425]A bunch of female gamers that are telling the sjw's to stop using them as an excuse to further their agenda basically. The posts are generally along the line of "I'm a female gamer and I don't feel disrespected by the gamer community."[/QUOTE] not just female gamers, Trans gamers, Gay gamers, Black, Asian, Queer, etc. all saying that you can't use us to censor or tell us whats offensive or not.

Just a note:ToolTime actually rips apart Anita's show and the argument that happened after the kickstarter.

-snip,fake-

Well, better than the last one, but he doesn't mention the shitstorm about the fine young capitalists, the complete silence of all the involved news sites, the censorship on various forums and all the other shit I have currently foregotten. He makes it seem like it's normal that developers and critics live together and shit. That ain't right, man.

[QUOTE=Muggi;45881546]Well, better than the last one, but he doesn't mention the shitstorm about the fine young capitalists, the complete silence of all the involved news sites, the censorship on various forums and all the other shit I have currently foegotten. He måles it seem line it's normal that developers and critics live together and shit. That ain't right, man.[/QUOTE] Also handwaving any kind of evidence uncovered so far as being some conspirationist's wet dream.

Sooo anyone watched the vid I posted? Any CC? Or straight to trash?

Straight to trash.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;45881362]Was it equally cherrypicking, misinterpreting and taking things out context back then? Also what's going on with this thread. I can't see ratings but I can press them, everything works really slow and I can't see emblemed videos.[/QUOTE] Well, she did take television shows out of context. She was accurate about film and music though. They take less time to analyze than 7 hours in TV lore or 15 hours in a videogame.

I understand the criticism but whoever made it didn't need to do it that way. Instead make a strong critical argument.

#NotYourShield is a great example of how SJW's don' actually care about the people they claim to represent, they just want to feel smarter than you

[QUOTE=Hidole555;45880340] from what I can tell the point is not so much to convince SJW's to our side but rather to show people who aren't aware/on the fence that what we care about is corruption in journalism. The childish namecalliing they do only serves to prove that we are the more mature side.[/QUOTE] SJW's basically deflect criticism by pointing out that the "gamers" who oppose them are all privileged white males, in a way using disadvantaged groups generally perceived as under represented in gaming as a shield. Ironically most (like 95%) of these SJW journalists are white people who have no disabilities and live privileged lives. [QUOTE=Wootman;45878958][url]http://pastebin.com/XxfEWB4v[/url] Apparently, SJWs were pretty much born straight out of SA's FYAD section.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]So what does this have to do with the larger SJW community? Simple: This isn't about gamers, gaming or feminism. The SJW poo poo is simply a smoke-screen which an insular group of people who have known each other for over a decade use to get their truly massive amount of SJW Twitter followers who are not part of that in-group, to join in on harassment, which they get off on. I almost feel bad for legit SJWs who participate in this, they are merely useful idiots. If you are an SJW reading this: You have been tricked, rused, bamboozled. The same people who point you to targets which to attack are the very bullies you proclaim to loathe.[/QUOTE] I guess every conspiracy needs some group manipulating both sides. Surprised it wasn't Israel. Finding some good evidence of Zoe Quinn being an SA shitposter and harasser would be pretty interesting.

[QUOTE=GÃ©za!;45879145]Looks like they'll emerge victorious and the corruption will be buried. It's only too bad they alienated most of their reader base and potential customers in the process, because the people adamantly on their side -won't- be the ones to invest any significant money and time into playing pretentious indie games. I hope this will strenghten the "enthusiast press" in the long run. People like TB, who emerged into game journalism due to a desire to discuss and critique videogames born of their enthusiasm instead of people who decided to 'grace game journalism with their presence'.[/QUOTE] If you mean that no one will forced to face the consequences of their behavior these last few weeks, you're right. No one will be fired, and when this ting eventually blows over the accused people involved in this farce will most likely claim that they won over the terrible mysoginistic gamers, that social justice has once again shown the world of gaming the true path, or some bullshit like that. Except, they have already lost. They lost the minute this thing blew up on twitter, on reddit, and all over the web. They lost when the shit kept on coming out in the light of the public, when this shitstorm lasted longer than the doritos pope thing. Because, just like the doritos Pope, no one will forget about this. The pictures will always be online, the videos will always be there for everyone to see. None of these people will ever be able to do anything in this industry without people remembering the shitstorm they caused. And unlike the doritos Pope thing, that was more sad and funny than anything else, since we already knew the of shit that happens on the big gaming sites, this got personal. They had the audacity to talk down to us, insult us for questioning them, comparing US to goddamn terrorists, ignoring our legitimate questions, censor us, and even fucking trying to claim that gamers are dead, that we don't matter, even though we are the ones who pay them and used to trust them. I will never fucking forget this, and I will do my best to make sure no one else does. We have time on our side. They don't.

People taking part in #notyourshield should start attaching videos of them saying their statement to their tweets. That'll blow the "But you're just a white cishet masquerading as a woman" argument out of the water.

So, you're all in agreement that the guys on the "wrong" side here aren't using social justice for anything else than to further their reputation and agendas right? Okay, can you stop calling them "SJWs"? It puts them far, far too close to those who are actually working on social justice movements and making an actual impact, further demeaning these movements in the eyes of conservatives, MRAs, anti-feminist circles, etc. The insult is already pretty fucking meaningless, but it still has a connection in the minds of a lot of people to the main social justice movements. If you're gonna be better than them, this is one place to start. If you want to make your point strongly, do everything they don't, which includes stopping this "cover-all" grouping and insults. If they refuse to start discussing shit, and continue to insult the rest of us, fine, that doesn't give you free pass to start the generalisations and insults in return, it just gives them more fuel.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;45882441]So, you're all in agreement that the guys on the "wrong" side here aren't using social justice for anything else than to further their reputation and agendas right? Okay, can you stop calling them "SJWs"? It puts them far, far too close to those who are actually working on social justice movements and making an actual impact, further demeaning these movements in the eyes of conservatives, MRAs, anti-feminist circles, etc. The insult is already pretty fucking meaningless, but it still has a connection in the minds of a lot of people to the main social justice movements. If you're gonna be better than them, this is one place to start. If you want to make your point strongly, do everything they don't, which includes stopping this "cover-all" grouping and insults. If they refuse to start discussing shit, and continue to insult the rest of us, fine, that doesn't give you free pass to start the generalisations and insults in return, it just gives them more fuel.[/QUOTE] 'SJW' is in itself a sarcastic term. Seriously. It's 'social justice warrior' for christ's sake. It's used to demean only those who are either so far up their ass ("extremist", "radical") to be anything but a joke, and those who don't give a fuck and just cover behind a good cause to push their own agendas. I think there's no need to further divide it. Those who really matter aren't called "SJWs", they're called properly: feminists, egalitarians etc.

[QUOTE=gudman;45882548]'SJW' is in itself a sarcastic term. Seriously. It's 'social justice warrior' for christ's sake. It's used to demean only those who are either so far up their ass ("extremist", "radical") to be anything but a joke, and those who don't give a fuck and just cover behind a good cause to push their own agendas.[/QUOTE] The fact it has the terms "social justice" in the name implies it was aimed at people from social justice circles who have gone a bit coo-coo, overzealous types, hence 'warrior'. To then use it to describe people who are only using the movements for personal gain lumps them with the rest of the movement. Something I, and undoubtedly many others who actually work hard in these movements, would rather not happen as it gives the enemies of the movements something to quickly dismiss them with and fuel the misinformation train even more.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;45882441]So, you're all in agreement that the guys on the "wrong" side here aren't using social justice for anything else than to further their reputation and agendas right? Okay, can you stop calling them "SJWs"? It puts them far, far too close to those who are actually working on social justice movements and making an actual impact, further demeaning these movements in the eyes of conservatives, MRAs, anti-feminist circles, etc. The insult is already pretty fucking meaningless, but it still has a connection in the minds of a lot of people to the main social justice movements. If you're gonna be better than them, this is one place to start. If you want to make your point strongly, do everything they don't, which includes stopping this "cover-all" grouping and insults. If they refuse to start discussing shit, and continue to insult the rest of us, fine, that doesn't give you free pass to start the generalisations and insults in return, it just gives them more fuel.[/QUOTE] I thought SJW was exactly someone who isn't using social justice for anything else than to further their reputation and agendas.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;45882574]The fact it has the terms "social justice" in the name implies it was aimed at people from social justice circles who have gone a bit coo-coo, overzealous types, hence 'warrior'. To then use it to describe people who are only using the movements for personal gain lumps them with the rest of the movement. Something I, and undoubtedly many others who actually work hard in these movements, would rather not happen as it gives the enemies of the movements something to quickly dismiss them with and fuel the misinformation train even more.[/QUOTE] I don't think it does. Because MRAs, conservatives and other opponents of social justice movements mostly don't give a shit about dividing the groups and just say "fucken feminazis" etc. They've got no need to separate sane crowd from SJ[b]W[/b]s. It's the closest thing we have to address a certain group without going a long way to describe "people who shit all over legitimate movements by being nutters or hypocrites". And then again, they kinda are close to the rest of the movement, aren't they. They stick pretty close on purpose. Might sound hostile (please believe me I'm not), but that's kinda your responsibility to distance from those people.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;45882441]So, you're all in agreement that the guys on the "wrong" side here aren't using social justice for anything else than to further their reputation and agendas right? Okay, can you stop calling them "SJWs"? It puts them far, far too close to those who are actually working on social justice movements and making an actual impact, further demeaning these movements in the eyes of conservatives, MRAs, anti-feminist circles, etc. The insult is already pretty fucking meaningless, but it still has a connection in the minds of a lot of people to the main social justice movements. If you're gonna be better than them, this is one place to start. If you want to make your point strongly, do everything they don't, which includes stopping this "cover-all" grouping and insults. If they refuse to start discussing shit, and continue to insult the rest of us, fine, that doesn't give you free pass to start the generalisations and insults in return, it just gives them more fuel.[/QUOTE] Social justice warriors are always like this, I have never seen anyone who considers themselves a "social justice warrior" that isn't like this. Just look at the term. Warrior? Give me a break.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;45882595]I thought SJW was exactly someone who isn't using social justice for anything else than to further their reputation and agendas.[/QUOTE] That just sounds like a narcissistic asshole. Do we call let's players who are only in it for the money anything other than assholes? Why do the social justice movements get different treatment here. The term warrior implies some kind of rage, some kind of violence. The insult was largely thrown around at the kind of weird Tumblrs you find where the author wants to "kill all men" or whatever, because holy shit, that's actually an insane corruption of the ideals they claim to follow. People using the ideals just to get popular and have some heft in the community aren't necessarily corrupting the ideals, or fighting hard, they're just being fucking jerks. I think that's the key distinction, SJW implies some kind of actual instability in the person, not just assholishness. Hence why it's so fucking dilute as an insult now, people kept throwing it around no matter if the person was a reasonable or unreasonable feminist. [editline]3rd September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=gudman;45882616]I don't think it does. Because MRAs, conservatives and other opponents of social justice movements mostly don't give a shit about dividing the groups and just say "fucken feminazis" etc. They've got no need to separate sane crowd from SJ[b]W[/b]s. It's the closest thing we have to address a certain group without going a long way to describe "people who shit all over legitimate movements by being nutters or hypocrites". And then again, they kinda are close to the rest of the movement, aren't they. They stick pretty close on purpose. Might sound hostile (please believe me I'm not), but that's kinda your responsibility to distance from those people.[/QUOTE] I know the "enemy" groups to these movements don't necessarily care about who is and isn't crazy. But when you label the crazy with a label so close to the overarching movement name, it makes it a lot easier to tie the crazy to the rest of us. Not cool. Kinda hard to distance yourself when this shit just keeps happening, the various movements are all huge and it's going to slip through. You can't really distance yourself when your problem looks, walks and talks like one of you until the last minute, leading to them being grouped with the rest of the movement when it falls to shit.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;45882686] I know the "enemy" groups to these movements don't necessarily care about who is and isn't crazy. But when you label the crazy with a label so close to the overarching movement name, it makes it a lot easier to tie the crazy to the rest of us. Not cool. Kinda hard to distance yourself when this shit just keeps happening, the various movements are all huge and it's going to slip through. You can't really distance yourself when your problem looks, walks and talks like one of you until the last minute, leading to them being grouped with the rest of the movement when it falls to shit.[/QUOTE] Well yeah, but they [b]are[/b], for all intents and purposes, ones of your movement, like you said, until the last moment, and they get a sarcastic addition, "Warrior". I somewhat agree that this particular description falls too close to the legitimate movement, yes. But I think it serves it's purpose, there's almost no confusion, and where it still exists, it's mostly done on purpose anyway. Most people who apply this term know what they're talking about. I think the way to go is for SJ-movements at large to stop taking offense where there's non intended, honestly. Yeah you've got rotten apples, but all movements do, that's human nature. Being defensive about terms that specifically exist to separate bad elements helps no one. Even if they're crude and most likely, temporary. Hell that's way better deal than Muslims get :v: their extremists simply receive "-ists" installed to the name of religion, "Islamists".

[url]https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/lawyers-against-gaming-corruption[/url]

[QUOTE=Wootman;45883340][url]https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/lawyers-against-gaming-corruption[/url][/QUOTE] hope it's legit.

Huh, interesting. Wonder what will come of this if it gets full funding; I imagine there's plenty of people on /v/ alone who are more than willing to spend a lot of money for this (see: the one lawyer helping /v/ who had a confirmed six-digit salary from working at a nice US law firm).

[QUOTE=Wootman;45883340][url]https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/lawyers-against-gaming-corruption[/url][/QUOTE] Linked from [URL="http://ask.fm/lawfag"]lawfags's ask.fm[/URL] btw (which I saw in the #burgersandfries IRC chat on irc.rizon.net). [editline]fakeedit[/editline] [img]https://i.imgur.com/YSik36y.png[/img] I'm glad that I'm not doing this on a pin board, it would be unbelievably messy if I didn't have this program. The payments alone make a surprisingly close web. Everything that has a star is something I didn't look at too thoroughly yet. Grey arrows are the directions I found the references in, basically my research path. Orange is money. Blue is "knows about". [editline]3rd September 2014[/editline] Also yes, that's Quinn with her head on a flat bed scanner. I think.

[QUOTE=Reimu;45883537]Huh, interesting. Wonder what will come of this if it gets full funding; I imagine there's plenty of people on /v/ alone who are more than willing to spend a lot of money for this (see: the one lawyer helping /v/ who had a confirmed six-digit salary from working at a nice US law firm).[/QUOTE] Apparently it's her. From what I've seen they're supposed to upload a video about it in the coming hours.

can anyone tell me why people even care about this? 99% of gaming journalism is a joke anyways, who gives a shit? [editline]3rd September 2014[/editline] gaming "journalism"

Also apparently people are considering emailing Gabe to ask him to remove Kotaku from the "Syndicated" links on steam.