Corruption in gaming journalism discussion and update thread. - General

[QUOTE=Raidyr;46448152]I don't like how something that includes "social justice" (a thousands-years-old philosophical ideology) is twisted into an insult. [/QUOTE] I and other people who use SJW as I described it are in no way responsible for people who misuse the term. "Social Justice Warrior" had this meaning from the start. Also I like people who [b]make[/b] "social justice" into a joke and an insult with their actions and attitude even less, and I think you should too. Words mean little, actions mean a lot. "White knight" in no way delegitimizes the color "white" or medieval nobility's contribution in warfare, same way I personally see absolutely nothing demeaning about SJW towards Social Justice. Correction: I see nothing demeaning about the word. SJWs themselves, however, are a direct and uncovered insult and even a danger towards Social Justice-related movements the same way Nazis made nationalism (which is too a thousands of years-old philosophical thing) a very dirty word.

Its sad but the internet caused all of this. Too many idiots have voices, and too many idiots can agree with those voices. They wont listen to anything else if it doesnt agree with them. They then think they are something more, or an important figure, because hey I got all these people agreeing with me, yeah I must be right! Guess what type of mindset this is? The same as Nazis/KKK/Black Panthers/ISIS, now im not comparing actions, but its the same mindset. People thinking they are SO right and so fucking just only to be the most ass backwards or hypocritical idiots on the planet. The difference though between said groups and internet people groups is that the real extreme groups would actually die or there cause, they will fight and take real, serious, and life-threatening/ending action. Now the internet groups on the otherhand are actually a bunch of pussys, plain and simple, I think its fair to say if we put a bunch of these "game journos" and twitter warriors and top youtubers all in a room, those idiots calling everyone out all the time saying henious things would be the most quiet and timid, because in real life they are pussys. But on the internet, where they dont have to face consequences(Guess what, they do but they dont realize there shitty game journo job at age 27 is probably not what they are doing at 40. better yet a lot of these people have committed career suicide already for any employeer that does an ounce of research on employees)Even just random nobodys who arent holding jobs can go make a website that presents itself has some unbiased and masterpiece of ethics, only to be the most assbackwards bullshit in history, the thing is some people will agree and all the other voices will be ignored, its only the agreement these people want.Seriously guys, theres a reason this bullshit and extreme hypersensitivity and prettiness and skewed civil rights are plaguing the internet all over, its just those people getting that voice and making echo boxes, you cant go back in learn from it in history since its brand new. They will berate and badger people to agree with them, they will make them feel bad only to feel good once they have "earned it" so people who might not be really self-aware of social issues or follow them hard will end up giving this loud "established" "Journalist" "Figure head" the benefit of the doubt that they know what they are saying. I mean why would this website that says its unbiased and nothing but ethical BE wrong? Surely they must be right! Then the cycle starts and doesnt end, the only way it will end is when this type of behavior is outed, and when people stop being so afraid to stand up to obvious bullshit from people who have no idea what civil rights are. These people im talking about are the equivilent of the attention seeking that hot 16 year old super popular girl on facebook that makes a public post to all her friends saying "Uhg horrible day I DO NOT WANT TO TALK RIGHT NOW"We all know all that person wants is attention, otherwise they wouldnt put it up pubicaly to everyone.These people want to be heard, but only on the internet, I bet you not a single one would handle themselves with real confrontation in real life. If a bunch of lets say racial rights movements who all happened to be black for the sake of the argument, went up and confronted one of these "20 something year old white college kid"(sad part is this isnt a stereotype, its pretty much truth) and pointing out how skewed and fucked there civil rights are, they would NOT know how to handle it at all, they would be speechless and no way to block it, cant just ignore it, its not just some avatar and name on twitter or a comment page. No now its a real human being, the people they care so much about, but they cant handle it. Good thing they now have the internet where they can sick hordes of idiots on people who disagree with them, only to just block them. No need to listen to anyone, you can just get praise and you are in control of said praise since you can remove all the backlash you get by things like blocking. I always hate when people try and make something more epic than it is, like Anonymous "WE ARE LEGION, WE DO NOT FORGIVE, WE DO NOT FORGET" ya know shit like that. But at this point, id say Gamergate is much bigger than just gaming at this point, yes the movement itself is 100% focused on gaming, but im speaking about the grand scheme of things. This is one of the first times this "SJW" or you know the behavior im talking about, is facing real backlash against, well everyone. It got too big, too many ideas clashing between themselves, these people who thought they were so righteous get outed by another group who thinks they are more righteous. And the reason why we started noticing this SJW and shit over the past few years than ever before wasnt because of getting older, or noticing things, its because it started off small, the internet is still a baby honestly, even in 2004, only 10 years ago, it was hardly anything what it is today and I know like everyone here can attest to that. I mean every god damn day some of the shit that comes out of these mouths gets crazier and crazier, the best(and worst) part is? Its immortalized, its for all to see on the internet, it wasnt a voice at a rally that can be forgotten, instead its something anyone can go and look back to. Right now were in the history of that, and were at the part where its slow and inevitable downfall begins, these people are getting too crazy for there own good, and soon the craziest are gonna be the loudest, just as the last craziest we thought were the loudest. And people will be able to look back on it and see just the type of horrible shit these people come up with regarding civil/social rights. You have to remember, the real serious civil rights and social rights leaders and such arent stupid people, they see through this bullshit easier than we can. The most important thing is look at the people that are most involved with this bullshit civil rights stuff. The majority are between like 16-25, they are the loudest and most prevalent, its a passing thing and we are probably at the top of the mountain and about to descend it. Something can be so shit for only so long, and that shit is starting to overflow and people are noticing the smell, yes some asshole lesbian couple got a cake shop in the UK shutdown because of the owners RELIGOUS BELIEFS, I bet you for the few who thought they were in the right, their were another 10 to see how wrong that couple was for doing what they did, all for their own personal rights and seeing the hypocrisy that is ignoring and not respecting the owners religious rights and furthermore, business rights to serve who they want and dont want. I say let these SJWs and journalists continue to throw this bullshit around and praise, all it will do is make people realize how insane and wrong they are, it only takes 1 different idea to make these people be the bestest of friends, into the worst of enemys. I mean these people will always exist, just how internet harassers will always exist, and people like Anita will always exist. But the majority imo is starting to see just how full of shit these type of people are and quite frankly, sick of it. The faster this stuff overtakes mainstream media, id say the better, people forget the majority of people are stupid, but not retarded. They will get sick of it just as we did with Gaming and stop taking it seriously. Theres only so much civil/racial/gender rights you can throw into gaming before your consumer base starts going "Can you shut the fuck up and just focus on the games please?" If we wanted that shit we would focus on civil/racial/gender rights in real life, where it actually matters, not play video games or want to read gaming news about gaming. They are the ones who kept shitting in a pot and now its overflowing and no one wants to deal with the stink. Its going to be interesting looking back on this 20 years from now, I mean lets face it, Gamergate is the largest internet only movement in history so far. Its also the most unique as its purely on the internet, its global and everyone can be involved in just a few seconds. I thought this shit was gonna be dead in a month and I was the one who probably posting the most here about it and defending it ferociously at the start on facepunch. But I would have been happy if it just tarnished the names and careers of the assholes involved at the start and just make people question stuff more, thats all I wanted and honestly believed at first. But now I feel like its safe to say GamerGate is at least for the history books when it comes to the internet, there isnt a movement like it and it seems like its truly the first of its kind. Its like we all were sick of this shit before, but we just need that spark to bring us all together. Lets face it, GG brought in a lot of people who dont even give a fuck about gaming, they were just as sick of this bullshit as we are. This isnt like the 1990s or earlier(not even long ago, think of that, seriously) where media had the ultimate word and news source for information. We have the internet now, they can say whatever bullshit they want but at the tip our fingers and few google searches we can find out if they are bullshit OR if there is even just another side to it. The majority didnt have that power just like 15-20 years ago. So now these companies and outlets keep spreading biased/false/contradicting information all over the place but they seem to forget that anyone with a few minutes to spare can point out just how obviously bullshit they are. And the bullshittery just keeps growing and growing but so does the information against them. Sure in the present and now of our lives this bullshittery might seem like its working, but I bet you 10 years from now kids in schools will do papers on this type of shit just to point out how bullshit all these companies and news outlets and journalists/information sites can really be. Because that other information against them with evidence and proof will exist and by doing research they will find it. And since its not in the now they arent gonna be crucified for going against it. Its a long slow battle for this, but id say we already won, its just a waiting game for this type of shit. As for Gamergate specifics, really just emailing to pull advertisers and show people proof of the current top game journalism sites being unethical and shit is the most powerful thing we can do for it. Keep making people ask questions, thats the most important because questioning these people is what hurts them most. You know someone is probably wrong when you question them and they call you sexist or misogynistic. Or flat out attack you with insults.

[QUOTE=gudman;46448326]"White knight" in no way delegitimizes the color "white" or medieval nobility's contribution in warfare, same way I personally see absolutely nothing demeaning about SJW towards Social Justice. [/QUOTE] White Knight also coincidentally being another dumb ad hominem that means everything and nothing at the same time. I can't possibly see how you don't see calling someone a social justice warrior demeans social justice. [editline]9th November 2014[/editline] Nationalism also carries a whole hell of a lot more baggage than social justice does. It's intrinsically a xenophobic ideology.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;46448366]White Knight also coincidentally being another dumb ad hominem that means everything and nothing at the same time. I can't possibly see how calling someone a social justice warrior demeans social justice.[/QUOTE] How is "white knight" ad hominem, again? You do know what 'ad hominem' is, right? Well guess what these people actually call themselves and align themselves as a Social justice advocates, even though their ideas are either over-exaggerations or outright have nothing to do with ideology in question. That's exactly who they claim to be. And their ridiculed as exactly that, hence sarcastic addition of "warrior".

[QUOTE=27X;46448235]Bingo. When your cause is somehow so powerful that it obviates reason and what is literally in front of your face, there's likely to be very little good that you'll be doing with it.[/QUOTE] Why doesn't "hypocritical assholes" work? Why do you have to bring down social justice in it's entirety to attack hypocritical assholes by calling them a warrior for social justice?

[QUOTE=Tamschi;46448163]Kazerad linked something by a social justice activist on his Tumblr, which may interest a few people here (but it's very much in line what we've been seeing the whole time so there's not really that much new there): [URL="http://gganalysis.blogspot.de/2014/10/gamer-gate-analysis.html"]Gamer Gate Analysis[/URL] (The author seems to have made a new blog just for this post, but maybe there will be a follow up. I'm subscribing.) I haven't read all of it yet.[/QUOTE] Done reading (and now on to make a Blogspot account in order to fill in the inaccuracies about pro-GG...). I think that aligns pretty well with why I think combining non-remix/grand narrative culture with platforms with cheap identities is a pretty bad idea (and in that vein why I think 99% of online social justice activism is pure garbage - Reimu's activity is an exception, for the most part, but their activism also doesn't seem as incompatible with this post-modern remix culture due to not trying to paint targets on anyone and instead discussing issues).

[QUOTE=Raidyr;46448366]It's intrinsically a xenophobic ideology.[/QUOTE] Maybe you have something to look up? It has no more xenophobic qualities than a concept of "country" does. Which it arguably [b]does[/b] but not to the point of how it is viewed today.

[QUOTE=gudman;46448456]How is "white knight" ad hominem, again? You do know what 'ad hominem' is, right? [/QUOTE] You're attacking the person and not their argument. Calling someone a white knight is a blithe dismissal of whatever it is they are supposedly "protecting", that is a person or position they are defending. It's generally used against the liberal or the progressive, but is so general it can be turned around on anyone, like the people who white knighted for Milo when the truth came out about how much he fucking hates us.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;46448458]Why doesn't "hypocritical assholes" work? Why do you have to bring down social justice in it's entirety to attack hypocritical assholes by calling them a warrior for social justice?[/QUOTE] Because no one in their right mind would call themselves a "warrior for social justice", mainly because it creates an oxymoron and is stupid as fuck? The term itself implies hypocrisy. [QUOTE=Raidyr;46448485]You're attacking the person and not their argument. Calling someone a white knight is a blithe dismissal of whatever it is they are supposedly "protecting", that is a person or position they are defending. It's generally used against the liberal or the progressive, but is so general it can be turned around on anyone, like the people who white knighted for Milo when the truth came out about how much he fucking hates us.[/QUOTE] Erm, no, generally "white knight" is not used to deflect someone's argument. Because it requires prior knowledge of a person's attitude towards a certain issue. It's just a definition. Also, that's the whole point. It can be used against anyone - people who will defend *[b]issue[/b]* they understand nothing of. It's not against liberals or anything. You sure you don't confuse it with "bleeding heart"?

[QUOTE=gudman;46448476]Maybe you have something to look up? It has no more xenophobic qualities than a concept of "country" does. Which it arguably [b]does[/b] but not to the point of how it is viewed today.[/QUOTE] Maybe you should be looking up information yourself [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#Criticisms[/url][QUOTE] Nationalism is inherently divisive because it highlights perceived differences between people, emphasizing an individual's identification with their own nation. [/QUOTE] The cornerstone of nationalism is that people are to be identified based on nations, not as individuals. We are X, they are Z. [editline]9th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=gudman;46448488]Because no one in their right mind would call themselves a "warrior for social justice", mainly because it creates an oxymoron and is stupid as fuck? The term itself implies hypocrisy.[/QUOTE] Well obviously. Who would refer to themselves with an insult?

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/p0Sg9iP.png[/IMG] spagetti

Pakman is dreamy. I said it.

[QUOTE=Wii60;46448545][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/p0Sg9iP.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] Talk about a persecution complex.

forgot to mention the saga started yesterday [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/xzszJ4b.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Raidyr;46448497]Maybe you should be looking up information yourself [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#Criticisms[/url] The cornerstone of nationalism is that people are to be identified based on nations, not as individuals. We are X, they are Z. [/QUOTE] That's incredibly narrow view. Nationalism as a philosophical concept does not imply one [b]instead[/b] of the other, it implies both. Individual viewing themselves as both a person with their own views, [b]and[/b] as part of a bigger community of [b]individuals[/b] united as a nation. Ultimately, all of the countries existing right in this moment are based on those values. Fuck, USA, a country of immigrants, a community of shitloads of ethnicities, holds nationalistic values on the highest level. But thanks to radical movements of 19th and 20th century, it is viewed as a dirty word. And it only implies xenophobia in the most broad sense as in "the other", not "of other ethnicity". Empires can hold nationalistic values while obviously not being mono-ethnic. And the second part, well what's the problem then? SJW already means hypocritical asshole, but of a specific sort.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;46448458]Why doesn't "hypocritical assholes" work? Why do you have to bring down social justice in it's entirety to attack hypocritical assholes by calling them a warrior for social justice?[/QUOTE] Probably because "hypocritical assholes" would be too vague a term, and doesn't carry the information that those persons use social justice as a disguise for their selfish quest. In no way does it imply that all who support social justice are like them.

[QUOTE=gudman;46448488]You sure you don't confuse it with "bleeding heart"?[/QUOTE] The only thing I'm confused about is why someone who hates being attacked with blanket ad hominems about their identity defends the use of blanket ad hominems when used against the opposition. Call people white knights or SJW's to your hearts content, I'm just saying you shouldn't be surprised when more moderate people or people who would otherwise disagree with you are put off by it, eg Totalbiscuit.

[QUOTE=Wii60;46448545][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/p0Sg9iP.png[/IMG] spagetti[/QUOTE] That just reminds me of that 'hey do you reckon yoshi gets embarrassed when he lays eggs? just wondering haha' post from 4chan.

[QUOTE=gudman;46448580] But thanks to radical movements of 19th and 20th century, it is viewed as a dirty word. [/QUOTE] The only radical movements about nationalism that happened in the early 20th century were massive wars caused in part by nationalistic fervor. Nationalism subverts individual identity. What you are referring to as a "nation of individuals" is more in line with patriotism. That someone from Russia doesn't understand this is disappointing. [editline]9th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;46448598]Probably because "hypocritical assholes" would be too vague a term, and doesn't carry the information that those persons use social justice as a disguise for their selfish quest. In no way does it imply that all who support social justice are like them.[/QUOTE] Hypocritical asshole is a whole lot more specifica nd easier to define than "social justice warrior", a neologism that means literally nothing outside the internet.

[url]https://twitter.com/_icze4r/status/531299279826997248[/url] its happening

[url]https://twitter.com/RogueStarLLC/status/531540795929927682[/url]

[url]http://archive.today/CTiPV[/url] igf isn't corrupt i swear [editline]9th November 2014[/editline] [url]https://twitter.com/igfnews/status/531530283624185856[/url] fixd

[QUOTE=Tamschi;46447991]Apparently that particular post has been confirmed as fake. Someone did it "to show how gullible Gamergate supporters are" or something like that. (There's a timestamped Reddit post somewhere containing the text and predating this, but made public later.) [/QUOTE] Wait, I thought that came directly from someone here.

[QUOTE=Wii60;46448711][url]https://twitter.com/_icze4r/status/531299279826997248[/url] its happening[/QUOTE] What is happening?

[QUOTE=Mingebox;46448885]Wait, I thought that came directly from someone here.[/QUOTE] No it was some tool on reddit who either already was or became a mod on /r/antigamergate.

[QUOTE=Xonax;46449000]What is happening?[/QUOTE] Getting that Brazilian guy arrested for making terrorist threats.

Video from the guy who started notyourshield. Just a heads up, it doesn't sound like he has a pop filter. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKnL5UIIYZw[/media]

[QUOTE=Raidyr;46448654]Hypocritical asshole is a whole lot more specific and easier to define than "social justice warrior", a neologism that means literally nothing outside the internet.[/QUOTE] That doesn't make it any more fitting. Besides, the paradoxical nature of the "social justice warrior" denomination alone should be enough to separate them from actual social justice supporters, just like referring to someone as a "Nazi gardener" doesn't imply in the slightest that all gardeners are Nazis.

[img]http://puu.sh/cK6z9/a9ed0f9c26.png[/img] Brianna confirms that yes, they just want to hear people say nice things about them.

[QUOTE=G-Strogg;46449498][IMG]http://puu.sh/cK6z9/a9ed0f9c26.png[/IMG] [/QUOTE] it's == to check equivalence dipshit.