ic3l9

ic3l9, 3 months ago

@Moon @teratology @icedquinn > they were often friends, and in many, many cases competition judges and journalists were investors in games that they critiqued.
name one industry where this does not happen

ic3l9, 3 months ago

@Moon @icedquinn @teratology maybe, just maybe that has to do with the absolutely terrible PR goobergrapes got by being pushed by breitbart and similar outlets

ic3l9, 3 months ago

@Moon @icedquinn @teratology in the end you can't really deny that goobergrapes took off because sweaty teenage nerds thought a woman got an advantage through sex and they didn't even get sex and got incredibly buttmad about it

ic3l9, 3 months ago

@Moon @icedquinn @teratology it was at least the combination. a supposed "sex for review" scandal between men would not have blown up the way goobergrapes did. i'm not saying that all the other stuff did not happen, just that people joining the outrage because they hate women was a key part of the dynamic.

ic3l9, 3 months ago

@aven @Moon @icedquinn @teratology interesting narrative but i don't think you even understand my criticism. i'm not saying that (games) journalists wouldn't rather lie and betray than publish anything that doesn't fit their view of the world, i'm saying that goobergrapes turned into a pr holocaust because "gamers" were also full of shit and behaved in socially inacceptable ways once triggered too hard by presstitude shenanigans. and ironically this was ultra predictable from the point where people discussed the zoe post and, and behaving that way made the biggest slander campaign target you could ever paint on your forehead. maybe personally/individually you're right about that dindu nuffin shit but overall that doesn't matter

ic3l9, 3 months ago

@aven @Moon @icedquinn @teratology >those people speak for themselves, not for "gamers"
you have to put some controls on group membership because the actions of whoever takes on the "brand" will shape its reputation. it's not a novel convept, e.g. trademark holders need to actively defend their trademarks to not risk losing them. so claiming that harassment was not part of goobergrapes would require a credible effort to exclude bad actors, which nobody undertook.
>I'm trying to say that real people with real jobs at real companies making real money with their actions, lying about groups of people, is not comparable to anons going on the internet and telling lies.
that's a technicality and doesn't actually matter to anyone except meme war vets who haven't gotten over their vietnam
>The journos desperately need those two things (professionals lying and anons lying) to be equally valued, to create a "well both sides did bad things so it cancels out". If those things aren't equivalent, then they're assholes.
the journos operate in a value system where you lost from the very beginning, to them death threats, misgendering, swatting etc is a billion times worse than being overly general in a hit piece meant to boost morale.