Corruption in gaming journalism discussion and update thread. - General

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46907883]This is implying that all women hold the same world view and set of beliefs which is clearly not true. Safe spaces aren't "we can't argue with you so we're gonna make a <insert identity here> only club", I don't know where you're getting this notion from.[/QUOTE] But neither do men hold the same world view and set of beliefs, so why does the presence of men universally unsafe-ify a place?

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46907883]This is implying that all women hold the same world view and set of beliefs which is clearly not true. Safe spaces aren't "we can't argue with you so we're gonna make a <insert identity here> only club", I don't know where you're getting this notion from.[/QUOTE] Your right; it does appear to be implying that. However; this still ignores the fact that it is closing off discussion - Furthermore, if they CAN argue, why make it in the first place? Wikipedia isn't a closed-discussion area. It's an encyclopedia - it doesn't need any private groups pushing their own needs. A "safe space" is a community where everybody is the same; making it easier to commit group-think and other ideals. It's basically a wikiproject with closed doors. Your argument that "women don't all have the same beliefs" is the same for men- so why should they be cut out of the discussion, how do they make a discussion "unsafe?" Again, Wikipedia will not advertise that - it's about open discussion between everybody.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46907902]I'm not talking about wikipedia, I'm talking about safe spaces in general.[/QUOTE] And the others are talking about the issue in the context of it being needless of Wikipedia.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46907902]I'm not talking about wikipedia, I'm talking about safe spaces in general.[/QUOTE] Great, you're the only one in this thread pushing that angle. Stop trying to conflate criticisms of a 'safe-space' for women on wikipedia with safe-spaces as a whole.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46907902]I'm not talking about wikipedia, I'm talking about safe spaces in general.[/QUOTE] Alright then, stay on your blogs and never leave. You're allowed to have your shelters from criticism, just be aware that these places are echo chambers and don't actually help anyone. [QUOTE]Safe spaces aren't "we can't argue with you so we're gonna make a <insert identity here> only club", I don't know where you're getting this notion from.[/QUOTE] This is exactly what they are. They're shelters from criticism so that a specific group of people (not women) don't ever have to feel like their opinions are wrong. There's nothing wrong with that of course, just don't bother me about it.

P.s, another thing. Nobody is arguing that safe spaces are all totally bad; in the sense of Wikipedia they are.

[QUOTE=Zyler;46907914]Alright then, stay on your blogs and never leave. You're allowed to have your shelters from criticism, just be aware that these places are echo chambers and don't actually help anyone.[/QUOTE] They -can- help those who feel especially vulnerable, but solely relying on them can dangerously narrow one's view of the world.

[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46907910]Your right; it does appear to be implying that. However; this still ignores the fact that it is closing off discussion - Furthermore, if they CAN argue, [B]why make it in the first place?[/B] Wikipedia isn't a closed-discussion area. It's an encyclopedia - it doesn't need any private groups pushing their own needs. A "safe space" is a community where everybody is the same; making it easier to commit group-think and other ideals. It's basically a wikiproject with closed doors. Your argument that "women don't all have the same beliefs" is the same for men- so why should they be cut out of the discussion, how do they make a discussion "unsafe?" Again, Wikipedia will not advertise that - it's about open discussion between everybody.[/QUOTE] Because its a safe space for an identity, not an ideology.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46907927]Because its a safe space for an identity, not an ideology.[/QUOTE] I understand that, but why does it need to be present on wikipedia? Wikipedia is not reddit, it's a place where facts are discussed openly; not with people of similar situation and opinion.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46907927]Because its a safe space for an identity, not an ideology.[/QUOTE] Not if you don't follow what everyone else in the 'safe place' believes, then it doesn't matter what you identify as. They'll rip you to shreds for "internalizing misogyny".

[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46907936]I understand that, but why does it need to be present on wikipedia?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=xxncxx;46907902]I'm not talking about wikipedia, I'm talking about safe spaces in general.[/QUOTE] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Once again threadshitting" - Craptasket))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Zyler;46907943]Not if you don't follow what everyone else in the 'safe place' believes, then it doesn't matter what you identify as. They'll rip you to shreds for "internalizing misogyny".[/QUOTE] You do realize that safe spaces exist outside of this whole "SJW" belief system right?

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46907945][/QUOTE] But why are you talking about safe spaces in general? We are not questioning the existence of safe spaces in general. Only on Wikipedia.

Okay, great. We don't really care about the debate and discussion of safe spaces in general, though, we care when it's being pushed on Wikipedia. Everyone is bound to have a different opinion on it, it's sort of out of our scope. Your original comment was pertaining to Wikipedia; which is what the guy you were quoting was talking about. Otherwise, the majority of us don't really care.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46907945][/QUOTE] This is probably your worst post. You responded to someone asking you, specifically why the group is necessary on Wikipedia specifically. You can't turn around and say 'I'm not talking about Wikipedia' and get a free pass at criticizing someone's post about Wikipedia specifically.

[QUOTE=1legmidget;46907953]This is probably your worst post. You responded to someone asking you, specifically why the group is necessary on Wikipedia specifically. You can't turn around and say 'I'm not talking about Wikipedia' and get a free pass at criticizing someone's post about Wikipedia specifically.[/QUOTE] Besides the fact that the original post I replied to was replying to a quote out of the Wikipedia safe space thing, it basically said nothing about having safe spaces on Wikipedia and why they're bad and rather just shits all over the idea of having a safe space, regardless of context. And with that, had 10+ agrees on it.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46907946]You do realize that safe spaces exist outside of this whole "SJW" belief system right?[/QUOTE] The whole idea of space places was started by Social Justice culture, just like mansplaining, manspreading, etc. The rationale is also a part of basic human nature, if you segregate people and remove any form of criticism it creates an echo chamber where people never have any push back against their ideas and anyone who does speak up gets harassed into silence. It's a shelter from criticism, that's all it is. Women are not precious little flowers that need to be protected from all forms of constructive criticism lest they collapse into some pit of moral decay, they're fucking human beings. Stop treating them like children. I don't have any issue with Safe Places in general, but they aren't sources of factual information and certainly shouldn't exist on Wikipedia or anywhere else that's supposed to be a source of factual information

[QUOTE=Zyler;46907966]The whole idea of space places was started by Social Justice culture, just like mansplaining, manspreading, etc. The rationale is also a part of basic human nature, if you segregate people and remove any form of criticism it creates an echo chamber where people never have any push back against their ideas and anyone who does speak up gets harassed into silence. It's a shelter from criticism, that's all it is. Women are not precious little flowers that need to be protected from all forms of constructive criticism lest they collapse into some pit of moral decay, they're fucking human beings. Stop treating them like children.[/QUOTE] I think you really don't know what safe spaces are if you honestly believe what you are saying. They weren't "invented" by Social Justice culture, and nor do they promote a "you believe what we believe or you're out" sort of mentality outside of fringe populations of tumblr.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46907962]Besides the fact that the original post I replied to was replying to a quote out of the Wikipedia safe space thing, it basically said nothing about having safe spaces on Wikipedia and why they're bad and rather just shits all over the idea of having a safe space, regardless of context.[/QUOTE] Probably best to move your discussion with him to PM then, instead of openly attacking his character on a place where a lot of people will probably have an opposing opinion; at this point it's derailing the thread - why not post a debate thread about safe-spaces on mass debate? Again, this is out of our scope now. [editline]a[/editline] Hes gone now, ya'll can go back to posting about ethics and shit.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46907973]I think you really don't know what safe spaces are if you honestly believe what you are saying. They weren't "invented" by Social Justice culture, and nor do they promote a "you believe what we believe or you're out" sort of mentality outside of fringe populations of tumblr.[/QUOTE] Depends if you're talking about the conventional definition of safe space, that is special centers for victims of rape and other crimes historical run by churches and more recently by wings of the government. The whole idea of censoring parts of the internet in order to create places where people of a specific identity to believe a specific thing can't face criticism for their beliefs is an entirely newer concept. I know you're trying to make this into an argument for tumblr-style safe places in general, but I actually have no problem with that kind of thing. I just don't want to have it on Wikipedia or anywhere else that has a mandate to provide factual or at least genuine sources of information and I'm explaining why I think that's the case. Tumblr-style safe spaces cannot provide reliable information or actually help people who need guidance, all they can do is make a very small and specific group of people feel good about themselves. I'm sorry for derailing the topic, won't argue this any further.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46907753]Did you even read the original image? It's not for editing pages, its for discussions.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=xxncxx;46907902]I'm not talking about wikipedia, I'm talking about safe spaces in general.[/QUOTE] Look at that goalpost gooo~~ But enough of that, some more comedy gold courtesy of mercedes that I missed the first time [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/vuRFOBD.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Fangz;46907651][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7byUpdCUtuk[/media][/QUOTE] wish it was submitted to the VYGA then put online, massive triggers if it was included. what the fuck am I saying anymore.

Lizzy managed to post [URL="http://www.buzzfeed.com/lizzyf620/gamergate-through-my-eyes-190rr"]a community editorial[/URL] on Buzzfeed. Let's hope it manages to get on the "featured" list.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46907793]So I guess safe spaces for LGBT people is heterophobia?[/QUOTE] What is a "Safe space" and who is entitled to one?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46908244]What is a "Safe space" and who is entitled to one?[/QUOTE] a safe place is a safe place to prey upon.

Ack, come on! Read the darn thread!

[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46908398]Ack, come on! Read the darn thread![/QUOTE] I didn't mean to come out to attack him if that is what it looks like, it's something I've noticed over my lifetime after trying to be in places from elite few or for this instance gender specific.

[url]http://nichegamer.net/2015/01/christian-allen-interview-the-state-of-gamergate/[/url] [QUOTE]Previously, we interviewed Christian Allen of Halo: Reach, Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor, and Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter fame for his thoughts on the ongoing debate of ethics in games journalism that is part of the #GamerGate discussion. One interview wasn’t enough, so in this second we’ve decided to focus a bit more on the current state of #GamerGate, and the gaming industry by extension. Where should #GamerGate focus its efforts? What should it improve on?[/QUOTE] [editline]12th January 2015[/editline] give the link views, i dont feel like quoting the whole thing due to edit breaking

Here is something pretty beautiful [video=youtube;DlSx7m09R60]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlSx7m09R60[/video]

I like how there's a pitcher of kool-aid on the table, and also neo-gaf is at the table.