What is Adam Baldwin thinking?

Drop by and talk about anything you want. This is where all cheese-related discussions should go
User avatar
Rathkor
Posts: 56
Joined: 04 Dec 2011, 02:15
First Video: Three PS3's

Re: What is Adam Baldwin thinking?

Postby Rathkor » 02 Oct 2014, 06:36

That's what professionalism means. Unfortunately you can't have your cake and eat it too. Again, no one is saying they can't be friends, but that if they do become friends the journalist should recuse themselves from writing about their friends.

Simply put, you can't be sure about objectivity when it comes to writing about people you are close with. You might, even on a subconscious level, omit important details on something that makes your friend look bad, to use just one example.
User avatar
Deedles
Posts: 4043
Joined: 29 Nov 2010, 13:19
First Video: Man Cooking
Location: A shoebox on Kashyyyk.
Contact:

Re: What is Adam Baldwin thinking?

Postby Deedles » 02 Oct 2014, 06:40

But that's what my whole previous post is trying to explain, journalism isn't unbiased anywhere. Gaming journalism is not more or less so, and it's about a hobby, not something as important as how the country should be run.

So you can't be sure about objectivity, ever, unless all you ever right is vague articles about how you don't really know anything for sure, and never actually say anything, other than the specs on a console, or the release date of a game.

As human beings we are subjective, and as has been stated several times, there is no way to use language to be 100% objective. Someone will always feel unfairly treated, or unfairly represented, or like a game wasn't represented well, be that because they found the language too damning or too praising.
Hurp-De-Durp!
User avatar
Rathkor
Posts: 56
Joined: 04 Dec 2011, 02:15
First Video: Three PS3's

Re: What is Adam Baldwin thinking?

Postby Rathkor » 02 Oct 2014, 06:53

The goal of journalism isn't to be 100% objective, but to strive to be as close to that as you can. Pretty sure that was also in the link I posted earlier. Being friends with the subject of an article pulls you further away from being as objective as humanly possible, hence it's bad.
User avatar
Deedles
Posts: 4043
Joined: 29 Nov 2010, 13:19
First Video: Man Cooking
Location: A shoebox on Kashyyyk.
Contact:

Re: What is Adam Baldwin thinking?

Postby Deedles » 02 Oct 2014, 06:57

Why? Plenty of people in other news outlets report on parties that they support and that they oppose, and those reports will always be scewed, but that's how news work, they report to their target demographic. It's the same in gaming journalism, you're reporting to a demographic.

Saying that a journalist can't report on something if they're friends with someone involved, even if the journalist discloses this in said article, is saying that you don't want to have to think for yourself about what you read and where the person is coming from. Not to mention that a lot of journalists write in biased manners because that's what a large amount of gamers want, because they find that more entertaining than someone constantly trying to cling to the concept of neutrality.
Hurp-De-Durp!
User avatar
Rathkor
Posts: 56
Joined: 04 Dec 2011, 02:15
First Video: Three PS3's

Re: What is Adam Baldwin thinking?

Postby Rathkor » 02 Oct 2014, 07:03

Again, these opinions aren't just my own. That video I posted clearly gives examples of a defined Conflict of Interest from an expert in the field of Journalistic Ethics. Are you really telling me that the opinion of someone who has studied journalism, law, and ethics doesn't matter? (that question is not meant to be read in a hostile tone, in case that's not clear) That we shouldn't hold professional journalists to a higher standard?
User avatar
Deedles
Posts: 4043
Joined: 29 Nov 2010, 13:19
First Video: Man Cooking
Location: A shoebox on Kashyyyk.
Contact:

Re: What is Adam Baldwin thinking?

Postby Deedles » 02 Oct 2014, 07:14

The thing is that the standards of a journalist should depend on what they want to achieve. Not to mention that I've seen plenty of professional journalists who find the very opinions you present to be unrealistic. Just like how normal people can have differing opinions so can journalists. Some people value writing about what they find important more than being unbiased, while others value being unbiased more than reporting on specific things because they want to.

There are as many ways to write articles as there is people writing articles, because no one goes into it with exactly the same values and priorities. If a group of people don't find what someone writes to be to their level of satisfaction when it comes to unbias then they can find journalists, like the one in the interview you linked to, who obviously holds the same values and priorities that they do.

Personally I like hearing peoples opinions on a game, because I find that more interesting than reading something that tries to remain very standard and neutral. So that's the point I'm coming from. I watch the youtubers and read the articles that I find interesting, and the rest I don't, but don't question their existence because I know that they're someone else's cup of tea.
Hurp-De-Durp!
User avatar
AdmiralMemo
Posts: 7342
Joined: 27 Nov 2011, 18:29
First Video: Unskippable: Eternal Sonata
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Contact:

Re: What is Adam Baldwin thinking?

Postby AdmiralMemo » 02 Oct 2014, 07:15

I can't speak for her, but I'm thinking that's she's not saying that we shouldn't. I'm thinking she's saying that we haven't done it on the larger scale, so why are we only fighting about it here in gaming journalism, and not fighting about it in political journalism, celebrity journalism, etc.? Why is "gaming" the line we shouldn't cross, whereas these other lines are freely crossed over and over?
Graham wrote:The point is: Nyeh nyeh nyeh. I'm an old man.
LRRcast wrote:Paul: That does not answer that question at all.
James: Who cares about that question? That's a good answer.

Image
User avatar
Deedles
Posts: 4043
Joined: 29 Nov 2010, 13:19
First Video: Man Cooking
Location: A shoebox on Kashyyyk.
Contact:

Re: What is Adam Baldwin thinking?

Postby Deedles » 02 Oct 2014, 07:16

That is partially what I'm getting at, yeah. If we want to fight corruption in media I think starting with the newspapers who report on politics to be the best place to start, because they have the biggest impact on actual society.
Hurp-De-Durp!
User avatar
Rathkor
Posts: 56
Joined: 04 Dec 2011, 02:15
First Video: Three PS3's

Re: What is Adam Baldwin thinking?

Postby Rathkor » 02 Oct 2014, 07:20

"There are as many ways to write articles as there is people writing articles, because no one goes into it with exactly the same values and priorities."

That's why a standardized list of rules relating to journalistic ethics exists, so that journalists can have any opinion they want to have, but the lines are clearly drawn. You seem to be misunderstanding me. A journalist can have any opinion they want. But, if their writing is influenced by a direct relationship or friendship with their subject, THAT is where the line is crossed. You can write a review of a game that you like, and a different journalist can review the exact same game negatively. That's perfectly fine. But things get murky when you're reviewing a game not on the merits of the game, but on the content of your relationship to someone who made said game.
User avatar
Deedles
Posts: 4043
Joined: 29 Nov 2010, 13:19
First Video: Man Cooking
Location: A shoebox on Kashyyyk.
Contact:

Re: What is Adam Baldwin thinking?

Postby Deedles » 02 Oct 2014, 07:30

I think there are few people out there who truly review a game not based on it's merits but because of a friendship with one of it's developers. Sure, a journalist might do it as a favour, but I think few would feel comfortable not reporting their actual opinion on it.

And I think a standardization of gaming journalism would be more of a detriment to it than it would be an improvement. If the journalist already states at the start of an article that they are friends would so-and-such within this company, or they're friends with this indie developer, the gamers get enough information there to be able to judge whether or not they feel they can trust the article or not. There is no need to push it further than that.
Hurp-De-Durp!
User avatar
Rathkor
Posts: 56
Joined: 04 Dec 2011, 02:15
First Video: Three PS3's

Re: What is Adam Baldwin thinking?

Postby Rathkor » 02 Oct 2014, 07:32

"I'm thinking she's saying that we haven't done it on the larger scale, so why are we only fighting about it here in gaming journalism, and not fighting about it in political journalism, celebrity journalism, etc.? Why is "gaming" the line we shouldn't cross, whereas these other lines are freely crossed over and over?"

Simply put, the way it unfolded. The movement was born of the Zoe Post, near as I could tell. Admittedly, some only latched onto the story to harass Zoe, and I cannot iterate enough that that is wrong. But then something happened. Anyone who mentioned the scandal, even if they were only asking question, even if they weren't harassing anyone, they were banned from whatever forum they were posting on. On multiple sites this was happening. When people dug deeper to find out why, they discovered friendships and connections. People were silencing any conversation about a friend of theirs, even if it wasn't harassment. That's when it stopped being about Zoe, and became about the journalists. The journalists, some of whom had written about Zoe in the past, some who were friends with other journalists at COMPETING sites, all who seemed to be working together. And thanks to the GamesJournosPros mailing list, we now know that was EXACTLY what was happening. After Gamers starting poking around more, 11 "Gamers are Dead" articles hit in a single day. That's why Gaming Journalism. Because of a snowball effect.
User avatar
JayBlanc
Posts: 806
Joined: 18 Dec 2011, 13:54
First Video: That thing with the thing and that stuff

Re: What is Adam Baldwin thinking?

Postby JayBlanc » 02 Oct 2014, 07:34

Rathkor wrote:Journalists. But because they are friends with indie devs, they seem to be caught in the crossfire. But it is the journalists responsibility to recuse themselves from writing stories there the CoI has been compromised. Had they done that from the beginning, then there would have been no need for GamerGate.


Again, not proven or demonstrated that there was significant journalistic ethics issues between indie devs and games journalists. Only shown that that some journalist and some indie devs are friends. Print Media and TV Journalists wouldn't even consider that something that needs to be disclosed.

And oddly, this collateral damage all focuses around the people that there had already been campaigns to harass and attempt to delegitimise.


Pretty sure I explicitly said they CAN be friends, as long as the journalist recuses from any assignment involving their friend.


Pretty sure you don't understand how that would practically limit many Games sites from reporting on much of anything at all. There's only so many journalists, and it's impossible to expect them to remain aloof and detached from the people they meet, network and interact with nearly every day.

Journalistic ethics is not about being detached, but about compartmentalising detachment. Human beings simply can not develop personal likes, and dislikes, of the people they meet and interact with. It would only be possible to have your standard of games journalism from people who were never allowed to meet the people who make video games.

And in that world, they'd only meet the PR representatives.

To be fair, context is key. He didn't come clean out of a desire to be transparent. He angrily accused us of only caring about it when a woman is involved, then claimed his friendships as proof. He had never been attacked for his friendships with journalists, so it had to be because he was a man. Thing is, no one KNEW about those friendships.


Bull. The point he was making is that he had been entirely open about his friendships with people in media, and publicly interacted with them on Twitter and such... SOME OF THEM EVEN APPEARED IN EPISODES OF HAWP! But the Gamergate crowd ignored them till he sided with the wrong people, and then it became open season on him.

That I can't answer. I joined GamerGate a few weeks after the Zoe Post, and had never even heard of her until I started looking into GamerGate. I was told about everything by a friend. I decided to look into it to form my own opinion, and saw that even so much as mentioning anything about all this led to people getting banned. Then I found the Escapist's forum topic and found out which sites were banning discussions of it and possible reasons why. That's what got me into GamerGate.


You understand this amounts to "I'm ignorant about the details or even initial actions of the movement I am associated, but I took it on the word of a friend that we're the good guys."

Again, my arguement was feeling of attraction don't just pop up overnight. Assuming they were not sleeping together at the time, it is possible that he had feelings for her at the time, which would have clouded his objectivity. See how this is still about journalists acting like professionals? At least for me it is.


Again, it is impossible for human beings not to develop personal likes and dislikes about the other human beings they interact with. And you know what, I don't know if you're being disingenuous to say that feelings can't develop within days, or you just don't understand people. The standard you call for would require no games journalist to ever meet with anyone who develops video games. This may cause problems if a games journalist was to then develop a video game.

It also massively downplayed Zoe's part in helping to crash the Game Jam. So, her part in a scandal was downplayed by a journalist who would go on to sleep with Zoe Quinn mere days after writing the article in which he downplayed her role in a scandal. I'm just saying, it is suspect. And in journalism, the mere appearance of impropriety is as bad as impropriety itself.


"Downplayed Zoe's part in helping to crash the Game Jam"? I'm sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying that Zoe was somehow responsible for Matti's actions? Are you saying that somehow Zoe was the ring-leader of the walk-out and it was all covered up by everyone else involved. Because the other articles about the Game Jam all report in line with Greyson's, including ones published before his. Matti riled up all the contestants, it wasn't Zoe bringing the show down, she certainly didn't go around barring any drink that wasn’t water or Dew from being consumed.

What do you mean by this "Zoe's part in helping to crash the Game Jam" insinuation? Is it another sly attempt to try to make it all about Zoe again. It it yet another indicator to me that you're desperate to justify what you've done by slurring someone with unfounded accusations and insinuations.

"Would that be the guy who set up tons of fake twitter accounts using photos of women they found on the internet, and used them as sock puppets to flood their opponents with replies and 'rebuttals'? How horrible for him, to discover that he can't really be the puppet master of harassment without some risk to his personal reputation and status if he's found out. To imagine that someone discovered to be behind a widespread and dishonestly organised harassment campaign might lose their job? I feel almost as bad for him as for the guy who was outed as being in charge of the up-skirt photos board on 4chan. ie, not that much."

No, turns out the guy was a bona fide black guy who didn't like people using him as a shield to push their ideologies. Did you just read somewhere that he was a white guy and assumed it was real without checking because you KNOW all Gamergate supporters are racist and sexist?


I'm pretty sure I didn't mention his race at all. I just mentioned that the notinmyname campaign turned out to be a collection of sock-puppeted fake accounts, with appropriated profile photos. I'm not sure how the race of the person who organised that is relevant, and it sounds like an attempt to derail and deflect.

Again, to be fair, I can go pull quotes from the Escapist thread from a week ago asking the others there to help in stopping harassment from happening to a woman who was getting harassed by GamerGate people. We DO NOT condone harassment. If we see it, we will call it out. We will shame our own harassers, because harassment is BAD.


Except, and this is the big point... For all the stuff that GamerGate declares is not harassment. And that includes going after Zoe, and continuing to slur her name. Or spamming someone on twitter with hundreds of replies 'To politely get the point across'. Or making lists of SJW Journalists to target. Or going on and on about how whiny these women sound. Or accusing people who were given death threats of making it up for the publicity. I mean, so long as you're not outright calling them bitches, it's not harassment am I right?

The problem is that the way GamerGate campaigns is by actions that are inherently a campaign of harassment, insinuation, disinformation and attrition. Famous person tweets their opposition to GamerGate, make them regret it by sending a thousand replies. Facts you claimed demonstrated false, claim those facts never mattered and introduce new insinuations. Or just repeat the false ones anyway because if you say a lie loud enough it sounds true. Don't like an article, organise followers to spam the site's advertisers about how controversial it is till they pull the advertising. People talking in a forum making sound criticism of GamerGate, get in there and derail it.

It's the worst of mob mentality politics, the declared goal sounds noble but is impossible to attain and destructive when selectively applied, and practically GamerGate exists merely to sustain the controversy and exert dominance.
User avatar
Rathkor
Posts: 56
Joined: 04 Dec 2011, 02:15
First Video: Three PS3's

Re: What is Adam Baldwin thinking?

Postby Rathkor » 02 Oct 2014, 07:38

"There is no need to push it further than that."

So, we should let all these people have all the authority that comes with Journalism, but NONE or the regulations?

Humans by design are infallible, prone to bias. The Code of Journalism Ethics and Standards is a tool to help curb that natural bias. There is plenty of wiggle room in there to keep every opinion from being the same, but it is just stringent enough to keep journalists in line. I do not see how this is a bad thing. I would honestly and sincerely love an explanation for why this is so bad, other than "Well, they do it, too." Because two wrongs don't make a right.
User avatar
Deedles
Posts: 4043
Joined: 29 Nov 2010, 13:19
First Video: Man Cooking
Location: A shoebox on Kashyyyk.
Contact:

Re: What is Adam Baldwin thinking?

Postby Deedles » 02 Oct 2014, 07:47

Usually these journalists are part of a site and that site will usually have editors that goes over what the article is saying, so it's not like they'd be writing anything without any regulation.

I think it's over the top and suffocating a genre of journalism that is very much based on enthusiasm and a love for what you're reporting on. Not to mention, who would set the guidelines? Who would write the rules?

So I'm sorry, I can't agree with you, I find it unrealistic, and I find it hypocritical of a group to say that they just want ethics in gaming journalism when
1. They don't even go after the Triple A developers, but simply the easy targets, which says that GamerGate doesn't want to push for what they want, they just want an easy fight.
And 2. What they're suggesting is ethically dubious, in my opinion.

I know you'll not agree with those points, and I'm fairly certain after this discussion that I won't agree with you, so on this I'll take my leave, because we're just talking in circles now, but feel free to respond if you wish to.
Hurp-De-Durp!
User avatar
Trevor
Posts: 44
Joined: 16 Apr 2012, 09:35
First Video: suspiciously good movers
Location: Florida - U.S.A.

Re: What is Adam Baldwin thinking?

Postby Trevor » 02 Oct 2014, 07:59

Rathkor wrote:And let's be fair, most Gamers in Gamergate feel that the AAA industry is massively bloated, and is teetering on the edge of collapsing in on itself.

This is a good point.
Now I haven't been following these events as closely as some, but having been in communities where this gets discussed (unavoidable now even if I try) and hearing both sides of the argument, I haven't seen anyone anywhere who thinks more 'just checking off the important boxes' development and AAA rehashes are a good thing. Aside from maybe the people who stand to make money off of them, like at company press conferences. And even some of them are starting to poke fun at themselves for it.

Seems like this should be a common enemy to work against (as long as we don't somehow eliminate the idea of big studios entirely, because they have the resources to some things that smaller studios just can't, and I know there are a lot of people here who would be sad to see certain ones disappear. Like the Bioware games. And now I seem to be drifting further off topic).
Last edited by Trevor on 02 Oct 2014, 08:02, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Rathkor
Posts: 56
Joined: 04 Dec 2011, 02:15
First Video: Three PS3's

Re: What is Adam Baldwin thinking?

Postby Rathkor » 02 Oct 2014, 08:01

"You understand this amounts to "I'm ignorant about the details or even initial actions of the movement I am associated, but I took it on the word of a friend that we're the good guys.""

No, I'm saying the movement EVOLVED. Or are movements not allowed to do that? This stopped being about Zoe the minute several major news sites decided to start BANNING anyone who so much as breathed a word about someone that it turns out they were friends with without so much as a warning. Then it became about the journalists who proved they were willing to work together to silence anyone who criticized them or their friends, and were willing to collude to push a narrative. And before you call me a conspiracy nut, please note that the leaked mailing list PROVES that was exactly what they were doing.

"Is it another sly attempt to try to make it all about Zoe again. It it yet another indicator to me that you're desperate to justify what you've done by slurring someone with unfounded accusations and insinuations."

First off, I could care less what she DID to Game Jam. Not about her. In a non corrupt system, a journalist would have given all the fact, including her part in it. So it is STILL about the journalist, despite your claims.

Secondly, I'd be careful waiving around the "unfounded accusations and insinuations" flag. That is something games journalists have also been guilty of. Brad Wardell. They printed an article accusing him of rape and claiming they had "damning evidence" which was later edited to say "heavy allegations" because it turned out they did NOT have damning evidence, and in fact, the allegations against him were later dismissed with prejudice. So, there's an example not only of unprofessional journalism, but FLAT OUT libel.

"I'm pretty sure I didn't mention his race at all. I just mentioned that the notinmyname campaign turned out to be a collection of sock-puppeted fake accounts, with appropriated profile photos. I'm not sure how the race of the person who organised that is relevant, and it sounds like an attempt to derail and deflect."

#NotYourShield extends to any person of minority, not just women. And do you have any proof that he created fake accounts? Because even a simple Google search will show you a collection of many different people holding sign's saying #NotYourShield. So no, it was not a collection of fake accounts, but actual real people who were later deemed "Weaponized Minorities" be the very same press we are calling corrupt. How is that not one of the most racist, sexist, and homophobic things you have ever heard? That these people are not allowed to have any agency or opinions of their own, unless they agree with the journalists. And if they disagree with them, they are internalizing misogyny, racism, and homophobia? Really?

And again, WE CALL OUT HARASSMENT WHEN WE SEE IT.

Furthermore, you have yet to address that the other side is stooping to harassment, threats, and publishing private personal information of GamerGate supporters at the same frequency as the harassers on our side that you are quick to throw up. If it happens on both sides, you CANNOT claim it is only a bad thing when we do it.
User avatar
Rathkor
Posts: 56
Joined: 04 Dec 2011, 02:15
First Video: Three PS3's

Re: What is Adam Baldwin thinking?

Postby Rathkor » 02 Oct 2014, 08:10

"Usually these journalists are part of a site and that site will usually have editors that goes over what the article is saying, so it's not like they'd be writing anything without any regulation."

Except in this case, many of the editors have actually been some of the MOST corrupt when it comes to GamerGate.

"Not to mention, who would set the guidelines? Who would write the rules?"

There is already a standardized guideline for journalists. It's the same one used by basically every written publication there is.


"1. They don't even go after the Triple A developers, but simply the easy targets, which says that GamerGate doesn't want to push for what they want, they just want an easy fight."

So, we should just walk away from the mountain of corruption we have uncovered, because there's worse corruption out there?

"And 2. What they're suggesting is ethically dubious, in my opinion."

I REALLY mean no offense by this, but how is your opinion equal to someone who has studied journalism, law, and ethics, and has practiced all of these things for DECADES? Because again, I have to refer you to that video I linked.
User avatar
Rathkor
Posts: 56
Joined: 04 Dec 2011, 02:15
First Video: Three PS3's

Re: What is Adam Baldwin thinking?

Postby Rathkor » 02 Oct 2014, 08:32

Can I just ask a hypothetical. Assume for one minute we actually are NOT a misogynist movement. Keep in mind we are going up against journalists and PR people. If our claims about corruption is in fact true, isn't it POSSIBLE they are spreading a false narrative to discredit us?

Yes, there is harassment going on. Sadly that is the Internet. But we are not all to blame. Many of us really are trying to stop it.
User avatar
Matt
LRR Crew
Posts: 9742
Joined: 14 Mar 2004, 00:19
Location: Victoria, BC
Contact:

Re: What is Adam Baldwin thinking?

Postby Matt » 02 Oct 2014, 08:38

IF GG is not a movement that is misogyinst at the core (and that's a REAL damn big "if")

Then it is none the less misguided, dysfunctional, and doing real harm to the industry.


-m
Image

I am not angry at you.
User avatar
Rathkor
Posts: 56
Joined: 04 Dec 2011, 02:15
First Video: Three PS3's

Re: What is Adam Baldwin thinking?

Postby Rathkor » 02 Oct 2014, 08:44

I'll give you dysfunctional. Hell, I doubt there's a GGer alive that would deny that.

But you didn't answer my question. Really big "IF", isn't it still possible we are being mislabeled by the very institution we are calling corrupt?

Also, no one has made any mention to the claims of very serious harassment being thrown at GGers by anti-GGers. Including a reporter being sent an uncapped syringe. Why is it bad when we do it, so bad it discredits our entire movement, but no one is even willing to acknowledge that the anti-GG side is guilty of the harassment as well?
User avatar
Rathkor
Posts: 56
Joined: 04 Dec 2011, 02:15
First Video: Three PS3's

Re: What is Adam Baldwin thinking?

Postby Rathkor » 02 Oct 2014, 08:45

And to be fair, I'm not even asking you to believe me. I'm just asking for you to be open to the POSSIBILITY that the false claims of misogyny just might possibly be real.
User avatar
JayBlanc
Posts: 806
Joined: 18 Dec 2011, 13:54
First Video: That thing with the thing and that stuff

Re: What is Adam Baldwin thinking?

Postby JayBlanc » 02 Oct 2014, 08:48

Rathkor wrote:First off, I could care less what she DID to Game Jam. Not about her. In a non corrupt system, a journalist would have given all the fact, including her part in it. So it is STILL about the journalist, despite your claims.


Yet again, you insinuate that Zoe did something wrong at Game Jam, not saying what it was, and that it was covered up. But dismiss that all other press reports were practically identical to Greyson's article. There are no grounds to your accusations, yet you keep making them to cast aspersions on Zoe's name and accuse Greyson of journalistic ethics violations.

What exactly is it that you accuse Greyson of covering up?

You're using up the benefit of the doubt on not being a troll.

Secondly, I'd be careful waiving around the "unfounded accusations and insinuations" flag. That is something games journalists have also been guilty of. Brad Wardell. They printed an article accusing him of rape and claiming they had "damning evidence" which was later edited to say "heavy allegations" because it turned out they did NOT have damning evidence, and in fact, the allegations against him were later dismissed with prejudice. So, there's an example not only of unprofessional journalism, but FLAT OUT libel.


Who are "They" here? I mean, maybe you could be referring to this, but that's an article about a sexual harassment claim. They reported it as allegations not fact, and they also later reported that it was dropped. Searching google, I find the only references to Rape, come from a Breitbart report on the reporting...
User avatar
Matt
LRR Crew
Posts: 9742
Joined: 14 Mar 2004, 00:19
Location: Victoria, BC
Contact:

Re: What is Adam Baldwin thinking?

Postby Matt » 02 Oct 2014, 08:55

Rathkor wrote:But you didn't answer my question. Really big "IF", isn't it still possible we are being mislabeled by the very institution we are calling corrupt?


No.

GG is not attacking a singular institution.

Responses among the institutions under attack have been varied.

The most severe casualties of these attacks have been individuals with so little actual power and influence, that it would have been fundamentally
impossible for them to concoct or execute the conspiracies they are accused of.

Oh, and there's also literally no evidence of such a conspiracy.

Occam's Razor applies.

The movement has been labelled misogynist, reactionary, and conservative, because the visible actions of the movement have been misogynist, reactionary, and conservative.

-m
Image

I am not angry at you.
User avatar
Rathkor
Posts: 56
Joined: 04 Dec 2011, 02:15
First Video: Three PS3's

Re: What is Adam Baldwin thinking?

Postby Rathkor » 02 Oct 2014, 09:05

"But dismiss that all other press reports were practically identical to Greyson's article."

Gee, it's almost like we're accusing them of colluding. If only we had some sort of evidence that they were doing something like that. Like a mailing list, or something.

As to the Zoe accusations, this article has her playing a pretty big part of the drama that caused everything to break down:

http://indiestatik.com/2014/03/31/most- ... -game-jam/

And no, It was Polygon who claimed "Damning Evidence" before switching it to "heavy allegations."
User avatar
Matt
LRR Crew
Posts: 9742
Joined: 14 Mar 2004, 00:19
Location: Victoria, BC
Contact:

Re: What is Adam Baldwin thinking?

Postby Matt » 02 Oct 2014, 09:07

Rathkor wrote:"But dismiss that all other press reports were practically identical to Greyson's article."

Gee, it's almost like we're accusing them of colluding. If only we had some sort of evidence that they were doing something like that. Like a mailing list, or something.


A mailing list that shows no actual collusion.

-m
Image

I am not angry at you.

Return to “General Discussion”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests