Gamergate and Cyber Bullying

a reply to: amazing

It's amazing to me, that you ignore pretty much every post here, that would require you to actually do any research, and put forth real though.....but then, after all the time this thread has been inactive, you come back to snipe at something simple....

And you continue to make the SAME baseless assertions, without providing anything to back them...

I really do think you're trolling...

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: amazing

It's amazing to me, that you ignore pretty much every post here, that would require you to actually do any research, and put forth real though.....but then, after all the time this thread has been inactive, you come back to snipe at something simple....

And you continue to make the SAME baseless assertions, without providing anything to back them...

I really do think you're trolling...

No, I mean I've been pretty busy, but I just saw that post pop up and wanted to check it out. It was a great front page, I've read a few articles by some of them before...not relating to gamergate. Then I hit the about us page and it was all about gamergate. I honestly felt like if they would have left all of that out and talked about ethics in gaming INSTEAD of trying to defend gamergate it would have been good.

Why defend something, I mean you and I are having a discussion or argument but a website like that should just delve right into game reviews and news and skip the defending of gamergate and actually be about ethics and integrity. By centering around gamergate they are losing sight of what they should be doing.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: amazing

Actually, it lists every known ethical violation by each individual games journalist.

Once again you prove you don't research too deeply I see.

I do. But what is the point of that group that website? Is it just to defend gamergate or is it to actually be about ethics in gaming journalism?

Skip the defending and move on. Move on.

a reply to: amazing

You're missing the point....the defense comes from the fact that GG (despite all propaganda to the contrary) IS about ethics in games journalism...it's about the lies, the cronyism, the dishonesty, and all the rest of it...and yes, now, it's even about combating radical feminism, and "social justice" ideology....because those groups have injected themselves into the conversation, because that's what they do..

They look for ANYTHING to claim offense to, and play the victim...they twist words, and fabricate whatever they need to, in order to garner more sympathy, and the money that comes with it....because this is how they make their living.

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: amazing

You're missing the point....the defense comes from the fact that GG (despite all propaganda to the contrary) IS about ethics in games journalism...it's about the lies, the cronyism, the dishonesty, and all the rest of it...and yes, now, it's even about combating radical feminism, and "social justice" ideology....because those groups have injected themselves into the conversation, because that's what they do..

They look for ANYTHING to claim offense to, and play the victim...they twist words, and fabricate whatever they need to, in order to garner more sympathy, and the money that comes with it....because this is how they make their living.

I did not see it posted much of anywhere on the web or here in this forum, but the New York University school of journalism and gaming department plays a very large role in this push.

The games as art is a direct backlash to games now earning more money than all TV and movies combined. The ideology preached vocally by just about all political parties is that MONEY TALKS. Furthermore people spend hours and hours playing games when they used to be watching TV or listening to music.

This captive audience is the ideal target for social engineering which goes on from all political sides, but as far as art and visuals, the "left" leaning crowd seems to be the most deeply impacted by it. It is a simple progression for a certain crowd to want to therefore dominate their favorite medium with their propaganda of how things should or should not be.


When I first read about GG it was through the backlash of several "news" outlets such as Polygon (the offspring of VOX and the journopros scandal among others), Kotaku (Gawker media partnered with National Public Radio for "culture content), Recode (NBC founded "gaming" and tech), Wired, Arstechnica (usually "left" leaning opinion peaces but usually solid otherwise), NPR (National Public Radio when they began their women focused content featuring SLATE, SALON, JEZEBEL, Vox, and all the rest of the media outlets which demonized GG), VICE (Rupert Murdoch's liberal media outlet play) and the Guardian (they recently put out a piece about preventing white privilege in space on mars where there are only robots . . . .).

GG had KotakuInAction subforum on a website called reddit and twitter, both highly anonymous outlets which would be very difficult to actually match a post to a name to confirm if the posters were in fact who they said they were.

The media outlets ALL demonized and character assassinated anyone who disagreed with the narrative they were trying to establish. Ran with stories accusing GGers with crimes which were never confirmed or corroborated by authorities. A blatant public relations hit squad.

The media outlets area MULTIBILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY ATTACKING ANONYMOUS ENTITIES ON THE INTERNET WHO DISAGREE WITH THEIR AGENDA.


FBB thinks the media outlets have played victim while viciously attacking anyone who disagreed with them.

-FBB

//EDIT

And recode the NBC company just awarded $10,000 to a social justice game marketed towards children and women which teaches how to play with the female anatomy . . . .

Games as art my A............
//END

a reply to: amazing

O.o
Seriously?
Are you seriously this obtuse?

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: amazing

O.o
Seriously?
Are you seriously this obtuse?

I think I made a few good points?

a reply to: amazing

Funny the evidence, that exists in your previous posts, point otherwise.

You're proving that you're not open to proof contrary to your stance.
You've decided what you believe is fact.
There is no questioning.
Otherwise you'd not deflect.
Which disproves your claims towards your "research" and ability for objective review of information even more.

I mean really.
We prove that we care about ethics in journalism and that we have been documenting to that end.
And what do you do you?
You harp that we are defending ourselves in a shallow attempt to deflect with some sort of appeal to motivation.

It's quite sad to watch.