By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
mornelithe on 25 October 2014
whiteknight101 said:
Mummelmann said:

Given that you created the account on the same day as jumping headlong into a fairly heavy discussion on said topic and you have 67 forum posts in about two months, where 27 of them, or close to half, revolve around the subject I mentioned, I hardly think it's a stretch for me to make the assumption that you joined the forums mostly to discuss this topic. I don't mind that you consider my opinion wrong, it is mostly based on your insistence of steering this topic and, as mentioned, having nearly half of your posts on the very same and actually starting the accound with about 10 posts on said topic.

I dont envy you the research it must have taken to come up with that tally ;)

Now that you did and opted to inform the forum, would you mind also informing them that my last thread on that original topic was about two months ago, and that those 40 posts not relating to #GamerGate, but rather to video games and video game sales are in fact spread out over a quite large number of threads and throughout these two months.

If I were you, I think I'd kind of assume that someone who choose to stick around for two months and read enough threads to make 40 posts unrelated to that subject just might be interested in video games and sales of video games? I think it strains credulity that I would have hung around if my only interest in Vgchartz was to white-knight said ladies.

I'm not you, however, I'm me and luckily I know with absolute certainty what my own intent is, and it's not what you thought it was. I have strong opinions on this particular subject - sure - but I suspect that isnt something the VGchartz forums frown upon, as long as those opinions are offered in a courteous and civilized manner. Right?

And in the appropriate thread, most people don't like threads being derailed and moved in a direction that is not the intent of the OP.  Which is where the original warning came from, which is why they suggested you start your own thread.  Tachikoma already said she's not going to dig into specifics on this, for several reasons.

OP: After I finish my coffee and digest what you've written, I'll respond Tachi, thanks for the insight though, so far a very interesting read.



Around the Network
whiteknight101 on 25 October 2014
Tachikoma said:
whiteknight101 said:
Tachikoma said:
whiteknight101 said:
Tamron said:

It's quote obvious.

Opinion: One person to another - "Hmm, i think that person over there isn't very intelligent"

Clear provocation: To the 'unintelligent person' "WHATS UP FA FUCKIN RETARD?"

Not really seeing why you are having an issue with it.

That's perfectly reasonable if we're talking about me being invited into your home and implying you're stupid or something.

But it's completely wrong if you're talking about public persons making public statements about political issues or whatever. For god's sake, I bet freaking Jay Leno has suggested Sarah Palin is stupid on any number of occations. That doesnt give Palin supporters the right to harrass or threaten Jay Leno. If they did, then the media would be 100% right in coming down on them.

This is basic stuff about life in a democracy.

Really now, try using the bolded line to a cop and see how far democracy gets you.
Conversely, approach a gang on the street and insult them, and see how far democracy gets you.

But would you though? would you do it under the assumption that your rights protect you, or would you NOT do so, because "doing that would be stupid" ?

Obviously if you insult a gang and they rob you / rape you / murder you, then they are committing a crime and are liable for time in jail and / or execution. The insult does not change the fundamental principle of rule of law, under which insults are permissible while robberies assaults rape and murder is not.

Police are obviously a different matter, due to how they are tasked with the enforcement of laws, and to that end mandated to apply prudent force. (A mandate which they, in the US, abuse far too often).

But all that is beside the point.

The police have no right to harass and threaten people who exercise their 1st amendment rights to make public statements. If Jay Leno made a joke on TV about Bristol Palin being a prostitute and we found out that the LAPD took offense and harrassed and threatened Jay Leno, then that would be a bona-fide scandal. People would lose jobs and quite likely go to jail. If Leno made a joke about the Cribs and they invaded his home, cut his throat and raped his wife then people would go to jail or to the gas chamber.

In much the same way, any citizen of the United States has a consitutionally protected right to make public statements, even offensive statements. If they are offensive and insulting, then anyone offended has a right to call them out as such and consider that person an idiot. But that's the end of it.

You seem to be suggesting that we should all go around being fearful and mindful about not saying stuff that might offend the Police; the cribs; the KKK; #GamerGaters; whatever. That strikes me as wrongheaded.

If we were talking about running around calling people of color n*ggers or girls sl*ts - well obviously that is jerkish behaviour and would warrant people getting pissed. Even then, responding with threats and harrasment is out of bounds and not an acceptable response. I think this is pretty self-evident stuff.

you sure like your long winded skirt around the point responses,  lets make this easier. 

If you saw a gang in the street,  would you exercise your right to free speech and insult them openly? 

and more to the point,  if you had done so,  and were telling people,  do you think they would say "damn them for beating you up for insulting them"  or would they say "are you dumb or something?" 

You don't however need to answer this,  and I would rather you didn't,  you have taken a very minor point of the thread and firstly tried to divert it to a topic of your choosing and when that failed,  taken litterally a similar point and decided to focus on that one single point,  in an extremely overanalytical manner. 

the real kicker here is that the only "attack"  this person received in response to the provocation,  was as you put it,  simply "free speech",  insults in kind from several users,  the story that ran focused only on these insults and glossed over the fact that they were directed at her in response to her own. 

As such our discussion of this is over. 

Well, it might be a minor point to you, but it's something on which you offered your opinion in your original post. If you're not open to discussing things you have an opinion about - why include them in a post on a forum?

But if that's how you feel I suggest you offer to "agree to disagree" instead of acting like disagreeing is a hostile action or something. I just don't agree with what you wrote in your OP. That's fine and we don't have to discuss it any further.

Should you however want to talk about it, I'd suggest that if I insulted the Crips and they popped a cap in my ass, then the prudent news story for the media to report upon ought to be "murder committed" rather than "stupid honkey acts foolishly". Since you added the information that "the person" only recieved "insults" (as opposed to harassment and threats), I would say that it sounds, from your description, like something the media wouldnt have to report on at all. That's my view, until you offer any more information on the subject.

Cheers

ETA: spelling, thanks mate!



whiteknight101 on 25 October 2014

mornelithe,

Well, I have only been talking about stuff on topic for several pages now, so that obviously isnt a problem anymore, right?



mornelithe on 25 October 2014
whiteknight101 said:

Well, it might be a minor point to you, but it's something on which you offered your opinion in your original post. If you're not open to discussing things you have an opinion about - why include them in a post on an image board?

But if that's how you feel I suggest you offer to "agree to disagree" instead of acting like disagreeing is a hostile action or something. I just don't agree with what you wrote in your OP. That's fine and we don't have to discuss it any further.

Should you however want to talk about it, I'd suggest that if I insulted the cribs and they popped a cap in my ass, then the prudent news story for the media to report upon ought to be "murder committed" rather than "stupid honkey acts foolishly". Since you added the information that "the person" only recieved "insults" (as opposed to harassment and threats), I would say that it sounds, from your description, like something the media wouldnt have to report on at all. That's my view, until you offer any more information on the subject.

Cheers

Not sure if you're purposefully mistating it, or if you just don't know, but in any event, it's the Crips.



mornelithe on 25 October 2014
whiteknight101 said:

mornelithe,

Well, I have only been talking about stuff on topic for several pages now, so that obviously isnt a problem anymore, right?

I was speaking generally, to correct your statement that I bolded.  However, one could say the back and forth with Mummel is off-topic, as is this response to you.  Which is why I added at the end the OP statement of my other response to you (though, I do plan on responding Tachi lol).  No beef or anything, just letting you know that even if the opinion is pleasant and so on, it may not be on-topic, and thus, frowned upon.

Ok, we're all on the same page, back to the OP.



Around the Network
Mr Khan on 25 October 2014
whiteknight101 said:
Mummelmann said:
whiteknight101 said:


Seeing as you are a moderator, I will absolutely comply with your warning and not mention either Sarkeesian or Quinn in this thread (after this post).

I will however note that while my first few posts here on Vgchartz concerned a thread about Quinn, I have since made a number of posts on other topics relating to video games and sales. And point out that you're liable to know that very well seeing as you have access to my posting history. For this reason I reject your suggestion that I "mostly" created my account for "the purpose of discussing and / or defending the two mentioned people".

I'm sure that you're fine with me making that point, since that clearly was just your opinion rather than part of your tasks as a moderator? And that opinion was wrong.


Given that you created the account on the same day as jumping headlong into a fairly heavy discussion on said topic and you have 67 forum posts in about two months, where 27 of them, or close to half, revolve around the subject I mentioned, I hardly think it's a stretch for me to make the assumption that you joined the forums mostly to discuss this topic. I don't mind that you consider my opinion wrong, it is mostly based on your insistence of steering this topic and, as mentioned, having nearly half of your posts on the very same and actually starting the accound with about 10 posts on said topic.

I dont envy you the research it must have taken to come up with that tally ;)

Now that you did and opted to inform the forum, would you mind also informing them that my last thread on that original topic was about two months ago, and that those 40 posts not relating to #GamerGate, but rather to video games and video game sales are in fact spread out over a quite large number of threads and throughout these two months.

If I were you, I think I'd kind of assume that someone who choose to stick around for two months and read enough threads to make 40 posts unrelated to that subject just might be interested in video games and sales of video games? I think it strains credulity that I would have hung around if my only interest in Vgchartz was to white-knight said ladies.

I'm not you, however, I'm me and luckily I know with absolute certainty what my own intent is, and it's not what you thought it was. I have strong opinions on this particular subject - sure - but I suspect that isnt something the VGchartz forums frown upon, as long as those opinions are offered in a courteous and civilized manner. Right?

Have to side with my boy Mummels on this one. Your argument would be stronger if you had not picked out such a name.

On topic: seems the root issue here is oversaturation in the games media, although you would suspect from that thesis that the relative importance of any one opinion would be diminished rather than bloated, but since everyone is reporting on everyone else's business, one small opinion gets magnified out of proportion instead.

Your cable news metaphor is apt in this case.

Gamergate feels to me almost like the monica lewinsky affair: an unfortunate and, to an extent, troubling thing that happened, but overall insignficant and mostly a symbol for people with diverse agendas to bang their drums while the media profits off the exchange.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Emperorbach on 25 October 2014

you should publish everything
VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!



Aura7541 on 25 October 2014

That was a terrific and interesting read Tachi. I don't like how media outlets are resorting to hyperbolic sensationalistic tactics in order to rack up the revenue. I no longer read most of the sites I've gone to since the PS2 days because overtime, they put up less news and more controversy. And the devs bending over for the media part is depressing...



Intrinsic on 25 October 2014

Great read. And all round very enlightening.

For the few not gullible enough to take gaming media seriously, none of this would be surprising in the least. Gaming media has become just another outlet for marketing and revenue based on concessions rather than revenue based on a following and relevant gaming information.

Why should a company bother keeping a game in the dev cooker for another 6 months and spend another $10M on development costs then still spend another $30M on marketing, when they can take $2M and "incentivize" certain popular outlets and make a killing in retail?



generic-user-1 on 25 October 2014
Aura7541 said:
That was a terrific and interesting read Tachi. I don't like how media outlets are resorting to hyperbolic sensationalistic tactics in order to rack up the revenue. I no longer read most of the sites I've gone to since the PS2 days because overtime, they put up less news and more controversy. And the devs bending over for the media part is depressing...


well, Gawker will die if gamergate goes on for much longer they lost a lot of big partners about this topic.

intel doesnt likes it if u make fun about its costumers, who is buying the highly priced intel cpus?

and its not just intel, mercedes and bmw pulled the ads too.  and its not just gawker, all the antigamergate sites are losing partners FAST.