AhhHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAaaaaa... a Zoe Quinn movie.

[Silvanus]

However, if someone is going to get up on a soap box and begin lecturing other people on their perceived moral failings is it too much to ask that they get their fucking house in order first? That your own behaviour is both exemplary and worthy imitation before you start judging others for their shortcomings?

Well, that depends. Is the moral failing the same one they're criticising others for?

If so, there's hypocrisy involved. If not, it's not terribly relevant. Either way, the criticism stands, and the personal situation of the person who issued that criticism doesn't matter one jot to its validity.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

Given how much jimmy rustling one silly SVU episode garnered, I can't wait to see this come to fruition.

For great ethics!

Who's Jimmies were rustled? Certanly not GGs. The 8chan board was laughing their collective asses off at that whole thing. Heck, they're looking forward to this movie for the exact same reason.

That, and it's theorized that this movie is gonna be the movie "Cyberbullied" all over again, and that was hilarious in it's own right.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

A movie guaranteed to have at least five different sex scenes in it?

How on earth will we tell it apart from it's porn parody?

Um, it's actually about ethics in circulating discredited memes about a random woman's sex life?

A random woman who was able to get most of the internet to crack down on any discussion of said sex life. Yeah, THAT'S not telling.

 

[Dazzle Novak]

A movie guaranteed to have at least five different sex scenes in it?

How on earth will we tell it apart from it's porn parody?

Um, it's actually about ethics in circulating discredited memes about a random woman's sex life?

A random woman who was able to get most of the internet to crack down on any discussion of said sex life. Yeah, THAT'S not telling.

The fact "most of the internet" had nothing better to do or more worthwhile to discuss than "some random woman's sex life" isn't the telling part to you?

Interesting...

Really, I'm not denying the possibility she's a horrible person (I'm prejudiced against the "oh, I'm so punk-rock/ quirky" affectation of rainbow hair and lip-piercings, so it's not even a hard sell). Why anyone should mobilize in online packs of aggrieved men for over a year because of her, however, is a fucking mystery. I suppose I simply have a modicum of happiness in my miserable little life making the prospect of waging ideological jihad against some other guys' shitty ex-girlfriend/ failed relationship unappealing to me. Never mind that I get the impression anyone who'd type a 10,000 word "fuck my ex" screed is at least equally as toxic a partner, if not actively shipping pipe bombs through Fed Ex and plotting his Rodger-esque "retribution".

 

[Something Amyss]

A random woman who was able to get most of the internet to crack down on any discussion of said sex life. Yeah, THAT'S not telling.

Considering this was supposed to be about "Ethics in Games Journalism" and people wanted to discuss the sex life of one woman instead, I think that's quite telling.

In fact, the journalist she slept with doesn't seem to come up much. Personally, if I were fighting for ethics, I'd probably be addressing the people who actually breached the ethics guidelines. Or at least trying to find some, since there's no evidence Grayson did.

 

[Breakdown]

However, if someone is going to get up on a soap box and begin lecturing other people on their perceived moral failings is it too much to ask that they get their fucking house in order first? That your own behaviour is both exemplary and worthy imitation before you start judging others for their shortcomings?

Well, that depends. Is the moral failing the same one they're criticising others for?

If so, there's hypocrisy involved. If not, it's not terribly relevant. Either way, the criticism stands, and the personal situation of the person who issued that criticism doesn't matter one jot to its validity.

Does this also apply to Gamergate supporters both in regards to criticising the media for ethical breaches and criticising 'SJWs'? How do you feel about the 'don't give Gamergate a platform to speak because they are all horrible people' argument?

 

[Paradoxrifts]

However, if someone is going to get up on a soap box and begin lecturing other people on their perceived moral failings is it too much to ask that they get their fucking house in order first? That your own behaviour is both exemplary and worthy imitation before you start judging others for their shortcomings?

Well, that depends. Is the moral failing the same one they're criticising others for?

No, it does not depend. At least not for me at any rate. I'm not divvying up morality into little separate sections that can be specialized in. I'm certainly not going to feel even the least bit of sympathy to someone if they fail to live up to the same standards of moral behaviour they expect in others. I believe the bible put it best, "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get." Or more colloquially translated, "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

If so, there's hypocrisy involved. If not, it's not terribly relevant. Either way, the criticism stands, and the personal situation of the person who issued that criticism doesn't matter one jot to its validity.

Shooting the messenger does not in anyway invalidate their message. True. But the simply acting as a messenger does not mean that you do not deserve to be shot in the first place.

 

[F-I-D-O]

In general, I don't like biopics unless the subject has been deceased for a while.
(NOTE: THAT IS NOT SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT HOW I FEEL ABOUT QUINN, THAT IS A GENERAL STANCE I HAVE)
When movies are done when the person is still alive/very recently deceased, it feels like filmmakers will lean away from topics or focus on specific things to make the person look a certain way. Rather than tell a dramatized version of the life/memoirs, these film will focus on highlighting how that person/their recently grieving family sees them.
Social Network is the only one that I can think that did it okay, and they had multiple viewpoints around a very significant and set event. I'm sure a different version will come out after Zuckerburg dies, but the current one seemed reasonable. Compared to Kucher's Jobs or Brolin's W, which tell stories of recent events or the entire life, Social Network was much more focused.

I'd be interested in her memoirs and a film version later. It seems way too soon currently, and the best biopics or movies on events get at least a few viewpoints to help construct it. Considering how much shady shit happened around August last year on every side and form of social networking, I think it'd be best to cool it down and try and figure out what happened (and if its even important) before making and greenlighting a movie because Quinn wrote a memoir.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

A movie guaranteed to have at least five different sex scenes in it?

How on earth will we tell it apart from it's porn parody?

Um, it's actually about ethics in circulating discredited memes about a random woman's sex life?

A random woman who was able to get most of the internet to crack down on any discussion of said sex life. Yeah, THAT'S not telling.

Crack down? "I do not think that means what you think it means."

A year of babbling shit flinging from neckbeards is not "cracked down".

So what exactly would you call mass deletion of threads discussing it, and shadow banning people who bring it up? For the longest time the ONLY place the subject could even be brought up was The Escapist and 8Chan, and even The Escapist was having issues with it.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

A movie guaranteed to have at least five different sex scenes in it?

How on earth will we tell it apart from it's porn parody?

Um, it's actually about ethics in circulating discredited memes about a random woman's sex life?

A random woman who was able to get most of the internet to crack down on any discussion of said sex life. Yeah, THAT'S not telling.

The fact "most of the internet" had nothing better to do or more worthwhile to discuss than "some random woman's sex life" isn't the telling part to you?

Interesting...

Really, I'm not denying the possibility she's a horrible person (I'm prejudiced against the "oh, I'm so punk-rock/ quirky" affectation of rainbow hair and lip-piercings, so it's not even a hard sell). Why anyone should mobilize in online packs of aggrieved men for over a year because of her, however, is a fucking mystery. I suppose I simply have a modicum of happiness in my miserable little life making the prospect of waging ideological jihad against some other guys' shitty ex-girlfriend/ failed relationship unappealing to me. Never mind that I get the impression anyone who'd type a 10,000 word "fuck my ex" screed is at least equally as toxic a partner, if not actively shipping pipe bombs through Fed Ex and plotting his Rodger-esque "retribution".

No, "most of the internet" as you so succinctly put it, would've dropped it after Destiny was released had the subject been left alone. Instead, most places attempted to bury it, and that got people digging around out of curiosity.

A random woman who was able to get most of the internet to crack down on any discussion of said sex life. Yeah, THAT'S not telling.

Considering this was supposed to be about "Ethics in Games Journalism" and people wanted to discuss the sex life of one woman instead, I think that's quite telling.

In fact, the journalist she slept with doesn't seem to come up much. Personally, if I were fighting for ethics, I'd probably be addressing the people who actually breached the ethics guidelines. Or at least trying to find some, since there's no evidence Grayson did.

Ah yes, no evidence at all. Clearly they just hooked up the MOMENT after he wrote that article featuring her game and they went off to Vegas.

In all honesty, most people in GG would prefer Zoe curl up in obscurity somewhere and fade away, but obscurity doesn't keep Patreon dollars coming in so she crams herself into any subject she can in one long game of tug of war for the spotlight between her, Sarkeesian, and Wu.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

I'm certainly not going to feel even the least bit of sympathy to someone if they fail to live up to the same standards of moral behaviour they expect in others.

Not an expert but pretty sure Zoe Quinn never wrote 10,000 words about her ex, then linked to it on 4chan and let it incite people into sending death/rape threats at someone else.

So y'know, that whole 'same standards of moral behaviour' thing is complete bullshit.

Except I'm pretty certain Eron never posted his stuff on 4Chan. They just found it.

 

[Silvanus]

No, it does not depend. At least not for me at any rate. I'm not divvying up morality into little separate sections that can be specialized in.

Neither am I. That's precisely why I said none of it's relevant to the validity of the criticism itself.

I'm certainly not going to feel even the least bit of sympathy to someone if they fail to live up to the same standards of moral behaviour they expect in others. I believe the bible put it best, "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get." Or more colloquially translated, "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

Well, you've just given your answer to my question. I asked whether the moral failing was the same one they were criticising others for; you've specified above that it is. It's a little odd that you seem to be opining that my question was bunk to begin with in the same breath, though.

Shooting the messenger does not in anyway invalidate their message. True. But the simply acting as a messenger does not mean that you do not deserve to be shot in the first place.

It's a pity, though; if only those without personal problems can offer criticism, even on unrelated topics, then... well, we won't get any criticism at all (conveniently; one could almost conclude that's the intention).

Does this also apply to Gamergate supporters both in regards to criticising the media for ethical breaches and criticising 'SJWs'?

The principle applies about anywhere. It's a good rule of thumb. Is this a "gotcha" of some kind? It feels like one...

EDIT: If possible, I'd really like to steer clear of GG on this. I've kept out of that for a while now, after a particularly hostile altercation shook me quite a bit.

How do you feel about the 'don't give Gamergate a platform to speak because they are all horrible people' argument?

Which platform is this? Whether somebody should be given a certain public platform depends on the rules and purpose behind that platform.

 

[StatusNil]

Why anyone should mobilize in online packs of aggrieved men for over a year because of her, however, is a fucking mystery. I suppose I simply have a modicum of happiness in my miserable little life making the prospect of waging ideological jihad against some other guys' shitty ex-girlfriend/ failed relationship unappealing to me.

Sounds like you've been listening to and believing in exactly the real problem that has people (not just men) up in arms. Namely, the brazenly dishonest "journo" junta, who use this individual as a shield to cover their tangled webs of cronyism infecting gaming media. Their very power to make you believe their precious Narrative is an ample demonstration of why they need to be resisted.

 

[Dazzle Novak]

Why anyone should mobilize in online packs of aggrieved men for over a year because of her, however, is a fucking mystery. I suppose I simply have a modicum of happiness in my miserable little life making the prospect of waging ideological jihad against some other guys' shitty ex-girlfriend/ failed relationship unappealing to me.

Sounds like you've been listening to and believing in exactly the real problem that has people (not just men) up in arms. Namely, the brazenly dishonest "journo" junta, who use this individual as a shield to cover their tangled webs of cronyism infecting gaming media. Their very power to make you believe their precious Narrative is an ample demonstration of why they need to be resisted.

No way I could disagree with you without having been brainwashed. I've been lurking long enough to have witnessed the original "Quinnspiracy thread" so that gaslighting horseshit about how what I remember as being a dumpster fire revolving around "OMG, what a horrible skank-beast Zoe is" actually being a grassroots consumer revolt centered on "ethics in journalism" won't work on me. Sorry. I'll trust my lying eyes over your insistence.


Complaining about "gaming journalism" for its lack of adherence to journalistic ethics (which would preclude reporting on half-baked innuendo from a jilted ex, anyway) is like rallying against root beer over its low alcohol content. "Journalism" in this case is colloquial and being used to describe tech reviews and blog posts. Game Informer, Polygon, Kotaku, etc. are about as journalistic as E! News. So, even if I took GamerGate at face value, I'd be unswayed by the self-righteous demagoguery involving "holding game reviewers accountable" and all that. It's simply not that important. This is made worse by how all the angst regarding race/sex/gender identity/etc. is dismissed as busybody hand-wringing that can be solved by simply not purchasing "problematic" material or affording views to such content, yet I'm supposed to be moved by all these "I was bullied for being a video game nerd!" sob stories and treat "neckbeard" like it's the real N-word rather than state, "You could just not read the magazines/ websites you've deemed guilty of stereotyping you as a "gamer".

When I say "men", I mean "a majority of men". You have your allies like Christina Hoff Sommers patting you on the head for being good little reactionaries, but a majority of Gamergate are the usual packs of pissed off men who have few hobbies beyond railing against SJWs and feminism and have been doing so for the past half-decade.