Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Lithose_sl said:

He claims that male gamers, in general, can't talk until the minority is taken care of. Here is a quote from your article. *************After all, what's more likely? A minor controversy about an obscure woman (in an industry where a major publication once fired a reporter because a large developer and advertiser was unhappy with a review) has finally proven that the gaming media has problems that we need to speak out against?Or a bunch of sexually frustrated and generally terrible human beings saw the chance to insult and harass a woman without reprisal because they could do it under the guise of having a valid cause?*****************

Click to expand...

Nope.

Cracked article_sl said:

But as much as I hate to say it, I think those comments exemplify, if not a majority, then one incredibly fucking loud minority. Go to any video, article, or forum discussion about Quinn, and in most cases you'll find that the balance weighs heavily toward the dickwads.

Click to expand...

I don't know how you can keep missing the point of this article, unless it's intentional.
As for that "What's more likely?" quote, here's what he's saying: The lid has already been blown off the fact that questionable practices occur in gaming journalism. We've known this for years, there have been examples far more egregious than anything involving Zoe Quinn that have already occurred. They've gotten their fair share of attention (at the time, at least), but now people are acting like the Zoe Quinn scandal is what tipped the scales and exposed the industry as the corrupt web of lies and deceit it is. So yes, there are questionable practices in gaming journalism. And yes, it's entirely likely that the reason the Zoe Quinn scandal has gotten so much attention in particular is because "a bunch of sexually frustrated and generally terrible human beings saw the chance to insult and harass a woman without reprisal because they could do it under the guise of having a valid cause".
Again, the article doesn't say that you, specifically, fall into this category, nor is it referring to gamers as a whole. The author is a gamer himself and goes out of his way to point out how he is mature enough to be able to discuss such topics without sinking to sexist asshole language, something that a huge number of people (even if they are a minority of gamers) are not able to do. That's the problem.
And did he say we bear responsibility? No, he said that the sexist asshole brigade has an iron shield. Anyone that criticizes them will be targeted, mocked, harassed and made an example of (see: Phil Fish). He's drawing attention to the fact that, unlike people like you and I, these people can't be dealt with reasonably. He then went on to make several not unreasonable suggestions about actual things that could be done. Again, this is clear to anyone reading the article without a "they're out to get me" mentality.

Lithose_sl said:

If you want Tan, I can spend an hour tomorrow when I have more time and dig up tons of quotes like this, about Gamersgate, labeling the whole movement in this fashion. You KNOW they are out there. Can YOU dig up some articles from major gaming sites that address any of the legitimate concerns--outside of Escapist (Which admitted to it)? If you can't, then I'm not sure how you believe the argument is not being "framed" under a specific narrative. And what's worse is that you admit that said narrative is from a MINORITY of gamers, you even highlighted how he said that in the article. So why are they receiving a lion's share of the exposure if the debate is NOT being framed this way?

Click to expand...

Nope, the articles you're talking about (of which I've read several) are not framing the issue of unscrupulous journalism as a sexist issue. They're treating the actions of sexist assholes as a sexist issue. Again, you seem to keep forgetting that these sexist assholes, whether you like it or not, ARE the issue now. If you think that the media is not paying enough attention to unscrupulous journalism, fine. They write for their audience, and right now they have a bad guy to rally against with their more than willing readership. And that's not bullshit or fluff, it's a legit issue that deserves attention. You don't like how much attention it's getting, clearly, but this is how mainstream media has operated since the dawn of mainstream media. Sarkeesian and Quinn had nothing to do with that.

Yes, dude, in 6 years the societal shift has been so profound that the issue has changed. YES. Why was Thompson targeted? because he was attacking the gaming industry in a ridiculous and completely unfounded witch hunt. Why were Sarkeesian and Quinn targeted? because they were WOMEN. I already know you cringed when reading that, but that's the difference. Do some people have legitimate criticism about Sarkeesian and Quinn? Of course! But when you see any unmoderated comments section filled with the most hateful, disgusting, misogynistic shit you've ever seen, it's crystal fucking clear what type of people crawled out of the woodwork to try to make themselves heard here. And the fact that it's so easy to get away with has encouraged closet misogynists to come out guns blazing, essentially creating a community of sexist assholes who feed off each other and prevent valid discussion from taking place about any issue involving gender. This wasn't the case six years ago, certainly not on the scale it is now. You asked me to address the disparity, I addressed it.

You complain that mainstream media is not giving enough attention to actual ethical breaches in journalism. That's what mainstream media does. It would be almost ridiculous to expect otherwise. The mainstream media's coverage of several issues far more significant than this has been appallingly lacking for years. The only reason THIS disparity is getting so much attention is because a lot of people are looking for something they can criticize as being "sexist". Instead of the more likely "mainstream's gonna mainstream" explanation (remember Occam's razor?), people want to portray the media as unfairly giving a break to precious lady snowflakes because they'd rather "white knight" (ugh) and bend over backwards to keep the ladies happy.

When I say you should "be the change you want to see", I'm suggesting you spend less energy complaining about legit criticism not getting enough attention and actually just talk about the legit criticism. I remind you that, even if the mainstream media is lacking in coverage of certain topics (which has always been the case, always), this is the internet. By exerting the bare minimum of effort (something we all do and we expect any reasonable person to do) these legitimate criticisms can be found and discussed openly and maturely. You're not going to single-handedly restructure mainstream media by whining about troll coverage. The mainstream sites are focusing on sexism gone rampant, because sexism IS running rampant. As much evidence as you think there is that there are ethical breaches in journalism, there is exponentially more that shows that sexist assholes are having a field day making things shittier for literally everyone except sexist assholes. It doesn't matter that they're in the minority. We can't just brush them aside and pretend they're not there because they actively poison every conversation they become a part of. This is the issue now. Get over it.