Jump to content
JonCole

"Ethics and Journalistic Integrity"

Recommended Posts

I'm not stuffing you to any stereotype; I barely know you and I'm going with what you wrote.

 

I'm stoked you're going out of your way to improve and opening yourself up; you're doing something that most people don't do. Please stay and don't be afraid of people here: they want the best for you.

 

My advice, grow some thick skin and be ready to get verbally and intelligently ass-whooped. You might have good intentions, but you might be going at it at a wrong angle.

Chances are, i'm probably going to get called out for the way I approached you and that's fine. Maybe I went about it the wrong way. Maybe I misread your words. We'll see, but that's the beauty of this place. People may be rough when they call you out, but they want the best for you, if you allow it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, this doesn't mean I disagree with any of you, epecially you namman, I just don't think this is the best place for my own personal growth, and I don't think any of you really enjoy my presence so I'm leaving you all to your own devices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm done here. I feel like I'm being stuffed into a stereotype, my words get twisted, and I don't feel welcome, whether you think I'm and over-reacting is up to you, but this place seems hostile for me to learn or grow or face my own weaknesses and negative aspects and engrained racism or discuss anything. I'm fine with you all thinking what you want of me, but I'm going to find a different place to talk and improve. I tried being vulnerable and trying to address my own flaws including my own racism, but it seemed to only serve as another vector to get attacked.

 

I think a better way to look at that exchange is that someone took the time to give you an honest response on how they felt about what you were saying without attacking you as a person. You are looking to better yourself and that type of response is pretty valuable feedback on where you're going right and where you're going wrong. You may not have liked the way namman siggins reacted to some of the language you used but it's kind of a double standard to expect to be able to say what you want without anyone being bothered by it, but at the same time not have any patience for people responding in a way that bothers you.

 

And why would you just bail like that over something so minor? You definitely used some troublesome language and despite that, namman took the time to respond to you, giving you the benefit of the doubt on a lot of stuff and lightly calling you out for some of the stuff that should rightly be called out. That was a totally fair exchange and I've been called out worse than that many times around here when I've acted stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm leaving because I've grown to associate this place with anxiety, aggression and depression, I don't have a concrete answer to why, but it's clear I don't belong here and it's the fault of no single person here. I've deleted my posts to make it more difficult for malicious parties to doxx me, since I've posted some rather personal information in places. I'm leaving you all to your regular programming, but before I go I would like to ask you all a very important favour.

 

Please don't discuss any of my personal life that I've revealed to you, or at the very least, please keep all the information about my friends family and town in your heads and your heads alone. I've had people scower my posts before to attack and humiliate me, so I appreciate it if none of you aid them by trying to uncover anything I've attempted to hide, even though there's still plenty remnants available.

 

Sorry for the disruption.

 

 

I think a better way to look at that exchange is that someone took the time to give you an honest response on how they felt about what you were saying without attacking you as a person. You are looking to better yourself and that type of response is pretty valuable feedback on where you're going right and where you're going wrong. You may not have liked the way namman siggins reacted to some of the language you used but it's kind of a double standard to expect to be able to say what you want without anyone being bothered by it, but at the same time not have any patience for people responding in a way that bothers you.

 

And why would you just bail like that over something so minor? You definitely used some troublesome language and despite that, namman took the time to respond to you, giving you the benefit of the doubt on a lot of stuff and lightly calling you out for some of the stuff that should rightly be called out. That was a totally fair exchange and I've been called out worse than that many times around here when I've acted stupid.

 

I was looking for "yes you are racist because beebity boop", not "yes you are that fucking thing you said fuck" and "fucking that". I'm willing to accept that I have flaws, but whenever I speak up in this thread it feels like I'm being talked down to, and even when I'm willing to drop my own guard and see things from the opposing viewpoint, I don't feel I get that returned, I feel like no matter what I say, I will be dismissed as stupid or a gamergater demon baby or something.

 

Whether I feel that way for a reasonable reason is up to you, maybe I am just terrible and everything I say is garbage, I'm going to choose not to believe that, but you can if you like. Namman isn't the reason I'm leaving, I'm leaving because I don't feel welcome and it I don't think it benefits me or any of you for me to stay here. I've attempted to hide the content I've posted here as best I can to prevent external groups from harrassing me in the future, and I'd appreciate if no one here helps them unintentionally by trying to recover any of that information.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

 


I read those articles, and I felt like a lot of their content seemed to consist of a bunch of different phrasings of the same core idea which goes roughly as follows "White people get to do stuff black people don't get to do because of societal double standards, I wish they'd stop benefiting from double standards". Not "I wish the double standards would go away", but "I wish people would stop taking actions that lead to the double standards benefiting them".

There was also a consistent theme of "This double standard is super shitty and white people with afros are allowing it to continue", but white people with undercuts are also allowing it to continue. Today I ate a sandwich and that allowed racism to continue. Every action that isn't actively addressing racism allows racism to continue, so it's absurd to use that as a criticism.

I think my fundamental disagreement is that I believe benefiting from double standards isn't bad (it's perpetuating them that's bad), and I don't believe that merely benefiting from a double standard inherently perpetuates the standard. If a white person walks to work, they're benefiting from a double standard where they're less likely to get hassled on the sidewalk than a black person is. Is a white person harming black people by walking to work? If not, what's the difference between that and a white person with an afro? In what way does the afro harm people that the walk to work doesn't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm leaving because I've grown to associate this place with anxiety, aggression and depression, I don't have a concrete answer to why, but it's clear I don't belong here and it's the fault of no single person here. I've deleted my posts to make it more difficult for malicious parties to doxx me, since I've posted some rather personal information in places. I'm leaving you all to your regular programming, but before I go I would like to ask you all a very important favour.

 

Please don't discuss any of my personal life that I've revealed to you, or at the very least, please keep all the information about my friends family and town in your heads and your heads alone. I've had people scower my posts before to attack and humiliate me, so I appreciate it if none of you aid them by trying to uncover anything I've attempted to hide, even though there's still plenty remnants available.

 

Sorry for the disruption.

 

For people who have gone through your posts to attack and humiliate you, fuck 'em and I'm sorry: they're an anomaly.

 

I held my tongue, but you're being a fucking child right now. For the most part, most the people here have treated you with respect and went against what you said, not who you are and they probably have never looked down on you or thought of you as a horrible person. No one here would ever doxx you and do heinous shit like that. I'm actually offended that you think people here would do something that would hurt your livelihood. 

 

Look, I'm sorry you have those attachments to this place, but I wonder if some of it is in your head because of some of the frank talk that has been thrown your way. Either way, I wish you the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one here would ever doxx you and do heinous shit like that. I'm actually offended that you think people here would do something that would hurt your livelihood.

 

I could be interpreting things incorrectly, but I think megaspel was concerned because this is a public forum and people outside of the community can view the posts here. If that's the case then I think it's a fair thing to ask not to post personal info about him in public spaces, although I hope no one will actually come here looking for dirt or whatever on people, it'd be a shame if everyone here had to be more guarded about their lives because of crappy internet people...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, taking the same user name as someplace else already is opportunity and justification enough for some people to stalk, call out and attempt to send harrassers on people's trail.

 

I've no interest in enabling those situations in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember how Intel was roped into GG, and then they turned around by investing a hefty sum into a "diversity initiative"? Well, it worked and their hires of female, African American, Hispanic and Native Americans have doubled on the whole. Also, remember the "there are no PoC in the pipeline" mantra that so many white tech execs espouse? Welp -

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/08/12/intel-diversity-hiring-doubled/31490141/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting to hear something actually positive come out of this, though it had to come at the expense of probably Gamasutra's/Leigh's sanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Felicia Day put out a book, and apparently Goobergate hate her for it. 'Cause you know, ethics in journalism or something, but instead they just end up calling her the c-word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gamergate pointers

 

(1) Social outrage the way it actually looks:

http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/man-poses-target-facebook-trolls-haters-its-gender-neutral-move-epic-replies-166364

 

 

(2) Author Anne Rice came out supporting... well, I don't quite know what she was supporting.

 

I believe the quote that started the original thread came from this post of mine on the night of August 10th. "Signing off with thanks to all who have participated in our discussions of fiction writing today. I want to leave you with this thought: I think we are facing a new era of censorship, in the name of having an opinion. There are forces at work in the book world that want to control fiction writing in terms of who "has a right" to write about what. Some even advocate the out and out censorship of older works using words we now deem wholly unacceptable. Some are critical of novels involving rape. Some argue that white novelists have no right to write about people of color; and Christians should not write novels involving Jews or topics involving Jews. I think all this is dangerous. I think we have to stand up for the freedom of fiction writers to write what they want to write, no matter how offensive it might be to some one else. We must stand up for fiction as a place where transgressive behavior and ideas can be explored. We must stand up for freedom in the arts. I think we have to be willing to stand up for the despised. It is always a matter of personal choice whether one buys or reads a book. No one can make you do it. But internet campaigns to destroy authors accused of inappropriate subject matter or attitudes are dangerous to us all. That's my take on it. Ignore what you find offensive. Or talk about it in a substantive way. But don't set out to censor it, or destroy the career of the offending author. Comments welcome. I will see you tomorrow.

 

It's interesting seeing this message among the KiA threads. At the time over there, there's a call for more 4chan style anti advertiser activism (vs Gawker of course), a call for Daryush V.'s freeze peach rights (he recently took a beer to his wig), organizing a 'raid' (literally) on one of Zoe Quinn's speeches, and here and there some slander of things and people they don't like, like Gone to the Rapture (obviously one of them dangerous EsJaybabbeljuh games).

 

Characterizing KIA's efforts as 'anti censorship' would definitely require the kind of fiction writing Anne is so good at!

 

 

3.) Brad Glasgow interviews 'gamergate'

 

Or at least he says he does. In a series of seven questions/threads on reddit, namely, and mostly just with the intent that it 'can be done'. His results are... well, at the very least, interesting.

 

Nearly all of the 351 responses said no, they were not responsible for the actions of other people. They believe the media has not done its job questioning whether or not people have, in fact, been victimized as a result of the controversy. While they are quick to condemn harassment they are not sympathetic with people they claim have a financial incentive to claim or even induce their own harassment.

[...]

When I asked whether suggesting victims of harassment keep a lower profile would be considered victim blaming, the top response claimed that "these 'victims' were actively soliciting their own abuse" and, "Stating that someone receiving unwanted negative attention from the masses should be keeping a low profile is not 'victim blaming.' It's just common sense." The response then went on to claim there were financial incentives for those claiming harassment.

 

Not sure where he's going with a lot of all this, but I'll say this: A journalist who is able to write down this utterly condemning stuff and is somehow still liked by the gamergate crowd is a rotten genius.

 

http://gamepolitics.com/2015/08/12/challenge-accepted-interviewing-internet-hashtag#.VczmOlLgwRA

 

(Done a rough count. The term "SJW" is mentioned nowhere in Glasgow's article. On the seven question threads, the term "SJW" is mentioned more than 260 times [Firefox just gives me a 100+ in number 2]). So at the very least, Glasgow is still going at it in a bit of an euphemistic way. B) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(2) Author Anne Rice came out supporting... well, I don't quite know what she was supporting.

 

 

It's interesting seeing this message among the KiA threads. At the time over there, there's a call for more 4chan style anti advertiser activism (vs Gawker of course), a call for Daryush V.'s freeze peach rights and here and there some slander of things and people they don't like, like Gone to the Rapture (obviously one of them dangerous EsJaybabbeljuh games).

 

This quote was probably in response to criticism that's appeared of Franzen's novel that's to be released on September 1. It seems to star some kind of bizarre stereotype of a millennial feminist, who happens to fit the stereotypes that an aging white man might have regarding a millennial feminist, and who goes through Franzen's typical disaster porn wringer.

 

Just a guess though, I don't really pay enough attention to Anne Rice to know if she gives a hoot about Franzen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be interpreting things incorrectly, but I think megaspel was concerned because this is a public forum and people outside of the community can view the posts here. If that's the case then I think it's a fair thing to ask not to post personal info about him in public spaces, although I hope no one will actually come here looking for dirt or whatever on people, it'd be a shame if everyone here had to be more guarded about their lives because of crappy internet people...

Yeah I worry about that too, I have some personal things floating around in past posts and I sometimes worry about people googling. Maybe less so today.

 

It's no reason to say someone is being a fucking child, namman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile in Miami, gamergate and "anti-gamergate" are having a soccer match.

But when the match starts, not a single player for "anti-gamergate" has turned up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

65 minutes later, gamergate scores their first goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was some sort of GamerGate event going on somewhere and it received a bomb threat.

 

Now, hey, as much as GG is full of shit that's not cool.

 

... but the asshole that I am wants to believe that it's something they planned to have happen to draw sympathy (ironically) and be able to point fingers. And even if it was legit they're going to point fingers anyway.

 

I don't want them to die. But I would like it if they fucked off! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, doxxing and bomb threats aren't just "not cool". They're absolutely detestable tactics. Zoe Quinn spends her days preventing the first to happen to others; and I've experienced the latter employed to put my father out of business when I was ten years old. This is abysmal. This is not 'helping'.
 
And please do smack everyone in the face who now adopts the days old gamergate stance on the matter (quote see above):
 

When I asked whether suggesting victims of harassment keep a lower profile would be considered victim blaming, the top response claimed that "these 'victims' were actively soliciting their own abuse" and, "Stating that someone receiving unwanted negative attention from the masses should be keeping a low profile is not 'victim blaming.' It's just common sense." The response then went on to claim there were financial incentives for those claiming harassment.

 
 
Pointing a finger now is futile. I do wonder about why the terrorist waited so long with his bomb threat (there supposedly were two, but besides twitter snippets, the only source I find is the convincingly/allegedly Donald Trump bribed website from one of the 'pro' panelists, so no thank you).
 
The entire segment in the morning went unharrassed, and a fair bit of discussion took place in the afternoon before the bomb threats. So besides not even silencing these people particularly much, the terrorist will even have given SJW Airplay (yeah, let's call it that) a fair bit of sympathetic coverage as well.
 
This meeting could have been great, guys. This meeting could have been potentially helpful to the discussion. This meeting featured Derek Smart, a developer everyone in the gaming world hates with a passion and has been for a decade, posing as 'neutral' in the ethics in journalism controversy, just about two weeks after

...
 
...debating with an expressly 'pro gamergate' side that consisted of express non gamers!
 
illiterate.gif
(Tweet was originally meant to address misrepresentation of gamergate in mainstream media, of course, making it doubly hilarious in this context)
 
 
Instead, for the pro gamergate side they went with the embodiment of a yellow press extreme right wing journalist who wrote with utter disdain about 'gamers' in the years leading up to gamergate – and some woman who left her version of feminism in her homemaking oven so long that it came out totally ruined, and whose legendary ignorant interpretation of gamer demographics started out with the stated fact that she of all people wasn't in any way a gamer at all.
 
As Kevin Bacon attests in "A Few Good Men": "Strong witnesses".
And, really, from what I heard from gamergate supporters, Milo Yiannopoulos was going full Col. Nathan Jessup in this one.
 
Yesterday morning, the story was that a bunch of ignorant and ethically challenged people were discussing the ethics of others.
Yesterday afternoon, the story was that victims were deprived of their right to free speech by terrorist threats.
 
This meeting COULD have served to bring more people disassociating themselves from gamergate as they disassociate themselves from the chosen representatives. This meeting could have served to make people see how gamergate supporters are posing as 'neutrals' in order to make reasonable stances on the matter look extremist.
 
Instead... thanks, Obama. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using the sympathy gamergate supporters gained due to the bomb threat, polygon – with the gracious help of Airplay organizer Michael Koretzky – is making an attempt to whitewash gamergate history.

 

The movement, which deliberately has no central leadership, is a backlash to what its supporters perceive as unprofessional or agenda-driven behavior in the gaming specialty press. However, figures like Yiannopoulous, Sommers and others have also sharply criticized feminist and other socially progressive criticism of games and their role in pop culture. Opponents of GamerGate call the movement misogynist and innately hostile to women, minorities and other marginalized groups of persons.

 

The greatest part of this aren't just the crude omissions, but in particular the claim that gamergate had no leaders while naming two clear cut and initially formative ideological leaders in the very next sentence. :wacko:

 

This is how gamergate started, this is how it progressed, and it will be gamergate's history forever.

 

Zoe Quinn has every right to feel extra fucked on the anniversary of The Eron Post's publication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably the most frustrating thing about this event is seeing gaters smugly lie through their teeth about how to cover the group.

 

"Just talk to us directly! Browse the hashtag and look what people are talking about! Read our diatribes!"

 

This is, of course, exactly what people have been doing for weeks and months after the movement first started, and every single time we quote their words back at them we're told it's not representative.

 

Irc logs showing how they've been manipulated? No, not us.

 

Massive script on how to email advertisers and fake indignation? Belongs to somebody else.

 

All these harassers, MRAs and literal Nazis? Lone bad apples.

 

But hey, if you want to write about GG, just talk to the first person you catch tweeting about it. It's so simple!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The worst elements in GamerGate were taken as prima facie evidence of what the authentic heart of the movement was like"

 

Milo Yiannopoulos

 

The 'lone apples' strategy will likely only go so far. As soon as you invite a bunch of exactly those lone apples to speak with authority on gamergate proceedings, things are looking a bit grim on gamergate's argumentative side. In that respect, Airplay might still serve as something good eventually. Someone out there will just plain have to wonder how, on the topic of a supposedly international problem in the gaming world, exclusively US right wing nutjobs with hardly an interest in gaming are taking the reigns of the discussion, and universally despised Early Access scammers pose as neutrals.

 

Those brain screws will just have to start turning, particularly outside of the United States.

 

Another argumentative problem for gamergate is the chosen topic, i.e. journalist ethics. Gamergate is, as everyone knows, about the fight against 'SJW', their "secret agenda" and the attempt to ostracize them from game culture. Everything else is tacked on propaganda to deal with the opposition. If Airplay indeed managed to focus on 'ethics in journalism', hey, good for them, good for us. Yet sooner or later, they'll come up with the "p.c. culture" conspiracy or whatever terminology they'll start using... at which point they sound like the wackos they are.

 

Sincerely, if they do talk about ethics in journalism, it doesn't matter much that crooks are discussing it. But they'll get off topic soon enough, because gamergate is, well, gamergate.

 

I intend to watch the entire panel, unabridged, in the coming weeks, to evaluate the debate's relationship between factual "anti SJW" agenda and "ethics in journalism" smoke screen. But I don't suspect many surprises. I'm looking for answers only e.g. to determine the bias of the organizer/presenter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×