Silvanus said:
"Flagrantly"? It's not a damn crime.
Didn't say it was a crime. It just means too bad to be ignored. Bad is an incredibly relative term. But someone who calls people who disagree with Anita an evolutionary dead end as well as any other inflammatory terms he can group anyone at all with any objections to her argument in is pretty bad to me.
I'm all for disagreement. There are very few things you can disagree with me on where I'd been to think of you as a less valuable human being. Those things are generally on topics where disagreeing with me means you think other people are less valuable human beings. You know?
Bob had a show, in which he gave his opinions, as was his remit. Allowing your regular contributor to talk about a topic in an edition of his opinion show is not "giving huge podiums".
What I mean to say is, he was the only one talking about it from his own side. There was no contradiction of his opinion anywhere else and his entire "jack thomspon" spiel was done as subtly as possible without mentioning Anita (except towards the middle in pictures rather than by name) in an attempt to settle the argument once and for all and get people to stop saying that " 'games making people sexist' is not unlike 'games making people violent' ".
You aren't wrong that he had free reign to express his opinion, but his side of things was pretty much the only thing getting displayed and any talk of it outside of the escapist was incredibly rude. Probably why he's specifically gone even if I'll miss his work.
If you'd like articles focusing on individual tweets from e-celebrities, that's fine. I certainly don't. It stinks of "gotcha"-ing, and of an obsession with triviality.
There were articles about her every time it suited someone's agenda. If I'm going to hear about these "e-celebrities" all the time then I should hear the good and bad. Are you forgetting that my desire is to see both sides of these things rather than just journalists taking a side and telling me how I should or should not feel about something? I don't particularly want any news about her at all but if it's going to be there, at least let it be two sided. Especially if it's polarizing like it is. Otherwise the news is being as bad as Fox with all one-sided nonsense. Just because in this case the media happens to side more with me doesn't mean I'm going to be OK with it. You have to push for fair journalism even when they're preaching to your side so fair journalism is still there when you need it.
I don't want to get pulled into another GG debate, so I'll hold off on this count. I'll say only that an observer, early on, would have every reason to believe this was a storm in a teacup, tied up with individual personalities and dirty laundry, nothing people will get whipped up about.
The media response to it did more to cause it than anything else. Refusal to cover or even discuss it I think got people more frustrated than had they just ran a few articles and forgot about it. From flying ban hammers across the news sites to marked silence even when real news was coming out of it that was directly related to gaming culture I think we had every reason to revolt against the lopsidedness of it all.
Lightknight said:
In this event, the discussion was framed from the angle of a woman who cheated on a boyfriend rather than from the angle of a man who wrote articles for an intimate (Quinn herself admitted to having made out with him a week before second Grayson article was written) and for a game that he was actually credited as a tester in. The article should have been framed around a woman who abused her relationship (friendly, mind you, not sexual) with the media to falsely accuse groups of harassing her to market her game on greenlight. Instead it was framed by a slut shamer with a slight nod to media issues. Why? Because the slut shamer was the only one talking and there was actual merit to the facts being presented.
I seriously do not think that was why it was framed that way.
You don't think that the five guys debacle was framed by people like the Internet Aristocrat as one woman fucking men who weren't her boyfriend and one just happened to be a journalist? Because that's what I thought was happening early on and was primarily why I stated multiple times in those first days that if there was a guilty party it would be the journalists that crossed the line rather than some girl that kissed him or pressured the others.
In fact, I'd say that Anti-GGers still see this as exactly how the issue was framed and they're not entirely wrong thanks to the vast majority of radio silence from the media in it all.
You want the media to have taken the opposite view of the movement, that's your prerogative, but it's far from objective. There is no correct way to view the movement.
No, I wanted the media to report on the situation as it was occurring and if they presented a view then I'd have wanted to see opposing views in there as well. Just like with real big-boy news sources.
When the news outlets finally rose as one and responded, then it was all this garbage about attacking their demographic rather than discussing anything of merit. To the point of a lot of other media outlets taking shock at those articles and later calling it "stooping to the GGers' level" by actual anti-ggers. Active collusion to forward an agenda should indicate to you an issue of polarization in the media. I don't like mainstream media sources that do it for the same reason I don't like Fox News for doing it.
I very much doubt that's word-for-word.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.858347-Zoe-Quinn-and-the-surrounding-controversy?page=31#21285187 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.858347-Zoe-Quinn-and-the-surrounding-controversy?page=31#21285187]
"The Escapist ran a story about Quinn's harassment in late 2013 with little evidence other than her word. We will always default towards helping out people who are the subject of harassment on the internet. I do not support behavior of that kind and will strive to protect those who are feeling the effects of it. We will signal-boost those incidents because I think it's important to create change, and will only choose not to post such stories if I decide they will do more harm to the situation."
Basically, because they want to elevate these kinds of issues they reported on it without doing any fact checking. This is agenda-based reporting. While I absolutely agree that harassment is bad I still think that people need to fact check a claim before bringing out the ol' lynching rope.
This is one particular battlefield I didn't keep up with, though I was vaguely aware of it.
Just one question: is there actual proof that Quinn got her media friends specifically not to cover TFYC's event?
So very much is built on sand and allegation in the past few months.
They cited specific reporters who told them that's why they weren't reporting on it after having agreed to meet. Those reporters have basically stayed quiet with no one denying TFYC's claims.
They have been pretty public about it and have been doxxed publicly by Zoe's publicist.
This really isn't hasn't been a question of validity so much as something glossed over and ignored.
No, and in part, I'm glad. It would only have further fuelled the current obsession with a small, mostly-arbitrary set of public figures, their personal lives and their relatively inconsequential spats. I want to get back to talking about games.
Cool, in that case you're in favor of hiding news to serve your own personal agenda because you're afraid the truth might get into the wrong hands. Pretty much everything I'm against. If it's true, then it's ours. Thus says the skeptic and the reasonable mind alike.
You're honestly happy that an organization structured to give women development resources to make a game and give proceeds to charity has been blacklisted from the media just because someone used their friendship to blacklist them just because acknowledging that would show widespread nepotism/cronyism in the industry and give people claiming such a problem exists a stronger foothold? You seem far to reasonable to me for all that.
