So how does the google group subtly enforce what authors outside the google group write...?
edit: is my sarcasm detector broken?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
#GAMERGATE: The Threadening [Read the OP] -- #StopGamerGate2014
- Thread starter besada
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
So how does the google group subtly enforce what authors outside the google group write...?
edit: is my sarcasm detector broken?
So how does the google group subtly enforce what authors outside the google group write...?
edit: is my sarcasm detector broken?
Vagina tentacles.
It honestly feels like a natural consequence of the expanding market. It's not surprising that the #GG is so upset at independent news sources & devs but has largely left AA games & major review sites alone.
The more indie-focused websites can target a much more niche audience, and many gamers confuse this with the writers "Forgetting/insulting their target audience" rather than realising "maybe I'm not the target audience for every gaming site/journalist anymore."
Could be. Probably there's a bit of an age differential, too. I suspect that #GG-ers skew younger and are happy with AAA games as they are, while journalists are older and have grown a little tired of blowing shit up, only in a slightly higher resolution this time. But I mean, it is hard to mistake some of the things that have been said by Leigh Alexander or Adam Sessler for anything but an insult. It's also hard to fault them for not having superhuman forbearance in the face of thousands of angry tweets, but you look a little silly to stand there and lecture people about their childish behavior when you hop down into the Twitter pig pen and start rolling around with them two seconds later.
So yeah, there are readers who are dissatisfied with writers, and writers who are dissatisfied with their readership. I do think it is just a matter of people having grown apart, and the realization that that's happened is usually a painful one.
That there is such an outrage over very small niche games my friends made and that this issue has been going on for such a long time now... I honestly have no clue what to say about this anymore.
I really just hope the especially vile part of GG would stop harrassing my friends over things that are evidently not true.
Oh, and the part where people try to hack all of my friends, and me too. That's not fun either.
I really just hope the especially vile part of GG would stop harrassing my friends over things that are evidently not true.
Oh, and the part where people try to hack all of my friends, and me too. That's not fun either.
MHWilliams
Member
That there is a background community, say, a google group, that subtly enforces a groupthink mentality in the gaming press?
E: and how does slate not count?
Slate is not the gaming press.
And again.
8/28:
The End of Gamers by Dan Golding (Personal Tumblr)
This is on his personal Tumblr, not a website.
'Gamers' don't have to be your audience. 'Gamers' are over by Leigh Alexander (Gamasutra)
The one everyone cites. Not surprising coming from Alexander.
The death of the gamers and the women who killed them by Casey Johnston (Ars Technica)
An also-ran response, citing Golding and Alexander's articles. Also, not that bad.
For gaming to be taken seriously as an art form, it needs to be able to stand up to cultural critiques, and gamers need to be able to separate a developer's personal life from her work. But it especially holds the medium back when these situations not only fail to play out in a civilized way, but become opportunistic embroiling of women in the "problems" of gaming culture, creation, and coverage.
It is, on a sad meta level, a real-life version of what Sarkeesian discusses in "Women As Background Decoration Part 2": women being treated as less-than, harassed and harangued out of the conversation, in service to a different, "bigger" problem. And every time it happens, it advances the goals of the most poisonous "gamers," while regressing everything else.
Gaming Is Leaving Gamers Behind by Joseph Bernstein (BuzzFeed)
Cites Golding.
What Golding is getting at, and what hope I made clear with my long-winded analogy, is that video games are in the process of shedding the assumptions larded on them by their history. They are becoming simply another mediumone with no inherent bias towards any group. In twenty years, it may sound as old-fashioned to call someone a gamer as it is to call someone a moviegoer. And we may well look back at these few weeks in 2014 as the moment when the medium finally separated from the limitations put on it from outside, and from within.
We Might Be Witnessing The 'Death of An Identity' by Luke Plunkett (Kotaku)
That last one is merely links to Alexander and Golding's article with a few words.
8/29:
THIS GUY'S EMBARRASSING RELATIONSHIP DRAMA IS KILLING THE 'GAMER' IDENTITY by Mike Pearl (Vice)
Again, cites Alexander's article. Probably as incendiary as that article, because Vice stepped in it when they wrote an article about the /v/ mascot.
Why so apocalyptic? Game discourse has become a fucking mess. An all-out, screaming shitfit that never stops.
On Wednesday, gamer punching bag Anita Sarkeesian got harassed and threatened for the umpteenth time by gamers who were angry about being called out for their misogyny. This time, she was driven out of her house by death threats. Her ongoing YouTube series isnt always perfect, but it has never once done anything to merit a two-year campaign of anonymous threats.
Then last night, while that was in the news, I edited and published a short article by Allegra Ringo about Vivian James, a new mascot created by 4chan to thwart proponents of social justice in gaming. When I woke up the following afternoon, gamers were harassing her en masse on Twitter.
The rest of the article is basically an interview with Eron Gjoni.
8/31:
Why does the term 'gamer' feel important? by Jonathan Holmes
Maybe I should give up immedietely and get back to the purported point of this ding dang post -- the importance of the term "gamer". I know a lot of people who don't want to use it anymore. They don't want to be associated with it anymore in any way. It's because a lot of people who take pride in being "gamers", be they game developers, jouranlists, or players, use the term as a way to elevate themselves above others. Gamer used to mean "a former nerd who is now proud of their love of games", but now a lot of people take it to mean "I'm cooler than you other try-hards, because videogames".
"Gamer" was a way to to take back "videogame nerd" and remove the social stigma, and now it's being used as a pedestal to stigmitize others. So we're going to have to take it back again, this time from the bullies that use it to devalue other people for not having the same type of interests, priorities, and goals as they do.
Certainly not as hard as people would make out.
9/1:
The Monday Papers by Graham Smith
Again, simple links to the Alexander and Golding articles alongside their normal writing collections.
So let's move beyond the fact that the Slate article just randomly picked incendiary phrases from these larger articles to make a point and most of the them were certainly more even-handed.
Let's see how many are on the list. Dan Golding, Leigh Alexander, Joseph Bernstein, Luke Plunkett, Mike Pearl, Jonathan Holmes, and Graham Smith are... not in the Google Group. Casey Johnston and Luke Plunkett. Of those, Plunkett just linked to it and Johnston's article is more about "gamers" not being able to handle criticism.
So... where's the collusion and groupthink?
voodoopanda
Member
I've played video games for most of my life but I've always been a little put off by the way a lot of games journalism-type stuff has been written. It was actually when I first discovered Leigh Alexander's writing several years ago that I found writing about games that was very similar to how I thought & felt about games. From her I discovered a lot of other writers & indie game devs, many of them women and many of them seemingly now targeted by GG, who I also identified with.
It's weird but I feel like this helps me understand some of these people who were completely at home with games journalism as it was, but feel alienated by these writers, as the reverse basically happened to me. It can be a weird experience to read about something you like but hear it from a point of view that doesn't mesh well with your own.
I think ultimately none of these writers have one iota the amount of power some people think they have, and its healthy for a medium to have writers that disagree, that come at things from all kinds of angles. You just have to think of articles as one possible way of thinking of things out of many, instead of as one objective truth.
It's weird but I feel like this helps me understand some of these people who were completely at home with games journalism as it was, but feel alienated by these writers, as the reverse basically happened to me. It can be a weird experience to read about something you like but hear it from a point of view that doesn't mesh well with your own.
I think ultimately none of these writers have one iota the amount of power some people think they have, and its healthy for a medium to have writers that disagree, that come at things from all kinds of angles. You just have to think of articles as one possible way of thinking of things out of many, instead of as one objective truth.
That there is a background community, say, a google group, that subtly enforces a groupthink mentality in the gaming press?
What evidence is there of this 'enforcement'?
But I mean, it is hard to mistake some of the things that have been said by Leigh Alexander or Adam Sessler for anything but an insult.
My heart bleeds for you and your fellow consumers.
So... where's the collusion and groupthink?
Almost a dozen articles on as many websites posted in a 48 hour span about the same topic doesn't raise any red flags in your head?
What evidence is there of this 'enforcement'?
Smith's bosses and editors being called to get him to shut up.
Kuchera bullying anyone who diagreed with him in the GG thread.
Almost a dozen articles on as many websites posted in a 48 hour span about the same topic doesn't raise any red flags in your head?
but
most of them are reactions to the first couple
this happens all the goddamn time and nobody cares
but
most of them are reactions to the first couple
this happens all the goddamn time and nobody cares
The difference here is that these are all editorials. Not based on a concete release, piece of news, or press release with information worth publishing. A bunch of people decided "hey, I have *this* opinion and I'll write about it* at the same time with almost the same opinion.
So... where's the collusion and groupthink?
I was going to do that, but I had to make dinner. Thanks!
Almost a dozen articles on as many websites posted in a 48 hour span about the same topic doesn't raise any red flags in your head?
Not really. There were four articles on the same day, 8/28/2014, and one posting that linked to two of them. That's odd, but not unheard of, especially considering these articles were posted in the aftermath of two straight weeks of harassing Zoe Quinn and a day after harassment of anyone who linked to Anita Sarkeesian's video. Anything that comes after is a reaction to those articles.
Smith's bosses and editors being called to get him to shut up.
Kuchera bullying anyone who diagreed with him in the GG thread.
Smith's bosses and editors being called is generally shitty behavior, but without any idea what was said, I can't say outright that that's a bad thing. If Smith was inciting GamerGate furor, then I can understand how his colleagues might be upset and consider getting in touch with his editors.
And Kuchera's always been a dick. I'd be surprised if he didn't behave in that way.
I mean, are those writers in those leaked emails? It seems like most, if not all of them, are not part of these conversations, as far as I can tell. I'd think we'd at least be seeing Leigh Alexander in there. Is there ANOTHER super elite group chat?
But I haven't followed Breitbart much, because, well, it's Breitbart. So maybe there have been more leaked emails.
But I haven't followed Breitbart much, because, well, it's Breitbart. So maybe there have been more leaked emails.
The difference here is that these are all editorials. Not based on a concete release, piece of news, or press release with information worth publishing. A bunch of people decided "hey, I have *this* opinion and I'll write about it* at the same time with almost the same opinion.
This is unusual how exactly? Just look at the Youtube community dealing with Sam Pepper right now. A lot of the same thing you're suggesting is going on in that sphere about the recent trend of ridiculous pranks. Is it a group effort, or do many people just find what them shitty?
tonysidaway
Member
tranciful said:What does it say when the non-gaming media is largely on the same page as the gaming media?
That there is a background community, say, a google group, that subtly enforces a groupthink mentality in the gaming press?
This seems like a non-answer. Surely in-field groupthink would produce a divergence between in-group opinions and mainstream opinions. Instead we're seeing the mainstream press just as appalled and disgusted at the behaviour of the self-appointed gatekeepers of gaming as are the gaming press. Are the mainstream press also on the private mailing lists?
But I haven't followed Breitbart much, because, well, it's Breitbart. So maybe there have been more leaked emails.
Wait...is Breitbart actually being used as a source? as in andrew breitbart's site?
Wait...is Breitbart actually being used as a source? as in andrew breitbart's site?
Yes. One of their writers has attached himself to the movement. He's the one posting the leaked emails.
MHWilliams
Member
Almost a dozen articles on as many websites posted in a 48 hour span about the same topic doesn't raise any red flags in your head?
This happens all the time.
Random news story today.
http://www.polygon.com/2014/9/25/6844725/world-of-warcraft-undelete-characters
http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/09/25/w...allow-the-resurrection-of-deleted-characters/
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...dding-a-feature-to-restore-deleted-characters
http://massively.joystiq.com/2014/09/25/world-of-warcraft-gives-you-a-way-to-undelete-characters/
http://www.inquisitr.com/1499923/wo...-characters-can-now-be-recovered-after-patch/
http://nzgamer.com/news/8195/world-of-warcraft-will-let-players-undelete-characters.html
Pick a topic. Cancelling Titan, Microsoft Buying Minecraft, Notch Leaving Mojang. You'll see tons of articles on the same topic and way more in a short of time than what you saw above. That is the job.
Smith's bosses and editors being called to get him to shut up.
I couldn't find anything on this. You have a link?
Kuchera bullying anyone who diagreed with him in the GG thread.
If you call that bullying (as if Ben has that kind of sway over other outlets) do you call us disagreeing with you bullying as well?
The difference here is that these are all editorials. Not based on a concrete release, piece of news, or press release with information worth publishing. A bunch of people decided "hey, I have *this* opinion and I'll write about it* at the same time with almost the same opinion.
Go through that list in order. One, it's not almost "almost a dozen". Two happened separately, two reference those two, and one is just a link. Following that, there was the interview with Gjoni, Holmes completely different article 3 days later, and another random linkspam.
That's your proof? Read them again.
This happens all the time.
Random news story today.
http://www.polygon.com/2014/9/25/6844725/world-of-warcraft-undelete-characters
http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/09/25/w...allow-the-resurrection-of-deleted-characters/
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...dding-a-feature-to-restore-deleted-characters
http://massively.joystiq.com/2014/09/25/world-of-warcraft-gives-you-a-way-to-undelete-characters/
http://www.inquisitr.com/1499923/wo...-characters-can-now-be-recovered-after-patch/
http://nzgamer.com/news/8195/world-of-warcraft-will-let-players-undelete-characters.html
Pick a topic. Cancelling Titan, Microsoft Buying Minecraft, Notch Leaving Mojang. You'll see tons of articles on the same topic and way more in a short of time than what you saw above. That is the job.
Those aren't editorials. That's relevant news to ~7 million WoW subscribers, not some reaction to a random tumblr post no one had read until this blew up.
https://medium.com/@ryansmithwriter/a-weird-insider-culture-d1c3cc644c29I couldn't find anything on this. You have a link?
If you call that bullying (as if Ben has that kind of sway over other outlets) do you call us disagreeing with you bullying as well?
If you were trying to berate me into deleting my posts (or censoring a forum discussion on a website i controlled, to be more accurate) like Kuchera was doing to Greg Tito, yes, it would be.
Changing topics a bit, here is a great article that tries to be a detached and balanced analysis of this whole shitshow on both sides. Illustrates the vitriol, unacceptable behavior, and irrationality on both sides of the issue.
http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/gamergate-an-issue-with-2-sides/
Edit: okay the second half gets a bit pro-gamergate but it's still a reasonable article
Edit2: had no idea the author was one of the most outspoken pro-GG people on twitter. take iot with a pile of salt
http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/gamergate-an-issue-with-2-sides/
Edit: okay the second half gets a bit pro-gamergate but it's still a reasonable article
Edit2: had no idea the author was one of the most outspoken pro-GG people on twitter. take iot with a pile of salt
MHWilliams
Member
If you were trying to berate me into deleting my posts like Kuchera was doing to Greg Tito, yes, it would be.
Again, if you call that berating, then most of the talk on the internet is berating.
And I'll take Ryan's statements at facevalue, even though his bosses are a climate change website, Chicago Tribune's RedEye, and The Onion A.V. Club, who are so far outside of the sphere of influence, I'm not even sure what the point would be.
Changing topics a bit, here is a great article that tries to be a detached and balanced analysis of this whole shitshow on both sides. Illustrates the vitriol, unacceptable behavior, and irrationality on both sides of the issue.
http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/gamergate-an-issue-with-2-sides/
I'll let you know right now, that the article probably won't fly because of the author. But carry on, sir.
Mr_Antimatter
Member
Changing topics a bit, here is a great article that tries to be a detached and balanced analysis of this whole shitshow on both sides. Illustrates the vitriol, unacceptable behavior, and irrationality on both sides of the issue.
http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/gamergate-an-issue-with-2-sides/
Edit: okay the second half gets a bit pro-gamergate but it's still a reasonable article
'Both sides are bad' doesn't exactly serve as evidence of the mass media bias/collusion that GG is arguing exists. People mean mean on the internet isn't evidence.
tonysidaway
Member
I think ultimately none of these writers have one iota the amount of power some people think they have, and its healthy for a medium to have writers that disagree, that come at things from all kinds of angles. You just have to think of articles as one possible way of thinking of things out of many, instead of as one objective truth.
I've tended to approach the whole "game journalism as the heart of the problem" stance by a thought experiment: what difference would it make if all game journalism websites closed, vanished from the earth?
My provisional answer is that the mainstream press would _still_ write about games, and would perhaps expand their review coverage but only in a very superficial way. The harassment, endemic misogyny and other shenanigans, though, would continue to be reported, on both Tech and Women's pages (the Daily Telegraph did both on successive days).
So Gamergate would still be seen as a net negative for the gaming community, but the field would miss a lot of good writing by others who are passionate about gaming.
I also think we haven't done enough to support those gaming writers who wrote about the hateful and disgraceful behaviour of some gamers. Those articles needed to be written. Gamers as a whole did little to police terribly bad behaviour in their own ranks, and then got very angry when gaming commentators reported this. That's ridiculous.
BrittonPeele
Member
That's... how many/most editorials work. They're opinionated responses to things. They happen any time something big and culturally relevant happens. Look at how many editorials there were about Orson Scott Card before the Ender's Game movie came out, or how many writers decided to share their opinion on whether or not it was moral to eat at Chick-Fil-A. When notable stuff happens, a writer's instinct is to write about it.The difference here is that these are all editorials. Not based on a concete release, piece of news, or press release with information worth publishing. A bunch of people decided "hey, I have *this* opinion and I'll write about it* at the same time with almost the same opinion.
I was the Opinions Editor for my college newspaper for three years (and a columnist for 3.5). I published two to three columns a day, five days a week, and many of them were responses to things in the news, editorials from larger papers or even (on occasion) responses written in reaction to things other columnists said in the same paper. Sometimes, by pure coincidence (as they didn't usually talk to each other), two columnists would turn in columns that covered the same exact topic. I believe (though I admit my memory might be failing me on this one. It's been a little while) there was even at least one case in which I opted not to publish one person's column because it was too similar to one that had just run.
To address your other concern: I can tell you, as someone who is in the GameJournosPros list (unlike most of the "gamers are dead" authors, as M.H. Williams already pointed out), not everybody in that group thinks the same way. You think a collection of 150-ish writers from across the country/world all had the same views on the same topics? No. There were a lot of arguments. A lot of debates. Most of it civil, but things sometimes got heated. Heck, more than one discussion was focused primarily on how quickly print magazines and newspapers are dying. You think I was excited to agree with that idea, considering I work full-time at a newspaper?
If you think anyone in that group, Ben Kuchera or otherwise, was able to "bully" me into bending to their editorial whim, you are very mistaken. Personally, I report to an editorial board that is completely divorced from the video game industry. My loyalty is to them, not a group of peers I maybe see in person once or twice a year.
Also, if it were true that the people in the Google group had somehow coordinated the "Gamers are dead" articles (which wouldn't make a lot of sense for a lot of reasons, not the least of which being that I don't know what the purpose would have been), Breitbart would have leaked the relevant e-mails. There wouldn't have been any reason for them not to. So unless there's some other mailing list (one that is apparently more secret than the one that was openly mentioned on Twitter more than once) that I've never been part of, I don't think the idea that writers coordinated these articles holds any water.
I'll let you know right now, that the article probably won't fly because of the author. But carry on, sir.
Missed that LibBlue was the same person. Fair enough.
Not convincing, dadozer. Get some actual evidence, or drop this nonsense.
Okay, this is borderline bullying. So you don't agree with the way I have interpreted events. Great. You are entitled to your opinion and to disagree with me. But commanding me to "drop this nonsense" like i'm a six year old kid is pretty pathetic. Form an argument. (Edit: like the post above me. that's an actual argument, not some juvenile command)
TheBryanJZX90
Member
Again, if you call that berating, then most of the talk on the internet is berating.
And I'll take Ryan's statements at facevalue, even though his bosses are a climate change website, Chicago Tribune's RedEye, and The Onion A.V. Club, who are so far outside of the sphere of influence, I'm not even sure what the point would be.
I'll let you know right now, that the article probably won't fly because of the author. But carry on, sir.
Sorry I don't really follow the significance of it, but I wanted to point out that the AV Club has same great gaming content! Unfortunately not as much as when Gameological was spun off as a separate site.
This seems like a non-answer. Surely in-field groupthink would produce a divergence between in-group opinions and mainstream opinions. Instead we're seeing the mainstream press just as appalled and disgusted at the behaviour of the self-appointed gatekeepers of gaming as are the gaming press.
Exactly.
Are the mainstream press also on the private mailing lists?
I don't think so. And most, if not all, of the "gamers are dead" authors aren't on the list, either.
The #GG people have their confirmation bias dials turned up far beyond reason. Instead of looking at the evidence, they cook up these wild fantasies and conspiracies.
D
Deleted member 126221
Unconfirmed Member
Almost a dozen articles on as many websites posted in a 48 hour span about the same topic doesn't raise any red flags in your head?
Writers react to the bullshit attitude of the gaming community (*not all gamers) of the last few weeks at a similar time. How is that a conspiracy? And yeah, they probably saw other writers write about it and decided to do the same. Where's the collusion and corruption? Because they agree this situation is terrible and think gamers (*not all gamers) should be ashamed?
MHWilliams
Member
Sorry I don't really follow the significance of it, but I wanted to point out that the AV Club has same great gaming content! Unfortunately not as much as when Gameological was spun off as a separate site.
Oh, not that it's a bad site. AV Club is where I get my TV reviews. Only that the individual writers and editors don't have that kind of pull within the games media, let alone in completely different spheres.
Missed that LibBlue was the same person. Fair enough.
S'all good, man.
Changing topics a bit, here is a great article that tries to be a detached and balanced analysis of this whole shitshow on both sides. Illustrates the vitriol, unacceptable behavior, and irrationality on both sides of the issue.
http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/gamergate-an-issue-with-2-sides/
You do know that Zoe Quinn didn't really DDOS TYFC and that the person who was supposedly shadowbanned for asking Assange a question was actually shadowbanned a long time ago, right?
tonysidaway
Member
SmZA said:Not convincing, dadozer. Get some actual evidence, or drop this nonsense.
Okay, this is borderline bullying. So you don't agree with the way I have interpreted events. Great. You are entitled to your opinion and to disagree with me. But commanding me to "drop this nonsense" like i'm a six year old kid is pretty pathetic.
It can be hurtful to be told that your evidence doesn't pass muster. It's hard to see that as bullying, though, in my opinion.
Do you think you've presented evidence commensurate with the gravity of your claim, even after the other factors such as timing and mailing list membership are taken into account?
Do you contest the notion that when a significant news event occurs, _such as death threats against a video commentator_, reasonable people are likely to respond in a similar outraged manner? Is common decency a form of groupthink, in your opinion?
Can't really spend much more time on this but I will just wrap up what I'm trying to say with:
1. As I've stated, almost a dozen articles on as many websites posted in a 48 hour span about the same topic appeared, all of them pretty insulting to their audience to varying degrees.
2. A couple weeks later, a secret and private discussion group (and a few mentions of it on twitter over a four year span does not change that description) is revealed to have existed, with anecdotal evidence (and member testimonial) that dissenting opinions are ignored, marginalized, and attacked appears.
It may not be accurate that these two things were connected (and honestly I'm beginning to believe that, thank you BrittonPeele for an insider perspective), I can't really accept the argument that it's an unreasonable, irrational conclusion to make.
1. As I've stated, almost a dozen articles on as many websites posted in a 48 hour span about the same topic appeared, all of them pretty insulting to their audience to varying degrees.
2. A couple weeks later, a secret and private discussion group (and a few mentions of it on twitter over a four year span does not change that description) is revealed to have existed, with anecdotal evidence (and member testimonial) that dissenting opinions are ignored, marginalized, and attacked appears.
It may not be accurate that these two things were connected (and honestly I'm beginning to believe that, thank you BrittonPeele for an insider perspective), I can't really accept the argument that it's an unreasonable, irrational conclusion to make.
Mr_Antimatter
Member
Can't really spend much more time on this but I will just wrap up what I'm trying to say with:
1. As I've stated, almost a dozen articles on as many websites posted in a 48 hour span about the same topic appeared, all of them pretty insulting to their audience to varying degrees.
2. A couple weeks later, a secret and private discussion group (and a few mentions of it on twitter over a four year span does not change that description) is revealed to have existed, with anecdotal evidence (and member testimonial) that dissenting opinions are ignored, marginalized, and attacked appears.
It may not be accurate that these two things were connected (and honestly I'm beginning to believe that, thank you BrittonPeele for an insider perspective), I can't really accept the argument that it's an unreasonable, irrational conclusion to make.
1. Didn't we just cover that? The articles don't say what you seem to think they say, nor do they appear to be any different then the way any other major event is covered.
2. And again, if you look at what people in the group are saying, it's not some grand conspiracy or group think. There are no marching orders or talking points given. It's not collusion.
A lot of people seem to be scratching their heads as why no evidence, save the GG interpretation of events, seems to matter.
tonysidaway
Member
It may not be accurate that these two things were connected (and honestly I'm beginning to believe that, thank you BrittonPeele for an insider perspective), I can't really accept the argument that it's an unreasonable, irrational conclusion to make.
It's not irrational as a provisional hypothesis. I certainly considered the possibility of collusion and groupthink, but for reasons I and others have expressed here the hypothesis isn't sound. Certainly one doesn't arrive at a conclusion in a straight line; we all should be checking our biases.
TheBryanJZX90
Member
1. Didn't we just cover that? The articles don't say what you seem to think they say, nor do they appear to be any different then the way any other major event is covered.
2. And again, if you look at what people in the group are saying, it's not some grand conspiracy or group think. There are no marching orders or talking points given. It's not collusion.
A lot of people seem to be scratching their heads as why no evidence, save the GG interpretation of events, seems to matter.
Yeah, if I'm looking for examples of collusion, I would be looking at those 4chan chat logs.
i just don't see what the point would be. say there was a conspiracy to post a bunch of editorials on the same subject one weekend... so fucking what? what nefarious goal would this accomplish?
e. there's also the point that literally every argument the gamergate crowd has picked up to date has been insane nonsense. it's reasonable to look on every claim that comes from that crowd with extreme skepticism.
e. there's also the point that literally every argument the gamergate crowd has picked up to date has been insane nonsense. it's reasonable to look on every claim that comes from that crowd with extreme skepticism.
I know Im late, but seeing the Escapist magazine article with women in the games industry is just ridiculous. They have to be anonymous! For fuck's sake, if that doesn't tell every single human being capable of empathy that there is something extremely wrong when it comes to the treatment of women in the games industry and consumer culture, I dont know what to say. I'm almost speechless.
They had to be *anonymous* when simply stating their opinion. Wow.
They had to be *anonymous* when simply stating their opinion. Wow.
D
Deleted member 126221
Unconfirmed Member
I don't get it. I thought the Breitbart guy published the conversation from the google group. Why are people still assuming there might be a conspiration there? Isn't it very easy to prove or disprove by... looking at those conversation?
And lol at "insulting their audience". Have you ever read a non-gaming editorial?
And lol at "insulting their audience". Have you ever read a non-gaming editorial?
I don't get it. I thought the Breitbart guy published the conversation from the google group. Why are people still assuming there might be a conspiration there? Isn't it very easy to prove or disprove by... looking at those conversation?
And lol at "insulting their audience". Have you ever read a non-gaming editorial?
well all but two of the authors of these "insulting" articles weren't in the group
which obviously just means there is YET ANOTHER secret conspiracy that needs to be uncovered!
MHWilliams
Member
Can't really spend much more time on this but I will just wrap up what I'm trying to say with:
1. As I've stated, almost a dozen articles on as many websites posted in a 48 hour span about the same topic appeared, all of them pretty insulting to their audience to varying degrees.
Six. Of those, one was a personal Tumblr and one was merely a link to the article in the midst of many others.
2. A couple weeks later, a secret and private discussion group (and a few mentions of it on twitter over a four year span does not change that description) is revealed to have existed, with anecdotal evidence (and member testimonial) that dissenting opinions are ignored, marginalized, and attacked appears.
Who cares if they're ignored? It's a Google group to talk shop. Attacked is a problem, but the rest I don't understand how you can have an issue with it, especially since the "smoking gun" released showed clear dissent and disagreement. Hive mind it is not.
This happens all the time.
Random news story today.
.
Come on. You know there's a difference between news that everyone reports on and pushing a very specific agenda. You want people to think that these journalists just randomly decieded on the same day that "gamers are dead". That's a hell of a coincidence and completely false.
Leaked emails show that they collaborated on the message and cover up.
tonysidaway
Member
Yeah, if I'm looking for examples of collusion, I would be looking at those 4chan chat logs.
Somewhere, their eyes glued to a screen, carefully logging conversations, a young journalist is working undercover on a painstaking and risky project: the definitive documentary on internet troll houses. The 4chan campaigns have grown quite effective and well organised over the past few months. A good investigator with a fearless editor could shine light on this murky field.
Come on. You know there's a difference between news that everyone reports on and pushing a very specific agenda. You want people to think that these journalists just randomly decieded on the same day that "gamers are dead". That's a hell of a coincidence and completely false.
Leaked emails show that they collaborated on the message and cover up.
post the relevant quotes please
tonysidaway
Member
You want people to think that these journalists just randomly decieded on the same day that "gamers are dead". That's a hell of a coincidence and completely false.
Leaked emails show that they collaborated on the message and cover up.
But that's the thing: no leaked emails exist showing any such thing, and moreover few of the writers of the editorials condemning the disgusting activities of certain bullies were subscribed to the mailing list.
Come on. You know there's a difference between news that everyone reports on and pushing a very specific agenda. You want people to think that these journalists just randomly decieded on the same day that "gamers are dead". That's a hell of a coincidence and completely false.
Leaked emails show that they collaborated on the message and cover up.
You want people to think that these journalists Randomly decided on the same day that a passenger plane was shot down over Ukraine?
You want people to think that these journalists Randomly decided on the same day that Israel bombed Gaza for killing 3 Israeli teenagers?
You want people to think that these journalists Randomly decided on the same day that a black teenager was gunned down by a white cop in Ferguson?
You want people to think that these journalists Randomly decided on the same day that review scores of Destiny should come out?
The thing is, media report on what is going on within the focused context and what the current zeitgeist might be. That's basic causality. There's no conspiracy. In this case, people were talking about how the stereotypical gamer identity is dying because the medium of video games is much more than doritos, guns, and white male nerds.
voodoopanda
Member
The "death of gamer" articles were an immediate response to all the news about what was going on with Quinn and Sarkeesian. A game dev and a game critic were being harassed at ridiculous levels, to the point of leaving their homes for their safety, so people who write about game culture put out a few articles about it, and other people responded or linked to those articles.
Its weird seeing this from the other side. I've been following a bunch of video game critics for a few years now, and getting a bunch of editorials about the same subject around the same time is pretty standard. I remember not that long ago there was a flare up between "formalist" game design vs what they called "zinester" games. It wasn't the kind of debate to light up the mainstream press or anything but tons of articles came up pretty quickly about it.
Its weird seeing this from the other side. I've been following a bunch of video game critics for a few years now, and getting a bunch of editorials about the same subject around the same time is pretty standard. I remember not that long ago there was a flare up between "formalist" game design vs what they called "zinester" games. It wasn't the kind of debate to light up the mainstream press or anything but tons of articles came up pretty quickly about it.
Come on. You know there's a difference between news that everyone reports on and pushing a very specific agenda. You want people to think that these journalists just randomly decieded on the same day that "gamers are dead". That's a hell of a coincidence and completely false.
Leaked emails show that they collaborated on the message and cover up.
It's not a coincidence. It's very common for people in the games media to read an opinion piece by one of their peers, and post an article in response, or adding their own thoughts on the subject. The same happened here, and in fact most of the later articles directly linked to one of the earlier articles. No one ever even pretended that they all came up with the same topic independently.
And what exactly are you saying was being covered up?
Can't really spend much more time on this but I will just wrap up what I'm trying to say with:
1. As I've stated, almost a dozen articles on as many websites posted in a 48 hour span about the same topic appeared, all of them pretty insulting to their audience to varying degrees.
2. A couple weeks later, a secret and private discussion group (and a few mentions of it on twitter over a four year span does not change that description) is revealed to have existed, with anecdotal evidence (and member testimonial) that dissenting opinions are ignored, marginalized, and attacked appears.
It may not be accurate that these two things were connected (and honestly I'm beginning to believe that, thank you BrittonPeele for an insider perspective), I can't really accept the argument that it's an unreasonable, irrational conclusion to make.
48 hours is a looooong time in journalism. Stories can flare up and burn out in less time than that. Looking at the 8/28 stories on East Coast time, we have:
Dan Golding, no time posted
Leigh Alexander, no time posted, but first comment at 1:28 PM
Buzzfeed, which cites Golding posted at 4:29 PM
Kotaku at 8:00 PM (again, just links here)
Ars Technica at 8:00 PM
If we're generous, you can say the first three are "together". Otherwise, the Ars Technica article is 6.5 hours after Leigh Alexander's post. That's a lot of time. Certainly enough to digest the original article and formulate your own thoughts on the events. Everything else that comes afterward is a reaction to the original article.
That said, I disagree with the folks who are saying there's a similarity to journalists covering events. As you noted, these are editorials, not covering incidents. However, there are certain events that provoke editorials where you will largely find consensus across hundreds of newspaper editors. I think widespread harassment, sending violent threats, revelation of intimate and personal details of people, and other general anti-social behavior is one of these events.
Thanks for reinforcing my point. Can you give some proper examples of news sites pushing a specific agenda on the same day. Not news, opinion pieces. These are websites with similar ideologies and I guess it's completely impossible for you to believe that they collaborated to defend Zoey and shift attention away from themsleves and their friends. It's clear this is a small circle of people that know each other.You want people to think that these journalists Randomly decided on the same day that a passenger plane was shot down over Ukraine?
You want people to think that these journalists Randomly decided on the same day that Israel bombed Gaza for killing 3 Israeli teenagers?
You want people to think that these journalists Randomly decided on the same day that a black teenager was gunned down by a white cop in Ferguson?
You want people to think that these journalists Randomly decided on the same day that review scores of Destiny should come out?
The thing is, media report on what is going on within the focused context and what the current zeitgeist might be. That's basic causality. There's no conspiracy. In this case, people were talking about how the stereotypical gamer identity is dying because the medium of video games is much more than doritos, guns, and white male nerds.
Dr_LucienSanchez
Banned
And what exactly are you saying was being covered up?
Well once the heroic gamergaters uncovered the truth, the journalists obviously had to cover up their nefarious agenda to turn every game into a social justice dancing party game.
Really though, this whole thing continues to be so frustrating and repetitive. Much respect to people like MHWilliams for actually having the patience to debunk every new (and shitty) conspiracy that gets brought up.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.