BREAKING: Women of #GamerGate Make Breakthrough on HuffPo Live

[jamail77]

It does end up reminding me of what the south park creators said when they were talking about why they don't like liberals, and they said that despite the fact that there is an image of conservative groups that would get up in arms about insulting their beliefs, it was the liberals who, when insulted, would write the most vial and vitriolic hate mail.

Oooooh. Not the best example. Sorry, I'm not even going to address the OT. I've got a beef with Matt Parker and Trey Stone and this is the perfect opportunity to bring it out. I know it's a bit nitpicky and might come off as cherry picked, but I really need to get this off my chest. Knowing me, it's probably going to get really long and ranty, so fair warning if you're not interested in rambling words.

Even though I watch South Park, I've really grown to dislike the creators' reasoning for being "above both sides" and how often it seeps into the show and makes a great or just decent episode subpar. You see, they claim to be above all the infighting, how people think you have to be super liberal, they use Michael Moore as an example, or super conservative, they use shooting Iraqis overseas as the example here. So, while they don't hide their conservative leanings, they consider themselves more center than most people and certainly more logical. The problem? Whenever they hit both "sides" they hit liberals worse. They say it's because everyone skewers conservatives, so it'd be like beating a dead horse, that making fun of liberals is more fun. They say it has nothing to do with who's worse. They say that the statement Matt made years ago that, "I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals" wasn't what Matt really thought, but rather just done for trolling's sake and shock humor. I don't believe any of that honestly. They show too much pettiness for me to believe them. I remember when Kenny had to save heaven from the armies of hell via a golden PSP created by God himself. Kenny couldn't fulfill his destiny because he was in a medically sustained coma. Republicans wanted to keep him on feeding tubes, Democrats said it was inhumane. They even show The Emperor from Star Wars influencing the Republicans. Yet, in that same episode the Democrats are still portrayed as worse, as morons ruining everything, despite using 1 of the most evil villains in fictional history, so evil it's practically cliche, to substitute in for Republicans. They had to get a better dig in at the Democrats regardless. Then, they go back to saying how they're above it all. Nope, they're not and their arrogance and pettiness in refusing to admit it is something I find very distasteful. This [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park_Republican] actually sums up what I mean pretty well. You can see them contradicting each other and then claiming they're not really contradicting each other. To be fair, how you interpret their statements is subjective, so you may not see it as hypocritical the way I do. I wouldn't care if they stopped acting so high and mighty how they're above all the arguments. I don't really associate as a Democrat, so it's not like I'm set up to be insulted anyway.

You also have to understand that why they might get more hate mail from liberals is the intended audience. There's a reason the term "South Park Republican" exists (even if the creators don't like that fans coined the term) though if you clicked on my link you already know enough about that. My post is getting kind of vindictive though, so I'm going to take a break and brighten up the mood with a more satirical (though kind of half serious) take on that term just for hahas. Won't link it onto a word this time just to emphasize this is a chance to take a break from how exhausting my post probably feels and remove some of the cynicism it probably emits. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/South_Park_Republicans

Good break? Okay, so the liberals who watch might be more active in their critique than the conservatives who watch too. In my experience, of the people who watch South Park liberals are more vocal about their criticism and conservatives just talk about how stupid the insults were, but how it's not worth getting vocal to the creators because they're stupid people and who likes talking to stupid people. So, there is just as much hate from conservatives, but they don't voice it as strongly. That's anecdotal though. Outside of the show, respective liberal and conservative vocal-ness on issues obviously varies; otherwise, you're generalizing. There are other shows that have creators claiming they get more hateful mail from conservatives. Even if it doesn't balance out to same amount of vitriol from both "sides", it's disingenuous for them to dismiss liberals by their limited mail rather than from statistics or extensive (as in been all over the country, had civil discussions with very political people, etc. and even then that's still anecdotal) experience with liberals.

Not gonna lie, still watch the show. That 2 parter episode on the console wars was great. I know I might be misjudging them and that they're better than they sometimes seem. It might just be an act for "shock humor" as they say. They've never proven this to me though, so I can't help judging them so harshly despite mostly liking the show.

Personally, I think that it's much harder to choose a side AND admit it openly no matter who you're with. When you're independent you can get out of any serious argument and not come off as a spiteful jerk refusing to cooperate. When you admit to leaning towards one side or the other, you have the burden of still having to act civil despite all the stereotypes of your side and despite all the partisanship divide that has caused you trouble, trouble such as costing you friends on the other side of the poltical spectrum. We need to have a healthy conversation on how it's okay to lean as long as you don't treat people terrible for leaning in the other direction and as long as you're willing to compromise for the better good instead of acting stubborn out of selfishness and over-dedication to ideology. That's why I've never have hidden where I lean politically even though, technically, I'm registered as an Independent. There are some terrible figureheads, but I really don't think there's that many politicized people who are awful people. Yet, I hear way too often how Democrats are devil reincarnate or Republicans are devil reincarnate. If you only pay attention to the hateful, "opposite from your side", people on TV and then distance yourself from people you ACTUALLY KNOW on the opposite "side", so you're only hanging out with people on your "side" then of course it's going to seem that way. There's a term for that: Confirmation bias. Honestly, regardless of my political views, if you're a civil, respectful person with a good heart deep down I can get along with you. I could care less if you're conservative or liberal if you have that going for you.

 

[Nirallus]

I never mentioned people sending death threats.

But no, you're not doing that. I am literally yet to see someone from Gamergate going "Guys we need to do something about all the misogyny". Even you, right there, are apathetic towards it. You don't want to address the complaints about misogyny, instead trying to fog it off as "not (being) true".

I had assumed that sending death threats to women constituted misogyny. What are the specific complaints about misogyny that you're talking about here?

It was founded on misogyny, seems to have an air of misogyny about it (notice how there's a ton more complaints about SJW's or "politicising" games rather than ethics in journalism?) and when complaints about it are brought up, members just respond to it with apathy ("eh it happens nothing we can do about it" "there's always a few bad apples" "you're just trying to distract from what we want to talk about" etc) which perpetuates the misogynistic air.

People see through it.

The first point is simple genetic fallacy. It's not about Zoe and hasn't been for a long time. What happened or did not happen between her and her ex led to later events that exposed the shady practices of gaming journalists. Those who harassed her ought to be ashamed. It doesn't make the criticism of the gaming press invalid.

Politicization of the gaming press is a problem with journalistic ethics. Obviously it's not a problem exclusive to gaming. Complaints about SJW's and politicizing the gaming press come about for the reason I mentioned in my first post in this thread: It is never healthy for the press to follow one ideology and speak with one voice. I put it to you that if the gaming press was was filled with WND types, agreeing behind closed doors to run this and kill that, the complaints would be about Fundies and... politicizing the gaming press. Doesn't matter whether it's a Jon McIntosh or a Jack Thompson, we recoil from authoritarian moralizing.

GG is a consumer revolt against the gaming press, so of course that's what we want to talk about. I don't think GamerGate is a misogynist group, because I don't hate women and neither do any of the prominent people who support it. So when the press we're criticizing goes to such great lengths to call us all misogynists, I know instinctively that it's untrue. That's why I take such offense to it, and it's why I recognize it as a deflection.

You think you're seeing through something when there's nothing there.

 

[Belaam]

It's not about Zoe and hasn't been for a long time. What happened or did not happen between her and her ex led to later events that exposed the shady practices of gaming journalists. Those who harassed her ought to be ashamed. It doesn't make the criticism of the gaming press invalid.

Maybe not. But it certainly taints the whole #gamergate message. In case hashtag activism and the cliched -gate weren't bad enough. Someone may put a Confederate flag on their car to support State's Rights, but almost everyone who sees it is going to think racism and slavery.

If gamergate needs to be taken seriously, they need some clear bullet point goals (because right now they are so vague as to be meaningless) and a new name.

I found it particularly informative that one of their initial examples of women in gaming was King's Quest. Because, you know, Roberta Williams is easily the most powerful woman in the history of gaming... and that was 30+ years ago when she was pretty much literally the only woman in gaming and there hasn't even been a contender for the title since.

Politicization of the gaming press is a problem with journalistic ethics. Obviously it's not a problem exclusive to gaming.

nor is it a new problem; which helps make the Quinn tie seem like an odd trigger. If GG were triggered by the Shadow of Mordor stuff, it would not be facing the criticism it is. But, as fruit of the poisonous tree, it did have its basis in a misogynistic lie and is now stuck with that origin. That origin opens all kinds of criticism about later movement, as when groups previously pushing for creationism taught in schools all started going, "no, wait, we mean we want Intelligent Design taught" and we even have a scientist who says we should do so.

we recoil from authoritarian moralizing.

You mean like a group dictating that a feminist analysis of gaming isn't valid?

GG is a consumer revolt against the gaming press, so of course that's what we want to talk about. I don't think GamerGate is a misogynist group, because I don't hate women and neither do any of the prominent people who support it.

I'm really not sure I'd go with the "any", but again: Regardless of the actual cause or mission of gamergate is tied to misogyny due to its origins and ties to death threats against prominent women in gaming and game criticism. Compounding this issue is that there seem to be at least half a dozen competing ideas even within the gamergate community as to what it's goals are.

Transparency in journalist's financial incentives when reviewing a game?
Then why so many flame wars and so few, say, open letters or specific complaints to gaming sites (particularly when getting Kotaku to ban review contributions to games actually panned out pretty well)?

An end to critical analysis (ie Feminist, Marxist, Queer, etc.) of games?
Never going to happen. To many gamers taking Literary Analysis 101 and needing to write papers on something with which they are familiar (on top of which, the whole gamergate thing has got to be a goldmine - I suspect the next five years of Sociology Masters Theses are going to be chock full of gamergate analysis).

Is an actual goal those of the Mens Rights Movement guys who seems to have jumped on board and are their usual selves?
Because that doesn't work out for anyone.

Gamergate, as a title, is a bust. Too many ideologies, no clear goals or plans to reach them, and of course, that origin story that ties it closely with its worst elements.

 

[xPixelatedx]

These three women are very brave considering the amount of harassment women get for openly supporting GG. I wish them all the luck in the world and hope the backlash for this isn't too harsh. Bad move on Brianna's part for painting the movement as a 'boys club' the first chance she got when the world was watching, and right before this happened, on the same show to. I know she was being reactionary and emotional from what she just endured, but even she should have been smart enough to see what an uphill battle that was going to be. Can't call real people on camera sock puppets, sorry, this isn't going to be as easily dismissed as it is on the net. Now from the perspective of average people, her side was being disingenuous from the start.

 

[JohnFei]

These three women are very brave considering the amount of harassment women get for openly supporting GG. I wish them all the luck in the world and hope the backlash for this isn't too harsh. Bad move on Brianna's part for painting the movement as a 'boys club' the first chance she got when the world was watching, and right before this happened, on the same show to. I know she was being reactionary and emotional from what she just endured, but even she should have been smart enough to see what an uphill battle that was going to be. Can't call real people on camera sock puppets, sorry, this isn't going to be as easily dismissed as it is on the net. Now from the perspective of average people, her side was being disingenuous from the start.

Speaking of harassment, I wish they'd provided some of the million cases of threats and doxxing against Gamergate supporters. I guess it'll have to wait for another time.

EIther way, very happy to see the mainstream media actually being nuanced in their approach of GG. From now on, the ludicrous one-sided narrative is only going to be harder and harder to peddle.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

It's a bit of my takeaway from a lot of this whole discussion: there are people loudly decrying wrong journalist practices who have no clear idea of how journalism works.

So, what then? Do we start pushing for mandatory Communication or Journalism 101 classes on the collegiate circle? How do we address that issue?

For the most part, the notion of "reporting" speaks volumes. You aren't delivering an opinion piece or an essay; you're laying out the skinny for, well, whatever it is you have to report. It could be a flash flood, a string of murders, a Hollywood fiasco or a scientific breakthrough - you just have to lay out the facts as they are. Ideally, that is. Dig a little and you realize bias is virtually impossible to exorcise from the proceedings. It's in the wording, the chosen areas of analysis or exposure, even right down to how television news reports can be shot on-site can be either misleading or actually lead to informed opinions. It's exactly why you can have three berjillion news outlet trucks covering the same event, and you'll hear three berjillion DIFFERENT accounts of the same thing.

So going back to games, how *can* you explain to the GamerGaters that there's just no feasible way to eliminate bias entirely? We'll just never be rid of the people going "Oh yeah? Well, IGN gave it a 6.0!" or the usual anguished cries of "THIS REVIEW WAS TOTES PAID FOR!"

No journalist, whether he be from games journalism or even political commentary, will ever manage to please everyone simultaneously.

 

[renegade7]

"Objective review."

*sigh* There is no such thing in gaming. With artstyle, gameplay, story etc all including subjective qualities you can't have an objective review worth a damn.

But on the other hand we have now "graphics are shit because I PERSONALLY don't like the art-style". When people ask for "Objective reviews" they want reviewers to dismiss their own biases to see the bigger picture.

I think the point is that that's basically impossible. Ultimately, "graphics" just mean how pleasant the game is to look at, but that has no objective meaning. The only objective statement that can be made about a game's graphics is specs like the fidelity of the textures and polygon counts, but in regards to actually enjoying the game information like that is useless because people reading reviews want opinions, not technical datasheets. The latest Call of Duty may have great graphics from a technical standpoint, but that doesn't say a thing about whether the game actually looks nice. Minecraft, on the other hand, can create beautiful scenes through skillful use of extremely low-quality graphics. But the point is that that's subjective: plenty of people might find the blockiness of Minecraft ugly. Dwarf Fortress, to most people, just looks like someone puked ASCII all over the screen, which is often a major stumbling block for new players. Plenty of people still manage to get past that, though, and enjoy the game greatly despite its primitive graphics.

I'd call the graphics of Call of Duty crappy and unremarkable despite their technical quality, and I'd call EVE Online gorgeous despite the low-tech graphics engine.

There is no such thing as an objective opinion. The point of reviews isn't about objective information about the game, it's about providing a sample of opinions that others can work off of.

Example, we expect reviewers to put their political biases to the side. However, if a game has a clearly political message or contains social messages that some may find offensive then that's certainly something that a reviewer ought to acknowledge because things like racism and sexism may genuinely influence one's enjoyment of a game. However, what qualifies as racist or sexist enough to warrant one's mention is subjective: one can consider Saint's Row to be either a harmless parody of hip-hop culture or a continuation of its sexist and racist themes.

Some reviewers may acknowledge that. Others may consider it not important enough to mention when reviews are limited in length and there are more interesting points to make. But a reviewer isn't compromising objectivity by mentioning it: if it influenced his or her enjoyment of the game, then it might influence that of other players, and it should be mentioned in the review so readers can make their own judgments.

But ultimately it's important to understand that at the end of the day, reviews are opinion pieces. There is no such thing as true objectivity.

 

[Verlander]

Yeah, they reaffirmed my stance against Gamergate.

 

[BadNewDingus]

God. I hated that host. He was so rude and just kept trying to push the women into his belief. I mean, can both sides just ban together to go against the host!?

The women just said that it isn't an issue, but he kept spinning it back to sexist issues. I admire the women in the interview who could've easily just said, "Yes, all male gamers are sexist and there needs to be something done."

Again, this is all the media that is causing trouble. No big surprise there.

 

[DaViller]

I'm pretty sure I was talking about the part where journalists collude together to make society hate a specific group of people but go ahead and keep putting words into my mouth if you think that's going to help.

Sorry sorry, it´s just that it´s kinda hard to keep all the gamergate topics apart at times. Sometimes it´s collusion, sometimes it´s corruption and sometimes it´s cultural marxism. Also how does batman come into this again? Like it´s realy tough to keep track.

 

[Wasted]

I am someone who tried their best to avoid the emotional beginnings of GG, but I see it in a more negative light as time goes on. I am all for journalistic integrity but hate how many GG members wave away the severe harassment issues as not representative of their message, whatever that message may be since it changes depending who you speak to.

That being said, why didn't the recent Shadow of Mordor early review guidelines cause a huge uproar within GG? If journalistic ethics is really the driving force of GG, then this event should have caused the biggest reaction. That did not happen and Shadow of Mordor essentially got a free pass even with its well known and well documented shady practices.

This event just makes me think that Shadow of Mordor needed a female representative to be the focus of hate and vitriol before people spoke out against it.

 

[Andrey Sirotin]

But on the other hand we have now "graphics are shit because I PERSONALLY don't like the art-style". When people ask for "Objective reviews" they want reviewers to dismiss their own biases to see the bigger picture.

Sorry, what's the bigger picture? That the graphics were good?

You don't want reviewers to "keep their biases out of it". That's the whole point of anointing someone to review something. You want their perspective. You want them to be honest about what they think. Whether their opinions are relative to you and your interests as a gamer is for YOU to decide. It's why there is a multitude of critics and critical opinion out there. For you to think critically about and decide which ones speak to your preferences.

Sorry to butt in, but I think a lot of gamers(including myself) are tired of coordinated, overzealously sex-negative feminist attitudes in gaming media. I think that majority of gamers want moderate views when it comes to the hobby. Would you be offended(or dismissive) if the gaming media decided to pursue a Conservative Muslim, Puritanical Christian, Communist, or Anti-transexual Femenist ideological agendas for their coverage? Games like Beyond Good & Evil, Pokémon, Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age, COD4, Tomb Raider, Assassin's Creed, and Street Fighter would all be panned because they had elements that are viewed as undesirable and offensive to the reviewer. I think that in the environment where Metacritic scores=money(bonuses) it's rather easy for journalist with extreme views to propagate censorship of game by using the review as a gun.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Sorry to butt in, but I think a lot of gamers(including myself) are tired of coordinated, overzealously sex-negative feminist attitudes in gaming media. I think that majority of gamers want moderate views when it comes to the hobby.

Always fun when individuals claim to represent a "majority". How, might I ask, did you establish this? I imagine you spent years hiring polling firms and vigorously compiling statistics.

Would you be offended(or dismissive) if the gaming media decided to pursue a Conservative Muslim, Puritanical Christian, Communist, or Anti-transexual Femenist ideological agendas for their coverage? Games like Beyond Good & Evil, Pokémon, Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age, COD4, Tomb Raider, Assassin's Creed, and Street Fighter would all be panned because they had elements that are viewed as undesirable and offensive to the reviewer.

Reviewers can write about whatever they want, and from whatever perspective they want. I can decide for myself whether or not their reviews are relevant to me.

I think that in the environment where Metacritic scores=money(bonuses) it's rather easy for journalist with extreme views to propagate censorship of game by using the review as a gun.

There's that censorship word again. Fun to invoke colloquially, even though it doesn't remotely mean what you want it to mean. So your solution to hypothetical "censorship" of games is to "censor" criticism of them. Well done! Four syllable word. Rhymes with "Mipocrisy".

 

[DataSnake]

Basically I want as little of the reviewers bias in a review as possible. I don't care if Tropico 5 hurt your feelings because you play as a tyrant. I don't care if Bayonetta being sexy upsets you.

And what about the people who do care about those things? Why should your concerns matter and not theirs? Why is it you deserve reviews addressing your concerns and they don't? You already mentioned Mass Effect 3, so let's use that as an example: the ending doesn't affect gameplay any, as the game is pretty much over once you get past Marauder Shields. Does that mean that reviewers should have kept the fact that it was phenomenally unsatisfying to themselves in order to be "objective"? I would have felt let down by any reviewer who took that route. If you don't care about fanservice in Bayonetta or unfortunate implications in Tropico, there are plenty of reviews that don't touch on those. Why not just enjoy those, and leave the more socially-conscious reviews for people who do care about that kind of thing? You already have a majority of reviewers catering to your interests, why try to take away the few other people have reviewing games from their perspective?

In a world where Metacritic can affect the paycheck of a developer (which is bullshit) we must demand reviews be as objective as possible.

Yeah, no. A reviewer's job is to provide an honest critique, not pussyfoot around because the publisher might throw a hissy fit and cut the developer's salary. And as to "being as objective as possible", that's not going to work. Here's a fun thought experiment: you are a reviewer. You have been given a copy of Ride to Hell: Retribution. It's patched to the point that it has no crashes or glitches, but everything else is exactly the same. Name one objective criticism you can level at it. (Hint: complaints about the graphics, controls, difficulty, plot, map layout, AI, soundtrack, voice acting, weapons and vehicle physics are all subjective).

 

[Conner42]

Jemma just used the term "Fair and balanced"...

Oh my god, am I so glad I wasn't the one doing the interview because I wouldn't have been able to hold my laughter in...holy shit!

Sorry! I understand what she's trying to say, but it's hard for me not to think of Fox News whenever I hear that term. Nothing against her on this one, just an unfortunate association.

With that said, this video was exactly the sort of thing I needed to confirm my stance on this whole issue...it's so bad...I mean, this movement is so misplaced and misfired and wrong...just so wrong...

It's so telling when they keep talking about "corruption in journalism" but everything they talk about for the corruption is so damn vague. How is it corrupt? What are those websites doing?

The interviewer asks about why Gamergate is about fixing journalism while also wanting no reviewer to bring in their own viewpoint, but they never really got around to answering that question. They just say "We want Journalistic integrity." but they never get around to answering how we should come about that. I mean, the interviewer talked about reading film critics that do the same thing these Gamergate supporters are against...what's the difference there? Is film journalism inherently corrupt now?

I'm sorry, this is all vague bullshit! All I'm really getting here (taking this whole issue out of the context of misogyny, feminism, harassment, and all of the other things that Gamergate keeps on saying that they're not about) is that people are afraid of there being any kind of critical discussions towards games, because that's not "Journalism."

"We just want to know if the game is good."

Good luck trying to get to that point with the whole Gamergate agenda your pushing...

 

[Andrey Sirotin]

Sorry to butt in, but I think a lot of gamers(including myself) are tired of coordinated, overzealously sex-negative feminist attitudes in gaming media. I think that majority of gamers want moderate views when it comes to the hobby.

Always fun when individuals claim to represent a "majority". How, might I ask, did you establish this? I imagine you spent years hiring polling firms and vigorously compiling statistics.

Would you be offended(or dismissive) if the gaming media decided to pursue a Conservative Muslim, Puritanical Christian, Communist, or Anti-transexual Femenist ideological agendas for their coverage? Games like Beyond Good & Evil, Pokémon, Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age, COD4, Tomb Raider, Assassin's Creed, and Street Fighter would all be panned because they had elements that are viewed as undesirable and offensive to the reviewer.

Reviewers can write about whatever they want, and from whatever perspective they want. I can decide for myself whether or not their reviews are relevant to me.

I think that in the environment where Metacritic scores=money(bonuses) it's rather easy for journalist with extreme views to propagate censorship of game by using the review as a gun.

There's that censorship word again. Fun to invoke colloquially, even though it doesn't remotely mean what you want it to mean. So your solution to hypothetical "censorship" of games is to "censor" criticism of them. Well done! Four syllable word. Rhymes with "Mipocrisy".

I didn't not claim knowledge, I merely hold a belief that majority of gamers are moderate and thusly want moderate opinions. And what is so wrong about moderate views?

You did not answer my question, would you be offended if these extreme perspectives would have being injected into gaming media coverage?

Where did I state that I want to censor the reviewer? I do want gaming sites to focus on gameplay, AI, graphics, value, and length(a consumer report) rather than on social viewpoint. I think that social critique should be left to the websites that specialize in them because their audience is looking for that perspective. I'm not going to go to Rottentomatoes to look for Christian reviews of "A Land before Time," but I will go there to check out film buff's opinion on it.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I didn't not claim knowledge, I merely hold a belief that majority of gamers are moderate and thusly want moderate opinions. And what is so wrong about moderate views?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with moderate views. There is most certainly something wrong with operating under the presumption that a faceless unverified "majority" shares them, and that this makes them "right".

You did not answer my question, would you be offended if these extreme perspectives would have being injected into gaming media coverage?

Uh, I thought I did champ. I thought it was pretty clear that the answer was "no". I do not get offended by people holding opinions that differ from mine.

Where did I state that I want to censor the reviewer? I do want gaming sites to focus on gameplay, AI, graphics, value, and length(a consumer report) rather than on social viewpoint.

That is correct sir. You want them to focus on saying the things you want them to say, and to stop saying the things you don't want them to say. Gamer Gate wants to accomplish this through black lists and email campaigns designed to get people fired and/or bring down websites. How would you characterize that?

I think that social critique should be left to the websites that specialize in them because their audience is looking for that perspective.

That's fine. That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it.

I'm not going to go to Rottentomatoes to look for Christian reviews of "A Land before Time," but I will go there to check out film buff's opinion on it.

I'm glad you brought up film, because film critics inject their personal politics and beliefs into their reviews all the time.