I've never understood the mystique of Neogaf, and why what they think actually matters at all. I got an account there years ago, used it for a week, got bored and logged out. Never went back to it.
Also they've been on Xseed's ass for a while now just with the games they localize and distribute. Remember all that stupid shit about Dragon's Crowns art style? It's largely the same kind of crowd here causing a fuss.
Also they've been on Xseed's ass for a while now just with the games they localize and distribute. Remember all that stupid shit about Dragon's Crowns art style? It's largely the same kind of crowd here causing a fuss.
Right, so everyone who tries to be charitable must be attention-seeking whores... I suppose Mother Theresa, Princess Diana and Bill Gates were/are all just attention-seeking whores. How "horrible" of them to draw attention to themselves by taking advantage of people's suffering.
As a gamer, I honestly couldn't give two craps how much of a "horrible person" a developer might be. Hiroshi Yamauchi was reportedly a horrible person who cheated on his wife and had links to the Yakuza. Do most Nintendo fans give a damn? No. Team Ninja founder Tomonobu Itagaki is reportedly a horrible person who sexually assaulted a female colleague. Do most of his fans give a damn? No. Cliffy B and David Jaffe make plenty of douche comments online. Do most of their fans give a damn? No. I wouldn't be surprised if countless rich CEO's in the industry are secretly cheating on their wives/husbands. None of that makes any difference whatsoever to the games we play.
If you care more about a developer's personal life rather than the actual games they are developing, then no offence, people like you are exactly what is wrong with this industry.
Wow, that makes it seem like it's an industry drived by rotten people. I'm guessing that's a pessimistic picture. If that is true though, I wouldn't be OK with that at all. Why enjoy a virtual product giving my money to endorse real life carrion? I can't see how being OK with that makes someone better then those that doesn't agree with that. Does a fact of life have to remain like that? I'd guess humanity wouldn't be where it is today if we thought about everything that way.
There's no such thing as abstract entities like "the game" you buy, "the company" behind it... everything is made of people, and their work is directed at an audience of people... Society (worldwide) has been constantly improving it's moral standards through time (even corporations, compare the level of transparency there is today to the standard in the middle of the last century, which is not a big time gap historically), despite that kind of cynicism. Or are you a fatalist that accepts things as they are as long as you are satisfied with what you get?
Are you suggesting we should all boycott Nintendo because its founders were morally reprehensible? Well, at least I commend you for maintaining some consistency, unlike the misogynists who are calling for boycotts against Depression Quest yet conveniently overlook the morally reprehensible acts by respected male figures in the industry. If we were to judge every game company on how "immoral" they were, the list would be endless.
As for what "morals" I find acceptable for a developer, it depends on what exactly we're talking about. If it's about Yamauchi's alleged Yakuza connections, then that's a pretty serious allegation, but that's where I draw the line, since it's criminality we're talking about here. But if it's about a developer cheating on their spouse or partner, then that's just so incredibly petty that it makes the people whining about it look like pathetic man-child losers. Even if its about colleagues having sex to "get ahead" in their careers, I couldn't care less if the product they are making is actually good. And Depression Quest seems like a good and unique game so far, so I will support it regardless of how many scumbag "gamers" are out there trying to destroy whatever little creativity and innovation is left in this increasingly trashy, unoriginal, modern game industry of ours.
Right, so everyone who tries to be charitable must be attention-seeking whores... I suppose Mother Theresa, Princess Diana and Bill Gates were/are all just attention-seeking whores. How "horrible" of them to draw attention to themselves by taking advantage of people's suffering.
As a gamer, I honestly couldn't give two craps how much of a "horrible person" a developer might be. Hiroshi Yamauchi was reportedly a horrible person who cheated on his wife and had links to the Yakuza. Do most Nintendo fans give a damn? No. Team Ninja founder Tomonobu Itagaki is reportedly a horrible person who sexually assaulted a female colleague. Do most of his fans give a damn? No. Cliffy B and David Jaffe make plenty of douche comments online. Do most of their fans give a damn? No. I wouldn't be surprised if countless rich CEO's in the industry are secretly cheating on their wives/husbands. None of that makes any difference whatsoever to the games we play.
If you care more about a developer's personal life rather than the actual games they are developing, then no offence, people like you are exactly what is wrong with this industry.
Wow, that makes it seem like it's an industry drived by rotten people. I'm guessing that's a pessimistic picture. If that is true though, I wouldn't be OK with that at all. Why enjoy a virtual product giving my money to endorse real life carrion? I can't see how being OK with that makes someone better then those that doesn't agree with that. Does a fact of life have to remain like that? I'd guess humanity wouldn't be where it is today if we thought about everything that way.
There's no such thing as abstract entities like "the game" you buy, "the company" behind it... everything is made of people, and their work is directed at an audience of people... Society (worldwide) has been constantly improving it's moral standards through time (even corporations, compare the level of transparency there is today to the standard in the middle of the last century, which is not a big time gap historically), despite that kind of cynicism. Or are you a fatalist that accepts things as they are as long as you are satisfied with what you get?
Are you suggesting we should all boycott Nintendo because its founders were morally reprehensible? Well, at least I commend you for maintaining some consistency, unlike the misogynists who are calling for boycotts against Depression Quest yet conveniently overlook the morally reprehensible acts by respected male figures in the industry. If we were to judge every game company on how "immoral" they were, the list would be endless.
As for what "morals" I find acceptable for a developer, it depends on what exactly we're talking about. If it's about Yamauchi's alleged Yakuza connections, then that's a pretty serious allegation, but that's where I draw the line, since it's criminality we're talking about here. But if it's about a developer cheating on their spouse or partner, then that's just so incredibly petty that it makes the people whining about it look like pathetic man-child losers. Even if its about colleagues having sex to "get ahead" in their careers, I couldn't care less if the product they are making is actually good. And Depression Quest seems like a good and unique game so far, so I will support it regardless of how many scumbag "gamers" are out there trying to destroy whatever little creativity and innovation is left in this increasingly trashy, unoriginal, modern game industry of ours.
Are you suggesting we should all boycottNintendo because its founders were morally reprehensible? Well, at least I commend you for maintaining some consistency, unlike the misogynistswho are calling for boycottsagainst Depression Quest yet conveniently overlook the morally reprehensible acts by respected male figures in the industry. If we were to judge every game company on how "immoral" they were, the list would be endless.
As for what "morals" I find acceptable for a developer, it depends on what exactly we're talking about. If it's about Yamauchi's alleged Yakuza connections, then that's a pretty serious allegation, but that's where I draw the line, since it's criminality we're talking about here. But if it's about a developer cheating on their spouse or partner, then that's just so incredibly petty that it makes the people whining about it look like pathetic man-childlosers. Even if its about colleagues having sex to "get ahead" in their careers, I couldn't care less if the product they are making is actually good. And Depression Quest seems like a good and unique game so far, so I will support it regardless of how many scumbag "gamers" are out there trying to destroy whatever little creativity and innovation is left in this increasingly trashy, unoriginal, modern game industry of ours.
Some consistency? ... I really hope you got my point. I'm not giving a TL;DR version of this post.
I see that people today really do not want to interpret what others say according to what they want it to mean. More and more it seems they want to interpret it in the way they want to address it according to their own bias, even if that means twisting or radicalizing it. You almost pulled a straw man there. Did I say anything about boycott? Did I radicalize it that way, or did I problematize the info you gave me?
Boycott may be one action to take, but surely as a last means. And only if it's deemed necessary. The most important thing is making sure that people know about the information, especially if it's true that the guy is linked with a criminal organization like you said. People often forget that one of the bases of democracy is information, transparency. No one can make a good decision or choice if they don't have access to the necessary info to make that choice. If I knew that a guy related to the yakuza made a game I was intending to buy, I'd consider not buying it.
But firstly, I'd consider debating that with other people, to know what they think of it, and if a consensus was reached, I'd for exemple propose a letter or some form of communication being sent to the company saying that that kind of situation does not please me as a consumer, or perform a demonstration, or create an association, etc. But yes, boycott to the guy (to a product, not a company, since it's one guy involded, not a company involved) as a last means may be an option, the extreme one. There are many ways of addressing problems... no need to reduce it to such extreme.
Also, why do you think I imply the action of one person should be imposed on the whole company automatically? There are many factors to consider... but suppressing information actually goes against the company or people involved. Like you said yourself, you are talking about a liaison to a criminal organization.
On the "endless list" of immorality: I fail to see how repetition can render this kind of issue tolerable. Lots of companies evade taxes... so we should be cynic about it and relativize it? Many practices were fought in the past and won... see corruption (both public and private) in the US for example, it's something that was rampant in the 19th century, was heavily improved during the 20th and is now sadly increasing again in the 21st... it didn't decrease with people relativising it and staying quiet, and wasn't ok because it was common.
Talking about consistency: you talk about conveniently overlooking morally reprehensible acts.
Then you say that "even if its about colleagues having sex to "get ahead" in their careers, I couldn't care less if the product they are making is actually good". Isn't that overlooking a breach in meritocracy? The game being good or unique is circunstancial, if you assume that it got where it is because of nepotism. I'm not assuming it is yet in the case at hand, because of course more evidence should be provided. But the whole case, and many responses that were given, show that the nepotism is indeed a factor in the indie scene. Why conveniently turn a blind eye to this question? Because it's common?
It's the same, to me at least, as turning a blind eye to companies giving journalists gifts, priviledged early access, etc. There is also a public interest in game here, and it's the same creativity and innovation that you admit is running dry in the industry. If I think that one thing is wrong for one gender, it is for both. If I think one thing is wrong for the AAA scene, it's also for the indie scene, even if the proportions are smaller. It's all the same thing: conflict of interest. If there isn't, there should be a discussion about making a code of conduct against that.
One last thing: the highlighted words in your quote "misogynists" and "man-child" were employed in the same manner as radicals use them: generalysing and in a conflictual tone. I hope you haven't actually used it like they most commonly do it... as surreptitious hate-speech, the same one that the reasonable equality feminists, ethnical and LGBT movements fight against (and I support all these movements, when not radicalized). People should drop the idea of having linguistic weapons on a discussion. I never did, and never will condone fighting hate speech as if in "legitimate self defense". That's not keeping dialogue, that's killing dialogue and inflicting combat. How can understanding be achieved by trying to make the other person feel ashmed of what he says or feels, by condemnation, name calling, infuriating, etc.?
That's one way to make conflict only bigger, not smaller. I guess that's what we're watching in the recent episodes. Issues appeared, which could lead to productive discussions about codes of conducts, etc. But all we got are highly emotional messages clashing both ways in an antagonizing manner. It seems people are not giving enough attention to developing their emotional inteligence, they simply answer according to the feeling they have at the moment. I believe in dialectics (not hegelian, but socratic). There's no such thing as holding the moral high ground alone, without consensus from the opposing party through reason. Or else we have authoritarian discourse. There's no achieving understanding through isolation. Or we have elitism.
The current way prevailing everywhere, people are only searching for elements in the other person's discourse for them to identify what group they represent, so they know if they should agree or attack. The actual content is discarded. There's no thesis, antithesis and conclusion. I see that as authoritatian and elitist discourse from groups thinking they monopolize the "truth" (let's call it that). Which leads to radicalization. That's what's twisting feminism into misandry without people realizing, that's what's making people indifferent to equality into misogynists (misogyny means hate towards women, not just conservating status quo) without they realizing, and so on.
I guess this is the major lesson I got from all this scandal - the inaptitude of many to simply talk and try to achieve a common ground, or accept that they disagree... Furthering each other's preconceptions about them or what they symbolize to the "opposing party".
I've never understood the mystique of Neogaf, and why what they think actually matters at all. I got an account there years ago, used it for a week, got bored and logged out. Never went back to it.
because it's the biggest gaming forum of this side of the world. It's full of elitists though and you get banned for any stupid shit... That's why I don't like it. Here in SW we are free but it has become a ghost town as of late.
so i heard he got hacked and all his info got exposed lol poor guy
It's not poor guy when he pours gasoline on the fire and singe your eyebrows off.
This is probably what annoys me the most about these latest stories. These people are intentionally walking up to an angry hornets' nest, kicking it, and then bitching about getting stung. And worse still, the behavior is being rewarded as brave or praiseworthy, instead of what it actually is: pathetic and desperate.
I mean, come on. Even if you don't cares about the nepotism thing, Phil and Zoe are blatantly and intentionally antagonizing the easiest targets they can for any shred of relevance, then whining about the expected backlash said targets give them in return.
And that's assuming there was even such a backlash at all. There's significant evidence popping up supporting the idea that the hacks and doxxes are bullshit.
It's fucking ridiculous.
On an semi-related note everyone make sure you support the FYC. A group of indie devs willing to actually support women in gaming. Kickstart indiegogo dat shit yo.
so i heard he got hacked and all his info got exposed lol poor guy
It's not poor guy when he pours gasoline on the fire and singe your eyebrows off.
This is probably what annoys me the most about these latest stories. These people are intentionally walking up to an angry hornets' nest, kicking it, and then bitching about getting stung. And worse still, the behavior is being rewarded as brave or praiseworthy, instead of what it actually is: pathetic and desperate.
I mean, come on. Even if you don't cares about the nepotism thing, Phil and Zoe are blatantly and intentionally antagonizing the easiest targets they can for any shred of relevance, then whining about the expected backlash said targets give them in return.
And that's assuming there was even such a backlash at all. There's significant evidence popping up supporting the idea that the hacks and doxxes are bullshit.
It's fucking ridiculous.
On an semi-related note everyone make sure you support the FYC. A group of indie devs willing to actually support women in gaming. Kickstart indiegogo dat shit yo.
Exactly. It's a case of them being angry for sticking their hands in the bear cage and getting upset when the bear bites back.
And I agree it's utterly fucking ridiculous.
I'm not gonna sit here and say gamers are angels. But these people are being ridiculed for a reason. But have we vetted these people? Do these people wanna make games? or be activists through games?
Because what happened to the good ol days when people just enjoyed games and not the sexual, psychological or political message they can send behind it.
The chronic problem of misogyny had another flare-up this week with a disturbing harassment campaign organized against indie game developer Zoe Quinn, the mind behind Depression Quest. It’s a story that demonstrates, yet again, how serious the problem of misogyny in the gaming world is and how any woman in it can find herself targeted by the howling mobs of woman-haters on the Internet, often on the thinnest of pretenses
Girl game developer cheats with her boss and staff. Phil Fish whiteknighting, meltsdown once again. Phil Fish and his company hacked, lots of private data compromised. Some pretty interesting evidence claim Phil Fish mostly faked the hacking of his company. Some claim this could end quite bad for Phil Fish, aka prison time.
Really curious to see how this is gonna turn out. I mean, Phil is a douche but I'm not too sure if he really deserves jailtime for this.
I agree with phil. Most of you are complete losers.
In this thread:
Well, there's the straw man fallacy. There may be those that think like that, and it's utterly ridiculous; but is everyone treating this issue like that? Is talking about professional liaisons and ethics forbidden if a woman is the protagonist? This goes back to the issue of extremist discourse from both sides that I was talking about earlier and you didn't reply to.
@handssss said:
It continues
If it's true that all those journalists invest in Quinn's projects, then that's all that anyone needs as evidence of the conflict of interests. You don't put money on that which you're going to (potentially) talk about, promote or review in your line of work... it's not like just being one meaningless shareholder of a big company's stocks... the indie scene, like was said before, is a small world and budgets are rarely big. That's a serious accusation the InternetAristocrat made there. Seems to me that it's more serious than the sex scandal.
In one thing at least he's right, there really is censorship going on. Not just by mods or journalists, there are many treating the idea of discussing the issue as if it's an orwellian thoughtcrime.
While I think Phil Fish is a bit of douche, he is right on the mark this time. The online gaming community is full of douchebags, scumbags, racists, mysoginists, and worst of all, those who oppose any form of innovation or originality. And it seems many of these turds have united in their common cause against Depression Quest and its developer. Good thing developers like Phil Fish, BioWare and Cliffy B (even if they can be douches themselves at times) came out and took a stand against these turds infesting the online gaming community.
Yeah, where would we be without the raging keyboard feminists of the world giving blowies for PR behind closed doors? Doomed, I tell ya. Doomed..
I agree with phil. Most of you are complete losers.
In this thread:
Well, there's the straw man fallacy. There may be those that think like that, and it's utterly ridiculous; but is everyone treating this issue like that? Is talking about professional liaisons and ethics forbidden if a woman is the protagonist? This goes back to the issue of extremist discourse from both sides that I was talking about earlier and you didn't reply to.
I was gonna say something like that but then I thought: if at this point after all the arguments, evidence and actions he's still in that line of thinking then just let him be happy in his fantasy world. This world is like that, many just chose to remain ignorant because well, is just easier than trying to understand and think for yourself.
You know... I'm fine with crap like this happening, why? because it's just minor amusement, i don't know if Phil Fish got actually hacked or if it was just staged for him to bail out for good from this industry and finally have one against the gamers that wouldn't stand for his silly behaviour, i do know that i don't condone things like that, much less what people have sent towards that zoey girl
I will say tho, for all the phil fish, sjw, zoe quinns, puppygames and countless others who insist this gaming community is nothing but awful people, there's also tons of notch's, Noogeys and ed mcmillens who are more than happy to keep it gaming and release some preety neat games for us to enjoy as gamers
This incident is quite frankly an isolated case, there's thousands of developers with thousands of games coming out this year alone, if misandrists like zoe or angry devs like phil make it clear we as gamers are not welcome to them? people like me will simply take our business to a dev that's more than happy to keep it gaming :)
I would recommend people to stay away from Zoe and her little clique, they are not worth it and they made it clear they don't want to be touched since they're such special snowflakes, let's just carry on and keep arguing about how much we "despise" each other over what gaming platform we play on, lol
Are you suggesting we should all boycottNintendo because its founders were morally reprehensible? Well, at least I commend you for maintaining some consistency, unlike the misogynistswho are calling for boycottsagainst Depression Quest yet conveniently overlook the morally reprehensible acts by respected male figures in the industry. If we were to judge every game company on how "immoral" they were, the list would be endless.
As for what "morals" I find acceptable for a developer, it depends on what exactly we're talking about. If it's about Yamauchi's alleged Yakuza connections, then that's a pretty serious allegation, but that's where I draw the line, since it's criminality we're talking about here. But if it's about a developer cheating on their spouse or partner, then that's just so incredibly petty that it makes the people whining about it look like pathetic man-childlosers. Even if its about colleagues having sex to "get ahead" in their careers, I couldn't care less if the product they are making is actually good. And Depression Quest seems like a good and unique game so far, so I will support it regardless of how many scumbag "gamers" are out there trying to destroy whatever little creativity and innovation is left in this increasingly trashy, unoriginal, modern game industry of ours.
Some consistency? ... I really hope you got my point. I'm not giving a TL;DR version of this post.
I see that people today really do not want to interpret what others say according to what they want it to mean. More and more it seems they want to interpret it in the way they want to address it according to their own bias, even if that means twisting or radicalizing it. You almost pulled a straw man there. Did I say anything about boycott? Did I radicalize it that way, or did I problematize the info you gave me?
Boycott may be one action to take, but surely as a last means. And only if it's deemed necessary. The most important thing is making sure that people know about the information, especially if it's true that the guy is linked with a criminal organization like you said. People often forget that one of the bases of democracy is information, transparency. No one can make a good decision or choice if they don't have access to the necessary info to make that choice. If I knew that a guy related to the yakuza made a game I was intending to buy, I'd consider not buying it.
But firstly, I'd consider debating that with other people, to know what they think of it, and if a consensus was reached, I'd for exemple propose a letter or some form of communication being sent to the company saying that that kind of situation does not please me as a consumer, or perform a demonstration, or create an association, etc. But yes, boycott to the guy (to a product, not a company, since it's one guy involded, not a company involved) as a last means may be an option, the extreme one. There are many ways of addressing problems... no need to reduce it to such extreme.
Also, why do you think I imply the action of one person should be imposed on the whole company automatically? There are many factors to consider... but suppressing information actually goes against the company or people involved. Like you said yourself, you are talking about a liaison to a criminal organization.
On the "endless list" of immorality: I fail to see how repetition can render this kind of issue tolerable. Lots of companies evade taxes... so we should be cynic about it and relativize it? Many practices were fought in the past and won... see corruption (both public and private) in the US for example, it's something that was rampant in the 19th century, was heavily improved during the 20th and is now sadly increasing again in the 21st... it didn't decrease with people relativising it and staying quiet, and wasn't ok because it was common.
Talking about consistency: you talk about conveniently overlooking morally reprehensible acts.
Then you say that "even if its about colleagues having sex to "get ahead" in their careers, I couldn't care less if the product they are making is actually good". Isn't that overlooking a breach in meritocracy? The game being good or unique is circunstancial, if you assume that it got where it is because of nepotism. I'm not assuming it is yet in the case at hand, because of course more evidence should be provided. But the whole case, and many responses that were given, show that the nepotism is indeed a factor in the indie scene. Why conveniently turn a blind eye to this question? Because it's common?
It's the same, to me at least, as turning a blind eye to companies giving journalists gifts, priviledged early access, etc. There is also a public interest in game here, and it's the same creativity and innovation that you admit is running dry in the industry. If I think that one thing is wrong for one gender, it is for both. If I think one thing is wrong for the AAA scene, it's also for the indie scene, even if the proportions are smaller. It's all the same thing: conflict of interest. If there isn't, there should be a discussion about making a code of conduct against that.
One last thing: the highlighted words in your quote "misogynists" and "man-child" were employed in the same manner as radicals use them: generalysing and in a conflictual tone. I hope you haven't actually used it like they most commonly do it... as surreptitious hate-speech, the same one that the reasonable equality feminists, ethnical and LGBT movements fight against (and I support all these movements, when not radicalized). People should drop the idea of having linguistic weapons on a discussion. I never did, and never will condone fighting hate speech as if in "legitimate self defense". That's not keeping dialogue, that's killing dialogue and inflicting combat. How can understanding be achieved by trying to make the other person feel ashmed of what he says or feels, by condemnation, name calling, infuriating, etc.?
That's one way to make conflict only bigger, not smaller. I guess that's what we're watching in the recent episodes. Issues appeared, which could lead to productive discussions about codes of conducts, etc. But all we got are highly emotional messages clashing both ways in an antagonizing manner. It seems people are not giving enough attention to developing their emotional inteligence, they simply answer according to the feeling they have at the moment. I believe in dialectics (not hegelian, but socratic). There's no such thing as holding the moral high ground alone, without consensus from the opposing party through reason. Or else we have authoritarian discourse. There's no achieving understanding through isolation. Or we have elitism.
The current way prevailing everywhere, people are only searching for elements in the other person's discourse for them to identify what group they represent, so they know if they should agree or attack. The actual content is discarded. There's no thesis, antithesis and conclusion. I see that as authoritatian and elitist discourse from groups thinking they monopolize the "truth" (let's call it that). Which leads to radicalization. That's what's twisting feminism into misandry without people realizing, that's what's making people indifferent to equality into misogynists (misogyny means hate towards women, not just conservating status quo) without they realizing, and so on.
I guess this is the major lesson I got from all this scandal - the inaptitude of many to simply talk and try to achieve a common ground, or accept that they disagree... Furthering each other's preconceptions about them or what they symbolize to the "opposing party".
Since you've requested a response to this very long post, here goes:
Firstly, you've almost pulled a straw man there yourself by taking my question and referring to it as a "straw man" when you can clearly see it's framed as a question. There's a big difference between a straw man and asking a question.
Secondly, I'm not sure what the laws are in your country, but here in Britain, there are laws that protect living individuals from slander by the media. If a news article slanders an individual with unsubstantiated gossip, rumours, and/or exposing personal information, then they have the legal right to sue that media organization for libel, or a breach of journalistic integrity.
Thirdly, there's a big difference between political/economic corruption, something that harm millions of people, and infidelity, a consensual act that does no harm to anyone other than the two people cheating and the one or two being cheating on. The former is illegal, and the latter is legal. A company has every right to suppress any personal information, unless it involves illegal activity. If there is some illegal activity going on, then we have every right to know. But if there is no illegal activity going on, then that isn't anyone's business. As such, we have every right to know about Yamauchi's alleged ties to the Yakuza, but we have no right to know about his alleged infidelity to his wife.
Fourthly, a private company has the right to run its business however it wants. If it wants to employ based on meritocracy, then it has the right to do so. If it wants to employ based on family relations, then it has the right to do so. If it wants to employ only friends or romantic partners, then it has the right to do so. That is no one's business other than the company's. If it was a public company, then the public has every right to know about their employment practices. But if it's a private company, like most indie companies, then the public has no right to know about their employment process or the personal details of their employees.
And finally, all of the radicals, fanatics and extremists are coming entirely from one side, the side sending the death threats, rape threats, threats of violence, hacking, doxing, etc. And that side isn't the "feminist" or "********" faction, but it's the "anti-feminist" faction that is responsible for all of the death threats, rape threats, threats of violence, hacking, doxing, etc. It would be highly disingenuous to portray this as a battle of equals when it clearly isn't, because it's very obvious one side is clearly far more extremist and fanatical than the other. I was once part of that "anti-feminist" faction myself in the past, before leaving it because of the sheer hatred and fanaticism that is driving that faction. I still don't support the feminist movement, but I will defend it whenever those "anti-feminist" extremists are involved.
And finally, all of the radicals, fanatics and extremists are coming entirely from one side, the side sending the death threats, rape threats, threats of violence, hacking, doxing, etc. And that side isn't the "feminist" or "********" faction, but it's the "anti-feminist" faction that is responsible for all of the death threats, rape threats, threats of violence, hacking, doxing, etc. It would be highly disingenuous to portray this as a battle of equals when it clearly isn't, because it's very obvious one side is clearly far more extremist and fanatical than the other. I was once part of that "anti-feminist" faction myself in the past, before leaving it because of the sheer hatred and fanaticism that is driving that faction. I still don't support the feminist movement, but I will defend it whenever those "anti-feminist" extremists are involved.
Only this isn't true:
Messages a 16-year-old girl received on tumblr from feminists
You’re disgusting you sound so fat like I’m not even kidding you sound like a fucking brony or those guys with the pizza faces that shoot up schools. Like you need to fucking stop. Take your anti-feminist shit and shove it down your dickhole because literally nobody wants to hear what you have to say about it. Nobody fucking asked you. So go play with your twilight dash and flutter jack ponies. You fucking immature assholes.
Kill yourself you communist
Go to hell
idiot
ur dum kill yaself
you are literally mentally handicapped
Go die, the world doesn’t need a piece of shit like you
you’re scum
GO **** YOURSELF YOU LITTLE PIECE OF SHIT
Good I’m glad you feel like shit
you’re pure trash
I love know you feel awful <3
It's both sides and they're all morons.
White knight on into the sunset if you choose, but don't spread distorted lies.
@Jag85: No offense but... The hypocrisy in your post is amusing, according to you "it all comes from one side" yet you have been giving the excact same vitriol and vile you've been denouncing so much
Are you suggesting we should all boycottNintendo because its founders were morally reprehensible? Well, at least I commend you for maintaining some consistency, unlike the misogynistswho are calling for boycottsagainst Depression Quest yet conveniently overlook the morally reprehensible acts by respected male figures in the industry. If we were to judge every game company on how "immoral" they were, the list would be endless.
As for what "morals" I find acceptable for a developer, it depends on what exactly we're talking about. If it's about Yamauchi's alleged Yakuza connections, then that's a pretty serious allegation, but that's where I draw the line, since it's criminality we're talking about here. But if it's about a developer cheating on their spouse or partner, then that's just so incredibly petty that it makes the people whining about it look like pathetic man-childlosers. Even if its about colleagues having sex to "get ahead" in their careers, I couldn't care less if the product they are making is actually good. And Depression Quest seems like a good and unique game so far, so I will support it regardless of how many scumbag "gamers" are out there trying to destroy whatever little creativity and innovation is left in this increasingly trashy, unoriginal, modern game industry of ours.
Some consistency? ... I really hope you got my point. I'm not giving a TL;DR version of this post.
I see that people today really do not want to interpret what others say according to what they want it to mean. More and more it seems they want to interpret it in the way they want to address it according to their own bias, even if that means twisting or radicalizing it. You almost pulled a straw man there. Did I say anything about boycott? Did I radicalize it that way, or did I problematize the info you gave me?
Boycott may be one action to take, but surely as a last means. And only if it's deemed necessary. The most important thing is making sure that people know about the information, especially if it's true that the guy is linked with a criminal organization like you said. People often forget that one of the bases of democracy is information, transparency. No one can make a good decision or choice if they don't have access to the necessary info to make that choice. If I knew that a guy related to the yakuza made a game I was intending to buy, I'd consider not buying it.
But firstly, I'd consider debating that with other people, to know what they think of it, and if a consensus was reached, I'd for exemple propose a letter or some form of communication being sent to the company saying that that kind of situation does not please me as a consumer, or perform a demonstration, or create an association, etc. But yes, boycott to the guy (to a product, not a company, since it's one guy involded, not a company involved) as a last means may be an option, the extreme one. There are many ways of addressing problems... no need to reduce it to such extreme.
Also, why do you think I imply the action of one person should be imposed on the whole company automatically? There are many factors to consider... but suppressing information actually goes against the company or people involved. Like you said yourself, you are talking about a liaison to a criminal organization.
On the "endless list" of immorality: I fail to see how repetition can render this kind of issue tolerable. Lots of companies evade taxes... so we should be cynic about it and relativize it? Many practices were fought in the past and won... see corruption (both public and private) in the US for example, it's something that was rampant in the 19th century, was heavily improved during the 20th and is now sadly increasing again in the 21st... it didn't decrease with people relativising it and staying quiet, and wasn't ok because it was common.
Talking about consistency: you talk about conveniently overlooking morally reprehensible acts.
Then you say that "even if its about colleagues having sex to "get ahead" in their careers, I couldn't care less if the product they are making is actually good". Isn't that overlooking a breach in meritocracy? The game being good or unique is circunstancial, if you assume that it got where it is because of nepotism. I'm not assuming it is yet in the case at hand, because of course more evidence should be provided. But the whole case, and many responses that were given, show that the nepotism is indeed a factor in the indie scene. Why conveniently turn a blind eye to this question? Because it's common?
It's the same, to me at least, as turning a blind eye to companies giving journalists gifts, priviledged early access, etc. There is also a public interest in game here, and it's the same creativity and innovation that you admit is running dry in the industry. If I think that one thing is wrong for one gender, it is for both. If I think one thing is wrong for the AAA scene, it's also for the indie scene, even if the proportions are smaller. It's all the same thing: conflict of interest. If there isn't, there should be a discussion about making a code of conduct against that.
One last thing: the highlighted words in your quote "misogynists" and "man-child" were employed in the same manner as radicals use them: generalysing and in a conflictual tone. I hope you haven't actually used it like they most commonly do it... as surreptitious hate-speech, the same one that the reasonable equality feminists, ethnical and LGBT movements fight against (and I support all these movements, when not radicalized). People should drop the idea of having linguistic weapons on a discussion. I never did, and never will condone fighting hate speech as if in "legitimate self defense". That's not keeping dialogue, that's killing dialogue and inflicting combat. How can understanding be achieved by trying to make the other person feel ashmed of what he says or feels, by condemnation, name calling, infuriating, etc.?
That's one way to make conflict only bigger, not smaller. I guess that's what we're watching in the recent episodes. Issues appeared, which could lead to productive discussions about codes of conducts, etc. But all we got are highly emotional messages clashing both ways in an antagonizing manner. It seems people are not giving enough attention to developing their emotional inteligence, they simply answer according to the feeling they have at the moment. I believe in dialectics (not hegelian, but socratic). There's no such thing as holding the moral high ground alone, without consensus from the opposing party through reason. Or else we have authoritarian discourse. There's no achieving understanding through isolation. Or we have elitism.
The current way prevailing everywhere, people are only searching for elements in the other person's discourse for them to identify what group they represent, so they know if they should agree or attack. The actual content is discarded. There's no thesis, antithesis and conclusion. I see that as authoritatian and elitist discourse from groups thinking they monopolize the "truth" (let's call it that). Which leads to radicalization. That's what's twisting feminism into misandry without people realizing, that's what's making people indifferent to equality into misogynists (misogyny means hate towards women, not just conservating status quo) without they realizing, and so on.
I guess this is the major lesson I got from all this scandal - the inaptitude of many to simply talk and try to achieve a common ground, or accept that they disagree... Furthering each other's preconceptions about them or what they symbolize to the "opposing party".
Since you've requested a response to this very long post, here goes:
Firstly, you've almost pulled a straw man there yourself by taking my question and referring to it as a "straw man" when you can clearly see it's framed as a question. There's a big difference between a straw man and asking a question.
Secondly, I'm not sure what the laws are in your country, but here in Britain, there are laws that protect living individuals from slander by the media. If a news article slanders an individual with unsubstantiated gossip, rumours, and/or exposing personal information, then they have the legal right to sue that media organization for libel, or a breach of journalistic integrity.
Thirdly, there's a big difference between political/economic corruption, something that harm millions of people, and infidelity, a consensual act that does no harm to anyone other than the two people cheating and the one or two being cheating on. The former is illegal, and the latter is legal. A company has every right to suppress any personal information, unless it involves illegal activity. If there is some illegal activity going on, then we have every right to know. But if there is no illegal activity going on, then that isn't anyone's business. As such, we have every right to know about Yamauchi's alleged ties to the Yakuza, but we have no right to know about his alleged infidelity to his wife.
Fourthly, a private company has the right to run its business however it wants. If it wants to employ based on meritocracy, then it has the right to do so. If it wants to employ based on family relations, then it has the right to do so. If it wants to employ only friends or romantic partners, then it has the right to do so. That is no one's business other than the company's. If it was a public company, then the public has every right to know about their employment practices. But if it's a private company, like most indie companies, then the public has no right to know about their employment process or the personal details of their employees.
And finally, all of the radicals, fanatics and extremists are coming entirely from one side, the side sending the death threats, rape threats, threats of violence, hacking, doxing, etc. And that side isn't the "feminist" or "********" faction, but it's the "anti-feminist" faction that is responsible for all of the death threats, rape threats, threats of violence, hacking, doxing, etc. It would be highly disingenuous to portray this as a battle of equals when it clearly isn't, because it's very obvious one side is clearly far more extremist and fanatical than the other. I was once part of that "anti-feminist" faction myself in the past, before leaving it because of the sheer hatred and fanaticism that is driving that faction. I still don't support the feminist movement, but I will defend it whenever those "anti-feminist" extremists are involved.
First of all, thanks for the throughout response. That's the way I see these kind of discussions going forward, instead of going around in circles endlessly.
1st - I'm certain I didn't make a straw man there, and I also said you "almost" made that yourself, because of your question implying a point I didn't make, by reducing my actual point to a fraction of it (though you completely pulled a straw man with that radicalist video in a later post).
2nd - Yes, in my country it's also like that. And that goes both ways. Everyone is already blaming people for death threats not proven, and 4chan for doxing 2 people without previous investigation. That's also false accusation, libel, etc.
Though as far as the "gossip" goes, there's already at least 3 people involved (Grayson, his boss and Zoe, I'm not counting the ex-bf) admitting that the facts are true, even if partly but enough to justify a discussion about professional ethics. Totilo and Grayson only dismissed the dates in which the facts occurred, not the facts themselves.
3rd - I agree, there's a big difference. No one should be talking about the issue as if it's a question of personal life matters. No comments on cheating and perversion, for example, should be admitted. But the facts of the professional circunstances in which it happened are obviously relevant, even if it was an extraterrestrial of unknown gender developer involved as the protagonist of the episode. People that work with talking about the person and her work are involved personally with her, in any respectable journal that would constitute conflict of interest, even if not something more serious, as traffic of influence or something like that. Codes of conduct aren't directed only at grave violations of expected ethics, and sexual affairs isn't something reduced to the individual's sphere of consequences, thus is commonly an issue on different professions' codes of conduct.
4th - This is not only something about a private company. Though you are right this may be a non-issue when regarding the liaison with her boss, it does affect more than a company when you consider that it's also a relation between journalists and a subject of journalism.
For example: Robin Arnott, one of the 3 known identities amongst the 5 guys, was a jury member in giving Depression Quest the IndieCade annual Night Games party award. Also, here. And here. He also made an article praising her endlessly. And grayson, was already a friend before then known date of their affair. This may not be proof of corruption, but it's enough to create conflict of interest. It's enough to justify a discussion about how the indie dev is or may be working today, if it's the way we gamers want it to be and how to avoid it going that way. These are examples, there are more aspects being ignored by those reducing the thing to a personal witch hunt. Which it is, but only by the radical ones that are not interested in discussing ethics in gaming journalism and the indie community.
Radicals come from both sides. The first thing that expose them is the "dialect" they use, completely ideologically driven. The use of offensive words to detract opposing ones, the lack of interest in discussing matters, accepting lack of proof from one side ignoring the lack of proof in the other, and also accepting only the proof presented in one side while ignoring the ones available by the other. Yet both are failing to see the few ones that are actually managing to see a bit of the real issue amongst the fire and smoke, because they actually want to make the circus incinerate with their adversaries inside. This doesn't solve anything. Antagonizing solves nothing.
You didn't, though, respond every argument I presented. Like seeing the conflict of interests and corruption that happens on both sides (when you said I have consistency), which you admitted I didn't ignore, and I pointed that that's the way to fight for better standards. How can we achieve a better paradigm by imposing silence?
And finally, all of the radicals, fanatics and extremists are coming entirely from one side, the side sending the death threats, rape threats, threats of violence, hacking, doxing, etc. And that side isn't the "feminist" or "********" faction, but it's the "anti-feminist" faction that is responsible for all of the death threats, rape threats, threats of violence, hacking, doxing, etc. It would be highly disingenuous to portray this as a battle of equals when it clearly isn't, because it's very obvious one side is clearly far more extremist and fanatical than the other. I was once part of that "anti-feminist" faction myself in the past, before leaving it because of the sheer hatred and fanaticism that is driving that faction. I still don't support the feminist movement, but I will defend it whenever those "anti-feminist" extremists are involved.
Only this isn't true:
Messages a 16-year-old girl received on tumblr from feminists
You’re disgusting you sound so fat like I’m not even kidding you sound like a fucking brony or those guys with the pizza faces that shoot up schools. Like you need to fucking stop. Take your anti-feminist shit and shove it down your dickhole because literally nobody wants to hear what you have to say about it. Nobody fucking asked you. So go play with your twilight dash and flutter jack ponies. You fucking immature assholes.
Kill yourself you communist
Go to hell
idiot
ur dum kill yaself
you are literally mentally handicapped
Go die, the world doesn’t need a piece of shit like you
you’re scum
GO **** YOURSELF YOU LITTLE PIECE OF SHIT
Good I’m glad you feel like shit
you’re pure trash
I love know you feel awful <3
It's both sides and they're all morons.
White knight on into the sunset if you choose, but don't spread distorted lies.
So, I took the time to actually listen to the linked "honey badger" YouTube video as opposed to their textual "summary" on the linked webpage and I am starting to think that all of these people from the Zoe Quinn stuff, to Anita, Phil, and these other "honey badger" girls are all in a mutually supportive network of promotion and antagonization.
It seems to be the the classic exchange of cash from the left hand to the right.
They all also seem to be poor actresses and it comes through in their disingenuous tones and eruptions of laughter, and then there's also the attempted refutation of sock puppet speculation.
Yeah, like those poorly-written "AAA" Hollywood action movies that pass for "games" these days.
@Dasein808 said:
Only this isn't true:
It's both sides and they're all morons.
White knight on into the sunset if you choose, but don't spread distorted lies.
You need to learn to read. I said "death threats, rape threats, threats of violence, hacking, doxing". I'm afraid those are only coming from the "anti-feminist" side.
Nice try at spreading "distorted lies" though.
@roler42 said:
@Jag85: No offense but... The hypocrisy in your post is amusing, according to you "it all comes from one side" yet you have been giving the excact same vitriol and vile you've been denouncing so much
I've been sending "death threats, rape threats, threats of violence, hacking, doxing"? That's news to me.
@SambaLele said:
First of all, thanks for the throughout response. That's the way I see these kind of discussions going forward, instead of going around in circles endlessly.
1st - I'm certain I didn't make a straw man there, and I also said you "almost" made that yourself, because of your question implying a point I didn't make, by reducing my actual point to a fraction of it (though you completely pulled a straw man with that radicalist video in a later post).
2nd - Yes, in my country it's also like that. And that goes both ways. Everyone is already blaming people for death threats not proven, and 4chan for doxing 2 people without previous investigation. That's also false accusation, libel, etc.
Though as far as the "gossip" goes, there's already at least 3 people involved (Grayson, his boss and Zoe, I'm not counting the ex-bf) admitting that the facts are true, even if partly but enough to justify a discussion about professional ethics. Totilo and Grayson only dismissed the dates in which the facts occurred, not the facts themselves.
3rd - I agree, there's a big difference. No one should be talking about the issue as if it's a question of personal life matters. No comments on cheating and perversion, for example, should be admitted. But the facts of the professional circunstances in which it happened are obviously relevant, even if it was an extraterrestrial of unknown gender developer involved as the protagonist of the episode. People that work with talking about the person and her work are involved personally with her, in any respectable journal that would constitute conflict of interest, even if not something more serious, as traffic of influence or something like that. Codes of conduct aren't directed only at grave violations of expected ethics, and sexual affairs isn't something reduced to the individual's sphere of consequences, thus is commonly an issue on different professions' codes of conduct.
4th - This is not only something about a private company. Though you are right this may be a non-issue when regarding the liaison with her boss, it does affect more than a company when you consider that it's also a relation between journalists and a subject of journalism.
For example: Robin Arnott, one of the 3 known identities amongst the 5 guys, was a jury member in giving Depression Quest the IndieCade annual Night Games party award. Also, here. And here. He also made an article praising her endlessly. And grayson, was already a friend before then known date of their affair. This may not be proof of corruption, but it's enough to create conflict of interest. It's enough to justify a discussion about how the indie dev is or may be working today, if it's the way we gamers want it to be and how to avoid it going that way. These are examples, there are more aspects being ignored by those reducing the thing to a personal witch hunt. Which it is, but only by the radical ones that are not interested in discussing ethics in gaming journalism and the indie community.
Radicals come from both sides. The first thing that expose them is the "dialect" they use, completely ideologically driven. The use of offensive words to detract opposing ones, the lack of interest in discussing matters, accepting lack of proof from one side ignoring the lack of proof in the other, and also accepting only the proof presented in one side while ignoring the ones available by the other. Yet both are failing to see the few ones that are actually managing to see a bit of the real issue amongst the fire and smoke, because they actually want to make the circus incinerate with their adversaries inside. This doesn't solve anything. Antagonizing solves nothing.
You didn't, though, respond every argument I presented. Like seeing the conflict of interests and corruption that happens on both sides (when you said I have consistency), which you admitted I didn't ignore, and I pointed that that's the way to fight for better standards. How can we achieve a better paradigm by imposing silence?
1. You're contradicting yourself here. You just admitted that people like that exist, yet you call the video parodying those people a straw man. That makes no sense whatsoever.
2. It doesn't go both ways where I live. The law only protects individuals from libel/slander, not groups/sites/organizations. Slandering 4chan is in no way, shape or form comparable to slandering an actual individual. As for the allegations against 4chan, it's pretty well-founded considering the past history of 4channers repeatedly being convicted for criminal acts like doxing, illegal hacking, threatening behaviour, pedophilia, etc. What's not well-founded is 4chan's completely irrational conspiracy theory about someone revealing his own passwords, personal details, social security info, and other information that could put himself at risk, all just for some attention-whoring. This is clearly just a desperate attempt by 4chan to cover-up yet another criminal act perpetrated by its members.
3. The code of conduct argument would make sense if we were talking about a public company. But it isn't a public company. It's a private company. And as a private company, they can make up whatever codes of conduct they wish. If I were to start-up a private company and exclusively hire only my family, friends, and girlfriend, then I have every right to do so. My company, my rules.
4. Regarding the journalism argument, the lie about the Kotaku journalist "reviewing" her game has already been thoroughly debunked. When such allegations get so easily debunked, it casts serious doubts on the other trumped-up charges. If you're talking about a more general discussion about the influence of personal relationships between indie developers and journalists, then there's nothing wrong with such a discussion. But that is not what's happening. What is happening is that people are singling-out a single individual, which goes far beyond a general discussion and into realm of a glorified personal witch hunt.
5. I think the kind of radicals you are referring to isn't the kind of radicals I'm referring to. The kind of radicals I'm referring to are the ones doing the "death threats, rape threats, threats of violence, hacking, doxing". And it's pretty undeniable that those kinds of attacks are coming almost exclusively from the "anti-feminist" side.
You need to learn to read. I said "death threats, rape threats, threats of violence, hacking, doxing". I'm afraid those are only coming from the "anti-feminist" side.
Yeah, and I provided you evidence of most of the above and Eron's blog supplies evidence of the rest. Maybe you should try reading the whole thing and then try reconsidering your position?
The "anti-feminist" side?! More like the anti-hypocrite/**** pseudo-victim parasites side.
Good luck with all that. Repeat it enough and maybe your prince(ss) will eventually arrive.
You need to learn to read: "death threats, rape threats, threats of violence, hacking, doxing". I'm afraid those are only coming from the "anti-feminist" side.
Nice try at spreading "distorted lies" though.
You aren't really that naive are you? Because here's a post from a FYC developer, a set of mostly women devs dedicated to helping women break into the industry, with a pretty damning story that says otherwise. There's plenty of other strong evidence indicating doxxes and hacks were faked, on top of all the other verbal harassment slung at the people calling them out for this behavior.
Stop pretending their side is so righteous when they're just as willing to crush or harass anyone who isn't part of their community or anything they disagree with. I am all for feminism because I'm a humanist, but this new wave of feminism these kinds of people perpetrate is a travesty.
From looking at this graph is seems 4chan care and understand games better than the gaming media or tortured hipsters. In the long run, having them bully and intimidate assholes is probably the best course.
From looking at this graph is seems 4chan care and understand games better than the gaming media or tortured hipsters. In the long run, having them bully and intimidate assholes is probably the best course.
Not so sure about that, more than half of those games aren't CRPGs....some of those aren't even RPGs lol!
From that chart, it's safe to assume 4chan doesn't know the first thing about videogames.
Yeah, and I provided you evidence of most of the above and Eron's blog supplies evidence of the rest. Maybe you should try reading the whole thing and then try reconsidering your position?
The "anti-feminist" side?! More like the anti-hypocrite/**** pseudo-victim parasites side.
Good luck with all that. Repeat it enough and maybe your prince(ss) will eventually arrive.
Nope, I still don't see evidence of "death threats, rape threats, threats of violence, hacking, doxing" from the "feminazis".
Sorry mate, but the "anti-feminist" side is full of hypocrites and "pseudo-victim parasites".
But good luck with your witch-hunt. I'm sure your prince will one day arrive to save you from the "feminazis".
@Vaasman said:
You aren't really that naive are you? Because here's a post from a FYC developer, a set of mostly women devs dedicated to helping women break into the industry, with a pretty damning story that says otherwise. There's plenty of other strong evidence indicating doxxes and hacks were faked, on top of all the other verbal harassment slung at the people calling them out for this behavior.
Stop pretending their side is so righteous when they're just as willing to crush or harass anyone who isn't part of their community or anything they disagree with. I am all for feminism because I'm a humanist, but this new wave of feminism these kinds of people perpetrate is a travesty.
About the doxing, I'll just repeat what I've already said above: "As for the allegations against 4chan, it's pretty well-founded considering the past history of 4channers repeatedly being convicted for criminal acts like doxing, illegal hacking, threatening behaviour, pedophilia, etc. What's not well-founded is 4chan's completely irrational conspiracy theory about someone revealing his own passwords, personal details, social security info, and other information that could put himself at risk, all just for some attention-whoring. This is clearly just a desperate attempt by 4chan to cover-up yet another criminal act perpetrated by its members." If you honestly believe Phil Fish did it to himself, then I'm afraid you're the one who is being naive here.
As for FYC, interesting how yet another allegation only pops up now, with a witch-hunt going on against an individual. It's pretty hard to take these allegations seriously when some of them have already been exposed as outright lies, like the fake Kotaku "review", casting serious doubt on the other allegations. As the law usually says in most civilized countries, "innocent until proven guilty". The burden of proof lies on the people making the allegations, not on the person being accused.
Who said anything about "feminists" being "righteous"? I never said they're good people, but they're certainly not the evil monsters that "anti-feminist" hypocrites love to make them out to be. I've lost count of the number of times "anti-feminist" hypocrites have launched witch-hunts against a woman just for saying something they disagree with. Why can't the "anti-feminists" handle disagreements like mature adults? Why do they keep having to resort to online libel/slander/bullying/harassment campaigns against individuals to get their way? I'm glad I jumped off that "anti-feminist" bandwagon a long time ago, and was glad when that Anita Sarkeesian woman (whose videos are laughably bad) got so much cash and awards, just to see how much it annoyed those crazy "anti-feminist" loons. If they hate these "feminists" getting so much sympathy and attention, then just stop harassing them and no one will take notice of them. But "anti-feminists" instead do the irrational thing, launch online harassment campaigns against them, give them more attention than they deserve, and then start crying about it when their actions have caused that individual to get so much sympathy and attention. The "anti-feminists" only have themselves to blame for it.
About the doxing, I'll just repeat what I've already said above: "As for the allegations against 4chan, it's pretty well-founded considering the past history of 4channers repeatedly being convicted for criminal acts like doxing, illegal hacking, threatening behaviour, pedophilia, etc. What's not well-founded is 4chan's completely irrational conspiracy theory about someone revealing his own passwords, personal details, social security info, and other information that could put himself at risk, all just for some attention-whoring. This is clearly just a desperate attempt by 4chan to cover-up yet another criminal act perpetrated by its members." If you honestly believe Phil Fish did it to himself, then I'm afraid you're the one who is being naive here.
As for FYC, interesting how yet another allegation only pops up now, with a witch-hunt going on against an individual. It's pretty hard to take these allegations seriously when some of them have already been exposed as outright lies, like the fake Kotaku "review", casting serious doubt on the other allegations. As the law usually says in most civilized countries, "innocent until proven guilty". The burden of proof lies on the people making the allegations, not on the person being accused.
Who said anything about "feminists" being "righteous"? I never said they're good people, but they're certainly not the evil monsters that "anti-feminist" hypocrites love to make them out to be. I've lost count of the number of times "anti-feminist" hypocrites have launched witch-hunts against a woman just for saying something they disagree with. Why can't the "anti-feminists" handle disagreements like mature adults? Why do they keep having to resort to online libel/slander/bullying/harassment campaigns against individuals to get their way? I'm glad I jumped off that "anti-feminist" bandwagon a long time ago, and was glad when that Anita Sarkeesian woman (whose videos are laughably bad) got so much cash and awards, just to see how much it annoyed those crazy "anti-feminist" loons. If they hate these "feminists" getting so much sympathy and attention, then just stop harassing them and no one will take notice of them. But "anti-feminists" instead do the irrational thing, launch online harassment campaigns against them, give them more attention than they deserve, and then start crying about it when their actions have caused that individual to get so much sympathy and attention. The "anti-feminists" only have themselves to blame for it.
You're completely wrong though, I can cite several instances where they absolutely faked doxxes with a false flag, do you really need me to pull that stuff up? Just look here.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/quinnspiracy
I mean sure, I'll grant you that nothing is concrete. But then, nothing is concrete to indicate any of their accusations are true either. Neither Phil nor Zoe had any extended downtime, nothing indicates they were harassed in person, over the phone, or at any place they might reside. You're delusional if you can't see there is some obviously scummy shit coming from that camp. Between some obvious false accusations and censorship, people on their bullshit fake-feminist side are being just as much of assholes as anyone on the opposing side. Character assassination is definitely being attempted. Have you seen Totalbiscuit or Jontron's twitter lately? Nothing but calls to remove their youtube or telling them they are literally shit, just because they took a stand against the SJWs. Not even a radical stance, just a few opinions here and there about nepotism and openness in the media. These are people's livelihoods they're talking about here, those two need the exposure on youtube and twitter to make money, and the fake-feminists don't care at all.
Funny thing is though it's obvious you're just going to lap up all their sobbing despite how many people provide evidence that shatters their stance and credibility. Evidence that neither you nor they are refuting in any logical manner.
And as far as the FYC thing goes, there's absolutely no reason why a very feminist poster would make a story like that up. Again, I'm not saying it's concrete, but I think it's pretty clear with everything else here that you don't believe in it because you don't want to, not because it isn't almost certainly true. I choose to believe it because I read through that person's posting history and checked out all their arguments. You on the other hand just think it's wrong because "lol witch hunt." What, so when the faux-feminists claim doxxing it's 100% legit, but when their opposition claims it, suddenly it's bullshit? Talk about a double standard.
You can check out a much longer and more detailed version of their story here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d6Q3VpqXyk
And just to add salt into the wounds, FYC's indiegogo page I linked earlier was hacked and removed. No news on the who's and whats yet, but I think it's somewhat safe to assume that it wasn't 4chan given that the users there are the biggest supporters of this campaign. It is pretty sad that they are in the crossfire, regardless of who's doing the firing. You can read more about that here.
Nope, I still don't see evidence of "death threats, rape threats, threats of violence, hacking, doxing" from the "feminazis".
That is because you have made zero effort to look. Here is thirty seconds of effort: http://orogion.deviantart.com/journal/Save-the-Boob-plate-380891149
From it: A bare belly was for some enough a trigger to send our company enough hate and threatening mails to persuade my boss to ask me to change the cover.
He is talking about the kickstarter for Orginial Sin. Threats over art design in a text heavy RPG of all things.
Trolls don't have a political agenda they are pushing, they are in it to make a splash and get a reaction. Western society puts a lot more emphasis on sheltering women then men, particularly youthful white women. As this is the case, almost all articles about trolling that get any traction are about female targets, leaning heavily in the direction of middle class and wealthy white women. That however isn't the same thing as saying only one side of any issue is being targeted. Trolls target everything on the internet. Claiming only one side of any discussion gets trolled is like claiming that children acting out in order to get attention have a complex political motivation for acting out. It just makes no sense.
Mitt Romney, while he was running for president and the freaking secret service was investigating anyone who muttered anything about harming him, got death threats from "feminists" after a parody article was released offering up the idea that he wished to ban tampons for gosh's sake. The word feminist is in quotations because anyone reading this that actually thinks waves of feminists took to twitter to wish and threaten ill will Romney's way while he was under the protection of the secret service over an obvious joke is a doof. Trolls took to twitter to get reaction because they had an opportunity. Who and what he stood for and against, even in jokes, had very little to do with it.
Anyone, regardless of race, gender, religion, political ideology, or philosophy who is a) on the internet and b) sufficiently followed is under troll assault. From civil rights warrior to whatever you call the leader of a Neo Nazi movement. From big ugly guys in fetish porn to Grandmothers baking cookies on youtube. Heck, that has been the case since before there was the internet. Millions of people have written threatening letters over soap opera plot twists of all things. What a person is doing has nothing to do with the waves of hate and threats they get. The biggest factor in the amount of threats and hate a person gets is their fame.
Trolls have no gender, sexuality, ethnicity, or philosophy. They act from the shelter of anonymity, and will claim any combination of attributes just to get people worked up. Every group with sufficient internet access has people like this in their group. Claiming otherwise is just cherry picking in an effort to help someone win the victimization game. It isn't hard to find painfully stupid things people will united people in wild eyed outrage, including groups dominated by female members. As example this:
No one is stupid enough to actually think this cute little button of a child is pushing the "gay agenda" and no one cares. Disgusting bile got slung her way for one reason and one reason alone, and that is to get people all worked up while being as big of an idiot as is humanly possible. Conservative Christians didn't do it. Homosexuals didn't do it. Men didn't do it. Women didn't do it. White people didn't do it. Black people didn't do it.
Log in to comment