deathofrats360's forum posts

  • 17 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by deathofrats360 (17 posts) -

Part of a journalist's job is to remain impartial despite building professional and personal relationships with those they cover. This is because in order to cover an industry you have to be deeply interested in that industry to begin with. And with that will come personal relationships with those you cover.

Obviously there are limits to what's acceptable, and sometimes lines are slightly blurred, but it's not up to the audience to decide when a line is crossed, it's up to the journalist's editor. And if the Audience doesn't trust the editor to do their job then that's where the problem lies.

Going straight after writers seems to stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of what the writers are suppose to do. What a journalist is. They're a viewport. They're a window. And the story is suppose to be filtered through them. It's up to them to stay meaningful objective, but that doesn't mean their writing isn't a subjective piece of work.

#2 Posted by deathofrats360 (17 posts) -

@sharkman: Here's the thing, GamerGate was never highjacked by crazy people. The crazy people started it. Normal people joined later.

#3 Posted by deathofrats360 (17 posts) -

@deadlydog: because it's plainly stating that there must be a good reason that people are doing monstrous things to someone else, and that the person getting attacked must be the person responsible.

When in reality some people just do really awful things for really awful reasons to people who did nothing.

#4 Posted by deathofrats360 (17 posts) -

@theht: to be quite honest I haven't actually seen any legitimate concerns. I see a lot of ignorance about what the job of an entertainment writer is, and how entertainment journalism differs from something like political journalism.

I see small writers being the target of these complaints. I see vague ethical concerns that all center back on what happened to Zoe. I see people who speak loudly about social issues in gaming as being the only ones called unethical. I don't see anything besides the smokescreen, and if you separated out the misinformation and character assassinations by the toxic element of GG I'm not sure what concerns there actually are.

And that's why those with legitimate concerns need to separate out the toxic elements, so people who have been following this can even begin to understand what your concerns are. And if it has anything to do with Anita or Zoe, those aren't legitimate concerns. Those are the cries of the misled.

#5 Posted by deathofrats360 (17 posts) -

@theht said:

@patrickklepek said:

@redparka said:

Harassment is a bad thing and people shouldn't have to go through any of it. But rather than acknowledging a lot of the problems within games journalism, people are using harassment to shout down their detractors. It's a tough position to be in when you have to acknowledge the harassment and still have to deal with the rest of the stuff, but I don't feel like anyone is acknowledging the other problems that are in the air.

Because the shit storm has tainted all of it. It's a circus. 99% is total crap, 1% is interested in an actual conversation. You can be upset the 99% exists, but it doesn't change the fact that it does. You cannot simply handwave harassment away as though it's just like any other crappy comment on the Internet. It dehumanizes what is a real psychological threat being directed at real people.

If the two topics are intertwined such that the "99%" is using the "1%" as a veil, then it would be astute to first cut down the veil. Waiting for the harassment to die down before addressing the very thing that it operates under cover of is an irresponsible tactic.

Quell the flimsy arguments and speak to the genuine concerns so that all that's left in the open is the bullshit harassment.

This entire situation has been handled in perhaps the worst possible way from the first. Total silencing, battening down the hatches, generalizations abound, antagonistic quips and essays. As people well aware of the absurdly vitriolic amorphous mass that can take form on the internet, it should have been foreseen that things would not simply blow over.

Don't misread that as imparting blame onto targets and victims. I'm not interested in playing the blame-game that elements from either "side" are keen to plant their flag on; comparing who has it worse and who deserves to lose what became a contest of idiocy. The sooner people recognize what is and isn't fucking working, the sooner we can all start getting past this mess.

Address the topic of journalistic integrity and the only story remaining is the original spark for all of this: a personal sex scandal that, for as reprehensible as it might be, is simply not important to video gaming. And then might this foolishness all be settled.

If they address it to lift the smokescreen then you have the issue of goal post moving. If a group of harassers can manipulate a large group of gamers into targeting only female friendly journalists, they can come up with new "legitimate" reasons to continue doing so after the ethical complaints are ended.

The legitimate issues need to be separated out by the people who have the legitimate issues, not by the people facing harassment.

#6 Posted by deathofrats360 (17 posts) -

@slider9 said:

@deathofrats360: I personally dont feel the scale or scope of it matters. As I have said, there has been an attitude of "they are worse than we are" so the transgressions of the few are ignored. And if that is a mentality people are going to allow to happen then, in my opinion, that is just as bad.

If you're willing to ignore the scale and scope of it then I don't know what to tell you. The scale and scope matter. It's what makes the difference between a hategroup and a few hateful people.

#7 Edited by deathofrats360 (17 posts) -

@slider9 said:

@deathofrats360: Seeing as how most replies (even from Patrick) have been, well, its not as bad as what the other side has been doing, I would say it has mostly been given a pass.

It's not equal. That's what you're missing, the level and amount of harassment is not equal. There's always a small amount of foul players in every group. However, in the example of GG the level of harassment towards women journalists and developers is staggering and unending.

Basically you're comparing a group of thugs who beat up someone to an army who just invaded your home town.

#8 Posted by deathofrats360 (17 posts) -

@slider9 said:

@deathofrats360: The specific conversation I linked to was from Aug 31 and started with a reference to the gamersgate stuff. There are other examples of harassment out there so I still dont understand why it has been given a pass

Because they're isolated incidences and not part of an organized movement of harassment.

They're not being given a pass, no one supports that kind of action in the name of social progress.

#9 Posted by deathofrats360 (17 posts) -

@slider9 said:

@deathofrats360: I'm not sure why you think I am trying to downplay anything. Harassment in any form is wrong but trying to act like its only coming from one side is just as dishonest.

Because in relationship to what's being discussed it is coming from one side. That screencap (if it's the one I've seen) is months old. And it's not related to any of the people being harassed. Just because some people with feminists leanings did something months ago doesn't mean the harassment that's going on right now is coming from both sides. Do those people somehow speak for game journalists? Are they at all related to what's going on besides their views?

#10 Posted by deathofrats360 (17 posts) -

@slider9 said:

@colesl4w said:

@slider9 said:
@yelix said:

@neon25: How is any of that comparable to the garbage Anita and Zoe have gotten? How many gamergate people have been forced to evacuate their homes and contact authorities?

Doxxing and threatening to kill a kid seems pretty fucking terrible to me, not sure why you dont think so...

Threats do not mean those people intend to do what they have said. No, they should not have said it, but it is not the same as what was done to the people who actually had personal information leaked and were forced from their homes.

I'm not sure how you can really justify the difference between the two. First doxxing is exactly that, having your personal info exposed. And if the person being threatened feels the threat is legitimate enough does it really matter if those people don't intend to actually carry out their threat?

Threats, leaking personal info, anything like that is flat out wrong.

However, trying to use a single incident completely unrelated to the current situation to try and downplay the harassment going on right now is intellectually dishonest. Are the people in the image being harassed because of GG? No. Is labeling anyone who agrees with FemFrequency or likes Zoe Quinn as just as bad as a group who is systematically harassing women out of the industry because of an isolated incident in any way fair?

  • 17 results
  • 1
  • 2