In the grander scheme of things, it's not that important, it is what got the ball rolling though. Again, people were generally suspicious about the nepotism and cronyism, but there never was any solid proof. Even the firing of Jeff Gerstmann, people knew that it was probably due to pressure for the bad review, but there wasn't proof of anything, and certainly no names to attach to it, just two very large companies.
This time, it's different. There's names, there's evidence, there's clear indications that from some, they've been participating in some very dubious ethical practice. There's clear examples of a general antipathy from game 'journalists' towards their readers (many 'gamers are dead' articles in a few hours). The point is, to deny that Quinn did anything wrong, would basically admit that GamerGate is a beat up over nothing. It became a lot bigger than Quinn, but don't forget, it wasn't just the relationships she had, she also concocted that there was a harassment campaign against her last year, after her game didn't get greenlit. Because it followed the narrative many of these 'journalists' want to hear, they didn't do any basic fact checking, just took her word for it, and she reaped massive publicity for it.
I don't think it's character assassination, but if you do, you should have a look at what happened to Max Tempkin and Brad Wardell. They were accused of rape, and the 'journalists' had a field day defaming and character assassinating them without a shred of evidence, just an allegation. Now, they've all found their morals when one of their own (i.e. self styled social justice warrior [yes Quinn called herself that iirc]) got some unwanted attention that was very damaging to the movement because of the incestuous relationships in the industry. The logs from the gamejournopros list proved that they had absolutely no intention of covering it. They didn't, they banned discussion, banned people who mentioned anything. Certainly haven't apologised when they defamed others though, they just went back and tried to quietly sanitise their articles. That's why GamerGate is all about journalistic integrity and ethics; the 'journalists' have clearly demonstrated that they are unrepentant and unapologetic about not having any.
This is just absurd. You're basically inferring what that disbarred lawyer Jack Thompson was saying, that graphic violent video games causes actual violence.
You still misrepresent the position behind GamerGate. The gamers with it are against being preached to by journalists who are vehemently pushing their moral standard on everyone. Just look at bayonetta 2 reviews from polygon. Sure the game has its art style, but what is otherwise critically praised as a good game, they knock it down, purely because of the imagery it shows. They say it's a bad game because it has a voluptuous female protagonist. Again, they say it's a bad game because it doesn't adhere to their moral standard, rather than actually being a bad game. It just doesn't make sense.
Well, then why did the gamergate movement provide over $70,000 to help women make video games (the fine young capitalists) while absolutely no mainstream 'journalist' outlets covered it at all. It happened on no publicity at all, yet still went through. I think it proves a point that you're position is laughably ignorant.
It's very easy to respond, because clearly, you're not entirely informed. The violation is, and the accusation was from the very beginning of getting free publicity. Nowhere did I say that a review of the game was made by Grayson. However, it is worth pointing out, that after the failure of the game jam written about in the article, Quinn decided to use this publicity to 'start' her own game jam, which had no date, no location, no judges, and was accepting donations into her personal paypal account... Why was her game jam website registered on the day the article was published? Surely you aren't going to say conincidence. It was definitely cronyism; that's why the article should never have been written. Grayson should have recused himself from the whole thing, due to his building relationship with Quinn, which arguably had began before the article was published.
There has also been significant criticism that the game jam which failed, was sabotaged. Other people involved had come out to say so, and it was all because Quinn took umbrage to their transgender policy, yet wouldn't say why. Furthermore, there was no fact checking to a previous claim of harassment from Quinn, relating to wizardchan. That appears to have been completely made up by Quinn for free sympathy and publicity. None of the publications fact checked anything, just ran with it and got her game greenlit after it had failed previously.
This is the stupidest of the gamergate arguments. "You shouldn't be outraged about abuse, because there's so much abuse."
You could try to read what I wrote, and you'll see I'm not saying that at all. I guess that's why you need to misrepresent what I've written. I'm asking what makes abuse against women special, compared to any other abuse. I don't like getting harassed and abused as much as anyone else, but I don't see why abuse leveled at women deserves any special place considering how toxic some communities are. More to the point, why is abuse against straight white males completely unremarkable, and ignorable?
So, if you want to make me guilty by association, because I do support GamerGate, then I guess you're no better than all the harassment produced by anti-GG people, such as more recently Briana Wu, teasing a disabled woman (cameragirl) on twitter, and Devin Faraci, who has labelled us as worse than ISIS (yes he went there, and wasn't the only one), so why haven't you just gone out and called me a fucking aspie terrorist already? You're explicitly standing with bigots!
Regarding the improper relationship between Grayson and Quinn, the official line of kotaku is contradicted by the chat logs released by the boyfriend. In any case, the time line wasn't 'well before' either. An article was published 31st of March, which featured Quinn, written by Grayson, and then they supposedly started a relationship merely days later...
In the chat logs, Quinn admits that her relationship with Grayson got close at a Las Vegas trip, approximately two weeks before the article was published. So either Quinn is lying and backdated her relationship or Grayson/Kotaku are lying and moved the date forward... While the relationship ultimately doesn't matter (but it did happen, and Grayson should never have written the article he did), kotaku went back and edited numerous articles by various authors, one of which, Patricia Hernandez, was also covering games from people she was living with, and in relationships with. Then the 14 or so 'gamers are dead' articles also sprung up all within hours of each other.
Regarding rage, have you ever played a game of DotA? That has an awful community. No one is saying that abuse doesn't happen, but why should only abuse against women be remarkable and others not?
There generally isn't any rage. The problem is you have a whole swathe of 'journalists' who are pushing their wheel-barrow full of opinion that there's oppression against women and other minority groups. Part of the backlash towards the 'journalists' is how duplicitous they are, but also how heavily slanted they push these view-points, to the detriment of their main readership and audience.
People suspected that at first it was just provocative click-bait. But when it started to become visible that a lot of the authors genuinely believed it, people started to see it more like a conspiracy. The 'journalists' have always run the line that any criticism is misogyny or bigotry, closed comments and then proceed to stroke their ego's about how brave they are. I'm no bigot, but I really hate constantly being preached to like as if I am one. Then to top it off, this holier-than-thou attitude completely turned on its head when people started uncovering mountains of evidence that the 'journalists' have no ethics in their work, since having relationships with people they cover, or actually having monetary ties with them is completely fine, according to them. It has really turned into an us vs them issue and I can't see it finishing any other way. They want to continue doing what they do; have a soap box to infect everyone with their miserable lives!
I for one have decided to 'check-out' from games; I'm no longer spending any money on games with anyone for anything. I'm not pushing a boycott, I've just decided that the well has been so poisoned, that I don't want to be supporting anyone with my custom. This is all due to the constant propaganda that gamers hate women amongst other minority groups, and the constant pandering of the industry to promote that fiction. So much of the industry has been goose stepping together on this issue, and so ready to throw their customers and readers under a bus. I feel like this has been an abysmal failure on the part of the games industry.
I see your point, I'm not criticising Gates, I excluded him, but when you look at people like Jobs, Zuckerberg, the google people, they don't appear to be that involved in philanthropically giving back to a society that gave so much to them. Point is, they appear to be much happier trying to make even more money. The actual amount of science spending, well, the point that I was trying to make is that there's heaps of people who make a big deal about science and how grand it is, but only really pay lip service to it. Like you have pointed out, it can't be improved by just throwing money at it.
I certainly don't agree with aimlessly giving more funding, it would just create a bigger prestigious, privileged, class of bottom feeder. We have a similar issue here in Australia, as there's always screaming for more funding for research (not just science) or state sponsored art. At the end of the day, when the benevolence of the government can be exploited, there's always going to be people holding their hand out asking for more.
What can you do though. Considering the names you mention, isn't it a bit ironic that those champions of science are so unphilanthropic towards their passion, maybe with the exception of Gates. It's a difficult problem to solve, and is starting to make me wonder then, why we have such strong champions of science these days, yet almost complete disregard to it.
Maybe, the thing we need is sTEM, or even just TEM.
How I got taught about how governments determine shortages is, they look at other markets or economies, ones which they'd like to imitate, and see what sectors that market is stronger at. Then compare to their market, and see where the shortages and over supplies are. Strong economies that do well, are going to tend to have high productivity with decent exports of innovative products.
So, the reason we keep hearing for more STEM is not because there actually is a shortage, but because they think the economy would be better with more of it. It's a matter of, "train" them up and they'll find jobs, rather than jobs and careers are there waiting to be filled. In some sectors, sure there are shortages, but in others, not so much. I'm in Australia, and I keep hearing about engineer shortages, but it's very difficult to find jobs at the moment. Companies aren't training, and just want someone with years of experience immediately. Statistics I keep on hearing that the majority of engineering graduates don't work in engineering here, they end up doing sales or other things where by virtue of completing an engineering degree, likelihood of having a dope is much lower than say an arts degree.
Science degrees for the most part aren't very useful (in Australia) unless you're aiming to get into academia, or one of the incredibly few research jobs. Because of the loans program for students (no upfront costs for study, minimal interest rate for repayment [below inflation iirc], and minimum income before you have to pay it off), a lot of people study, because they might as well. The issue with it is, a lot of people study things that really won't get them a career. Science is one of those areas of study which has many students, but not many careers afterward.
Best example I can give is from my university statistics. Science has the worst employment rate for graduates and postgraduates. https://www.uts.edu.au/...
If you think ebay doesn't care about their customers, they care even less for their sellers. Unfortunately, ebay is crap, but it still has the largest audience in some places, so it's where people go. That's why ebay gets away with being complete scumbags to the sellers, since the customers, generally, are there.
I think this behaviour tends to be a rather typical american business practice when they have a captive market. They just want to screw everyone.
You: "Mammals just can't fly" Me: "That's not true, bats can fly" You: "Quote me where I said all mammals can fly!"
That's supposed to be a quote! No wonder you need english lessons. If what you say is true, then you should be able to directly quote me. I like it how you've now had to add the just in there. Doesn't appear before, I wonder what changed your mind.
Clearly, you've just made ridiculous assumptions, but hold firm to them, and your feckless responses prove that. Like I'm not disagreeing with your facts, I'm just continually saying, like I've said in second response to you, that what you're saying is irrelevant (I said it was an aside at first, to be polite). You've just taken umbrage to what I was saying, and can't fathom that maybe I'm arguing something completely different.
The statement "Mammals just can't fly" is not 99.99% right because most mammals can't fly. It's 100% wrong. Any theory based on the premise that mammals categorically can not fly is going to be based on a false premise.
This is comical. I'm feeling sorry for you since you're sounding like Sheldon Cooper, except one who's not that bright. In any case, spare me the sophistry; by adding the just in the mix, I think you've recognised your error, you're just trying to save face, and it's clear that adding just proves that you recognise that I was speaking in a generalisation, while you decided to argue against that generalisation by taking it literally, hence why you couldn't (and didn't) quote me. It's clear that you have to distort the message and falsely claim that I stated it in absolutes, to maintain an argument.
Any further discussion is a complete waste of time, though I have much to waste, so I'm just going to declare poe's law, as I can't genuinely discern whether your extreme stupidity is intentional comedy or sincere retardation.
First of all, quote me where I said that all cells can't reproduce indefinitely!
Second was Copernicus' theory wrong because the planets orbited the sun in an elliptical orbit? Or is the context important in that he got a really big part of it right (planets orbited the sun), even though some smaller details were wrong? Are you really going to argue that unless something is 100% correct, then it's false? Are you retarded? Your argument is completely a fallacy of composition, even though is built on a completely made up presumption.
This is the most facile exchange I've ever seen. You are making a point which has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying. So some cells reproduce indefinitely; what has this got to do with the fact that at ~90 years of age, the cells that can't reproduce indefinitely, will degrade a persons ability to live? This is the important context, which you seem to be happy to just completely brush aside.