Joined Jul 09, 2011 at 03:38AM EDT
The only time you’ll hear someone say one side has “potentially valid points” is when they speak of a viewpoint they disagree with, or at least take a neutral stance on. IE an apple fanatic saying android users have “potentially valid points” to what phone they prefer.
His argument why he does not like the game is spelled out right here in his own words: “So that’s the primary argument here; GTA is a game/story crafted with enough style that its violence can be enjoyed in its fantasy world, whereas Hatred attempts to carry its entire game on that same violence, and will likely, throughout the entire experience, be reminding us of the horrible stuff we keep seeing on the news.”
Basically he has no problem with the violence itself, merely that he does not find it appealing to play a game where violence is the entire point of the game.
Anyway, the point of the argument is if he agrees with the comic or if he made it to point out the hypocracy of that argument. Given that a link to the comic is embedded in the text “It feels fairly hypocritical, to suggest that violence in one game is acceptable, and the same violence in another is deplorable.” It seems pretty obvious what the comic is meaning to illustrate(which IMO was obvious in the first place).
My point is that it isn’t his argument. He says that argument is hypocrital:
“I can go on a very similar killing spree in Grand Theft Auto. But most of the discussions I’ve seen regarding Hatred suggest that GTA is okay because it’s all tongue-in-cheek. That the violence in that game functions as a parody of itself.
It feels fairly hypocritical, to suggest that violence in one game is acceptable, and the same violence in another is deplorable.”
He continues on and eventually gives two reason for disliking the game, because it looks poorly made and he does not find it appealing to play a game as a psycho killer, both personal and subjective opinions, neither being portrayed above.
Eh, not quite. The comic is pointing out that as he says “It feels fairly hypocritical, to suggest that violence in one game is acceptable, and the same violence in another is deplorable.”
He goes on to say that there is validity in the argument against Hatred, and he agrees with some of it, however the part he agrees with is not the violence itself, but portrayal of it, which in his perception makes him feel “uncomfortable.”
So what was the result of that debate the other day? Were they going to do a report over the debate, or merely let it speak for itself. Who “won” the debate, and did anything interesting happen over it?
Can’t watch the video right now, is it pro, anti, neutral, etc and is it “good” ?
Well if KoP’s interview is with him, then it might not be too bad. It would be less about GamerGate and more about the SJWs, which overall is probably a good thing so he doesn’t spill more spaghetti.
Sigh, not again…
I wasn’t there, but given that forensic data came back invalidating the claims of several “witnesses” and that the grand jury took their time and came to a politically incorrect conclusion, I’m inclined to agree with the verdict.
Are the police in furgison too violent? IDK, that depends if this guy has a track record. However if this is how the citizens of the town behave, I can understand if the cop’s defensive instincts kicked in, especially since he was attacked in the first place.
Not that I don’t think the cop may have been able to handle it better, but I’m not judging someone who deals with this crap on a daily basis and then gets attacked.
Unless the officer in question has an obvious history of racism, anyone claiming this is about race is just trying to incite people.
I skimmed over it, lots of laughs.
“While some women only receive very shallow identities like Liliana and Garruk others like Emrakul or Captain Sisay have become interesting female figures in the game’s canon.”
This was almost laughable, as Lilianna was one of the first and most prominent planeswalkers with arguably the best fleshed out backstories, the only two I can think of that might top her are Elspeth and Chandra, both also women.(most planeswalkers are lucky to be on a single card and have flavor text attributed to them)
The other hilarious part is about Emrakul being an “interesting female character.” For reference, this is Emrakul:
This “character” is basically one of three giant world-eaters that are “beyond mortal comprehension.” It never speaks, never communicates, just devours/destroys everything around it. It has only been in one set(4 sets printed a year typically; lilianna in contrast has been in 7) and the only reason it is considered by some as “female” is because long ago they were viewed as gods by primitives, and this one was referred to as a goddess.
Can I get the link to her twitter, I actually want to see what people have to say about it.
I agree and disagree. I think simply moving to a new hastag is a bad idea, however adopting an new one is good. However, NotYourShield was not created and then minorities came, but was formed by/for the minorities that were already apart of GG. I feel like trying to recruit from the mentioned pools first and then spawn a new hashtag would be more effective than risking a failed hastag that may hurt our cause.
The fact that a comment like this is met with downvotes is the evidence that this site isn’t an echo chamber.
I’ve said this many times in my life, that neither gender is capable of more evil than the other. I think this is especially true to remember when “feminism” comes up, and you can see who agrees with that statement to find who is rational and who is a nutter.
Agreed, however I think the biggest point to be noted here is looking at the OP. Even if you aren’t a troll or trying to stir stuff up or whatever, if you post in that manner people are going to think that you are, for good reason. I have seen many discussions here involving neutrals and even antis, and the biggest difference in how posts get voted upon is more how they say something than what they say.
I would also like to say that while this page is in danger of becoming an echo chamber, it isn’t yet. Conspiracy theories almost always have tinfoil comments, blatant unbased insults of opposition get downvoted, and then there is this topic right here. I’ve actually noticed that comments that try to encourage discussion in a civil way ALWAYS accumulate lots of responses.
Another strike against the anti-chamber is that we are actually fairly outward focused, trying to collect info from any and all sources. Typically an echo-chamber has stagnant information, or new info only coming from within.
I was trying to come up with responses to what you said, and realized that the accusation was stupid at every angle. No one is mad at anyone for being upset at death threats, and when they receive actual ones, like Antia did, GG actually tracks down the person who is responsible for it.
When the legitimacy of the threats is in question and the person who was “threatened” is benefiting from it, that is what brings up questions. They have full right to take advantage of it to the same extent we have the right to be upset when they use it to call victim to gain money, deflect accusations, or get on TV to slander people.
As for the picture, that was pretty disgusting, however there is nothing, aside from your word, that shows any connection to 8chan, GG, or anything.
Proof that GG has threatened anyone with violence? Because the “harassment” that people claim GG is responsible for tends to just look like this: https://twitter.com/spacekatgal/status/527086838839013377
1. First reports of it I’ve heard, and the fact you bring up being banned(lol) from 8Chan makes me doubt the claims more. If it is as rampant as you make it out to be, you shouldn’t have any trouble proving a link.
2. This is just retarded
4. Link please? It sounds more like a joke than actually someone being serious.
1. Give me an example of Censorship by GG
2. Give us an example of someone from GG being offend over nothing
3. I’ll give you some ppl have conspiracy theories, though I’ve never seen people warn against tin-foil hats so much before.
4. Give me an example of GG having extremist behavior.
1. Obvious Troll is REALLY obvious this time
2. Your initial post contains insults and derogatory assumptions of people and what they enjoy. Any high ground you felt you had was lost the second you posted.
3. There has been some change in that a few companies have enforced at least a little bit of an ethics code, and that’s not bad for only a couple of months. There is still a ways to go, but criticizing lack of progress is like saying someone is terrible at video games for not having beaten the game shortly after it has started(video game example is intended).
However to me the biggest effect this has had is exposing the extremist far-left SJWs to the public. For the most part they have remained behind the scenes but are popping up everywhere. Some coverage has appeared in their favor, but IMO give them more coverage, let them speak. The more they talk the more insane they look, and the worse things get for them. If GG dies a horrible death, as long as we strike a mortal blow to this… this… this insanity, I am content.
To devalue or criticize the mission of GG, to fight against the corruption in gaming media, is to defend the corruption itself. Corruption in all social structures, even in something as small and insignificant as a club with 5 10-year olds, is to be opposed. If you agree with the statement that corruption is bad and should always be fought against, and that you recognize that is what GG is doing, then all is well. You don’t have to support GG, you don’t have to censor your opinion if you think GG is doing something wrong, simply do not oppose GG and they shall not oppose you.
What personally drew me into this was the extreme slander that GG incurred thanks to the media outlets working together to try to slander the group that was pointing out their corruption. While I am a gamer, I rarely read reviews. Unless it was something I vehemently opposed, I would probably be drawn to any group that was targeted and marginalized in this way, and I have found many people here feel the same way, which is why the topic of that guy’s shirt got brought up.
Now in this “fight” there are 3 sides. You have GG who is against the corrupt companies and practices. You have Anti-GG, which is made up of the companies in question, the supporters of their agendas(SJWs), and those who, often through misinformation, are just out to be against GG.
However there is a third group, those who really don’t care or don’t wish to be involved. I understand that, and respect that, as being a part of GG is begging to have some of the worst things imaginable said about you, to be doxxed, lose your job, etc, or you may just not care about the issue.
This has kinda derailed, actually it has really derailed. Let me answer your original question:
If a company, news or otherwise, offers poor service, product, etc you can take your business elsewhere. This is what drives a competitive market, and is good for business as well as consumers.
However in the case of a monopoly or competing companies actually working together, that is very bad for consumers as a whole, so bad that it is ILLEGAL in the US. Journalism has pushed to be exempt from these laws, and is not held to the same standards as other businesses.
The problem with your argument that if you dislike a reviewer you can switch to a different one is assuming there is a plethora of options. What really kicked GamerGate into drive was when 10+ articles from different competing companies were released within 24 hours and were derogatory towards their audience, AKA gamers.
It indicated that the companies were not competing but working together to push messages and agendas. That is what pissed people off, and is how the representatives of those messages, SJWs, got involved.
Yea, if these are ppl on the GG side, they are making us look bad
I didn’t mention them for good reason. In the case of the American Revolution the colonists did not seek to overthrow the English government, and in fact independence was not the goal at first. They sought only fair treatment and representation, but when that was repeatedly denied and England escalated, they instead cut ties with England.
France and Russia was more of seeking to overthrow the government, aka burn it down, but failed to actually rebuild properly after that.
That sounds nice, but when that happens we get the French revolution, Communist Russia, etc. You can’t change human nature, the best you can do is open people’s eyes when you can.