You already burned me once, Don, with a video that offered no useful information and zero substantiation of allegations. It did, however, degrade into a nice 5 minute collection of expletives and anger that clearly demonstrated why logic is simply not going to work here.
I have also heard large chunks of the Sargon video in my digging, and while I won’t listen to it again in its entirety (for the reason stated in my last paragraph), he uses the logic and methodology of a 6th grader. I do not believe his arguments are meant to (or could) convince, but simply to fan the flames for those who already believe.
This “debate” is far too depressing to continue. If you find any real evidence to support the claims, or choose to actually address any point I made, then I’m game to re-engage. Otherwise, I’m going to extract myself from this “rinse, lather, repeat” cycle. There are wealthy, succesful celebrities at whom I must toss pithy insults they will never hear. I have my priorities.
You know, out of respect, I always want to give your opinions the benefit of the doubt, But Don, I think you owe me some of my life back. But it was MY mistake for clicking, so I must take responsibility for a life misspent (that, and I’m on this website, so…).
The video’s premise is “Zoe is a whore, so journalism is corrupt, and we are defending the Constitution here.” Uh, no.
Journalistic integrity is, and has always been, at risk of familiarity. Jounalistic integrity is at risk when a journalist sleeps with a source or subject, when a journalist goes out for beers regularly with a source or subject, gets access and freebies at tradeshow bashes from a source or subject, allows college buddies or their products to become sources or subjects, gets set up with “booth bunnies” by a source or subject, and any number of other seedy and/or questionable boundary breaches. The reason there is no general “no fraternization” policy is that familiarity can also be a journalistic benefit, since it frequently leads to scoops, advanced previews, inside perspective, etc. that advance the journalistic goals. Defining the line between beneficial and adverse fraternization is ALWAYS the responsibility of the journalist and his/her supervisors.
If you feel a line has been breached, the PRIMARY names I should be hearing are the names of the journalists who violated journalistic ethics and the supervisors that allowed that breach. Instead, this is “Quinnspiracy.” Which I find ironic. I find it extremely unlikely I would have ever heard of Quinn had it not been for GamerGate, but you have done an admirable job of growing her presence and influence significantly, along with that of the feminists focusing on the gaming industry. Bravo.
If GamerGate were analyzing all the ways that gaming journalism can be or has been compromised with equal fervor, regardless of gender, it could be taken more seriously. But the focus on gender and anti-feminist rhetoric detracts from any real journalistic issues that might exist. Slut-shaming Quinn is a complete misdirection and is absolutely not germane to the issue of journalistic integrity. At best, her case is evidence of a problem, not THE problem. That is, if you had proved the problem exists in the first place.
And I think that’s the whole point of this video. Neither you nor this video point to a clear quid-pro-quo with regards to gender or feminist bias, so the video just keeps reiterating ‘Quinn is a whore,” “the women supporting Quinn are whores” and “men against GamerGate are all screwing these whores”, admittedly without a shred of evidence, in hopes that throwing accusations in the air like magic dust will make it all so. Lots of mouth foam, but not one morsel.
Let’s make this really simple. In a capitalistic system, we vote everyday with our dollars. In the Internet world, we vote with our eyeballs. If you do not believe in the journalistic integrity of these sites, go to other gamer sites. If there are no others, start one – there appears to be a large market opportunity to create one that has a more clear anti-fraternization policy. In fact, I think somebody is already beating you to it. And that would be the the folks capitalizing off of your anger over GamerGate. There’s money to be made on both sides of gender conflict, so buck up.
And how does a battle for journalistic standards morph into a “backlash against toxic feminism”? I dont know about the GamerGate community as a whole, but your motives are becoming all too clear.
And by the way, has anyone actually located the purported review that triggered the GarmerGate collusion charges in the first place? Last I heard, it “doesn’t matter” if it existed or not. Which, of course, is absurd.
re: Maitland Ward Wearing a Completely See-Through Dress: Creativ PR Collections (3 comments)
I prefer to think of it as a beacon. A naughty, naughty litlle beacon.
Nah. It’s just entertainment. And yeah, I wasted some of my life digging deeper, and found nothing but ideological rabble-rousing and b.s. From my persepctive, this is another time-wasting, energy sapping game being played between the Social Justice Warriors Team and the Social Injustice Warriors Team, giving the illusion of a greater purpose when, in fact, no substantive change of any sort is being advanced, and from which the only winners will be the team organizers. But its your time, so hey, by all means, Go Team!
This place is getting depressing.
re: Teresa Giudice Fired By Crisis Manager For Trying To Book Her Own Jail (21 comments)
I love the IRS. LOVE THEM! (This all ends up in my personal database, right?) They are a much-maligned, under appreciated organization that exists solely for the purpose of holding citizens to their fiduciary responsibility to the nation. (It’s all getting tracked, right?) True patriots, they are. (Seriously? Even this cheesy website? Geez..) Love them all! (…sniff..I promise…I’ll be good…)
re: Ray Rice Could Be Reinstated Next Month (54 comments)
Don, have you ever considered that you too are perhaps a gender ideologue? I mean, this is a website for semi-neanderthal knuckle draggers (like me) to make petty comments about celebrities and ogle women, but even amongst this pathetic lot (again myself included) you seem to be having trouble finding supporters. Now grant you, it is entirely possible that we are all deluded, but isn’t it also possible that your position may be a bit more extreme than you would like to think?
On a different post, you cited a philosophy of “equivalent force.” You don’t need to respond, but going back to that Rice video, do you honestly believe that the force from that hook was in any way equivalent to the slaps she was attempting? Given their size and weight, do you think she could have, in any situation, delivered equivalent force? There are reasons that we have weight divisions in all methods of fighting:
Energy = 1/2 mass * velocity2 .
And BTW, elevator railings do not jump out and hit people. It was the force of a punch that drove her into it. That was the point of my “vehicular manslaughter/pavement” comment. From a legal perspective, it does not matter what object does the damage – what matters is what created the force. Even if she was collapsing and gravity was the force, the puncher would still be held liable. If you take nothing else away from my response, I hope at least that sticks with you. It may come in handy if you stay as angry as your responses seem to indicate.
Finally, I don’t see why you keep bringing up the Jay-Z/Solange incident. I don’t recall any negative repurcussions for him at all, other than the typical “let’s complain because he’s a rich celebirty” sort of comments. If anything, I think his restraint in that situation stands as a stark contrast to Rice, and sort of deflates your own argument.
re: Miley Cyrus: 'Bangerz' Tour Sydney, Australia (13 comments)
You go, Don! And I want you to know that I’ll definitely be chipping in when Fish starts the “Zaloog Defense Fund.”
(…I think it’s time to leave…before he has another…)
re: Stephen Collins Won't Be Charged With Child Molestation. Yup. (32 comments)
And now you understand divorce court.
re: Ray Rice Could Be Reinstated Next Month (54 comments)
Hey Don, try this one in court:
“It is NOT vehicular manslaughter! The pavement killed him!”
Go ahead. I dare ‘ya. Nah, I triple dog dare ‘ya.
(…sorry for the breach of etiquette on that last one…)