Game Journalism - Unfit for purpose?

+

Game Journalism - Unfit for purpose?


  • Total voters
    197
Whoring myself out is always an unpleasant thing to do, but I feel the urge to link to this thing where I mention her. Any Twitter-inclined individuals among you capable of foisting said thing upon her or Nathan and their eye holes will receive my sloppy, unconditional love always and forever.

Good article, like your writing mate. Personally I feel it's alright to have an agenda in journalism, but that that agenda must be declared and not used with a personal bias, or to score points. For instance if you're covering a certain genre of games, in which you are interested and somewhat of an authority. But then again that's a professional agenda trying to aid the consumer, not a personal one that is championed because it is currently fashionable.

Unfortunately though this twat don't tweet so I can't help you, though i'm in agreement that hate mongering, insultive, self righteous preachers such as Greyson and Alexander should be fired, hopefully shamed and excluded from the industry they've done nothing but add toxicity to. They're what's wrong with gaming in my eye.
 

Jupiter_on_Mars

Guest
One man would talk about his artistic integrity not bending to Anita/Gamers/Critics/Publishers/etc(as he should) and one would continuously accuse the other of misogyny.

Not exactly a very exciting debate.

If anyone should be debating with Anita, it's the guy that makes these videos we've all seen:

(...)

(...)

edit: Asking to debate with Anita is like asking to debate with a Lutheran on evolution.

Or a Lutheran pastor with a tv show on the WORD Network, to be more accurate.

I have a great deal of admiration for Thunderf00t, whose career as a Young Earth creationist debunker I've been following for a while, including his debate - let's call it that - with Ray Comfort. Examining the Lutheran pastor metaphor, the recent Bill Nye vs Ken Ham suggests one thing: that it pays off to engage these people in a public debate. You're unlikely to win any of them over, but those in the audience sitting on the fence will perhaps for the first time watch as the other side's pronouncements get exposed for the gibberish and hogwash that they are. Anita has been able to foray this deep into mainstream media precisely because she's managed to avoid any sort of on-on-one confrontation with a skilful articulate interlocutor. Dan or Thunderf00t, either one would be a great candidate.

Do not underestimate the value of a public debate.
 
Last edited:
My point wasn't that no one should debate with her. It was that she never will, as long as she's getting everything she wants simply by making videos.

They're not out to be proven wrong, they're not out to convert. They're not really evangelists. Anita gets everything she needs with her kickstarter, youtube videos, and puppet journalists that support her. Why would she mess that up by embarrassing herself in a public debate?

The lutheran comparison was made because lutherans go strictly by the bible, and you can't debate with one. My grandfather's not Lutheran, but he acts like one when you don't agree with him. He'll just recite scripture on you and say you have no faith, then leave it at that. That's not a debate, and he refuses to have an actual debate or conversation outside of what he believes the scripture means.

Any sort of "debate" with someone like that would simply make you look argumentative, not like you're proving them wrong. Anita wouldn't be stupid enough to actually debate with anyone. She'd simply recite things that can't be proven false, and never delve deeper so it just stays your word and opinion vs hers. Not productive.
 
Last edited:




And thus began Leigh's quest to destroy the neckbeards. I'm not kidding when I was going to joke her spiteful attitude was the result of a traumatic childhood moment of rejection, and here it is. @227: good piece, very thoughtful and even handed. Just the thing most gaming journos are incapable of. @veleda. Naturally, everyone has their priorities but I feel the time has come to inundate these angry little people with intelligent responses. Just perused Leigh's Twitter and people are saying atrocious stuff, which helps no one. Twitter seems to be the place everyone goes to assassinate their own character.

Someone took the time to interview a professional journo:

[video=youtube;4-7RLxrsJ04]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-7RLxrsJ04[/video]

More of this, less of the death threats.
 
Last edited:
^Like I said before it was edited, she's very butthurt about her sucky highschool years.

As for twitter, Twitter isn't really the place for that sort of thing. I mean, people know what she's saying is crazily offensive and hilariously egotistical. Do we really need people saying anything to her about it? Bringing attention to her tweets in articles seems to be more effective, considering any comments in response to her on twitter are limited to 140 characters, and if you do a series of comments, most people won't bother to look at them all.

Like I said earlier, Twitter isn't a place where people expect much in the way of quality dialogue. And you can't really expect it from others either. If you look at her tweets with others, like the guy who stated he was being perfectly respectful, all they did was basically say "nuh uh", say he was denying misogyny and threaten to end his career. How do you discuss with someone like that without bringing yourself down as well? That's probably why the guy didn't bother responding again. Sometimes you just gotta step away. Especially when all that's left to say is how shitty someone is being. And that's how every bit of interaction would end.

You don't debate with unreasonable people. That becomes a pointless argument where there's nothing left to gain.
 
Last edited:

Jupiter_on_Mars

Guest
My point wasn't that no one should debate with her. It was that she never will, as long as she's getting everything she wants simply by making videos.

They're not out to be proven wrong, they're not out to convert. They're not really evangelists. Anita gets everything she needs with her kickstarter, youtube videos, and puppet journalists that support her. Why would she mess that up by embarrassing herself in a public debate?

The lutheran comparison was made because lutherans go strictly by the bible, and you can't debate with one. My grandfather's not Lutheran, but he acts like one when you don't agree with him. He'll just recite scripture on you and say you have no faith, then leave it at that. That's not a debate, and he refuses to have an actual debate or conversation outside of what he believes the scripture means.

Any sort of "debate" with someone like that would simply make you look argumentative, not like you're proving them wrong. Anita wouldn't be stupid enough to actually debate with anyone. She'd simply recite things that can't be proven false, and never delve deeper so it just stays your word and opinion vs hers. Not productive.

I can assure you I am well aware of how some of the Sola Scriptura crowd tend to debate. That's dangerous, highly controversial territory around here though, so I won't go into that, except to again mention Nye vs. Ham. Its virtue wasn't that Ham suddenly came to his senses, of course not, but that the hesitant and the undecided watching at home got a first glimpse of how disingenuous and close-minded his rhetoric was.

Same thing in this instance. Let Dan, Thunderf00t or anyone equally well-spoken invite Anita to a public debate. If she accepts the invitation, her discourse will possibly crumble apart before a live audience. On the other hand, if she refuses, let her credibility pay the price in the form of social media backlash so that her support base begins to crack open.

It's a win-win situation.
 
Last edited:
@Jupiter on Mars, sure, go ahead and offer a debate, but I doubt that there's going to be a lot of people on the fence of the issue that get turned around because she refuses to engage. She'd simply spin it and say she refuses to argue with people committed to excusing misogyny or something, then people can believe what they wish. I can tell you that debate with Nye and Ham certainly didn't change anyone's minds who were already committed to not believing evolution, and those who were on the fence were likely to eventually believe in it anyway considering they already had the seeds of doubt planted.

I really don't see that many people on the fence of the issue here. Their minds are made up and they'll support whoever reinforces what they already believe. And anyway, just because one person blunders a debate, doesn't mean that what they believe is wrong. I see people lose debates on issues I agree with them on or was on the fence on all the time. Didn't turn me away. Didn't do a thing really. The presidential debates are a good example.

You say its a win-win, but winning what? Journalists aren't going to stop supporting her, people will still donate her money, etc, because again, she reinforces something they're already fully committed to believing, and that's all that matters.
 
I don't think a debate would do much good because what she's arguing is essentially subjective. "That's misogynist." "No it's not." "I feel oppressed by it, so it is." And around it goes. Though I do think we should refute her, and point out where she's dishonest.
 
Yep, and that was the original point I made a handful of posts ago. That's all I'm saying. That's why sharing those videos, sharing articles that go into detail as to why they're wrong, that's doing a lot more good than some debate would.

edit: If people want some sort of back and forth, they should ask for an essay or a video of her refuting those points thunderf00t made against her. She won't of course, but it's a better way to show she's full of it. If someone somehow didn't already get that message and was actually on the fence of the issue.
 
Last edited:

Jupiter_on_Mars

Guest
I don't think a debate would do much good because what she's arguing is essentially subjective. "That's misogynist." "No it's not." "I feel oppressed by it, so it is." And around it goes. Though I do think we should refute her, and point out where she's dishonest.

I disagree with you.

The word «misogyny» doesn't fluctuate in meaning according to personal inclination and that's at the heart of the problem here, that some people have hijacked language to serve their own goals. For starters, we can contrast Anita's alleged examples with unequivocal appearances of misogyny in fiction, such as in Stieg Larson's first Millennium Series novel, whose original and much superior Swedish title was «Men who hate women». That hijack can be exposed. It can be shown misogyny is not a subjective concept. I'm not convinced that's your case, but if anyone here really believes indeed it's a label one gets to stamp onto whatever one sees fit, then one would be forced to concede Anita carte blanche to apply it onto whichever she'd see fit, videogames at her discretion included.

Alluding to @Guy N'wah 's Collective Guilt doctrine, which I do not endorse, what at least facilitates the misportrayal of this controversy in mainstream media as a dispute between one courageous outspoken female gamer standing up for the victimized versus a mob of vicious goons is the absence of an articulate fair-minded opponent in the public sphere operating at the same high level of prominence Anita does, a gap a debate would certainly help mitigate.

This is a discussion about tactics though, not the heart of the problem, so for now this is my last word on the subject of a public debate.
 
Last edited:
At the risk of being misunderstood yet again, I never once accused the Internet community of collectively "excusing misogyny". I accused the Internet community of refusing to acknowledge that it:

1. Harbors and facilitates the activities of groups of vicious persons who do not stop at "excusing misogyny" but treat anybody who disagrees with them with such viciousness as to amount to criminal threats.

2. Denies that it does this.

It is neither the only example of such failure to live up to collective responsibility nor by any stretch of the imagination the worst. But it is the one we participate in and can do something about.
 
I disagree with you.

The word «misogyny» doesn't fluctuate in meaning according to personal inclination and that's at the heart of the problem here, that some people have hijacked language to serve their own goals. For starters, we can contrast Anita's alleged examples with unequivocal appearances of misogyny in fiction, such as in Stieg Larson's first Millennium Series novel, whose original and much superior Swedish title was «Men who hate women». That hijack can be exposed. It can be shown misogyny is not a subjective concept. I'm not convinced that's your case, but if anyone here really believes indeed it's a label one gets to stamp onto whatever one sees fit, then one would be forced to concede Anita carte blanche to apply it onto whichever she'd see fit, videogames at her discretion included.

Alluding to @Guy N'wah 's Collective Guilt doctrine, which I do not endorse, what at least facilitates the misportrayal of this controversy in mainstream media as a dispute between one courageous outspoken female gamer standing up for the victimized versus a mob of vicious goons is the absence of an articulate fair-minded opponent in the public sphere operating at the same high level of prominence Anita does, a gap a debate would certainly help mitigate.

This is a discussion about tactics though, not the heart of the problem, so for now this is my last word on the subject of a public debate.

Dude, have you been watching anything that's been going on lately? Not even lately, really. They most certainly have been tagging things with the word misogynist as a weapon against things and groups they disapprove of. It's the exact same thing the media does with the word "racist", which in video game fanbases, you can see people doing against Stormcloak fans in Skyrim.

It's a common tactic, much like throwing out the word "communist" and "witch" in the red scare and salem witch trials, like I pointed out a good deal earlier. That's not even opinion, that's fact if you look at Zoe Quinn's activities.

For instance:
http://apgnation.com/archives/2014/09/09/6977/truth-gaming-interview-fine-young-capitalists

In this article, they say she used the word transphobic. And suddenly, everyone's on their case and they can't do anything.

The only reason I even heard of Gamergate was because she "Blew them wide open" and found "proof" that they were a misogynistic racist group trying to eliminate the feminist presence in the gaming industry. Ironically, that story is what got me and a lot of people into gamergate in the first place when they smelled the bs and realized the chatroom was an open chatroom with anonymous profiles...

edit: Of course, that isn't even what @veleda was saying specifically. Though the weight of that word "misogyny" is there, same as racist, especially in America. She's saying basically that the arguments would go in circles, because it's opinion based, almost. Subjected to a point of view that can't really be proven. You CAN show that it is an opinion made poorly, but at the end of the day, it still isn't proof.

If I say, 'Oh it's sexist that the woman is wearing a sexy bikini', and you say no it's not because the guys are wearing only shorts, then I say 'Well why can't she show her nipples? Quit sexualizing women's bodies! Misogyny!"

.... see? It just keeps going and going. You can make almost anything look sexist depending on how you look at it, because as she said, it's subjective. And people will always see exactly what it is that they want to see.

edit 2: And, people really don't care about specific definitions of things. I learned that the hard way on tumblr when I tried explaining the difference between nationalists and racists. People associate words with each other, and so because nationalism attracts racist individuals as well as those who are not, they assume all nationalists are racists.

Same here. Anything they think is sexist, even if others don't think it is sexist, is branded as misogyny and evidence of the hatred of women in their eyes. Try stomaching one of Anita's videos and she says this plain as day and isn't shy about it.
 
Last edited:

227

Forum veteran
It is neither the only example of such failure to live up to collective responsibility nor by any stretch of the imagination the worst. But it is the one we participate in and can do something about.
What would you suggest we do? The hateful rhetoric coming out of both sides' fringe elements is coming from people who aren't going to be talked down with reasonable arguments and calls for moderation. The only thing anyone's ever been able to do about such people is to ignore them entirely or, situation permitting, contact the police.

Thus far, these fringe elements have been nothing but noise, providing ammo for everyone by proving just how horrible the "other" side is, and even entertaining the thought of engaging people who idly make death threats and such seems like a wasted effort. Such people have nothing of worth to contribute to the discussion, and we're unable to block them from the internet to make them stop, so what can we do outside of decrying those who engage in generally abominable behavior and focusing our efforts on creating meaningful dialogue between the more reasonable voices on both sides?
 
You weren't talking about this just now, @227, but in reference to the talk of Leigh, I suggest you ignore talking with them directly and voice your opinion elsewhere, or do the email thing everyone else is doing:


But don't talk with her directly. Why? Lo and behold:

http://gamergate.community/showthread.php?tid=42

That's how people like her respond to reasonable conversation. By all means, discuss away.
 
Last edited:
She is a psycho, my god. How does she still have a job?

@Guy N'wah: no one is going to reform the internet any time soon. As such, it's unfair to hold gamers to a higher standard than the rest. Misogyny in the tech industry is a larger issue and one I'm not qualified to comment on, other than to say a number of female devs have emphasized that employers tend to look at your resume, not your gender.
 
She is a psycho, my god. How does she still have a job?

Man, I have absolutely no idea. I'm sure someone will explain it to me, but obviously her employers are either living under a rock and completely oblivious to it all, or they just don't give a fuck, lol. But it's insane.
 
Sarkeesian is being Sarkeesian. Gotta give her credit for it.

If she wasn't threatening something I dearly love I'd applaud her for her intelligence at being able to skillfully manipulate the Social Justice Crusaders.

As for GamerGate..."sigh". I grow weary of journalism as a whole and journalists. They are all hyenas using clickbait tactics. That said I think most people in GamerGate are naive if they somehow think they can separate gaming from the political and social realities of today. The whole nonsense about "keep politics" out of this is ridiculous to me.

That said there are people, including myself, who are tired of gaming being the left wing of the left wing of American politics. As someone who does care about political issues THAT's what you are going to bring into the discussion games? It makes sense for gamers to progressive liberals but I think most gamers are moderates.

The hijacking of gaming media by the extremists is what led to this. Also the fucking bullshit of gaming media using Sexism as an excuse to shut down criticism of their questionable ethics.
 
Last edited:
Oh I know about Alexander, I was just commenting on Sarkeesian cause she recently declared a culture war.

No shit there's a culture war.
 
Sarkeesian is being Sarkeesian. Gotta give her credit for it.

If she wasn't threatening something I dearly love I'd applaud her for her intelligence at being able to skillfully manipulate the Social Justice Crusaders.

That doesn't take much intelligence. Where the hell have you been? You've got your own Youtube account, are you commenting on this?
 
Top Bottom