Technogeek: If the developer were male there wouldn't have been a "conversation" in the first place.10/19/2014 - 2:27am
|
Monte: trolls are just at their absolute worst when it comes to women and feminist. You could bet good money that if the developer were male the trolls would be silent and the conversation would actually focus on the journalism.10/18/2014 - 9:18pm
|
Monte: Papa: Not the first time we've had a journalism scandals before, but the harassment never got close to this level; the difference with this scandal is that feminists are involved. Without the feminist angle, their would be A LOT less harrassment10/18/2014 - 9:15pm
|
Papa Midnight: Monte: That's honestly rather short-sighted. As has been proven with other persons who have been targeted, if it wasn't Quinn, it would be someone else.10/18/2014 - 6:26pm
|
Avalongod: I think that's part of what gives an esoteric news story like this real life...it taps into a larger narrative about misogyny in society outside of games.10/18/2014 - 3:29pm
|
Avalongod: @Monte, well the trolls made death threats that came to police (and media attention). I think this is tapping into a larger issue outside of games about how women are treated in society (like all the "real rape" stuff during the last election)10/18/2014 - 3:28pm
|
Wonderkarp: Zippy : Havent tried the PS4 controller. might later.10/18/2014 - 2:37pm
|
Monte: Seirously, If Quinn was not involved and GG was instead about something like the Mordor Marketing contracts, the trolling would have never grown so vile and disgusting. There have been plenty of movements in the past that never sufferred from behavior..10/18/2014 - 1:57pm
|
Monte: We have seen scandel's before but the trolling has never been as vile as what we see with GG. Trolls usually have such a tiny voice you can barely notice them, but its like moths to a flame whenever femistist are involved.10/18/2014 - 1:53pm
|
ZippyDSMlee: Wonderkarp: You might be able to if you had a PS4 controller.10/18/2014 - 1:00pm
|
MaskedPixelante: http://store.steampowered.com/app/327940/ Night Dive starts charging for freeware.10/18/2014 - 12:21pm
|
Matthew Wilson: the sad thing is there are trolls on both sides of this. people need to stop acting like their side is so pure.10/18/2014 - 12:19pm
|
MechaTama31: So, only speak out on a scandal that hasn't attracted trolls? I wouldn't hold my breath...10/18/2014 - 10:49am
|
Monte: I feel like GG just needs to die. The movement is FAR to tainted by hatred and BS for it to be useful for any conversation. Let GG die, and then rally behind the NEXT gaming journalism scandal, and start the conversation fresh.10/18/2014 - 10:33am
|
quiknkold: and we dont have a Dovakin to call a cease fire10/17/2014 - 7:37pm
|
quiknkold: The whole thing is Futile. Both sides are so buried deep in their trenchs that there isnt a conversation. Its just Finger Pointing, Name Calling, Doxxing, Threats. there needs to be a serious conversation, and GG isnt it.10/17/2014 - 7:37pm
|
quiknkold: I thought it was a good article. Jeff is right. I feel like GamerGate did destroy its message. I am for Ethics in game journalism, but man. so much hate. and its on both sides. I've seen some awful stuff spewed on twitter. Its a big reason why I exited..10/17/2014 - 7:34pm
|
Matthew Wilson: while he focused on gg, he did call out both sides crap.10/17/2014 - 7:18pm
|
Papa Midnight: That was a damn good read offered by Jeff Gertsmann.10/17/2014 - 7:17pm
|
Matthew Wilson: http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/letter-from-the-editor-10-17-2014/1100-5049/ deferentially a nice write up.10/17/2014 - 6:44pm
|
Comments
I called her that before neo-cons took that name to her, thanks. I call her that because many of her policies, especially the 'Fairness Doctrine', range from Dictatorial to Communist in their viewpoints.
@ The conspiracy
"He and Hillary just want healthcare that everyone can afford."
Only Obama has a plan for that, and its not a very good one. Hillary's plan was to create a tax on smokable products in New York (this was while she was senator mind you) that would go into a 'child healthcare' plan.
BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE! This healthcare plan would define children as people up to the age of 26, as well as being open to illegal immigrants! Therein, an entire family could be under this plan, from son to father.
The social health care system doesn't work all that well in many foreign nations, where you can enjoy being triaged from service to service without receiving necessary care, but the chick who wants a bigger rack can get her silicone tits.
The wealthy already pay the highest taxes. It evens out at about 52%. The poor pay about 4%, and can receive up to 20,000 dollars in benefits a year.
You want to know who's getting fucked? The middle class.
Adiobam has the right line anyway. How can you follow a man who doesn't know how HE stands on issues? A man who's claim that he'll lead us out of Iraq will either A. Destroy the region and our credibility or B. be a complete falsehood?
I wasn't talking about electability or some such. I meant his platform of "vote for me and you'll get 'free' stuff."
@the conspiracy
"This fear of government run social services is a justification that the wealthy create so that they can avoid paying higher taxes."
Yay. Class warfare. If you're going to argue that Hillary and Obama aren't socialists, it would probably help if you didn't trot out Trotsky-esque cliches. ;)
And, umm, I'm poor, yet hate taxes and government run social services. Believe it or not, some of us *gasp* don't need or want a big nanny government coddling us or telling us what's best for ourselves. Imagine that.
Have any examples of Obama not knowing how he stands on issues, or is that just empty spin like "John Kerry is a flip-flopper" or "John McCain is an angry old man"?
And...if the US cut its defense budget to a reasonable level, and got rid of standing armies and focused more on rebuilding the National Guard and Air National guard,ended the war, stopped nuclear weapons research and maintenance, and you know, made the Department of Defense the Department of DEFENSE instead of Preemptive Warfare, we could pay for all of the social programs we have now, and then some. The last time you could claim we had to actually defend the country was the Civil War. Last time we were invaded was the War of 1812, for god's sake, and we didn't need a huge, bloated defense budget to repel one of the world's best armies. Do we really need trillions upon trillions of dollars to spy on bad guys in caves and blow them up?
As far as your last comment goes...what are you talking about? Obama's been pretty clear that he wants the US to leave Iraq. I'm not to satisfied on his answers as to *when* this will happen, but it's comforting to know that he wants it to happen.
Besides, this is a presidential campaign. As our pal Donald Rumsfeld would have said: you have to go to the polls with the candidate you have, not the candidate you want. Out of the three and one half candidates from the major parties are concerned, Obama appeals to me the most. I used to respect McCain and Hillary Clinton, but after seeing how McCain has sold out to the ravenous right-wing crazies in his party, and how Clinton has sullied her hands with dirty politics, I can't support either of them in good conscience.
And forget Ron Paul. I respect him for his opinion on the war, but it comes out of isolationism more than anything else, which I can't agree with.
Wanna put money on that?
@Shih Tzu
Someone had better tell him about JT or else JT will have him signing his drafted Anti-VideoGame Bills into law on the false grounds that they disrupt our very way of life.
This brings up something that went on several weeks ago.
At my school's Mock Election Debate, I brought up the school shootings and JT and how said JT is trying to blame the aforementioned shootings on video games. Right now I'm angry that I can't remember each candidate's response to it. Oh well.
EDIT: @Shih Tzu
I forgot to put in this quote out of the first sentence of the article.
You said he didn't take a shot at GTA4, am I right? Re-read the article.
Just because you called her that before RW crazies did doesn't make it any less mouth-breathingly idiotic. If you disagree with her policies, that's fine. But comparing her to Hitler is just mind-numbingly stupid.
And if you really believe that she's wants to turn the country into a communist dictatorship, please loosen the fit of your tinfoil-helm.
This coming from the guy who thinks McCain represents "change." LOL
I never said any of them represent 'change'. I actually said none of them do.
The comparisons between her and Hitler are quite easy to draw. Look at some of the people who disappeared during her and her husband's ascent to power. Look at the dictatorial policies she wants to implement as President. Its very reminiscent of dictatores like Hitler and Hugo Chavez and Stalin.
I suggest you go out and listen to what they're saying and compare that to what they push and write, instead of basing your opinion on 'oh noes, he's a republican and she's a democrat, LOL.
As far as your last comment goes…what are you talking about? Obama’s been pretty clear that he wants the US to leave Iraq. I’m not to satisfied on his answers as to *when* this will happen, but it’s comforting to know that he wants it to happen.
Well, the thing of it is, it doesn't matter what Obama WANTS. Leaving Iraq would destroy the region, allow for a taliban-esque regime to take hold, and create a state similar to Palestine, where Hamas is the ruling party. Staying means more US Soldiers will die. Which one has worse consequences for the World? And Barack, being the little pansy that wants to run to the UN that he is, will likely settle for 'this is best for the world, we have to think internationally, blah blah blah blah.'
We won't be leaving Iraq in the next four years, and when we do leave, it'll be catastrophic.
There's a two part solution which would benefit Iraq and the US greatly, but no one is intelligent enough to find it.
The wealthy pay most of the taxes. The top 10 percent pay about 80 percent of the total taxes, although they have about 60 percent of the nation's wealth.
That being said, the richest among those often find ways to pay no taxes, or very low taxes. Meanwhile, people who work for their 250000 to 1000000 a year are taxed at 52.4 percent, meaning I don't make money for myself until July. There aren't a lot of subsidies just for being rich. If you open business that employ people you can get subsidies.
if the US cut its defense budget to a reasonable level, and got rid of standing armies and focused more on rebuilding the National Guard and Air National guard,ended the war, stopped nuclear weapons research and maintenance, and you know, made the Department of Defense the Department of DEFENSE instead of Preemptive Warfare, we could pay for all of the social programs we have now, and then some.
If we got rid of our 'standing armies' we'd have no QRF, no well trained military to support our allies in need, and no bases in the third world from which to launch attacks as may be needed. Your idea is tactically unsound. If we stopped nuclear weapons maintanence, we'd lose nuclear capability, and be the only nation that had lost it, making us an easy target for China or North Korea (North Korea being most likely, as they don't have a monetary investment in the USA's success). The National Guard and Air National Guard are doing just fine, I don't know where you get the idea they need rebuilding. One can still drive by Fort Johannesburg (spelling) and see the tanks and HMMWVs that all still function.
By the way, ending the war would have terrible costs for the USA as well.
Easy to draw comparisons between Hillary and Hitler? You have no clue what you are talking about. I'm not even a Hillary supporter, but I can say that beyond a shadow of a doubt you are an idiot. You have no clue about history nor do you have any clue about what Hitler and the Nazi's represented if you are going to throw out a generalization like that. I've studied WWII and the Cold War, and to say that there is an easy comparison between is enormously ignorant and idiotic. Only the clueless jackasses at Red State and National Review make such claims.
I have studied the policy positions of all the candidates, and no where in any of Hillary's policy postions does she advocate the genocide of an entire race of people or anything close to the policy postions of Hitler and the NSDAP.
Your assertion is beyond stupid and has no basis in reality. But, Republican positions as of late are rarely based on reality.
I guess your using Jonah Goldberg's logic to make your assumptions? Protip: Jonah Goldberg has no idea what he is talking about.
Really, if you were intellectually honest, you would realize that the current president has made the greatest sweeping change towards making us a fascist dictatorship.
So, please, just shut up until you a clue about what you are talking about.
Really, how has he done that?
By penning the patriot act, which pretty much publicly admitted that we're spying on every phone call in the country, like we have been since the COLD WAR?
There is a very easy comparison between what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and what was done in Russia during the cold war, and if you were half as studied as you claimed to be you could see it. However, I'm willing to bet your 'study' was from your school textbook, and very little more. How many people did you talk to who lived in Soviet Russia? How many people did you talk to who remembered the concentration camps?
In Nazi Germany, the beginning of the Holocaust was marked by the slow loss of rights. Rights of weapon ownership. Loss of right to use public property like pools. Loss of right to attend public schools, public institutions. Loss of right to purchase certain things. Loss of the right to own your own store; jewish owned stores were quickly nationalized. These culminated in a gain that was undesirable: gaining an identification. The identifier, of course, being the star they were forced to wear and the cards they were forced to carry.
Let's cut over to Russia. It started quickly in Russia. You could no longer own firearms. You could no longer communicate with people on the other side of the Iron curtain. You could no longer have any American products. You could no longer use certain institutions unless you were part of the party. EVERYTHING was nationalized. And then? Stalin started killing off his own people.
What's Hillary's agenda? Do some research.
How has the Bush administration engaged in dictator-like behavior?
Umm... By ignoring the Geneva Conventions when they're inconvenient for its agenda? By systematically putting pro-war propaganda mouthpieces into the media? By deliberately flouting laws (such as wiretapping guidelines) set up to hold authorities accountable for their actions?
And no, I don't think Bush is still anything close to Hitler. But good lord, quit pretending you have anything relevant to say about Clinton. Other than baseless slippery-slope arguments and talk-radio conspiracy theories that have the Clintons running around assassinating people, you've got nothing.
The Geneva convention only applies to Opposing Nations in a time of war. It doesn't apply to guerilla forces or insurgent forces.
Wiretapping laws have been flouted since wiretaps were around. Just because he does it publicly instead of pretending he's not doing it or selling out the people who do it makes him a bad person I suppose. As for the 'pro-war' mouthpieces in the media, what president hasn't done something similar? All those fluff pieces written for clinton, all the parrots for Sr., etc, etc, etc.
As for the deaths that the Clintons had arranged, you're right. People jump down elevator shafts with a bullet hole in their head all the time. Four reports of it in Little Rock within 2 weeks of each other, just coincidences right?.
"Ron Paul is still very much in the running with a little over 1 million people supporting him. McCain support is diminshing very quickly simply because he is a war monger."
I'm going by delegate and superdelegate count here. Ron Paul's campaign is as good as over.
Obama may put a lot of fluff in his rally speeches but hey, that's why they're called RALLY SPEECHES! Their sole intention to get the crowd energized. Want to carry out government plans in detail, that's what state of the union addresses are for. He means well, at least better than Clinton. I see more sincerity in his tone. Obama tends to hide less about his agendas, and when it blows up in his face (as it did two weeks ago) he handles it honestly.
Yeah, I don't see that. I see someone who 1) relies on a cult of personality, not an agenda 2) is fairly shaky on his actual policies 3) has the farthest left-record of any of the Senate, 4) seems to enjoy associating with America-haters, 5) doesn't really see anything wrong with the above, which brings us to 6) tries to put himself out as "post-partisan" and "post-racial" while simultaneously representing neither and inflaming both racialism and partisanship.
Nobody really seems to question him on his agendas, and he doesn't seem to be able to defend himself properly. I don't like either Clinton or Obama, and feel neutral to McCain, but Obama would cause all kinds of problems for the nation.
If you have a murder to report, here is the contact info for the Arkansas state police:
Arkansas State Police Headquarters
1 State Police Plaza Drive
Little Rock, AR 72209
Phone/TDD: 501-618-8000
The sad thing is, it's too long past the statute of limitations for a report. Besides, they won't do anything. The murders were already reported, and a lot of good it did them then.
Isn't Godwin's Rule that someone will be compared to Hitler?
Or Nazis. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)
Ah, I see that you just fear uncertainty more than being certain on what people stand for, even if they stand for things you don't necessarily like. I'd say our nation is fucked up economically and militarily right now to the point that it's reasonable to understand that people would choose a flash in the pan that might turn out to be good, over someone that has something to say. People that are so tired of Bush are put into a spot where they will take risks with anything else.
Proletarii vsekh stran, soyedinyaytes!
But you see, that's why no one asks your opinion of our military.
To be honest, approaching 5000 dead isn't a big deal. Is it sad? Hell yes. Is it regrettable? Absolutely. Is it a 'huge military defeat' like everyone likes to think? No. The bigger problem is that people don't understand how to end the war, and think it'll become Korea all over again, when there's a very obvious 2 step solution that anyone with half a brain could see. But its interesting how Obama, with all his inteligence and whatnot, can't see it. Nor can Hitlery, or McCain, though McCain is closer to grasping it than the rest.
As for choosing a flash in the pan, that's always a great idea, especially when its a flash in the pan from a man filled with empty promises.
Let's all march to the idealistic tune of CHANGE!
I like how you've lost the argument so you resort to poorly worded insults. Of course, if you want to follow Obama's banner of 'change' you're more than welcome to, but you'll find that he'll sell out gamers as quickly as he'll sell out gun owners.
@Damian
As long as Jack did it for the lulz its alright.
Obama wouldn't have set into motion a completely useless cut on gas tax, would he? McCain and Hillary, the only alternatives for presidency, would do just that. Of those three, which candidate therefore sounds more useless?
As said previously by another person, his ideas are not much better than Hillary's but at least he seems sincere about wanting to improve the country.
As for medicaid/medicare, you can drop the huge cost of running one of the staffs of bureacrats and fold them into each other, and put the saved monies into paying off national debt, just like you could cut funding to the weird programs that every state has and save that money for the debt too.
Obama wouldn't set into motion anything helpful, would he? He just wouldn't do things you don't like about the other candidates, things which, in all reality, are actually a good idea. Cut out the tax that the EPA gets off of gasoline. Cut out the tax that the state takes from gasoline. Save the PEOPLE some money, instead of giving it to the nanny state.
This idea has been tried before and usually gas companies just up their prices with the tax.
You know, oddly enough, money for the roads doesn't come from state governments, it comes from FEDERAL funding. Also, many states pay for roads via toll booths. So, those construction workers would still be working, because they still have money to maintain roads and bridges, as well as build new ones.
Most of the things you say are outright wrong and represent a poor understanding of how things in the US actually work.