Guest_TrillClinton_*
Based on everything I've read about Quinn, she's not "playing" the victim card - she is a victim. Her ex is a nutter, and she's been further victimized by the clearly insane and misogynistic group of trolls that have hounded other public female figures in gaming.
Im curious as to why you think he is a nutter tho.
Posting that **** on tumblr was corny tho.
Based on everything I've read about Quinn, she's not "playing" the victim card - she is a victim. Her ex is a nutter, and she's been further victimized by the clearly insane and misogynistic group of trolls that have hounded other public female figures in gaming.
The fact that it was her story that was the trigger is very much relevant to how GG is perceived. If this all started over some expose that EA had spent millions to shill for better reviews, you'd actually see more people sympathetic to the idea that GG isn't just a sham cover for a lot of troglodytes.
The only "press" coverage for GG really is within the gaming sphere, and as FastJimmy points out, there are a lot of financial interests in using it as clickbait.
Outside of gaming, the only coverage for it is driven by the sheer lunacy of the alleged trolls (and I say alleged because it's not really ever clear how central they are to GG, individual theories about this aside) because what they're doing and saying is by any civilized standard insane misogynistic and often actually criminal.
Yeah ... "victim" In the real world these are people with no marketable skills and exist on the hand outs of the gullible and the stupid.
Im curious as to why you think he is a nutter tho.
It's based on his behaviour. Pursuing a personal vendetta against an ex-GF online is, to me, clearly a sign that someone is an unstable loon. Aside from the fact that one has to be incredible obsessed to not be able to just move on from what amounted to like a 3 week relationship, actually going to far as to start posting personal information and "warning" others is clearly on coo-coo for cocopuffs territory.
Sick of what, exactly? The idea that there was anything untoward happening on the gaming media side with Quinn is outright lunacy. Her ex was an actual loon. It's the fact that this blew up around Quinn that makes it so hard to believe there's any legitimacy to GG.
Quinn wasn't exactly the nicest person around either.
Reread my post because infamous is the key word, and GG being considered the equivalent of the TP is not my opinion . The group is majorly liberal ironically. Mind you GG has been presented as such by the liberal news media to your average person, and is why i agree with Jimmy that the group being reconfigured into a successful watchdog group is highly unlikely.Lol, you're comparing it to the tea party, just take it one step further and say all Gamergaters are right wing extremists. You're half way there. This is hilarious. Hell, dispense with 'Gaters' and just say gamers, that's what the press has been doing all along.
I'm going to reply here with the full knowledge that this may sound totally sexist. Full disclosure.Sick of what, exactly? The idea that there was anything untoward happening on the gaming media side with Quinn is outright lunacy. Her ex was an actual loon. It's the fact that this blew up around Quinn that makes it so hard to believe there's any legitimacy to GG.
I'm going to reply here with the full knowledge that this may sound totally sexist. Full disclosure.
The old saying - sex sells. It doesn't just refer to marketing or selling a product. It's true (perhaps even MORE true) when trying to sell a cause, especially a cause for corruption. Look at the Mineral Management Services scandals from back in 2008. These roared over headlines... not because oil companies were found to be giving kickbacks to government regulators - honestly, people are cynical to believe that happens all the time. It was the SEX - sex as a form of greasing the wheels, as a method of favoritism, as a way to get what would otherwise not have been given - that generated the most buzz. I'm not going to postulate on the reasons why, but I doubt many people would argue against the idea that a sex scandal can capture the public's attention as one of the most egregious forms of corruption.
So, back to GamerGate... a developer was sleeping with multiple journalists for better reviews (according to sources, anyway). That's gold. That's exactly what you want - it is provocative, it's inflammatory, it shows that the term "in bed together" isn't just a tongue in cheek reference. That's a home run. And it would have been... if the developer had been male and journalists female.
But (and here's where I'll get sexist, if I'm not already) that's not quite as likely, is it? While I think it would be profoundly naive to say that women cannot use their position of authority to receive sexual gratification (as scores of recent teacher-student abuse cases come to light of female teachers engaging in sexually explicit relationships with male students), I think common adage and experience will tell us that the "market" of females willing to risk their careers for no other reward than sex are much less than the amount of males willing to do the same thing.
So it appears sexist that GG hopped on this example and shamed the developer who was reported to be sleeping around to get good reviews. Would it have been sexist if the female developer had been exposed for paying people with large sums of money instead of sex? Would it have been sexist of GG to NOT report on the developer story they had uncovered simply because she was a woman?
I think GG's culture of attacking those they see violating journalisgic tenets is their problem - it leaves them far too open for counter accusations of intimidation, discrimination and unprofessionalism. A true watch dog group reports well-verified facts and makes no assumptions or editorials about motives or circumstances. Ironically, they ruined their attempt to fight hack journalism in gaming by engaging in it themselves.
I'm going to reply here with the full knowledge that this may sound totally sexist. Full disclosure.
The old saying - sex sells. It doesn't just refer to marketing or selling a product. It's true (perhaps even MORE true) when trying to sell a cause, especially a cause for corruption. Look at the Mineral Management Services scandals from back in 2008. These roared over headlines... not because oil companies were found to be giving kickbacks to government regulators - honestly, people are cynical to believe that happens all the time. It was the SEX - sex as a form of greasing the wheels, as a method of favoritism, as a way to get what would otherwise not have been given - that generated the most buzz. I'm not going to postulate on the reasons why, but I doubt many people would argue against the idea that a sex scandal can capture the public's attention as one of the most egregious forms of corruption.
So, back to GamerGate... a developer was sleeping with multiple journalists for better reviews (according to sources, anyway). That's gold. That's exactly what you want - it is provocative, it's inflammatory, it shows that the term "in bed together" isn't just a tongue in cheek reference. That's a home run. And it would have been... if the developer had been male and journalists female.
But (and here's where I'll get sexist, if I'm not already) that's not quite as likely, is it? While I think it would be profoundly naive to say that women cannot use their position of authority to receive sexual gratification (as scores of recent teacher-student abuse cases come to light of female teachers engaging in sexually explicit relationships with male students), I think common adage and experience will tell us that the "market" of females willing to risk their careers for no other reward than sex are much less than the amount of males willing to do the same thing.
So it appears sexist that GG hopped on this example and shamed the developer who was reported to be sleeping around to get good reviews. Would it have been sexist if the female developer had been exposed for paying people with large sums of money instead of sex? Would it have been sexist of GG to NOT report on the developer story they had uncovered simply because she was a woman?
I think GG's culture of attacking those they see violating journalisgic tenets is their problem - it leaves them far too open for counter accusations of intimidation, discrimination and unprofessionalism. A true watch dog group reports well-verified facts and makes no assumptions or editorials about motives or circumstances. Ironically, they ruined their attempt to fight hack journalism in gaming by engaging in it themselves.
Where's the evidence of all of this? This is what I'm saying. So far, all I've seen is some proof that she was in a relationship with a gaming "journalist" who didn't otherwise review her game or have any connection with the review process in any meaningful capacity. That's not her blowing reviewers for higher ratings.
So, no, I'm not even remotely sympathetic to the idea that this was some kind of sex scandal. Because there wasn't an actual sex scandal. I mean, the Monica Lewinsky bit was barely a sex scandal, but at least the fact that Clinton could have slept with an intern had a dimension of immorality to it.
There's certainly nothing wrong - and no conflict of interest - involved in a journalism sleeping with an industry member while covering that industry provided that a company has appropriate firewalls in place.
Guest_TrillClinton_*
Anyone remember how ME3 got 9/10's and anyone who complained got labeled a entitled man-baby?
Yeah. But this **** only started cause quinns a woman. Gaming press hasn't been earning this venom with years of bullshit they've never even tried to fix.
Where's the evidence of all of this? This is what I'm saying. So far, all I've seen is some proof that she was in a relationship with a gaming "journalist" who didn't otherwise review her game or have any connection with the review process in any meaningful capacity. That's not her blowing reviewers for higher ratings.
So, no, I'm not even remotely sympathetic to the idea that this was some kind of sex scandal. Because there wasn't an actual sex scandal. I mean, the Monica Lewinsky bit was barely a sex scandal, but at least the fact that Clinton could have slept with an intern had a dimension of immorality to it.
There's certainly nothing wrong - and no conflict of interest - involved in a journalism sleeping with an industry member while covering that industry provided that a company has appropriate firewalls in place.
Anyone remember how ME3 got 9/10's and anyone who complained got labeled a entitled man-baby?
Yeah. But this **** only started cause quinns a woman. Gaming press hasn't been earning this venom with years of bullshit they've never even tried to fix.
This is **** did only start because of Quinn. There was no movement about "ethics in gaming journalism" after ME3. There were a bunch of other debacles that could have set this off if there was a legitimate purpose here. The fact that what set it off is Quinn is, to a lot of people, pretty telling.
I personally think it's exactly the same thing as with the recent furor over the Hugo award. A bunch of misogynistic troglodytes attacked Quinn because they're troglodytes. There was a lot of pushback, because of their aforementioned intolerable misogyny. So they grasped for the one lifeline they could find, which happened to be this "ethics in gaming journalism" shtick.
Sure, there's a real issue here with cronyism in the industry. But you'll have a hard time convincing me of the noble means of this so-called movement when the falshpoint for it was to defend an insane loon persecuting his ex and a bunch of rabid trolls sending her hate-filled tirades and rape threats.
Quinn wasn't exactly the nicest person around either.
The terrible sh*t she's done doesn't matter. She's a woman, I guess that makes you immune to bad behavior,
I'm not concerned in the least with evidence at this juncture. If GamerGate's source was the most rock solid in the world, the same questions would apply. And their methods of "journalism" in tackling the topic would be just as damning. My post works under the logic that they believe they had a solid story, but because they likely did not properly vet their source is just another arrow in the quiver.
I'm not saying the truth isn't important... I'm saying the steps taken after the story was uncovered were where the true mistakes occured.
I think it matters to the extent that we can ever say that this was ever about something other than just a cover for some rampant sexism. If they had a solid story, then their falling is that they went about it like nutters and got derailed. That's a bit sad, but it actually - at least in my eyes - rehabilitates people initially associated and supportive of this nonsense quite a bit.
I don't disagree, but again... that's irrevant now. GamerGate has become worthless as an effective organization and the damage done to Ms. Quinn is irreparable. If the facts were better established before the story was broken, all of my points and questions would still apply. Would it have been sexist if it was a male indie developer sleeping with different established female reviewers? Would it have been sexist for GamerGate to not pursue a credible story because the developer in question was a woman?
And on the flip side, GamerGate quickly revealed itself to not have any journalistic integrity by pursuing a vendetta instead of reporting the facts (as they knew them). They weren't looking to police the industry, they were looking to start a fire. That they were chasing rumors and not verifying their sources speaks more to their purile reporting techniques and not overt sexism.
If they were right, they'd have a real defense against the allegation this is all a cover for some quite hateful views. The flipside argument doesn't really work (what if it was a man) because of the gender split in gaming.
There's a big difference between pursuing a credible story and, well, what it seems happened in this case.
Their chasing rumours doesn't just happen in a vacuum. It happened in response to what was - on its face - a pretty heartfelt post by someone who was talking about how she felt persecuted by her ex and her feelings on sex and sexism in the gaming industry. To just happen to let loose the attack dogs in that circumstance, well, let's say it's pretty suspicious.
Read like a classic cuckold story too. Porn parody material.Im curious as to why you think he is a nutter tho.
Posting that **** on tumblr was corny tho.
Guest_TrillClinton_*
Read like classic cuckold story too. Porn parody material.
The leader of the PCucks masterrace
This is **** did only start because of Quinn. There was no movement about "ethics in gaming journalism" after ME3. There were a bunch of other debacles that could have set this off if there was a legitimate purpose here. The fact that what set it off is Quinn is, to a lot of people, pretty telling.
I personally think it's exactly the same thing as with the recent furor over the Hugo award. A bunch of misogynistic troglodytes attacked Quinn because they're troglodytes. There was a lot of pushback, because of their aforementioned intolerable misogyny. So they grasped for the one lifeline they could find, which happened to be this "ethics in gaming journalism" shtick.
Sure, there's a real issue here with cronyism in the industry. But you'll have a hard time convincing me of the noble means of this so-called movement when the falshpoint for it was to defend an insane loon persecuting his ex and a bunch of rabid trolls sending her hate-filled tirades and rape threats.
That's a load of bollocks and you know it. The only reason the Zoe Quinn shitstorm didn't die outright a month after it hit, like most of the other **** storms, was that the gaming media collectively decided that every person who identified as a gamer or saw gaming as a cultural phenomena or group they would like to be part of, needed to metaphorically die on august 28th.
The fact of the matter was, in the face of having to answer legitimate problems they had, and take some measure of accountability, it was decided that the easier thing to do would be to make the act of questioning practices be as bad as being a wife-beating bigot. In this current societal mainframe where we have a new witchhunt against anyone whose sexist, racist, or bigoted, calling your opponents that is the easiest way to win.
Don't want to disclose how much money you took to give a 9/10? Claim that the only reason people want to know is because harassment of women. It's the perfect solution, cause then everyone spends all their energy arguing who is or isn't a sexist, or a racist, or a bigot, and nobody cares about you taking money under the table anymore. Not when there's troglodytes to politically purge. Now we don't have to answer for anything we do, because if anyone doesn't agree, then they're the problem, not us. And they need to go and die, for the good of the many, which by many we mean the many amounts of undisclosed funding we get to tell impressionable and gulllible readers that Slot Machine style game mechanics are ethical, and that you shouldn't expect to own a game you pay full resale price for as well as purchasing dlc, because **** you we need an all expense paid cokefest at vegas complete with strippers we get social justice warriors to defend.
Breaking a sex scandal is a gateway to instant fame and influence for an unknown reporter. These guys are the equivalent of journalistic ambulance chasers in my eyes, but again - I highly doubt these guys would have hesitated to pull the trigger if genders were reversed.I think it matters to the extent that we can ever say that this was ever about something other than just a cover for some rampant sexism. If they had a solid story, then their falling is that they went about it like nutters and got derailed. That's a bit sad, but it actually - at least in my eyes - rehabilitates people initially associated and supportive of this nonsense quite a bit.
There's a big difference between pursuing a credible story and, well, what it seems happened in this case.
Their chasing rumours doesn't just happen in a vacuum. It happened in response to what was - on its face - a pretty heartfelt post by someone who was talking about how she felt persecuted by her ex and her feelings on sex and sexism in the gaming industry. To just happen to let loose the attack dogs in that circumstance, well, let's say it's pretty suspicious.
If they were right, they'd have a real defense against the allegation this is all a cover for some quite hateful views. The flipside argument doesn't really work (what if it was a man) because of the gender split in gaming.
The flipside argument doesn't really work (what if it was a man) because of the gender split in gaming.
InExile, we've had some good debates and discussions over the years, with differences in opinion being rather amicable. But this mentality right here is total horse $**t.doesn't really work (what if it was a man) because of the gender split
Quinn wasn't exactly the nicest person around either.
Water does seek its own level.
Again - identify, evaluate and quantify the need of gap, take steps to change the base numbers or values, then stop providing that assistance when the need is no longer there. Ignoring the demographics and the self identifications for the purposes of benefits is the only way to have a sustainable solution to equality. Because it's the only way to be equal - by being completely impartial and fair.
You are making the fundamentally flawed assumption that people desire complete and absolute equality.
You are making the fundamentally flawed assumption that people desire complete and absolute equality.
Based on everything I've read about Quinn, she's not "playing" the victim card - she is a victim.
I just don't even know what to say to this if you really believe this woman isn't playing a victim for profit. It's like saying Anita cares about video games.
Equal rights and opportunity. In America, it's in our Constitution.
Equal everything else is not part of the deal, but our country was inspired by the concept that no one should be subject to unfair treatment or denial of opportunity simply because of who they were born as.
/White knight card 
Inspiration is irrelevant. What is is what you do with that inspiration... and most of the things 'done' have been the intellectual equivalent of public masturbation, or shameless cash grabbing bs. The entire thing is shameful. There is no righteous side, not by a long shot. It is NOT about opportunity for all, it is about your own intellectual narcissism or making a quick buck off the intellectual narcissists.
Equality is about fairness, not about protectionism. You treat people the same, not provide special exclusions or blind eyes. You help those who are disadvantaged, but you base that on their actual measurable status. Someone wants to pursue the basic nature of entering into the legally recognized relationship of marriage, but can't due to concrete reasons? Sign me up to help them get that right - I don't care if it is because laws prevent them from marrying because of their sexual orientation, because their race, because their physical handicap to fill out marriage license forms, because their government doesn't recognize the person's right to marry a shoe - whatever it is... I'm on board.
If you want to help provide better schooling, meal assistance and after school mentoring programs to the poorest areas with the highest concentrations of high school drop outs and gang violence, I'll write you a check and ask where to mail it - I don't care if the neighborhood is white, black, Latino, Asian or xenomorphs... I'll be happy to see someone trying to fix the solution.
But to give special privileges, to perform willful selection of a group to be treated "more equally" is a path no one should walk down. Because it becomes the most slippery slopes of identification and justification. According to the ESA report a few years ago, men are the minority in gaming now. Isn't it great then that we have so much minority representation in development and journalism? We should stifle hiring more majority gender positions in the industry to better rectify this gender split. Or hey, there are much more non-white gamers worldwide than white ones... isn't it fantastic that we can have a minority race be so represented?
These are ignorant examples proving an obvious point - you can't attribute special behavior to a group just because they are a group, regardless of what disadvantages or bias exist. You CAN'T do it. Because that type of thinking is so quickly turned in reverse it will make your head spin - if you can help out a certain group just because, then you can ignore, hinder or even hurt another just because as well.
Again - identify, evaluate and quantify the need of gap, take steps to change the base numbers or values, then stop providing that assistance when the need is no longer there. Ignoring the demographics and the self identifications for the purposes of benefits is the only way to have a sustainable solution to equality. Because it's the only way to be equal - by being completely impartial and fair.
Okay, first up, you've misread my post. Even in a world that's neutral to every single bit of IRL context, there's a difference between a member of an underrepresented group sleeping around for advancement with members of the majoritarian group and the reverse. That's why the analogy is non-functional.
But you seem to want to talk about theories of equality, so let's do that instead. I'm going to try to parse your rant, but to be entirely honest I have no idea what you're getting at.
It seems like you're struggling a great deal with the difference between substantive and formal equality. So let me try to explain. Formal equality is the idea that the law has to be applied in the same manner, or, at a broader level, that people need to be treated the same under the law. That is different from the idea of substantive equality, which is that - because people are not in identical circumstances - an ostensibly neutral policy or law can actually affect people unequally, and therefore be an unfair law.
You have a rant against giving groups "special" privileges, but that misunderstands the idea. Groups aren't equal. We can't achieve any kind of formal equality in a fundamentally unequal society. All that we would do is just perpetrated a different kind of equality.
To actually address entrenched disadvantage (e.g., there are not enough women in [X] field) then you have to adopt policies that actually address that particular inequality, which leads to the ostensibly idea that the state is preferentially allocating resources to a particular group. Which is true - that's exactly what's happening, because the state is implementing some policy to try and address an underlying inequality.
Let's use a different example. In a public health care system, the allocation of health care resources isn't identical. People who suffer from medical conditions get more resources. They get disproportionate resources. They get those resources because the aim of the system is to ensure a certain policy goal, and the very nature of that policy goal means disproportionate allocation.
There are lots of debates to be had about how to implement this idea, and where it becomes dangerous and exclusive. But to say that it's not a valid way of pursuing equality is, frankly, completely ignorant of the last 30 years of substantive jurisprudence and intellectual development in the field of equality, by which I mean as an actual legal discipline.
This idea of "completely impartial and fair" is just a fantasy. It's childish and naive. The world isn't impartial and fair. It's decidedly unfair. People are born poorer, dumber, slower, and less capable than others. They're born to groups that are less well liked and have less political power and standing. That's reality., And we have a choice about what we're going to do about it.
That might involve preferential allocation of resources. It might not. There's a real debate to be had there. But it seems like there's a great deal of reading that you have to do on the notion of substantive equality before we can have a real debate about what it means to have equality.
Now, to get into the substance of what you're talking about here. Neither of the policies you speak about supporting - marriage equality and investment in education - are about formal equality. They're all about substantive equality. On the marriage equality front, it's recognizing that the ability to marry the opposite gender (which is given to all people equally) isn't substantively the same for people who are only attracted to the same gender. It creates a pretty clear moral calculus because the end goal is pretty clear - everyone gets to have the same sort of loving relationship recognized by the state. But it's not an impartial form of equality. It's based on recognizing differences, and creating special classes of privilege for different groups.
The same principle applies to resource allocation to poor districts. They get more money, and they get it because their outcomes are worse. That's - by definition - a "special privilege". You're asking people with means to make sacrifices - to worsen their own outcomes and reduce their standard of living - for the sake of others.
Now, your final example is about affirmative action. That's not a particularly good model of achieving equality. It's - almost hilarious - something that was developed as a means of actually frustrating and preventing even more substantive moves toward equal treatment between groups that became entrenched in the US.
But substantive equality is very much a thing, and what drives all of your examples is not this notional formalistic equality of treating all groups equally.
Anyone remember how ME3 got 9/10's and anyone who complained got labeled a entitled man-baby?
Yeah. But this **** only started cause quinns a woman. Gaming press hasn't been earning this venom with years of bullshit they've never even tried to fix.
After seeing how some of those people behaved the "man-baby" part had a point lol.
I just don't even know what to say to this if you really believe this woman isn't playing a victim for profit. It's like saying Anita cares about video games.
Just what support do you have for this apparent inalienable fact she's "playing" the victim? As I've said, the evidence as I've seen it is that her nutter ex had ravings and postings about her online that she was some sort of terrible person, and then some time after she made a blog post about her experience in the industry, she was faced with a deluge of rape threats.
That makes her a victim. None of these things are justified, they're unacceptable no matter what her behaviour might have been, and the idea that she's somehow profiting from this (what's the profit? she gets paid by the rape threat?) is, to put it mildly, hard to believe.
Retour en haut
