Jump to content

That new Law and Order episode


Recommended Posts

The most tragic thing about gamergate is that it could've been the kick in the pants the travesty that is gaming "journalism" needed to shape up and stop being a shill for the publishers and developers, but instead it was hijacked as a vehicle for misogynists to spew their filth everywhere.

 

Pretty much, this. It's never going to be about ethics in gaming journalism, because the vocal majority hijacked it and decided instead to attack women. If people want to defend gaming journalism, pick a new hashtag. I don't see how that's so hard lol.

 

Because "Gamergate" is such a catchy, witty, and innovative title! How could they bear to part with it? :P

 

Because it makes sense to label a controversy where a group of people in positions higher than the regular populace engage in unethical behavior and abuse of their station in order to cover up their actions and silence dissenting opinions Gamergate. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_with_%22-gate%22_suffix

 

...writing video game reviews puts you in a position "higher than the regular populace?" Man. Pretty serious stuff. Your wikipedia link only proves how silly the name that is--that the majority of other "gates" are serious political issues, or are total jokes and parodies of the suffix.

Link to comment
  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Because it makes sense to label a controversy where a group of people in positions higher than the regular populace engage in unethical behavior and abuse of their station in order to cover up their actions and silence dissenting opinions Gamergate. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_with_%22-gate%22_suffix

 

I think in the attempt to justify yourself, you failed to recognize that she's making light of the word itself. How can you, as a group, be so lazy to not just change your name? And then expect other people on the outside look in and try to figure out who's right and who's wrong?

 

As a friend recently said to me: "If I was a fan of crips and blood attire and then found out that's the shit they're into, I'ma stop wearing it."

 

I'll help start you off: Journalismgate. Reviewergate. Ethicsgate. Writinggate.

Link to comment

The most tragic thing about gamergate is that it could've been the kick in the pants the travesty that is gaming "journalism" needed to shape up and stop being a shill for the publishers and developers, but instead it was hijacked as a vehicle for misogynists to spew their filth everywhere.

 

Pretty much, this. It's never going to be about ethics in gaming journalism, because the vocal majority hijacked it and decided instead to attack women. If people want to defend gaming journalism, pick a new hashtag. I don't see how that's so hard lol.

 

Because "Gamergate" is such a catchy, witty, and innovative title! How could they bear to part with it? :P

 

Because it makes sense to label a controversy where a group of people in positions higher than the regular populace engage in unethical behavior and abuse of their station in order to cover up their actions and silence dissenting opinions Gamergate. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_with_%22-gate%22_suffix

 

...writing video game reviews puts you in a position "higher than the regular populace?" Man. Pretty serious stuff. Your wikipedia link only proves how silly the name that is--that the majority of other "gates" are serious political issues, or are total jokes and parodies of the suffix.

 

Being a journalist puts you in a position above the regular populace. Doesn't matter what you're reporting on, there's still some degree of respect that comes with the job. Just look at the impact Roger Ebert had on the movies industry. 

 

Whether it's silly or not doesn't change the fact that the name fits the scandal and subsequent events that started it.

Link to comment

Because it makes sense to label a controversy where a group of people in positions higher than the regular populace engage in unethical behavior and abuse of their station in order to cover up their actions and silence dissenting opinions Gamergate. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_with_%22-gate%22_suffix

 

I think in the attempt to justify yourself, you failed to recognize that she's making light of the word itself. How can you, as a group, be so lazy to not just change your name? And then expect other people on the outside look in and try to figure out who's right and who's wrong?

 

As a friend recently said to me: "If I was a fan of crips and blood attire and then found out that's the shit they're into, I'ma stop wearing it."

 

I'll help start you off: Journalismgate. Reviewergate. Ethicsgate. Writinggate.

 

Journalismgate - What kind of journalism?

 

Reviewergate - What kind of reviewers?

 

Ethicsgate - Ethics? Ethics in what?

 

Writinggate - Writing? What kind of writing?

 

Gamergate - Hey... this is about video games, and the -gate suffix probably means that it's about corruption and some kind of cover-up!

Link to comment

Also, it's easier to ignore evidence and post epic memes instead of considering differing opinions. Ironic, yeah?

 

https://medium.com/@cainejw/an-actual-statistical-analysis-of-gamergate-dfd809858f68

 

Nope <3

 

They hit the nail on the head! Thanks for that.

 

It actually points out that, while Gamergate is about what you said it is (which I already stated above), the majority of the tweets are negative VS positive. Neutral tweets are simply people talking about it. If more people are being negative than are positive, and the rest are indifferent, I think that means that you're overshadowed by the negative.

 

Because it makes sense to label a controversy where a group of people in positions higher than the regular populace engage in unethical behavior and abuse of their station in order to cover up their actions and silence dissenting opinions Gamergate. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_with_%22-gate%22_suffix

 

I think in the attempt to justify yourself, you failed to recognize that she's making light of the word itself. How can you, as a group, be so lazy to not just change your name? And then expect other people on the outside look in and try to figure out who's right and who's wrong?

 

As a friend recently said to me: "If I was a fan of crips and blood attire and then found out that's the shit they're into, I'ma stop wearing it."

 

I'll help start you off: Journalismgate. Reviewergate. Ethicsgate. Writinggate.

 

Journalismgate - What kind of journalism?

 

Reviewergate - What kind of reviewers?

 

Ethicsgate - Ethics? Ethics in what?

 

Writinggate - Writing? What kind of writing?

 

Gamergate - Hey... this is about video games, and the -gate suffix probably means that it's about corruption and some kind of cover-up!

 

Now you're just being sad lol. 

 

I could easily say your argument for "Gamergate" is "OH GOD WHAT ABOUT GAMES?"

 

Oh look. My sourced articles were met with... no sources and hearsay.

 

This is how we debate, though. Shout "nuh-uh" and "yuh-huh." As happens in every discussion about this stupid thing, the for-GG people link articles and sources, and the anti-GG people just shout it down.

 

Small wonder why this turns into what it is.

 

I actually agreed with what you had to say, Warren. There are definite problems. A bunch of unknowns behind a tag with a bunch of harassing unknowns isn't going to solve it, either.

Link to comment

Oh look. My sourced articles were met with... no sources and hearsay.

 

This is how we debate, though. Shout "nuh-uh" and "yuh-huh." As happens in every discussion about this stupid thing, the for-GG people link articles and sources, and the anti-GG people just shout it down.

 

Small wonder why this turns into what it is.

 

I actually agreed with what you had to say, Warren. There are definite problems. A bunch of unknowns behind a tag with a bunch of harassing unknowns isn't going to solve it, either.

 

Was referring to the direct reply to my comment that said "But no, rapist threats" with no articles or sourcing or anything. I'm discussing the actual investigative side, not the trolls trolling effectively.

 

This is why the conversation gets shut down; It's not a conversation.

Link to comment

Also, it's easier to ignore evidence and post epic memes instead of considering differing opinions. Ironic, yeah?

 

https://medium.com/@cainejw/an-actual-statistical-analysis-of-gamergate-dfd809858f68

 

Nope <3

 

They hit the nail on the head! Thanks for that.

 

It actually points out that, while Gamergate is about what you said it is (which I already stated above), the majority of the tweets are negative VS positive. Neutral tweets are simply people talking about it. If more people are being negative than are positive, and the rest are indifferent, I think that means that you're overshadowed by the negative.

 

"Gamergate does not hate women.

 

Gamergate does not hate men. 

 

Gamergate is pretty neutral in how they discuss manners.

 

91% of identified tweets from Newsweek are neutral to men and women. And while Zennistrad may think a few tweets from his buddies saying, "This is bad statistics" makes for good statistics, they are wrong. 

 

Because the only difference between how Gamergate talks to men and women is that they engage women who are engaged with them more often.

 

We're still supposed to believe Gamergate hates women because they dare to talk to women like they do men."

 

 

Your own source seems to disagree with your opinion on Gamergate.

 

Also, how can you positively say how someone is being corrupt and unethical? Those are negative topics by default.

Link to comment

Also, it's easier to ignore evidence and post epic memes instead of considering differing opinions. Ironic, yeah?

 

https://medium.com/@cainejw/an-actual-statistical-analysis-of-gamergate-dfd809858f68

 

Nope <3

 

They hit the nail on the head! Thanks for that.

 

It actually points out that, while Gamergate is about what you said it is (which I already stated above), the majority of the tweets are negative VS positive. Neutral tweets are simply people talking about it. If more people are being negative than are positive, and the rest are indifferent, I think that means that you're overshadowed by the negative.

 

"Gamergate does not hate women.

 

Gamergate does not hate men. 

 

Gamergate is pretty neutral in how they discuss manners.

 

91% of identified tweets from Newsweek are neutral to men and women. And while Zennistrad may think a few tweets from his buddies saying, "This is bad statistics" makes for good statistics, they are wrong. 

 

Because the only difference between how Gamergate talks to men and women is that they engage women who are engaged with them more often.

 

We're still supposed to believe Gamergate hates women because they dare to talk to women like they do men."

 

 

Your own source seems to disagree with your opinion on Gamergate.

 

Also, how can you positively say how someone is being corrupt and unethical? Those are negative topics by default.

 

I don't know if you realize this, but neutral tweets don't mean that they're for or against a topic. It just means it's being discussed.

Link to comment

 

They hit the nail on the head! Thanks for that.

 

It actually points out that, while Gamergate is about what you said it is (which I already stated above), the majority of the tweets are negative VS positive. Neutral tweets are simply people talking about it. If more people are being negative than are positive, and the rest are indifferent, I think that means that you're overshadowed by the negative.

 

"Gamergate does not hate women.

 

Gamergate does not hate men. 

 

Gamergate is pretty neutral in how they discuss manners.

 

91% of identified tweets from Newsweek are neutral to men and women. And while Zennistrad may think a few tweets from his buddies saying, "This is bad statistics" makes for good statistics, they are wrong. 

 

Because the only difference between how Gamergate talks to men and women is that they engage women who are engaged with them more often.

 

We're still supposed to believe Gamergate hates women because they dare to talk to women like they do men."

 

 

Your own source seems to disagree with your opinion on Gamergate.

 

Also, how can you positively say how someone is being corrupt and unethical? Those are negative topics by default.

 

I don't know if you realize this, but neutral tweets don't mean that they're for or against a topic. It just means it's being discussed.

So it's not a harassment campaign? Thanks for finally understanding.

Link to comment

So it's not a harassment campaign? Thanks for finally understanding.

 

I'm fairly certainly I said many posts above, if you weren't so rabidly foaming at the mouth to defend yourself, that I realize it isn't a harassment campaign. The media has however spun it as one, and it will forever be considered one regardless of how much you want it to be otherwise. 

 

I'm not going to sit and talk circles with you, so I'll respectfully bow out now that my point has been ever so painstakingly made.

Link to comment

So it's not a harassment campaign? Thanks for finally understanding.

 

I'm fairly certainly I said many posts above, if you weren't so rabidly foaming at the mouth to defend yourself, that I realize it isn't a harassment campaign. The media has however spun it as one, and it will forever be considered one regardless of how much you want it to be otherwise. 

 

I'm not going to sit and talk circles with you, so I'll respectfully bow out now that my point has been ever so painstakingly made.

 

And because the media says it, it must be true, right? 

 

Ah well, at least this didn't turn into a name calling fight. That's the most I could hope for.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...