I was referring to the "Repetition becomes truth" comment.
In either case, it was sniping. I should be better than that, but evidently I'm not.
I think not. <snip>
You can't even be specific as to what aspect of self-awareness I'm supposedly blind to.Your lack of self-awareness is evident again.
It's a script.
]You can't even be specific as to what aspect of self-awareness I'm supposedly blind to.
This was nothing more than the usual hail-mary insult-throwing technique used ad-nauseum by the Social "Justice" Weasels.
But, that's fine, call me a SJW for disagreeing with you if it helps you play the victim some more.
If you really looked in a mirror, you'd see that your tactics and, for lack of a better word, rage are the same as your chosen opponents'.
But, that's fine, call me a SJW for disagreeing with you
...brobrobro...
As mentioned previously, semantic-obsessed pedant, and as you pointed out, little honest self-examination. A recipe for a desperate soul.
...if it helps you play the victim some more.
Anger, yes. Tactics, no.
And since you seem to defend all that SJW's do and believe in, do you object to the label that comes with it?
I think you may have me confused with someone else.
But again, continue with the mischaracterization if lumping me in with your enemy helps you feel more victimized.
Do you, or do you not defend the anti-GG stance and agree with their narrative that gamers are "icky"?
I never thought of myself as some powerless victim, but fine, you win. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=het8JQjldSg (Seven seconds of victimhood.) D:
I think not. Look at Entertainment Weekly's story headlined: ‘Hugo Award nominations fall victim to misogynistic, racist voting campaign,’” John Merline of Investor’s Business Daily notes in an article sardonically titled, “Another Great Moment in Mainstream Journalism:” Later Entertainment Weekly changed the headline to: “Correction: Hugo Awards voting campaign sparks controversy.” So why the need to correct itself so radically? Because Entertainment Weekly interviewed not the people nominally involved with the voting campaign, but based its story on interviewing the gaming press. Specifically:
Ms. Biedenharn's hateful rant was not only vitriolic, but profoundly and utterly wrong. Entertainment Weekly was unable to polish the turd and therefore had to walk it back. It's worth pointing out again that not only did Ms. Biedenharn neglect to do any actual journalism or fact-checking, the only sources quoted are like-minded bloggers and writers.
I think that abusing what power one has is a temptation inherent to the human condition. Also, that is far from the only moral failing we have. You have a point about scale though. I'll have to think about that.So take that out of it, as I was trying to do. I think envy is not an actual motivator, but a symptom of a greater insecurity, so in that sense, you're correct that it cares not for rich or poor.
I am certainly not saying there is any morality inherent to one's wealth or class. But you said yourself that power is always abused, so doesn't that imply that the powerful are inherently morally inferior due to their ability to abuse on a greater scale? I'm not even saying I agree with your position that all power is abused, but if that is your position, then the morality stance seems to follow directly... or does scale not matter, but morality is relative to the individual... because there's a term for that I'm having trouble putting my finger on...
Lol +1I was referring to the "Repetition becomes truth" comment.
In either case, it was sniping. I should be better than that, but evidently I'm not.
Honestly I never looked at the second group. I just assumed it was as badly and baldly mid characterized as the first because such accusations by progressives are common as dirt and, well, the accusations sound kooky. Who could be so vile and have any power? I will take a look. As far as making my case based on one example, which mainstream media outlet other than Forbes covered this and bothered to even interview anyone on the GamerGate side? Which other mainstream news outlet covered this without interviewing and repeating the anti-GamerGate reporters? Would it be equally valid to cover Occupy Wall Street by interviewing only reporters from Forbes and Investor Daily? Same principle.I ran this one to ground and it's interesting. The EW article is a major flub. It discusses - and conflates - two groups which tried to influence the Hugo Awards. One of the groups is run by an unabashed bigot who thinks black people are subhuman and opposes all women's rights. The guy is truly reptilian.
The other is a group of concerned writers who who oppose, among other things, deciding the awards based on the gender or ethnicity of the author, which IMO is not problematic. That group had a slate of candidates which included about 30% women, which I think is no less than the percentage of sci fi writers who are female. The EW article also mentions as a bright spot that a particular female author received a nomination, apparently without realizing that this specific female author was recommended by the group she criticized for being sexist!
To be fair, your article focuses on the inaccuracy regarding the one group but fails to mention that it's entirely accurate regarding the other, and so your source is itself not entirely balanced.
In any event, I don't expect quality journalism from Entertainment Weekly.
Your attempt to use this kind of example to prove something broader reminds me of the people who think they can prove the generalization that cops are racist based on 4-5 incidents occurring over the past several years. Just as there are millions of cops and 100's of 1000's of arrests annually in the US, so too there are thousands of articles published daily by the corporatized news media. Good luck making your case based on one sloppy article in an entertainment rag. Even 10 examples doesn't prove much of anything in a field so large.
This is emphatically not one article or one outlet. This is a broad and well-defined trend among mainstream media that goes beyond all these writers being progressives who fundamentally agree with their anti-GamerGate colleagues showing their internal biases. This is simply pure, one sided advocacy journalism. The articles are very much the rule, whereas any representing GamerGate with anything beyond the standard one-line defense are rarer than hen's teeth.
I just reviewed a half dozen New York Times stories on GamerGate as well as several others just to make sure my point was valid. None featured anyone representing GamerGate beyond Alec Baldwin saying the threats aren't what GamerGate is about. All quote anti-Gamergate reporters saying that is all GamerGate is about. Almost all mention Anita Sarkeesian. Most have hot links. All mention bomb threats against anti-GamerGate reporters. None mention bomb threats against GamerGate people and events. Several mention pressure by GamerGate on Intel as a factor in Intel pulling its ads after Alexander's article. None mentioned that the article was an attack on the very people Intel is trying to lure.
This is emphatically not one article or one outlet. This is a broad and well-defined trend among mainstream media that goes beyond all these writers being progressives who fundamentally agree with their anti-GamerGate colleagues showing their internal biases. This is simply pure, one sided advocacy journalism. The articles are very much the rule, whereas any representing GamerGate with anything beyond the standard one-line defense are rarer than hen's teeth.
The underlying message is that even she thinks women in gaming are only interesting to the media as victims.Every woman I know in games right now is really tired. Careful: That is "every woman I know," not "every woman." You must be very careful. It's the kind of fatigue that isn't so easily explained by our fist-shaking male colleagues who earnestly empathize across their social media platforms with how "we get harassed a lot". Some of us get harassed a lot and some of us don't. Sometimes it upsets me when people bring up the harassment: comments like I have no idea how you put up with all the shit you put up with or gee, you sure have a lot of haters, because honestly I am usually trying to ignore that part and, well, a lot of people like and support my work too, thank you.
There is a lot of attention paid to the "climate of harassment" for women in games (and a lot of uppity debate about whether it exists or we're just imagining it, exaggerating, because for arbitrary reasons we must want to "make the industry look bad"). But actually, this stricken pity and bewilderment was worse when I was starting out almost a decade ago, before any of the myriad and diverse and excellent women I now know and work with. Back then there was just a persistant dissonance between the way people reacted to me and my work and what everybody else got, and since I couldn't yet understand it, I pressed on.
I really hate to see Felicia Day and Wil Wheaton getting on board with this - I like them both. I can understand why though - if one expects to make it from minor player to major star in Hollywood, one had damned well better be politically correct. I suspect that a lot of gaming production is the same way, now that gaming is such a big industry.
One positive here is that I learned that Kotaku is actually Gawker. That's one site I'll never hit again.
To clarify, I'm also a 2600 era gamer.
Also, I'm not shocked to learn that Blue Max is not familiar with satire...
I think this will hurt Wheaton a lot more than Day. She has a fairly significant niche brand; he's pretty much just another child actor. Of course, neither are star material, so if this behavior gets them more parts they come out ahead as probably not many people are going to boycott a movie because Wil Wheaton or Felicia Day have roles in it.*sigh* And what, exactly, was satirical? Your rebuttal posts being nothing more than trolling for lols?
Wow... Wil Wheaton really threw the majority of his fanbase under the bus this time. I guess he wants to change gears and abandon forever the "geek culture" which has been his bread & butter for the last 10-20 years!
*sigh* And what, exactly, was satirical? Your rebuttal posts being nothing more than trolling for lols?
Of course you have to dismiss my posts as trolling.
I think this will hurt Wheaton a lot more than Day. She has a fairly significant niche brand; he's pretty much just another child actor. Of course, neither are star material, so if this behavior gets them more parts they come out ahead as probably not many people are going to boycott a movie because Wil Wheaton or Felicia Day have roles in it.
I'm giving YOU the chance to explain why you claimed I "don't understand satire" out of the blue. So - where's the satire in question?
I don't know about any boycotts, but Wil Wheaton's been in a number of "geeky" shows for TV and Netflix over the last 5+ years, building a significant fanbase in geek & gamer culture. To go so violently anti-gamer all of a sudden seems like a total dismissal of most of his fans and could result in a lot LESS acting work!
Possibly. I don't know the mechanics of that business or whether he caters to hard core gamers or a more casual geek crowd that is not caught up in GamerGate. I really don't have a good feel for the penetration here, but judging just by Anandtech I don't think that many gamers are really up in arms about it. Those who know it at all probably dismiss it as did I. When there is that much nastiness flying through the air, it's difficult for most of us to care enough to pick a side.I don't know about any boycotts, but Wil Wheaton's been in a number of "geeky" shows for TV and Netflix over the last 5+ years, building a significant fanbase in geek & gamer culture. To go so violently anti-gamer all of a sudden seems like a total dismissal of most of his fans and could result in a lot LESS acting work!
So it's a good idea to mock the intelligence of your fan base as long as it's only part of your fan base?There was nothing violent or "anti-gamer" about it. He was humorously mocking the intelligence of whatever it is that this crowd is up in arms about today.
Now comes the part where you reply by calling me a SJW and copy/pasting all kinds of hipster obscure twitter posts. There, I saved you some work.
There was nothing violent or "anti-gamer" about it. He was humorously mocking the intelligence of whatever it is that this crowd is up in arms about today.
Now comes the part where you reply by calling me a SJW and copy/pasting all kinds of hipster obscure twitter posts. There, I saved you some work.