I'm not... Are you unaware that ISIS is Sunni? Honestly, I don't know if you're trolling, blinded by ideology, or just made a foolish mistake and don't want to admit it.

Holding all Sunnis accountable for the crimes of ISIS via guilt by association would be just as wrong as holding all GGers accountable for the crimes of a few despicable individuals via guilt by association... That would be an accurate, honest analogy.

There you go. Now you are comparing GG to ISIS as well. That wasn't so hard now was it? It's not really the use of ISIS in the analogy that is the problem, is it? You're analogy was great (save for the fact that you compared GG to ISIS, which, as you will appreciate from the above comments, is completely unacceptable behaviour).

Now, here is something to think about. Hypothetically speaking, would it be wrong to hold all members of ISIS accountable for the crimes of a few members of ISIS? You don't have to answer here, just have a think about it.

Good game. A bit heavy-handed with that section toward the end explaining the symbolism that was already apparent, but still a really good game. Great music, too.

You should recommend Little Inferno to her. Like SJWs, it's anti-capitalism and all about burning things down for your own financial benefit.

No, I compared the wide umbrella that is GG to the wide umbrella that is the Sunni sect of Islam.

In that analogy:

Sunnis = GGers

ISIS = despicable individuals/groups that perpetrate harassment and threats

Really, even that analogy, which is much more accurate than your inappropriate (in multiple senses) "ISIS = GG", isn't entirely accurate: I haven't seen any proof of harassers being even nominally a part of GG. I granted you the possibility that they might be for the sake of discussing your analogy.

Excellent selection. Anything giving those games more publicity must be good :)

Autocorrect can be quite the comedian. :) Seduce is right though, and you are stretching your arguments thin to the point of non existence.

Informed: The opposite of uninformed, knowing what the fuck you are talking about. You wouldn't send Roger Ebert to talk about the latest Hybrid of the latest model of bullet train would you?

Ok, there are a number of ways to look at it though. If you were to look at comics, would you say, view Iron Man by the same views we have now? Or would you think an informed critic would take the changing culture and views of the years into account when going through his history? And that's just one character, if you were to do comics in general would it be fair to just cover American comics? Japanese Manga? European comics? Would the critic need to understand the various cultures that created each style? I would think so, even if it's just a little, even if it's presented as a learning experience of how things are different.

But there's the problem of, are they reviewing the game? Or are they using the game as an excuse to lecture about their politics? I'll go back to Polygon's Tropico 5 review, where the reviewer basically complained that the game made them a bully, did not go into the actual plate-spinning that's involved keeping factions happy, not noting that actually being a bully-dictator has negative effects on the game. They simply railed on the game because it held up a mirror to their actions.

No shit. There's a lot of problems everywhere, but that's a whole different ballgame that's going to require a lot of people to deal with, and too many just don't give a shit.

Interesting view, and I agree there, but that doesn't happen in practice, in fact most places do all they can to hide these and bury them as fast as possible so people don't realize they fucked up. With blog style sites it's even easier, just spam articles until it's pulled off of the front page. There's no actual point of dictating how they do it, there's no one holding these sites to any of this. Clickbait Journalism is getting easier and easier to use and exploit, and by the time the 'facts' come out, just a small update that no one sees because the articles get buried on the web.

I'll be honest, I think a lot of this is part of the growing pains of adapting to new issues dealing with journalism in terms of getting articles out, and making money to pay for these journalists. It affects the prominence of clickbait articles that are intended to anger people and drive readership. There is a major growing pain in that the direct comments of their readership is largely being ignored when the readership is calling them out on issues that come up. Games Journalists just decided to take the single dumbest move in history, because nothing bad EVER came about from telling your readership that they're the scum of the earth.

The GTA IV Article in question was about how this 'black woman' (In quotations because in reality, she doesn't exist), learned to drive due to GTA, it was pretty much a fluff piece. I remember reading it, writing it off and ignoring it back when it was first written (The whole idea just seemed, I don't know, like someone was simply on some really good drugs). It's one of those things that when you look at it, something screamed wrong.

As far as the specifics, I've never heard of a case similar in my area of the US (not to say it hasn't happened, just that if it did it wasn't reported on), so it's hard to do an apples to apples comparison.

I would like to see a more independent organization for handling the police, but my biggest problem is that making it right now would be legislating to outrage culture then anything else, which is far more of an issue since no one is calm enough to look at the forest or the trees. People are blindly lashing out and in their anger are going to cause more problems then good. My issue is that I can only work with what I've gotten, and people are capable of holding professional relationships and not being blinded by them, it's what's expected of them in the first place. The issue? Most people anymore wouldn't know professionalism if it ran over them with a tank and then jumped up and down on them afterwards.

Hell, I could say the same about the legislation that's being pushed due to the UVA rape story, the biggest thing you push? THAT THESE COLLEGES GO TO THE POLICE INSTEAD OF TRYING TO POLICE THEMSELVES! Seriously, most of these schools will try to do something internal with the 'idea' of not wanting to harm the 'victim', while they trample over rights of others. Let the police handle it, that's what they're trained for.

"Holding all Sunnis accountable for the crimes of ISIS via guilt by association would be just as wrong as holding all GGers accountable for the crimes of a few despicable individuals via guilt by association..."

Are you suggesting that when you referred to "the crimes of a few despicable individuals" those individuals weren't individuals who claimed to be part of #gg? I believeyou were because the analogy doesn't really make a lot of sense if you weren't. Unlike you, however, I don't say that to suggest that you were saying there were any actual similarities between the two. I understand what an analogy is, you can draw analogy without saying all groups in that analogy are similar.

The issue I have with your analogy is that I think people choose to be members of GG (or ISIS or a particular church), whereas I don't think people choose to be Sunnis or Baptists. You either believe what that branch of Muslims (or Christians) believe (I don't use sect because of it pejorative connotations in Christianity) or you don't, I don't think you could choose to believe that if you didn't want to. Because a group who believe the same as you, do something bad, you can't stop believing it, but you can leave that group (if you are a part of it), and still believe the same things.

An alternative analogy may be, #gg is like that Baptist church on 5th Ave. If there are members of that church who do bad things, you can leave and go to the Baptist church on 8th Ave. But if you choose to stay, people may be excused for thinking you are guilty by association. Gamers = Baptists. GG = church on 5th avenue.

Again, that is not to suggest #gg, is anything like that terrible Baptist church on 5th Ave. I wouldn't want to think I am casting those kind of aspersions.


Obviously it wasn't autocorrect. I don't know how "to kill a" could change to "tequila". Thanks for you analysis of the arguments though, it means a lot to me.

Really? What I might consider to be informed, you might consider to be uninformed. This might be as a result of the Dunning-Kruger effect . Similarly, you or I might not realise its informed because we are as uninformed as the writer.

If the critic was just giving a review of the comic? I don't necessarily think you would. I think you could just read the comic and explain why you did or didn't like it. The same with a game, or a movie. Some people might want to read a review from someone who has a very good knowledge of comics, others might just want to read a review from someone who has similar views and attitudes to him or her.

I assume when you say "lecture" you are referring to "talk seriously or reprovingly to" rather than "deliver an educational talk to". I don't see how writing a review could be considered akin to giving a lecture. I guess its all in the eye of the beholder, its up to you whether you feel like you are being lectured at or just being spoken to.

I appreciate that you didn't agree with Polygon's Tropico 5 review, but it was clearly a review. The reviewer didn't enjoy the game and explained why. You can read the review, understand that that kind of thing doesn't bother you, and ignore it or you can read the review, agree that feeling like a video game bully is the absolute worst and decide not to buy the game.

OK, so nobody was defamed or harmed by the incorrect GTA article? An article that is poorly researched and incorrect but doesn't actually effect or harm anyone, in my view, should be treated from an article that does. I don't think that there needs to be any significant retraction, just mentioning the error in that article should be fine, in my view.

Huh? I whole article was a lie. It was made up. There was no black woman. The entire article was fictitious. How does that not warrant a significant retraction?

And as to the Tropico 5 article. It wasn't a review, it was an excuse for the reporter to stand on a soapbox spouting off about how he thinks dictators are wrong. That is the problem with these social justice reviews. They are not about informing the reader to the merits and flaws of a game. They are intended to be controversial clickbait.

Do you think that an article that is untrue and harms a person's reputation should be treated differently from an article that, whilst incorrect, causes no actual harm?

The Tropico 5 article is obviously a review. It is a review that might mention some things that you don't care about, or disagree with, it is a review that is informed by the fact that the reviewer didn't particularly enjoy being a ruthless dictator, but it is still a review.

I have pulled up the review, here are a few example of comments which are clearly a critical appraisal:

"But while the game itself works well, the satire it relies on so heavily does not. "

"The gag got old quick."

"Everything is a joke in Tropico 5, but very few of them are funny."

"It's a shame, honestly, because the gameplay here is good."

"What that means, however, is that many of the game's features are overpowered to a degree that makes Tropico 5 less challenging. With enough money in the treasury or debt on the international market, most "problems" I encountered could be made to go away."

"While it lead me along the easy path to victory, Tropico 5 also took great care to lull me into a dreamy haze. The art direction pushes the best parts of life in the Caribbean to the forefront, always providing something beautiful to look. Even the load screens, oil-painted Caribbean landscapes, are gorgeous."

"That attention to detail was extended to the many buildings available for purchase. Tropico 5 doesn't settle for a single set of cookie cutter tiles."

Here are some comments that are merely descriptive of the game:

"In Tropico 5 you play as a colonial governor whose family grows, over hundreds of years, to become the dynastic dictators of a tiny, lush banana republic. "

"As with most city-builders, I had to purchase and maintain a variety of buildings. Plantations, ranches and mines dominated my time in the early game. But eventually my economy evolved into an industrial and commercial force. I began the game selling tobacco and pineapples, and finished it peddling high technology and pharmaceuticals on the open market."

"I was delighted to see that even as my nation moved into new eras, there was still a need for older structures. "

"During loading screens players are treated to a series of gorgeous oil-paintings, the kind you might pick up yourself at a roadside stand on some tropical island. Each one has a sentence or two that shares some lighter anecdotes about infamous dictators."

"As presented, advancements are either stumbled upon through buffoonish accidents or stolen from more advanced countries. I didn't discover embassies, I stole the technology from the French. I didn't invent the tank, I hotwired one and took it on a clumsy rampage through Europe."

==============================

I note the word "bully" was used once. Do you honestly think it is not a review.

If it were so obviously a review, this very topic wouldn't have been debated for so long in multiple threads. You can call it what you like, I deem this sort of so-called review as a means to spout off about something unrelated for clicks. A couple off-the-cuff remarks about a game sandwiched in a whole lot of talk about why dictators and games with dictators are wrong, does not a review make.

You have that backwards: The analogy only makes sense if they claim to be a part of a GG.

As I mentioned: "I haven't seen any proof of harassers being even nominally a part of GG. I granted you the possibility that they might be for the sake of discussing your analogy."

To be honest, I'm not sure you do. To be at all meaningful, the groups being compared in an analogy must be similar in relevant ways (and even then, an analogy is not technically a proper argument from which to derive a conclusion).

You don't choose your religious denomination? Even if I were to grant you that very odd claim for the sake of argument (and to avoid a lengthy sidetrack about the nature of faith and religion), you'd still be left with the task of demonstrating how a church is in any way an appropriate analogy for GG. Hint: It's not. Speaking of which...

See and [url=http://www.gog.com/forum/general/the_gamergate_news_thread/post1098]here for why that type of analogy utterly fails.

You keep making the same bullshit analogy over and over again. Whether it's ISIS, the WBC, or some hypothetical group, the analogy fails for the same reason: Lack of relevant similarity. The fact that both a church and movement such as GG are technically "groups of people" is not significant ground for a comparison.

This is starting to feel like I'm trying explain the basics of critical thinking to a very young student. Or a drunk. Are you drunk? That would explain a lot. ;)

Why is so important to you push this obviously poor analogy?

And let me tease your brain a bit: Some members of Occupy Wall Street perpetrated violence, destruction of property, and other criminal acts. Should all members of OWS be held guilty by association because they refuse to disassociate from the movement?

What? If you say you don't think gg are harassers I have to believe you, but if I say I don't like gg because I think it is stupid, not harassers, I don't get believed, notwithstanding I have said that all along? Sorry tough guy, I think you're lying there.

They don't have to be identical though, there just needs to be a relevant similarity. That's the mistake you and others consistently make, "the analogy fails because the two groups are different in some way". Correct, I am not saying they are identical, I am just saying the example (not the groups, the situation itself) is analogous.

You think you just choose to believe whatever you want? I'm not sure that's how faith works...

A church is a building, its nothing like GG. I am suggesting being a member of a congregation is like being a member of GG, in that both are groups that you can, based purely on ideological reasons, stay with or leave, you can leave that congregation and join another congregation if you so choose, without changing your belief system.

Maybe we could change it to a social group. Lets call it the "Pokemon Fanclub". The Brooklyn chapter and the New York Chapter both love Pokemon. The Brooklyn chapter is misandrist (again not, saying #gg is misandrist). Now, you can stick with the misandrist Brooklyn chapter, notwithstanding that you might not be misandrist yourself or you can leave and join the NY one. If you don't leave, however, you run the risk of being considered a supporter of misandry by way of... "guilt by association".

Does it really matter whether the group is religious or not? Of course not, pokemon, religion, etc, its all irrelevant to the analogy. Its all just background, the key is, you can choose to stick with that organisation or not, and if you don't, going back to the discussion about guilt by association, you run that risk.

Yes. Well done. If the violence continues, and they do not leave, notwithstanding they could do so, they are guilty by association. It is not the same as committing the violence, but by continuing to be in that group, rather than leave, they implicitly condone those actions. If they do not condone those actions, they must leave.

p.s. Are you comparing the violence and destruction of OWS to #gg? That is outrageous! How dare you! #gg has not been responsible for any destruction of property or criminal acts! What is wrong with you!?!?

And of course what begs the question is if large numbers of average people can see thru the propaganda why is the mainstream media so feverishly supporting feminist frequency and other Neo-feminists?








True. They don't have to be idealogical but in some cases they are. The example you gave is from ABC Australia which is owned and controlled by the government in Australia. The article does indicate towards a tendency for following agendas. Again a nice quote from the gallery (comments section) will help shine a light There seems to be a combination of both bottom line-ism and political agenda-ism, But clearly msm has plenty of neo-feminist sympathizers. Make of that what you will.