The thing is, Moviebob has had a degree of hostility aimed at him for as long as I've been on the Escapist. He's always been an outspoken feminist and against some of the whinier aspects of fandom.
Personally, sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I think he's an indignant baby spending way too much effort on topics that barely concern him, but his movie reviews are pretty good.
OT: Eh, Moviebob gets angry at idiots and said idiots throw a shitstorm. It's happened before. It'll happen again. I do wish Moviebob could keep his cool more, since he is almost always right, but considering I have trouble with that too... Pots and kettles and the color black and all that...
Thanks for your support. I agree with you completely on Moviebob and this entire affair. So many people try to see "both sides" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation] of an issue to the point where they insist that in any conflict both sides must be equally right and wrong. Sometimes one side of an issue is simply right.
I feel quite insulted by our baseless accusation about not reading the escapist, as I have been a regular reader here for years. As for content on the escapist, I've already linked to moviebob's intermission in all this, which despite you not agreeing with it is still something I read on the escapist. As for other stuff, are you talking about this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/137293-Exclusive-Zoe-Quinn-Posts-Chat-Logs-Debunking-GamerGate-4Chan-and-Quinn-Respond] article that simply says what zoe quinn has said, then says what 4chan said, and is at pains to stay completely neutral throughout?
So I am totally following your reponses in this thread right now.
Didn't you say that the article you posted on thedailydot was neutral, but took Zoe's side.... yet this article on the escapist 'pains to stay completely neutral throughout' by providing both parties a voice and comparing what they both say, without forcing a concluion on the reader?
Well obviously yes I did say that, and I would like to say that it's possible for someone to take a side on an issue without being biased to the point where their opinion should be completely dismissed.
Being neutral doesn't mean you can't take a side, it means you report both sides without your bias in it.
Being neutral is showing both sides of the story when the two sides differ and one side doesn't have a burden of proof.
Being neutral means your own opinion doesnt slander others, and you give both sides time to talk.
Even in the escapist article, they pointed out, "Please note that The Escapist firmly stands against all harassment, bullying and abuse." Even if Greg sides with Zoe, he is reporting this issue neutrally and giving both sides time to talk, and is letting his readers decide for themselves about the information.
You do realize that if one side of a two sided story is stupid, than neutrality means showing that stupidity right? I'm not saying Moviebob was neutral or unbiased in this case, because he wasn't, but "neutrality" also doesn't mean going out of your way to make both sides look like they have a point if one side is completely off it's rocker.
Additionally, I think the point is that someone can be biased and still be right. Having bias doesn't automatically make you wrong about the thing your biased on. Now, all I've read of Moviebob's take on this controversy was that one Intermission article, but I found it rather spot on. Bias and all.
Except, your saying the side of the #burgersandfries IRC (A subset of 4chan no less, so even less people) are stupid.... except it seems that zoe may of been showing things out of context and making up some information. Except.... The #IRC spokesman showed professionalism and showed what the movement was really about, and actually showed that Zoe may of shown some chats out of context, or even worse, faked some.... so who is stupid now?
That is why we have neutrality. Neither side has a burden of proof. You don't want to be neutral here, you want to slander a side.
Bias can happen when you are right.... except you don't get to say you are right in this case, and bias can absolutely happen when you are wrong to. There is an actual discussion going on here, and your spreading what basically amounts to slanderous propaganda against a movement that is fighting for journalistic integrity.
I have to say, I am glad Greg Tito, who most likely sides with Zoe, wrote that article, and not you. Greg knows how to write a neutral article when there is no one 'right' side, you would just want to be like Polygon, Kotaku, and Rock/Paper/Shotgun.
Being neutral doesn't mean you can't take a side, it means you report both sides without your bias in it.
Being neutral is showing both sides of the story when the two sides differ and one side doesn't have a burden of proof.
Being neutral means your own opinion doesnt slander others, and you give both sides time to talk.
Even in the escapist article, they pointed out, "Please note that The Escapist firmly stands against all harassment, bullying and abuse." Even if Greg sides with Zoe, he is reporting this issue neutrally and giving both sides time to talk, and is letting his readers decide for themselves about the information.
Ok we seem to working from two different definitions of the word neutral [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/neutral]. You seem be using it to mean not being biased, but taking a side and bias are not the same thing. I am using in the sense of the first two definitions of the word in the link, meaning not taking a side.
Actually, I am using it in the first two definitions.
not taking part or giving assistance in a dispute or war between others:
a neutral nation during World War II.
2.
not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy:
The arbitrator was absolutely neutral.
In the escapist article, Greg did not take a side or give assistance to any side (that is debatable on a small area of the article, but easily forgiven).
The escapist article was neutral and conformed to neither side. The dailydot article was completely on one side.
I don't always agree with moviebob, but I'm not fringe extreme crazed against him. Even if someone gives an opposing position to something I believe, I'll give it the time of day as long as there isn't real venom injected into the conversation. I don't talk about social issues or politics unless I can keep the conversation civil myself and try to objectively listen to all sides of a position. No one on escapist has expressed opinions I find vile (journalists that is) but there are some articles or parts I'll disagree with.
I try to approach things with civility and grace, anything emotionally injected just turns a conversation into a war of words, never ends well because like arguments, no one really wins in a war either.
Except, your saying the side of the #burgersandfries IRC (A subset of 4chan no less, so even less people) are stupid.... except it seems that zoe may of been showing things out of context and making up some information. Except.... The #IRC spokesman showed professionalism and showed what the movement was really about, and actually showed that Zoe may of shown some chats out of context, or even worse, faked some.... so who is stupid now?
That is why we have neutrality. Neither side has a burden of proof. You don't want to be neutral here, you want to slander a side.
Bias can happen when you are right.... except you don't get to say you are right in this case, and bias can absolutely happen when you are wrong to. There is an actual discussion going on here, and your spreading what basically amounts to slanderous propaganda against a movement that is fighting for journalistic integrity.
I have to say, I am glad Greg Tito, who most likely sides with Zoe, wrote that article, and not you. Greg knows how to write a neutral article when there is no one 'right' side, you would just want to be like Polygon, Kotaku, and Rock/Paper/Shotgun.
Alright, let me just begin by saying that while taking a side often means that some degree of bias is unavoidable, that does not immediately discount the arguments of the person taking a side. I also never said that if you're biased you can't be wrong, this should be obvious. And as for which side is a malicious slander against a legitimate movement, I think it's safe to say we disagree on which is which, and which side is shutting down legitimate discussion in the name of furthering their side. I am not here to slander, I am arguing for my side on this, which doesn't automatically discredit me. I have seen the amount of contempt and bile leveled at "Social Justice Warriors" on that thread, and didn't feel that it would be an appropriate place to start a relatively unbiased discussion on this issue.
Except, your saying the side of the #burgersandfries IRC (A subset of 4chan no less, so even less people) are stupid.... except it seems that zoe may of been showing things out of context and making up some information. Except.... The #IRC spokesman showed professionalism and showed what the movement was really about, and actually showed that Zoe may of shown some chats out of context, or even worse, faked some.... so who is stupid now?
That is why we have neutrality. Neither side has a burden of proof. You don't want to be neutral here, you want to slander a side.
Bias can happen when you are right.... except you don't get to say you are right in this case, and bias can absolutely happen when you are wrong to. There is an actual discussion going on here, and your spreading what basically amounts to slanderous propaganda against a movement that is fighting for journalistic integrity.
I have to say, I am glad Greg Tito, who most likely sides with Zoe, wrote that article, and not you. Greg knows how to write a neutral article when there is no one 'right' side, you would just want to be like Polygon, Kotaku, and Rock/Paper/Shotgun.
Alright, let me just begin by saying that while taking a side often means that some degree of bias is unavoidable, that does not immediately discount the arguments of the person taking a side. I also never said that if you're biased you can't be wrong, this should be obvious. And as for which side is a malicious slander against a legitimate movement, I think it's safe to say we disagree on which is which, and which side is shutting down legitimate discussion in the name of furthering their side. I am not here to slander, I am arguing for my side on this, which doesn't automatically discredit me. I have seen the amount of contempt and bile leveled at "Social Justice Warriors" on that thread, and didn't feel that it would be an appropriate place to start a relatively unbiased discussion on this issue.
Except.... this thread isn't unbiased. You are set in your point and want others to agree with you. You have already shown me that you believe anyone who supports #gamersgate is wrong, by saying that the dailydot article is right and the escapist one isn't. You are getting way off point to.
I don't care that we disagree on which side is right. That is why the escapist article is the neutral article. It provides both sides of the story for people on both sides of the conversation, and those in the middle.
The people in that mega thread would happily talk to you if you want to have a discussion.
"I have seen the amount of contempt and bile leveled at "Social Justice Warriors" on that thread"
You know why, right? Because those are the people constantly calling us misogynist, neck beards, scum, ISIS, and a plethora of other things. Not everyone who opposes #gamergate is a SJW, but the ones who are can usually be seen by calling someone a misogynist.
Hmm, wasn't it because he said some stupid things over Twitter in the heat of the moment?
If I remember correctly he was insulting to the conspiracy theorists calling them sexist or something, which suddenly put him on the shit-list of a lot of people.
Eh I mean you got a topic that went viral, anything that comes from that will be magnified, he just insulted a single side without much context and got shit for it.
Fiz_The_Toaster said:
In any event, this whole thing has just shown just immature the "gaming community" still is, and will probably be for a while. Kinda sad really.
Given how much of the vocal minority just over shadowed everyone else and drove out two people from the industry, and made one critic leave her house because of death threats, I would say it's pretty accurate.
I find all of that insulting when those people condone it.
Is all of the community like that? No, but at a casual glance from someone outside of our little bubble that is pretty damning.
Also says we should just drop the whole thing. Just because.
Hell some off these comments say gamers are "just bored" so they "invent drama."
On september 4th, Moviebob retweeted Andy Khouri saying any gamers who care about gamergate should be told to fuck off by journalists and content producers.
I am aware of Devin Faraci (in fact I started the thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.859458-Devin-Faraci-on-what-is-driving-the-gamergate-gamers#21334557] that seems to have brought him to the forum's attention). As for #notyourshield it really was [https://archive.moe/v/thread/261343810/#261347271] started on 4chan, with the link taking you to the first known use of the term. Also, Zoe Quinn's IRC posts showed people saying they'd go "blackface" [https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy/status/508184768815448064/photo/1] on twitter to support #notyourshield. It's also worth mentioning that someone brings up the fact that they're not Caucasian in the IRC pic, and the fact that he bothered pointing that out seems to show that white people using sockpuppets is the norm. As for what he's been saying himself, I agree with most everything he's said and don't think he should've apologized for it.
I just wanted to say that the screencap that Zoe posted about the #notyourshield (and everything else in her reveal) was massively truncated and not representative of the actual conversation. Here is an explanation with more of the chat:
http://i.imgur.com/g385IJM.jpg
EDIT: I also seen some comments regarding a lack of evidence on the claims presented. If you are curious about the latest IGF controversy I would look here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgW5NRUfs44
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM_Z5YTop7g
The logs discussed are in the comments section of the video.
Yeah, they do. And the actions of Varg Vikernes and the guys from the band Absurd tarred the black metal community. But you know what that community did? Evicted those guys and heavily distanced themselves from almost everything that they stood for. They made it damn clear that they don't speak for them. Punk Rock did it too, when they evicted the nazis that were beggining to enter that community. Why can't we do the same? Why can't we have a "Nazi Punks, Fuck Off", so to speak?
This whole conspiracy thing just boggles my mind. There are people out there that love the grizzled, white, 30 something dudes? I suppose there are people out there who are into fat people and feet though so stranger shit cam happen, wouldn't have thought they'd be so vocal.
Given how much of the vocal minority just over shadowed everyone else and drove out two people from the industry, and made one critic leave her house because of death threats, I would say it's pretty accurate.
I find all of that insulting when those people condone it.
Is all of the community like that? No, but at a casual glance from someone outside of our little bubble that is pretty damning.
People aren't putting up with it, I've yet to see anyone condone those death threats and I've seen lots of people bring it up as an outrage and an insult to the community.
BreakfastMan said:
NiPah said:
Fiz_The_Toaster said:
In any event, this whole thing has just shown just immature the "gaming community" still is, and will probably be for a while. Kinda sad really.
Yeah, they do. And the actions of Varg Vikernes and the guys from the band Absurd tarred the black metal community. But you know what that community did? Evicted those guys and heavily distanced themselves from almost everything that they stood for. They made it damn clear that they don't speak for them. Punk Rock did it too, when they evicted the nazis that were beggining to enter that community. Why can't we do the same? Why can't we have a "Nazi Punks, Fuck Off", so to speak?
Given how much of the vocal minority just over shadowed everyone else and drove out two people from the industry, and made one critic leave her house because of death threats, I would say it's pretty accurate.
I find all of that insulting when those people condone it.
Is all of the community like that? No, but at a casual glance from someone outside of our little bubble that is pretty damning.
I don't see how you being quoted three times in less than an hour has anything to do with it, but okay.
And I've seen people do some pretty impressive mental gymnastics about how Anita did that herself to get attention, or whatever. Zoe as well, if memory serves. So you'll have to excuse me if I don't take that seriously. You may be outraged, and you should be, but I don't see the community as a whole doing it. See the problem?
Granted, there are gonna be some people in every community being a bunch of assholes, but if the community as a whole doesn't exclude and make it clear that they're not welcome then it really doesn't change anything.
Bob tends to pretty much actively seek out an unreasonable stance and throws around generalisations implying everyone in the "gaming community" is on board with some things done by fringe elements, so him catching a lot of flak is no surprise, it's the internet and strong opinions do cause that anyway, let alone when they're strong opinions that insult a mostly undeserving group of people. With that said, he knows his stuff about film/tv/comic history and his content that's actually content rather than opinion is generally quite good.
The people running the escapist are simply going to ignore the people calling for Movie Bob to be fired. They are vocal, but I doubt they are a majority. What are they going to do if Movie Bob doesn't get fired? Not visit this site? Frankly, that would be a good thing - of course they won't stop coming here, because then they couldn't complain about this site.
Given how much of the vocal minority just over shadowed everyone else and drove out two people from the industry, and made one critic leave her house because of death threats, I would say it's pretty accurate.
I find all of that insulting when those people condone it.
Is all of the community like that? No, but at a casual glance from someone outside of our little bubble that is pretty damning.
I don't see how you being quoted three times in less than an hour has anything to do with it, but okay.
And I've seen people do some pretty impressive mental gymnastics about how Anita did that herself to get attention, or whatever. Zoe as well, if memory serves. So you'll have to excuse me if I don't take that seriously. You may be outraged, and you should be, but I don't see the community as a whole doing it. See the problem?
Granted, there are gonna be some people in every community being a bunch of assholes, but if the community as a whole doesn't exclude and make it clear that they're not welcome then it really doesn't change anything.
Start a poll, ask people "Do you condone threats of violent on female developers"
I bet outside of a few idiots everyone will say they don't.
Letting them know they're not welcome won't do much either, they're clearly insane.
But here's the issue, a lot of people in that debate are making different points, some of them are stupid, some of them are sexist, and some are actually kindof good points. Demonizing them and linking them to criminal idiots making death threats doesn't do a lot of good, it just makes people quite pissed and breaks down communication.
Hell the reason Moviebob is in the shit because (if memory serves) he called them sexist, which drew a lot of ire and did absolutely no good. Now sure, there are a shit ton of sexists in that group, but it's stupid to just come out and insult them, you have to attack the root of their sexist arguments, show them what they are through reasoning, and make them come to the conclusion themselves.
Which is quite hard to do over Twitter, believe it or not.
That's a bit of a tangent but I'll come back by saying this:
Yes there are some fucked up things in the gaming community, yes it's bad that more people are not verbally condemning the threats, but don't use it as a way to demonize a group of people since you'll just end up being hated by them (instead reason out why their actions are so evil in the first place).
I utterly love the way that this shit's gone full circle, with people going from complaining that their voices were unheard in the media and that they didn't get enough recognition/validation of their views from the "Gaming Press" (which is such a shitty term I don't even know why I used it) to (possibly, I don't post much on these god-forsaken forums) are now suddenly being angry at Bob and wanting him to stop working.
Seems a tad hypocritical.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
