5 ms·

I'm guessing that most people understood the parent comment's reference to that faux crusade for "ethics in game journalism", hence the (deserved) downvotes. E

by FreakyT 11y ago

I'm guessing that most people understood the parent comment's reference to that faux crusade for "ethics in game journalism", hence the (deserved) downvotes. Edit: When I posted this, the parent comment was only 2 sentences long.

rewqfdsa 11y ago
It's not faux. Don't believe SJW lies. GG is for a world where gaming news is for news about gaming, not a vehicle for censorship.
- eropple 11y ago
  > It's not faux. Don't believe SJW lies. I have to think, or have to hope to think, that at some point the silliness of a pejorative saying "pssh, those people want social justice" will hit you like a runaway bus. > GG is for a world where gaming news is for news about gaming This claim does not match the actions of self-identified GamerGate partisans. (Easily disclaimed as false flag attacks, right, because the world really is out to get you, I know, I know.) By all indications, GamerGate is "for," when it can be "for" something other than doxxing women and sending them death threats, a world where gaming "news" is, by and large, fed to you by the PR flacks of the industry publishers. You don't want news. You want reinforcement. Literally (Who) every one of the media personalities--no, not journalists--that get GamerGate love are telling you only what you want to hear, and to somebody with just a teensy bit of critical thinking, that becomes a real concern. Your epistemic closure and your desire for its continuation is your own problem, no one else's. > not a vehicle for censorship and denigration of gamer culture This is always the best. Do you ever pause to notice how nobody talks about music-listener culture or film-watcher culture or book-reader culture...? I guess I need an expert opinion. I'll ask my stepmother what gamer culture is like. Her Facebook news feed is full of game updates, after all, so who'd know better?
  - rewqfdsa 11y ago
    At some point, twisting words to suit your agenda will turn us all into gibbering idiots, unable to make meaningful statements about the world.
- tptacek 11y ago
  With the exception of a single sentence in an otherwise inflammatory comment about Mongodb, everything† you've posted to HN --- at least, under this name --- has been either an emotional appeal or an attempt to stir up drama. Could you please stop? You leave little hints here and there that you know what you're talking about. Could you contribute more of that stuff, and less of this stuff? † I mean it: I took the time to fact-check this statement. I might have missed something, but I didn't miss it casually.
Dirlewanger 11y ago
Yup, why focus on the comment (which raises a valid point and most likely no one here will address) when we can be presumptuous, project our own bias onto things, and pull a red herring out of thin air? Wouldn't be phased if you do the same to me.
- FreakyT 11y ago
  At the time, parent's comment simply read: > Not to mention the complete lack of journalistic ethics on Kotaku. They frequently post articles about games they have financial or personal ties to, without disclosure. You assert that this is a "valid point", but I believe a better characterization would be that it is an extremely broad, unsourced claim.
  - Zikes 11y ago
    At the time, I felt that the sources were unnecessary. In many of the communities I am involved in those sources are frequently posted and discussed, and a statement such as the one I made is able to stand on its own. Posting sources would have felt like an attempt to hijack the discussion to steer it towards a specific industry's problems, rather than focusing on Gawker and Kotaku's association with the parent article's reported moral failings. Given the amount of discussion following my comment I can see that the topic is important or interesting enough to merit posting the sources, however I am currently away from my personal computer where I have access to the communities and resources to be able to provide those sources. If you are truly interested in the subject, later this evening I will post another reply to this comment with sources and articles.
tzs 11y ago
What most people fail to understand is that there are at least 4 distinct groups currently involved in GG/anti-GG, possibly 5. 1. People who are in fact concerned about the sorry ethical state of game journalism. 2. Trolls and jerks who have jumped in to cause trouble, mostly by attacking women in groups #3 and #4. 3. The game journalists whose ethics are being called into question. 4. Assorted "social justice" activists. They showed up because the original spark that set all this off was a lying, vindictive open letter from an ex-boyfriend of female developer, accusing her and some journalists of unethical practices, and that caused the developer to receive some very inappropriate comments. The letter was fairly quickly discredited, but the incident did get may fired up to do something about long standing unethical game journalists, which had long been something people were annoyed about but never got organized enough to do anything about, which is what led to the formation of group #1. 5. Group #1 includes many female gamers. Many of them have been receiving death threats and rape threats. It's not clear if these are coming from people in group #4, or if there is a distinct group of trolls and jerks similar to #2 but who have decided to attack #1 instead of #3 and #4. Currently: • group #1 is concentrating on fighting #3, and trying to keep #2 out. • group #2 is attacking #3 and #4, and trying to make sure #1 gets blamed. • group #3 is trying hard to make sure people don't consider the points #1, by making sure to cover all the activities of #2, which they attribute to #1, and ignoring group #5's activities. • group #4 is fighting group #2's actions, which they often attribute to group #1. • group #5 is fighting the women in group #1. There may be other groups. The women in group #1 maybe should be considered a separate group, because in addition to fighting #3, many of them are also fighting #4.
- Noelkd 11y ago
  I've been messing around with graphviz [1] and I thought I would make the parent comment into a graph [2]. You can see the code to generate the graph here [3]. If I've made any mistakes leave a comment. [1] http://graphviz.org/ http://graphviz.org/ [2] https://github.com/Noelkd/GamerGateGraphiz/blob/master/GamerGateGraphiz.svg https://github.com/Noelkd/GamerGateGraphiz/blob/master/Gamer... [3] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Noelkd/GamerGateGraphiz/master/GamerGate https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Noelkd/GamerGateGraphiz/ma...

by FreakyT 11y ago

rewqfdsa 11y ago

It's not faux. Don't believe SJW lies. GG is for a world where gaming news is for news about gaming, not a vehicle for censorship.

eropple 11y ago
> It's not faux. Don't believe SJW lies. I have to think, or have to hope to think, that at some point the silliness of a pejorative saying "pssh, those people want social justice" will hit you like a runaway bus. > GG is for a world where gaming news is for news about gaming This claim does not match the actions of self-identified GamerGate partisans. (Easily disclaimed as false flag attacks, right, because the world really is out to get you, I know, I know.) By all indications, GamerGate is "for," when it can be "for" something other than doxxing women and sending them death threats, a world where gaming "news" is, by and large, fed to you by the PR flacks of the industry publishers. You don't want news. You want reinforcement. Literally (Who) every one of the media personalities--no, not journalists--that get GamerGate love are telling you only what you want to hear, and to somebody with just a teensy bit of critical thinking, that becomes a real concern. Your epistemic closure and your desire for its continuation is your own problem, no one else's. > not a vehicle for censorship and denigration of gamer culture This is always the best. Do you ever pause to notice how nobody talks about music-listener culture or film-watcher culture or book-reader culture...? I guess I need an expert opinion. I'll ask my stepmother what gamer culture is like. Her Facebook news feed is full of game updates, after all, so who'd know better?
- rewqfdsa 11y ago
  At some point, twisting words to suit your agenda will turn us all into gibbering idiots, unable to make meaningful statements about the world.
tptacek 11y ago
With the exception of a single sentence in an otherwise inflammatory comment about Mongodb, everything† you've posted to HN --- at least, under this name --- has been either an emotional appeal or an attempt to stir up drama. Could you please stop? You leave little hints here and there that you know what you're talking about. Could you contribute more of that stuff, and less of this stuff? † I mean it: I took the time to fact-check this statement. I might have missed something, but I didn't miss it casually.

Dirlewanger 11y ago

Yup, why focus on the comment (which raises a valid point and most likely no one here will address) when we can be presumptuous, project our own bias onto things, and pull a red herring out of thin air? Wouldn't be phased if you do the same to me.

FreakyT 11y ago
At the time, parent's comment simply read: > Not to mention the complete lack of journalistic ethics on Kotaku. They frequently post articles about games they have financial or personal ties to, without disclosure. You assert that this is a "valid point", but I believe a better characterization would be that it is an extremely broad, unsourced claim.
- Zikes 11y ago
  At the time, I felt that the sources were unnecessary. In many of the communities I am involved in those sources are frequently posted and discussed, and a statement such as the one I made is able to stand on its own. Posting sources would have felt like an attempt to hijack the discussion to steer it towards a specific industry's problems, rather than focusing on Gawker and Kotaku's association with the parent article's reported moral failings. Given the amount of discussion following my comment I can see that the topic is important or interesting enough to merit posting the sources, however I am currently away from my personal computer where I have access to the communities and resources to be able to provide those sources. If you are truly interested in the subject, later this evening I will post another reply to this comment with sources and articles.

tzs 11y ago

What most people fail to understand is that there are at least 4 distinct groups currently involved in GG/anti-GG, possibly 5. 1. People who are in fact concerned about the sorry ethical state of game journalism. 2. Trolls and jerks who have jumped in to cause trouble, mostly by attacking women in groups #3 and #4. 3. The game journalists whose ethics are being called into question. 4. Assorted "social justice" activists. They showed up because the original spark that set all this off was a lying, vindictive open letter from an ex-boyfriend of female developer, accusing her and some journalists of unethical practices, and that caused the developer to receive some very inappropriate comments. The letter was fairly quickly discredited, but the incident did get may fired up to do something about long standing unethical game journalists, which had long been something people were annoyed about but never got organized enough to do anything about, which is what led to the formation of group #1. 5. Group #1 includes many female gamers. Many of them have been receiving death threats and rape threats. It's not clear if these are coming from people in group #4, or if there is a distinct group of trolls and jerks similar to #2 but who have decided to attack #1 instead of #3 and #4. Currently: • group #1 is concentrating on fighting #3, and trying to keep #2 out. • group #2 is attacking #3 and #4, and trying to make sure #1 gets blamed. • group #3 is trying hard to make sure people don't consider the points #1, by making sure to cover all the activities of #2, which they attribute to #1, and ignoring group #5's activities. • group #4 is fighting group #2's actions, which they often attribute to group #1. • group #5 is fighting the women in group #1. There may be other groups. The women in group #1 maybe should be considered a separate group, because in addition to fighting #3, many of them are also fighting #4.

Noelkd 11y ago
I've been messing around with graphviz [1] and I thought I would make the parent comment into a graph [2]. You can see the code to generate the graph here [3]. If I've made any mistakes leave a comment. [1] http://graphviz.org/ http://graphviz.org/ [2] https://github.com/Noelkd/GamerGateGraphiz/blob/master/GamerGateGraphiz.svg https://github.com/Noelkd/GamerGateGraphiz/blob/master/Gamer... [3] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Noelkd/GamerGateGraphiz/master/GamerGate https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Noelkd/GamerGateGraphiz/ma...