• [BBC] Zoe Quinn talks about Gamergate. "Big Firms Must Condemn Gamergate"
    266 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Robbobin;46376359]Thanks for the conscientious reply. I agree that part of my post was purely anecdotal and non-rational; wasn't really a part of my argument, more of an expression of my bewilderment at the whole thing (should have made that more clear!). Games journalists are under a lot of scrutiny (often quite abusive) by the community and that's upsetting to me when my friends are all under this when I know they all excellent people and treat their journalistic integrity as utterly paramount.[/QUOTE] And that's understandable, there are many different views on Gamergate simply due to the fact that there's so much to it. I've worked in customer support for a long time so I know what it feels like to directly communicate with your audience. And that your audience/customers can be very, very harsh to say the least. The reason why a lot of people act like they do this in thread, which is basically [URL="http://www.theaiatrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/road-rage.jpg"]this[/URL], is because they constantly feel misunderstood, misrepresented and used as a scapegoat. Harassment is a real thing, on both sides.
[QUOTE=Géza!;46376390]Of course sending threats and harassment is idiotic. That should go without saying. But why are we to be held accountable for the idiocy of others, and death threats received by pro-GG personalities be brushed off as irrelevant? Because that is happening in every mainstream media account of the events.[/QUOTE] Again, I wasn't talking about the gamergate in the sense of fighting corruption. See what I mean about it being a tangled mess? Nothing is going to fix that. It just [I]is[/I] those two things. This is the drawback of internet social campaigns; there is no way two opposing groups are going to reconcile their different interpretations of the same phenomena. Neither interpretation is right; it literally did start as a hate campaign thinly veiled as an attack on corruption in the games journalist industry. I'm totally fine with admitting that the pro-gg has largely moved away from that, but it's just not going to drop it's horrible connotations just because you want it to. Genuinely think that hashtags are the worst thing to happen to social movements. We should be dealing with concise, simple philosophical issues but instead it's some weird nebulous social entity that means several different things all at once. In philosophy if you can't even agree on what a term even means, there is no logical point in continuing discussion. I will say this though; maybe GG will hammer out a little corruption. I'm personally of the opinion that the damage it's doing to the gaming community in terms of alienation is much worse than we stand to gain though.
Before hashtags, it was cliques or mobs. A discussion generally devolves the more people are involved. It truly is miraculous how much less intelligent people can act en masse.
if the corporations/3rd wavers win and videogames become a social stigma again (unlikely but possible), corporations may have to actually make quality games towards fans with enough money to support them fairweather game players aren't turning sony a profit after all :~) win/win situation , unless for some reason you care about your hobby becoming unpopular again, when every single escapism-based hobby has decreased in quality the more popular it has become
[QUOTE=Robbobin;46376483]Again, I wasn't talking about the gamergate in the sense of fighting corruption. See what I mean about it being a tangled mess? Nothing is going to fix that. It just [I]is[/I] those two things. This is the drawback of internet social campaigns; there is no way two opposing groups are going to reconcile their different interpretations of the same phenomena. Neither interpretation is right; it literally did start as a hate campaign thinly veiled as an attack on corruption in the games journalist industry. I'm totally fine with admitting that the pro-gg has largely moved away from that, but it's just not going to drop it's horrible connotations just because you want it to. Genuinely think that hashtags are the worst thing to happen to social movements. We should be dealing with concise, simple philosophical issues but instead it's some weird nebulous social entity that means several different things all at once. In philosophy if you can't even agree on what a term even means, there is no logical point in continuing discussion. I will say this though; maybe GG will hammer out a little corruption. I'm personally of the opinion that the damage it's doing to the gaming community in terms of alienation is much worse than we stand to gain though.[/QUOTE] You forget that they have raised over 10,000 dollars for charity, try to protect feminists by getting the trolls information and have them arrested, or at the very least their accounts disabled. They don't want them as much as you don't want them. A majority of death threats/harassment comes from a very small group of people who intentionally do this for no reason other then "for lulz." So far, journalists have done nothing in comparison. They don't even attempt to stop the trolls but take screencaps and say "look at all the harassment they are giving us!" They want to spread it that the tag should die so there isn't any unity/mass attention towards it, and rather have it become a mess of confusion. It takes a close-minded person to believe that this is a hate campaign and that it should be stopped simply because a couple people are trying to destroy it from the inside. They do everything to try to prove that they stand against corruption [I]and[/I] harassment; why is it so hard to believe? There [I]has[/I] been more good come from this then bad. A few people won't change that. Sources [url]http://www.jbgnews.com/2014/10/members-of-gamergate-raise-over-16000-for-bullying-prevention-charity/042806.html[/url]
I think it's debatable whether or not it's done more good than bad. I don't particularly want to have that debate though, I just think if nothing else it's revealed an extremely toxic element in the gaming community that is very alienating. I don't find it hard to believe that some people involved are against corruption and harassment. The argument is more that the hashtag isn't a good vehicle for social change, not that you're all evil horrible misogynists (okay, maybe there are some people of that opinion, but philosophically speaking people who're close-minded like that aren't worth engaging with). Also I don't think journalists have any obligation to do anything besides write about games and retain their journalistic integrity. I dislike that GG seems to be so keen to shame any journalists who don't actively engage as warriors for social justice. Most people aren't about that life. Most people get into the field because they love writing about games; that's all. If journalism with integrity is what you stand for these are the exact people you want to leave alone. This is a fact: as a direct consequence of gamergate, good writers are looking to leave the industry since it's became so unpleasant and, frankly, boring to be a part of. Most of these people want to go about their job without having to filter out emails accusing them of corruption/misogyny. What seems like the dream job has turned into a fucking dredge. Not damning the entire movement, there just needs to be some acknowledgement of how it's negatively effecting the livelihood of the very people who you ought to be encouraging.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;46376816]Also I don't think journalists have any obligation to do anything besides write about games and retain their journalistic integrity.[/QUOTE] That's generally what GG argues too. It's when journalists insist that they have journalistic integrity, then do things like stage interviews with their own writers that people have a problem. GG isn't targeting people who enjoy gaming journalism as a career and genuinely try to keep it as objective as possible. Publications like the Escapist recognized GG's concerns, addressed them, and bowed out from the controversy. I like the Escapist, its staff reports on gaming because they're gamers and passionate about the hobby. But publications like Gawker Media's sites aren't the same. Kotaku isn't staffed with gamers, it's staffed with journalism degree washouts who actively dislike their audience and see nothing wrong in gossiping about what their friends are up to and presenting it as news. They're aggressive, abrasive towards their own audience, hostile to advertisers, and try to justify behavior that would get any 'real' news publication sharply criticized. If it weren't for GamerGate we wouldn't even be talking about these issues. Whether you think it's been a beneficial movement or not, it's gotten people actively engaged in the subject of corruption and integrity, whereas before it was limited to '11/10 its okay - IGN' memes and pictures of Geoff Keighley holding Doritos and Mountain Dew. Even if GamerGate dies out overnight, it's had a significant impact on the industry.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;46376816] Not damning the entire movement, there just needs to be some acknowledgement of how it's negatively effecting the livelihood of the very people who you ought to be encouraging.[/QUOTE] It discourages only those who use journalism to self-promote and only achieve money and taint journalism; forcing other writers to write about clickbait-type articles or controversial drama only, reviews are clearly unfair and we know it. Of course it is negatively affecting journalists, but in the short term they are going to do more damage then we are. Above post probably explains it better/more fairly then me.
[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46376927]It discourages only those who use journalism to self-promote and only achieve money and taint journalism; forcing other writers to write about clickbait-type articles or controversial drama only, reviews are clearly unfair and we know it. Of course it is negatively affecting journalists, but in the short term they are going to do more damage then we are. Above post probably explains it better/more fairly then me.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately this is categorically false. It discourages writers with integrity too. I know for a fact that a great deal of time and energy is spent wading through unpleasant emails regardless. I'm saying this because I know plenty of good writers who wouldn't even dream of inciting corruption, and they're all saying the industry has became a much less fun, engaging one to work for. As for shit like gawker, ign and kotaku, does anyone even take them that seriously? Their audience [I]wants[/I] clickbait shit. [editline]31st October 2014[/editline] What is wrong with just leaving the reader to decide for themselves if a source is reputable? Why do we have to be so paternal to audiences that don't really give a shit?
[QUOTE=Robbobin;46376999]Unfortunately this is categorically false. It discourages writers with integrity too. I know for a fact that a great deal of time and energy is spent wading through unpleasant emails regardless. I'm saying this because I know plenty of good writers who wouldn't even dream of inciting corruption, and they're all saying the industry has became a much less fun, engaging one to work for.[/QUOTE] Maybe that's the price of audiences turning a more critical eye towards the industry. Occupy has made banking less engaging for honest bankers, that's unfortunate but it's a side effect of people starting to care. [QUOTE=Robbobin;46376999]What is wrong with just leaving the reader to decide for themselves if a source is reputable? Why do we have to be so paternal to audiences that don't really give a shit?[/QUOTE] That's not how consumer boycotts work, and if you feel that it's wrong for people to exercise their free speech to turn this into an issue, then you don't have any right to tell them it's not an issue either.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;46376999]What is wrong with just leaving the reader to decide for themselves if a source is reputable? Why do we have to be so paternal to audiences that don't really give a shit?[/QUOTE] What is wrong with just letting readers express their distaste or dislike? Why do we have to be so paternal to the journalists?
[QUOTE=Robbobin;46376999] What is wrong with just leaving the reader to decide for themselves if a source is reputable? Why do we have to be so paternal to audiences that don't really give a shit?[/QUOTE] Well it might sound pretty harsh, but most people are pretty indifferent to the point where they won't know with any certainty their fingers from their dicks, which is why shit like Gawker exists. Quality control is a thing [b]always[/b] done by very small active portion of any consumer base.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;46376483]Again, I wasn't talking about the gamergate in the sense of fighting corruption. See what I mean about it being a tangled mess? Nothing is going to fix that. It just [I]is[/I] those two things. This is the drawback of internet social campaigns; there is no way two opposing groups are going to reconcile their different interpretations of the same phenomena. Neither interpretation is right; it literally did start as a hate campaign thinly veiled as an attack on corruption in the games journalist industry. I'm totally fine with admitting that the pro-gg has largely moved away from that, but it's just not going to drop it's horrible connotations just because you want it to. Genuinely think that hashtags are the worst thing to happen to social movements. We should be dealing with concise, simple philosophical issues but instead it's some weird nebulous social entity that means several different things all at once. In philosophy if you can't even agree on what a term even means, there is no logical point in continuing discussion. I will say this though; maybe GG will hammer out a little corruption. I'm personally of the opinion that the damage it's doing to the gaming community in terms of alienation is much worse than we stand to gain though.[/QUOTE] I don't really get the argument of "It (allegedly) started out as a hate movement so it shouldn't continue existing, regardless of the changes it went through." That doesn't really make much sense. And I'd argue that the most damage being done there is dealt by the corrupt journos, who go around spreading fear-mongering bullshit which will probably end up scaring women away from the medium, ie the exact opposite of what they claim to strive for.
Gamergate suffers from what killed Occupy two years ago-- no representatives, and no uniting banner. Literally anybody can post under the gamergate tag, and anybody can claim whatever they want to be gamergate's principles and demands. ZQ is taking advantage of that, because she has an agenda. And because nobody determines who is in gamergate or what it stands for, she is free to do that. I spent all of yesterday arguing with a staunch gamergate advocate who believed that there was a conspiracy by journalists of all industries to destroy gaming, and the last bastion of truth was breitbart (a conspiracy rag whose current front page headline is that Obama is bringing in Ebola victims from Africa to infect citizens here). I don't believe that to be a popular view among gamergate, but there's no way to tell. Do you remember what Occupy was about? My boyfriend was gassed by riot cops, and I was on the uc Davis campus when a sergeant handcuffed a row of students and peppersprayed them all in the eyes point blank, and yet I still don't know what it was truly about. According to the graffiti I still see around Oakland, it was about de-colonializing America. According to my boyfriend, it was about removing corporate power from government, according to others, it was one of about a million things Americans were angry about. You know what killed Occupy? Same thing that's going to kill gamergate. Anybody could walk into an occupy camp and set up tent. Rioters did, and brought riot cops and media criticism with them. Career homeless did, and brought with them public sanitation concerns and civil orders to shut down. Schizophrenics and nuts did, and made the movement a lot of inane noise. Gamergate needs someone to represent the movement-- to say "this is what gamergate is about and these are our demands". There's lists out there but they're inconsistent and vague. Nobody's going to concede to a movement with no solid goals, because what's to say following a demand will satisfy even a minority of gamergate? Also suspect to many is gamergate's choice of targets. For a movement about ethics in gaming journalism, I hear very little about journalists like Geoff "doritos pope" Keighley, big and obviously corrupt groups like IGN, and generally blatant favoritism to AAA titles like COD; instead I hear a lot of noise about people like Anita S, who isn't a journalist but a YouTube personality and thus not subject to the journalistic ethics the movement is concerned with, and I see attacks on small journalist groups like Eurogamer-- who previously attached Keighley and large gaming websites for corruption. If gamergate truly wants to fight corruption, it needs to start by not attacking literally the entirety of independent gaming journalism. Gamergate could have been about small journalists finally proving that the big names were corrupt. Instead it's about how gaming websites shouldn't ever talk about feminism or risk death threats, because that's what a majority of people's first impressions of the movement were. With no authoritative body, those first impressions will stick. Anything positive done by gamergate will be suspect and seen as saving face. Potato salads are crowdfunded for more that $10,000. That number won't sway an anti-gger, and to someone looking for more things to attack gamergate it provides even more fuel-- all they need to say is gg only donated to charity so they could point to it as proof of good deeds, and they end up even more firmly rooted in their position. A lack of leadership is no way to run a movement. Occupy proved this. Gamergate is suffering from the same problems, up to being unable to disassociate itself in the eyes of the media from those in it only to cause disorder. Without a figurehead I don't expect gamergate to last to spring, and I don't expect it to do much more than get advertisement pulled on a dozen more sites, because nobody knows what gg really wants. Zoe Quinn and Anita S have so much more to gain from this. They, as individuals, can present very clear mesages with a face tied to them. The media loves controversy, and both of them know how to fuel drama. Individuals of gamergate can say they have nothing to do with harassment, but the stereotypes are in place. The nebulous cloud that is gg had been branded as misogynist and any ggers who claim not to be sexist will be seen as outliers by the media. I personally am disgusted by the way gaming journalism looks. I don't like that it's used as a soapbox for radical political thoughts. But I'm not willing to associate myself with the movement because there's no telling what that actually means, and the movement so far had failed to do anything I would consider progress on its core principles. Censorship isn't how you fight corruption, you fight corruption by exposing it and propagating that evidence. You know whose entire job is propagating evidence? Journalists. Anita S and Zoe Quinn should be free to spout their bullshit. They're not journalists, but even if they were any reasonable person could glance at their headlines and say "what a crock of shit". There's this weird belief I see among ggers that someone needs to act as an arbitrator of truth in journalism, as if the average person takes everything they read at face value. I don't believe that's true, and I think very few people are swayed by the arguments either of the two present. They're getting attention now because they're presenting a face to a controversy. The media loves the concept of the sole individual versus the faceless crowd. Gg presents an easy target because without a face there's no sympathy to be had. One last point: gaming journalists tend to not exactly be the best writers. " gamers are dead" wasn't supposed to be an attack on gaming. It's a tactic based on a basic literary technique that takes a bit of skill to do. Here's how it's supposed to be read. "Gamers are dead? What could she mean by that?" (Hook) "Huh, I'm not like the person she is calling a hammer, how weird" (Line) "Oh! She means the stereotypical view of gamers is dead, because now everybody is a gamer. Hooray! Go me and go gaming" (Sinker) A decent writer could have pulled it off, but they would have probably done it in a completely different time and context. That's pretty much all I have to say on the matter.
[QUOTE=Itszutak;46377710] Also suspect to many is gamergate's choice of targets. For a movement about ethics in gaming journalism, I hear very little about journalists like Geoff "doritos pope" Keighley, big and obviously corrupt groups like IGN, and generally blatant favoritism to AAA titles like COD; instead I hear a lot of noise about people like Anita S, who isn't a journalist but a YouTube personality and thus not subject to the journalistic ethics the movement is concerned with, and I see attacks on small journalist groups like Eurogamer-- who previously attached Keighley and large gaming websites for corruption. If gamergate truly wants to fight corruption, it needs to start by not attacking literally the entirety of independent gaming journalism. Gamergate could have been about small journalists finally proving that the big names were corrupt. Instead it's about how gaming websites shouldn't ever talk about feminism or risk death threats, because that's what a majority of people's first impressions of the movement were. With no authoritative body, those first impressions will stick. Anything positive done by gamergate will be suspect and seen as saving face. Potato salads are crowdfunded for more that $10,000. That number won't sway an anti-gger, and to someone looking for more things to attack gamergate it provides even more fuel-- all they need to say is gg only donated to charity so they could point to it as proof of good deeds, and they end up even more firmly rooted in their position. [/QUOTE] Yeah I'm not going to address the rest of the post, I think others will do it fine. I'll stick with this one. The thing is, you look at an issue and think "what would've been the [b]right[/b] thing to do?", and that's not how majority of voices Gamergate has put it. GG's concern is what is [b]true[/b], not what is [b]right[/b]. It might be wrong for all intents and purposes, but if that's true - so be it. It would've been right to side with indie-journalism in their fight against corruption among big names in the industry. It would've made GG look like Jim Sterling. But then you look closer and understand that Indie journalists and dev scene are themselves corrupt as shit and their fight against 'big names' in the industry is fight against windmills. Useless, accomplishes nothing, but makes you look like a hero in the eyes of general public. Just like Jim Sterling does it. Indie-scene is in fact a more valid target for consumer revolt because it's not as big and can't just ignore and brush off all the criticism, completely draining the stamina and motivation of the active parts of the community to the point where no one will even speak about it for several years until it'll reach boiling point again. Yes, going against weaker target is not something they'll write epic songs about in ten years, but that doesn't mean indie scene should be left alone. Sure, general public will listen to the media saying "hey guys, we're not corrupt, honest, btw LOOK AT THOSE MISOGYNISTS!" But you know what? Let it be. Gamergate is about gaming community, which gaming media is part of. General public's opinion and condemnation will have zero weight in the issue. It's not Occupy, #GG doesn't strive to drive a social change.
[QUOTE=Itszutak;46377710]Gamergate suffers from what killed Occupy two years ago-- no representatives, and no uniting banner. Literally anybody can post under the gamergate tag, and anybody can claim whatever they want to be gamergate's principles and demands. ZQ is taking advantage of that, because she has an agenda. And because nobody determines who is in gamergate or what it stands for, she is free to do that.[/QUOTE] Gamergate is about corruption and ethics in gaming press. We do have repersenatives, quiet a few actually. InternetArtistocrat, Total Biscuit, Boogie, and tons of other popular youtube personalities have campaigned and acted as psuedo-leaders for the movement. Please, for the love of everything holy and unholy, research the topic. [QUOTE=Itszutak;46377710]I spent all of yesterday arguing with a staunch gamergate advocate who believed that there was a conspiracy by journalists of all industries to destroy gaming, and the last bastion of truth was breitbart (a conspiracy rag whose current front page headline is that Obama is bringing in Ebola victims from Africa to infect citizens here). [/QUOTE] It fucking is about that. Numerous reports are coming forward that Indiecade and it's staff are involved in money laundering via Patreon, and promote games that they need to win in order to make cash. It's a rather interesting scheme to be honest. Not to mention that almost all of the websites that have been calling us "dead" "misgoynist" and "evilllll" are websites that either are directly referencing Anita or Zoe. Both of which are the main players in the Indiecade issue, also numerous admins from websites like Reddit, have come forward to say that Zoe and Anita are directly getting the leaders of certain websites to censor anything regarding Gamergate and ban anyone involved with it. It is not some mystical conspiracy, this shit has been happening, and it's a good reason for concern. [QUOTE=Itszutak;46377710]I don't believe that to be a popular view among gamergate, but there's no way to tell. Do you remember what Occupy was about? My boyfriend was gassed by riot cops, and I was on the uc Davis campus when a sergeant handcuffed a row of students and peppersprayed them all in the eyes point blank, and yet I still don't know what it was truly about. According to the graffiti I still see around Oakland, it was about de-colonializing America. According to my boyfriend, it was about removing corporate power from government, according to others, it was one of about a million things Americans were angry about.[/QUOTE] The view in Gamergate is about corruption, journalism ethics, the moneylaundering in the indie game scene, and topics regarding how bad game journalism has become. It has never been a discussion about the roles of females in gaming, we are concerned about corruption within videogame press and indie gaming scene. Please, we do know what we are looking and preaching against, stop assuming otherwise. I cannot bother myself to reply to every thing in your post because it can be summed up with this: We have a goal, we have motive, we have a whole lot of gunpowder which has been packing up over the last six or so years from numerous scandals regarding the indie gaming scene, as well as stuff relating to really suspicious activity within gaming press. We are not concerned with the position of women in the video game industry, and that issue only came up front when it was discovered that Zoey Quinn was responsible for shutting down a campaign/gamejam which was going to be about creating a videogame about women, with a production team of feminist and female cast. What did we do? GamerGate as a whole raised roughly $75,000 and sent it to the group, and wished them luck. In return they asked us to design a female character for their game. We got Vivian James. [t]http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/816/598/c1c.png[/t] Reddit and Facepunch also designed characters which were based around the same concept of just having a normal female character based on a normal women. Gamergate is not evil, we just want to fix the problems in the indiegame scene, and deal with issues in the video game press.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;46377868] Facepunch also designed characters which were based around the same concept of just having a normal female character based on a normal women. [/QUOTE] Oh don't make me go to that thread and dig up all those [i]normal women[/i] Facepunch came up with :v:
[QUOTE=gudman;46377931]Oh don't make me go to that thread and dig up all those [i]normal women[/i] Facepunch came up with :v:[/QUOTE] Normal makes for boring character design!
[QUOTE=Itszutak;46377710]Also suspect to many is gamergate's choice of targets. For a movement about ethics in gaming journalism, I hear very little about journalists like Geoff "doritos pope" Keighley, big and obviously corrupt groups like IGN, and generally blatant favoritism to AAA titles like COD; instead I hear a lot of noise about people like Anita S, who isn't a journalist but a YouTube personality and thus not subject to the journalistic ethics the movement is concerned with, and I see attacks on small journalist groups like Eurogamer-- who previously attached Keighley and large gaming websites for corruption. If gamergate truly wants to fight corruption, it needs to start by not attacking literally the entirety of independent gaming journalism. Gamergate could have been about small journalists finally proving that the big names were corrupt. Instead it's about how gaming websites shouldn't ever talk about feminism or risk death threats, because that's what a majority of people's first impressions of the movement were. With no authoritative body, those first impressions will stick. Anything positive done by gamergate will be suspect and seen as saving face. Potato salads are crowdfunded for more that $10,000. That number won't sway an anti-gger, and to someone looking for more things to attack gamergate it provides even more fuel-- all they need to say is gg only donated to charity so they could point to it as proof of good deeds, and they end up even more firmly rooted in their position.[/QUOTE] IGN and the likes don't flat-out insult their audience nor propagate hate speech towards a specific demographic. The point in going after corruption in the indie scene is because it was [B]supposed to be the last bastion of integrity in the industry.[/B] This is why people are angry. A scene which should be used as a platform for aspiring developers with merit, which was supposed to be the spearhead of game design innovation, turns out to be some kind of club which privileges relatives and people with common interest instead of promoting quality games. To clean up that part of the industry is just as commendable as shaking up AAA devs, and probably quite easier as well. As for the slandering, if people don't think something is afoot when GG is supposedly both fighting against and funding inclusivity in game development, then they probably made up their mind beforehand. Do people genuinely think that GG supporters would give some of their own money to fund a charity effectively countering their own supposed agenda, just for some PR publicity? That's called throwing money out the window and quite ineffective as far as throwing women out of gaming is concerned. No, the problem of GG isn't that it's a decentralized movement -what alternative could there be on the internet, anyway?- It's simply that they're going against members of the press, who has a huge influence on public opinion. Nothing has stopped them from blatantly lying so far, so why do you think it would be any different were our movement more exclusive? You simply cannot win a PR war against somebody with such sway. [QUOTE]I personally am disgusted by the way gaming journalism looks. I don't like that it's used as a soapbox for radical political thoughts. But I'm not willing to associate myself with the movement because there's no telling what that actually means, and the movement so far had failed to do anything I would consider progress on its core principles. Censorship isn't how you fight corruption, you fight corruption by exposing it and propagating that evidence. You know whose entire job is propagating evidence? Journalists.[/QUOTE] I genuinely don't know what you're referring to when you talk about censorship from our part. You say we should fight corruption by exposing it and propagating the evidence and we've done exactly that. Not sure what you mean by that last sentence. Are you saying we should trust journalists to police themselves? Because if anything this whole fiasco has been a testament to the opposite.
[QUOTE=gudman;46377931]Oh don't make me go to that thread and dig up all those [i]normal women[/i] Facepunch came up with :v:[/QUOTE] Please don't dig up that thread.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;46377969]Please don't dig up that thread.[/QUOTE] Suffice to say that it died pretty fast after That Cat wearing a Box became a universal choice for character design.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.