Poll of the Day > "it's about ethics in gaming journalism"

(+) Yeah! (+)

but was it actually, iyo?

Who gives a shit that happened like 30 years ago

People still whining about it lmao

I just skipped that whole thing, I'm still not sure what was up with that

Gamer Gate? More like, uh, LAMER Gate :)

That was really stupid how half the internet somehow freaked out about a woman that gave a blowjob to climb the ladder.

If this summary makes you angry, know that I am still not taking a side just to spite you. You are miserable, I live in happy land.

Yellow posted...

That was really stupid how half the internet somehow freaked out about a woman that gave a blowjob to climb the ladder.

If this summary makes you angry, know that I am still not taking a side just to spite you. You are miserable, I live in happy land.

See, and to this day, I still thought that the sexual favors thing was supposedly a lie. It shows how quickly all the information gets distored or just straight up invented or ignored.

But yes, at the end of the day, it really was just a few people's personal drama that got blown way out of proportion by people of many different beliefs and mindsets.

On a side note, my favorite "gaming journalism" moment is when that one dude got roasted to hell and back because he couldn't finish the Cuphead tutorial in any reasonable amount of time.

AltOmega2 posted...

but was it actually, iyo?

It at least partly was, but it's always easy to dismiss criticism when you accuse your opponents of being sexist, racist, or otherwise bigoted in some way. Because then you don't have to address what they're saying, you can just argue that what they're saying doesn't matter because it's coming from terrible people.

And when your version of events is being signal-boosted by larger corporations with a vested interest in spinning the situation, it's much easier to push your narrative regardless of whether or not it's actually true.

Of course, there were always bad apples involved in the criticism as well, but if we're honest that describes about 100% of all human behavior. If you only focus on the worst members of any given group, every group ever is going to look like absolute shit.

(As an aside, there were actually people who discussed this same sort of phenomenon in regards to the all-female Ghostbusters, and how the "the movie only failed because everyone on the Internet is sexist!" narrative was blatantly spurred by Sony and how it was provably untrue if you actually did objective research. Studios are discovering that accusations of bigotry are a wonderful shield to defuse all public criticism, and revel in using it - see also Disney.)

GanglyKhan posted...

See, and to this day, I still thought that the sexual favors thing was supposedly a lie. It shows how quickly all the information gets distored or just straight up invented or ignored.

But yes, at the end of the day, it really was just a few people's personal drama that got blown way out of proportion by people of many different beliefs and mindsets.

Well Wikipedia has certainly taken a side, lol. (harassment campaign)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_(harassment_campaign%29

Nepotism is a shitty thing, but it became more an outlet for angry adult virgin males to vent about how much they hate women.

I don't think I ever took a side on that. I don't even think I formed an opinion about it. Who gives a shit if someone sucked a dick to make like $35000 a year writing for Kotaku or whatever. Literally everyone in Hollywood does the exact same shit for millions.

It started as ethics in journalism (no need to include the gaming part), then it turned into a bunch of whinies on all sides whining at every other side... back when there were more than one side

The media was attacked and then counterattacked by trying to hijack and control the narrative by highlighting the strawmen they wanted to focus on while ignoring the legitimate criticisms which, honestly, demonstrate that gaming journalism has no right to pretend to be actual journalism.

Yellow posted...

Well Wikipedia has certainly taken a side, lol. (harassment campaign)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_(harassment_campaign%29

Wikipedia tends to just take whatever side the media falls on (and tends to favor leftist outlets), which is why it's not really a great source for any hot-button issue.

There's a pretty massive false-authority bias with the platform, but that partly comes down to an editorial bias in management.

Yellow posted...

Well Wikipedia has certainly taken a side, lol. (harassment campaign)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_(harassment_campaign%29

Well, you did ignore those...details in your 'summary'. If those details aren't pertinent, you'd have to explain why. What people called 'gamergate' was about a fair bit more than how you put it.

Yellow posted...

That was really stupid how half the internet somehow freaked out about a woman that gave a blowjob to climb the ladder.

If this summary makes you angry, know that I am still not taking a side just to spite you. You are miserable, I live in happy land.

I think you're setting up a situation by even suggesting pre-emptively that folks would be angry at you - why would anyone be angry if they're just pointing out that your summary doesn't encompass the events mentioned?

ParanoidObsessive posted...

It at least partly was, but it's always easy to dismiss criticism when you accuse your opponents of being sexist, racist, or otherwise bigoted in some way. Because then you don't have to address what they're saying, you can just argue that what they're saying doesn't matter because it's coming from terrible people.

I'd love to see someone try to debate you on this point.

I mean, PO at least comes at it, at least by my reading, like this:

'yes, there was a potential ethics issue to grapple with, however, some making criticisms were not doing so entirely in good faith' or something like that. I'm just interpreting it more favourably towards my conclusions tho lmfao.

I still think the subsequent reaction (harassment) to some less necessary critiques was a worse reaction that only served to prove a point.

ReturnOfFa posted...

I still think the subsequent reaction (harassment) to some less necessary critiques was a worse reaction that only served to prove a point.

But if you're proving a point that was never part of the original discussion, and was only part of it at all because you recontextualized the entire debate to throw attention off your own guilt, that doesn't really negate your own culpability.

Or to put it another way, just because you can point out that some of your critics are bad faith actors doesn't make you any less of an asshole.

At the end of the day, there are absolutely walking shitbags on both sides, and a legitimate subject that honestly probably should have been discussed and addressed was silenced because people online have discovered the power of playground-level insults.

It's the main problem with social media in general, and the fact that so much of modern culture and discourse has moved to an online arena. It drags almost everything down to the most basic, juvenile, rhetoric-fueled emotional level, so the end result of almost any discussion - whether it be ethics, politics, religion, criminal justice, economics, etc - is that everyone winds up angry and most people wind up being assholes.

Ok fine, so I'm reading the wikipedia article

It says the blowjob story is a debunked conspiracy, so I'll just believe that sure

Something about this game (which is comical but otherwise harmless)
https://store.steampowered.com/app/270170/Depression_Quest/

It's also about Brianna Wu, I like Brianna Wu a lot and all her opinions, think she does good work/journalism

And Anita Sarkeesian, who was genuinely really annoying and ironically extremely socially Conservative

So Gamergate was the harassment campaign against these ~3 women? Which includes anyone who dislikes them or anything they say, or is the campaign only the people that left death and rape threats?

It looks like Brianna in particular had to move several times and had serious threats made against her

So basically it was >10 million people arguing about the unfair treatment/harassing of 3 e-girls, which I guess is a good pastime/substitute for having a real girlfriend. I'd bet if Anita wasn't just naturally the most annoying person on the planet none of it would have happened. Hell, without her I bet people like Ben Shapiro/Jordan Peterson wouldn't have even been put on the map, and they are genuinely funny clowns, so I guess even Anita had a positive impact on the world. Before Anita, the internet was a relatively liberal place almost anywhere.

Maybe she shouldn't have used her massive political capital to complain about Batman's cape covering up his butt while Catwoman's was in your face, taking in millions of dollars to make 3 videos a year on that topic. Honestly, the definition of professional victim should have a picture of her next to it.

I remember when that whole thing blew up with that girl that I can't remember her name and her ex saying she was a whore and shit. Then anita got dragged into it and I totally lost interest and next thing we knew the whole thing was called gamergate. Still don't know what it was about 10 years later lol

ReturnOfFa posted...

I mean, PO at least comes at it, at least by my reading, like this:

'yes, there was a potential ethics issue to grapple with, however, some making criticisms were not doing so entirely in good faith' or something like that. I'm just interpreting it more favourably towards my conclusions tho lmfao.

I still think the subsequent reaction (harassment) to some less necessary critiques was a worse reaction that only served to prove a point.

Implying that the criticisms of "ethics in gaming journalism" were in good faith would be the smooth brain take of the year

Whats all this about

I have so many criticisms about gaming journalism.

Biggest one is completely ignore it.

No it was about Jim shitposting online and creating drama.
Jim finally apparently retired from creating content on New Years Eve.
Basically everything from that movement is dead and gone and games Journalism still has huge problems that will never be resolved.

Judgmenl posted...

No it was about Jim shitposting online and creating drama.
Jim finally apparently retired from creating content on New Years Eve.
Basically everything from that movement is dead and gone and games Journalism still has huge problems that will never be resolved.

Why would anyone even care about game journalism when the internet exists? "Official" reviews are no better than community ones. They bring nothing to the table. They're so often corrupt.

Look at Diablo Immortal, official reviews were like 6/10 and community reviews were 0.5/10, just basic corruption. Journalists getting fired for writing negative reviews on big games happens all the time, who cares. Just totally useless.

Yellow posted...

Why would anyone even care about game journalism when the internet exists? "Official" reviews are no better than community ones. They bring nothing to the table. They're so often corrupt.

Look at Diablo Immortal, official reviews were like 6/10 and community reviews were 0.5/10, just basic corruption. Journalists getting fired for writing negative reviews on big games happens all the time, who cares. Just totally useless.

Games journalism and internet influencers go hand and hand. People eat shit up from content creators. It doesn't matter if you're a "real" journalist or not. People with the loudest voices will dictate trends.