5 ms·

SXSW had the chance to take a stand for diversity here, choosing instead to show just how shallow they truly are. edit: Added clarification of which "side" I'm

SXSW had the chance to take a stand for diversity here, choosing instead to show just how shallow they truly are. edit: Added clarification of which "side" I'm on

striking 11y ago
I don't think that's fair to either side of the discussion, or to SXSW. They reportedly received threats and piles of attention over both panels, and they didn't want to deal with that. They allowed both panels to sign up in the name of neutrality and diversity of ideas. And I guess people from both sides made sure neither could have nice things. (SXSW didn't blame anyone, but that's my guess.)
- oomkiller 11y ago
  I get it, SXSW is a business, and they want to protect their profits. It makes plenty of sense. SXSW loves attention, they just chose to sit this one out because their analysis concluded that it would be better for their bottom line. They pride themselves as a forward-thinking event, even continuing this spiel in their announcement. It's now obvious to everyone that cares that it was all just marketing. Ultimately I think this will hurt their bottom line by driving diversity away from their event. Will discussions of racial diversity now be cancelled at the whim of the KKK? These groups operate through threats and intimidation, and I think there is a real risk of other hate groups catching wind of this and using similar tactics to stir up attention for their cause.
  - MBCook 11y ago
    So now the GGers are mad and will probably boycott them or yell at their sponsors. And the anti-GG, anti-harassment people are mad at them for hosting the others and then cancelling the good side... so they'll boycott and yell at the sponsors. So instead of having neither group at no monetary cost, they found a way to have neither group and take a hit to their reputation and possibly pocket books. And of course they didn't take a moral stand either way (which both sides likely see as a stand with their enemy). Way to go SXSW. Playing with fire has a reputation for a reason.
- MBCook 11y ago
  > They reportedly received threats and piles of attention over both panels, and they didn't want to deal with that. What, exactly, did they think would happen when they stepped into GG? > They allowed both panels to sign up in the name of neutrality and diversity of ideas. That's bullshit. When one group is infamous for dragging the other through the trash, issuing death threats, bomb threats, etc. there is no 'neutrality' to be found. > And I guess people from both sides made sure neither could have nice things. Again, bullshit. One side is know for getting death threats for existing, the other for sending death threats. One side is clearly to blame. > (SXSW didn't blame anyone, but that's my guess.) Clearly. Now I know that the anti-GG people I know of have been VERY critical of SXSW for giving GG a panel in the first place. I know they've been campaigning and complaining. I'm sure they've expressed disappointment and probably personally boycotted the events. But I seriously doubt the anti-GG people sent death threats. On the other hand I can easily see the pro-GGers waning they would send them if their panel was cancelled, or the anti-GG panel wasn't cancelled, or because of some other perceived issue (such as one getting a better time slot or bigger room). And now that SXSW was cowered to the hate mob, I imagine they'll get threats for for cancelling the pro-GG panel and letting the anti-GG people 'win' (despite losing their own panel too). It's clear which side I'm on. I'm not trying to hide that I think GG is ruining my hobby. I'd say they're setting our image back 20-30 years but I don't remember death threats over NES games. If SXSW wanted to be 'neutral' and stay out of it they could have. I don't understand how they went forward with scheduling the panels and didn't see all this coming. It's so predictable and sadly status-quo.
  - striking 11y ago
    > I seriously doubt > the hate mob I've looked for evidence for which "side" did the harassment. SXSW didn't make specific who was part of the "hate mob". That's why I guessed it was both sides. > On the other hand I can easily see the pro-GGers On the other hand, you sound biased (as far as text can provide "sound"), without any specific data to back it up. If you know something I don't, I'd be glad to hear it. EDIT: I'm not picking a side here, and I'd be willing to defend either in a debate. I really hope I don't sound condescending, and apologize if I do.
    - 11y ago
onewaystreet 11y ago
What's hilarious about this whole thing is that I have no idea which "side" you are on by your comment. I've seen this exact sentiment expressed about SXSW's decision on both /r/KiA and /r/GamerGhazi.
- chiaro 11y ago
  It's a mistake to think of it as "sides" rather than a small group of people with a persecution complex, and everyone else wishing they'd broaden their perspective a bit.
  - Zikes 11y ago
    What's hilarious about this whole thing is that I have no idea which "side" you are on by your comment. I've seen this exact sentiment expressed about SXSW's decision on both /r/KiA and /r/GamerGhazi.
    - chiaro 11y ago
      Haha. But really, it's hard for that group to claim to be the silent, persecuted majority when nearly every major figure in the industry who has spoken about it and nearly every news outlet that has covered it has completely condemned it. The "movement" has even been placeholder villains on Law and Order SVU, and if that isn't the gold standard for general cultural sentiment, I don't know what is.
    - MBCook 11y ago
      I was going to downvote you for just copy and pasting then I realized you were right. The other side could easily misconstrue things and paint my side that way. I'm not convinced about the reverse, but that may be because I'm on my side. People can go pretty far to rationalize things.
  - dbg31415 11y ago
    No it really is sides. There are people who enjoy playing video games, and laughing at life. Then there are the SJWs out to shit on every game, and tell you that you're an asshole for laughing at anything. Very clear lines drawn by the second group. The first group generally couldn't care less... it's just when the second group causes there to be more censorship or causes a game to be delayed because they don't want their little feels hurt that the first group takes offense.

SXSW had the chance to take a stand for diversity here, choosing instead to show just how shallow they truly are. edit: Added clarification of which "side" I'm on

striking 11y ago

I don't think that's fair to either side of the discussion, or to SXSW. They reportedly received threats and piles of attention over both panels, and they didn't want to deal with that. They allowed both panels to sign up in the name of neutrality and diversity of ideas. And I guess people from both sides made sure neither could have nice things. (SXSW didn't blame anyone, but that's my guess.)

oomkiller 11y ago
I get it, SXSW is a business, and they want to protect their profits. It makes plenty of sense. SXSW loves attention, they just chose to sit this one out because their analysis concluded that it would be better for their bottom line. They pride themselves as a forward-thinking event, even continuing this spiel in their announcement. It's now obvious to everyone that cares that it was all just marketing. Ultimately I think this will hurt their bottom line by driving diversity away from their event. Will discussions of racial diversity now be cancelled at the whim of the KKK? These groups operate through threats and intimidation, and I think there is a real risk of other hate groups catching wind of this and using similar tactics to stir up attention for their cause.
- MBCook 11y ago
  So now the GGers are mad and will probably boycott them or yell at their sponsors. And the anti-GG, anti-harassment people are mad at them for hosting the others and then cancelling the good side... so they'll boycott and yell at the sponsors. So instead of having neither group at no monetary cost, they found a way to have neither group and take a hit to their reputation and possibly pocket books. And of course they didn't take a moral stand either way (which both sides likely see as a stand with their enemy). Way to go SXSW. Playing with fire has a reputation for a reason.
MBCook 11y ago
> They reportedly received threats and piles of attention over both panels, and they didn't want to deal with that. What, exactly, did they think would happen when they stepped into GG? > They allowed both panels to sign up in the name of neutrality and diversity of ideas. That's bullshit. When one group is infamous for dragging the other through the trash, issuing death threats, bomb threats, etc. there is no 'neutrality' to be found. > And I guess people from both sides made sure neither could have nice things. Again, bullshit. One side is know for getting death threats for existing, the other for sending death threats. One side is clearly to blame. > (SXSW didn't blame anyone, but that's my guess.) Clearly. Now I know that the anti-GG people I know of have been VERY critical of SXSW for giving GG a panel in the first place. I know they've been campaigning and complaining. I'm sure they've expressed disappointment and probably personally boycotted the events. But I seriously doubt the anti-GG people sent death threats. On the other hand I can easily see the pro-GGers waning they would send them if their panel was cancelled, or the anti-GG panel wasn't cancelled, or because of some other perceived issue (such as one getting a better time slot or bigger room). And now that SXSW was cowered to the hate mob, I imagine they'll get threats for for cancelling the pro-GG panel and letting the anti-GG people 'win' (despite losing their own panel too). It's clear which side I'm on. I'm not trying to hide that I think GG is ruining my hobby. I'd say they're setting our image back 20-30 years but I don't remember death threats over NES games. If SXSW wanted to be 'neutral' and stay out of it they could have. I don't understand how they went forward with scheduling the panels and didn't see all this coming. It's so predictable and sadly status-quo.
- striking 11y ago
  > I seriously doubt > the hate mob I've looked for evidence for which "side" did the harassment. SXSW didn't make specific who was part of the "hate mob". That's why I guessed it was both sides. > On the other hand I can easily see the pro-GGers On the other hand, you sound biased (as far as text can provide "sound"), without any specific data to back it up. If you know something I don't, I'd be glad to hear it. EDIT: I'm not picking a side here, and I'd be willing to defend either in a debate. I really hope I don't sound condescending, and apologize if I do.
  - 11y ago

onewaystreet 11y ago

What's hilarious about this whole thing is that I have no idea which "side" you are on by your comment. I've seen this exact sentiment expressed about SXSW's decision on both /r/KiA and /r/GamerGhazi.

chiaro 11y ago
It's a mistake to think of it as "sides" rather than a small group of people with a persecution complex, and everyone else wishing they'd broaden their perspective a bit.
- Zikes 11y ago
  What's hilarious about this whole thing is that I have no idea which "side" you are on by your comment. I've seen this exact sentiment expressed about SXSW's decision on both /r/KiA and /r/GamerGhazi.
  - chiaro 11y ago
    Haha. But really, it's hard for that group to claim to be the silent, persecuted majority when nearly every major figure in the industry who has spoken about it and nearly every news outlet that has covered it has completely condemned it. The "movement" has even been placeholder villains on Law and Order SVU, and if that isn't the gold standard for general cultural sentiment, I don't know what is.
  - MBCook 11y ago
    I was going to downvote you for just copy and pasting then I realized you were right. The other side could easily misconstrue things and paint my side that way. I'm not convinced about the reverse, but that may be because I'm on my side. People can go pretty far to rationalize things.
- dbg31415 11y ago
  No it really is sides. There are people who enjoy playing video games, and laughing at life. Then there are the SJWs out to shit on every game, and tell you that you're an asshole for laughing at anything. Very clear lines drawn by the second group. The first group generally couldn't care less... it's just when the second group causes there to be more censorship or causes a game to be delayed because they don't want their little feels hurt that the first group takes offense.