WindFall259's forum posts

#1 Edited by WindFall259 (397 posts) -

Things like:

  • "Holy crap. This game looks good."
  • "This news gives me another month to find time for Demon's Souls."
  • "Finally."

I think it doesn't seem right to color opinion or personal commentary on pure news. Opinionated subheaders on Patrick's editorials, original shows, and etc. are fair game, but things like a release date for a game or other announcements shouldn't be the place to mention personal opinion, even in a personality-driven website like this one. I would like to judge it for myself before reading someone else's comments.

I don't know. Maybe I'm nitpicking, but that's just how I've been feeling for awhile.

#2 Edited by WindFall259 (397 posts) -

In this episode of "Angry People do Stupid Things."

#3 Posted by WindFall259 (397 posts) -

@williamrlbaker: I don't think you understand what "continuing to not come to GiantBomb" means.

#4 Posted by WindFall259 (397 posts) -

I think we should quit calling the entire thing GamerGate as it creates this fraudulent debate on its merits and simply label it HarassmentGate or HaterGate because that's what is truly going on. There is no logic to "gaming journalism is corrupt therefore we will send death threats specifically towards women in and around the games industry." Where's the logic in that? That's what GamerGate was founded on; hatred created by some raging ex-boyfriend who later decided to hide under the guise of protecting the integrity of game journalism. It's a group with the only purpose of terrorizing others, specifically women and anybody who gets in the way of their pursuit. If you only care about the ethics in game journalism and don't advocate the harassment and torment of women and their supporters, then you're not truly a part of GamerGate backer.

If you care at all about addressing the issue of ethics in game journalism, you should not align yourself with a terrorist group.

Absolutely. Whatever GamerGate was and what is was trying to do has devolved and mutated into an excuse to test out ways to intimidate men and women in the gaming industry. What's happening right now in reality isn't much of a journalistic movement but rather people trying to play out their online power fantasies by revealing personal information and feeding death threats into the throats of those involved.

For anyone who is genuinely concerned about ethics in games journalism, take Jeff's advice: Do not identify yourself with GamerGate. Get out of there immediately. Remove yourself from that title and start from somewhere else.

#5 Posted by WindFall259 (397 posts) -

Host Brad is the way to go.

#6 Posted by WindFall259 (397 posts) -

@teleri said:

No, I haven't. I have encountered a problem in an area of the internet involving controversy and I have weighed in on the idea that he's typically right but presents himself in a less then agree-able manner.

On a related note, have you heard of SuperBunnyHop? As far as I know he's the one of the very few dudes on YouTube that nails great and (arguably the most important part) entertaining video game arguments while maintaining a non-hostile attitude. Here's one where he made along the same controversial lines as Egoraptor, but he talks about Elder Scrolls.

#7 Edited by WindFall259 (397 posts) -
@johnham said:

I don't mean to imply that black people are born with black perspective; I was referring to a hypothetical black adult, who might comment on GTAV. In that case they've built up a body of experiences that provides them some degree of perspective on what it means to be black, and how it is to be black. This perspective is directly related to living as a black person.

There is absolutely a meaningful gradient there; black people have been affected by their race in their day-to-day lives to differing degrees, and for that reason some may have more-detailed or better-understood perspectives in that regard.

That doesn't change my central point, which is that minorities (by the nature of their life experience) have perspectives that an all-white, all-male editorial staff cannot provide.

Alright then. That misunderstanding should explain why a number of users are calling your previous posts discriminatory.

Besides that, I'm happy to agree with you on your central point.

#8 Edited by WindFall259 (397 posts) -
@dreamndayunite said:

@denzelflossington said:

LOL ohhhh i didn't know men were just more likely to have an interest in policy, is it genetic? and what website would like me to link you to? you should check out some wikipedia articles, they're well sourced and tend to be worked on by some dedicated people! your point about bias is well founded though, 87% of wikipedia users are male!! surprising that they would have a page on male privilege, that doesn't fit the narrative! darn socialists!

Yes it is most likely genetic. As for sources, how about The Christian Science Monitor or Reuters? I don't trust wikipedia for most things because a quick glance at the "talk" and "view history" shows the amount of infighting and politics at work behind the scenes at that website. Sources are constantly contested on the site, it is becoming a mess.

Your biological perspective on men and women is outdated by at least several decades. The majority of social studies has moved on to agree with the perspective that social constructs like policy is a sociocultural issue.

#9 Edited by WindFall259 (397 posts) -
@johnham said:

The hypothetical black person in your example would not have better perspective on the "conditions that Franklin and Lamar lived in" because that topic is specifically related to location and socio-economic status (things that are also tied up in race, but we can put that aside). But that same black person WOULD have better perspective on the ways that they are treated, and portrayed in the media, as a function of their skin color, which is something that is reflected in those characters. Therefore they would probably be more-qualified to provide that perspective.

I am not saying all black people know more about being poor.

I am not saying all black people know more about being in a gang, or street culture generally.

I AM saying that black people inherently have a different perspective on how black people are treated and perceived in our society. On what it IS to be black in a modern US context. It's so obvious that it shouldn't even need to be stated.

No.That is wrong.

It is NOT inherent. It is learned. Black people are not born into the black perspective. Black people that live in areas where black culture is concentrated in are more likely to understand the black perspective. That being said, anyone living in the area where black culture is concentrated in are more likely to understand the black perspective.

This may sound like I'm splitting hairs with you, but I promise you I am not. There is a world of difference in what I'm saying.

#10 Edited by WindFall259 (397 posts) -

I'm all in for #2, especially if it extends to chatting during live shows. At times, the chat during E3 wrap-up nights was toxic. I wouldn't even mind if a new user can bypass this rule by purchasing a subscription first. Like you said, the paywall should deter most wannabe trolls, and anyone left who actually goes through with it will have their message quickly deleted and their accounts banned from messaging/posting on forums. They become forgotten, and generously make Giant Bomb $5 richer.

@deathstriker said:

I wouldn't use a site that was so pretentious and self-important that I had to wait a week to post.

I would take that criticism any day in favor of a healthier chat environment.