Support NeoGAF

[LittleBusters]

I think you mean all the way to the bank. However..

Who's they? The owners? The "journalists" on nothing pay? Vox Media?

In other news that Prey video hurt my head to watch, that's some girlfriend that's never picked up a controller before gameplay.

Vox Media are swimming in cash, laughing at the GamerGate manbabies!

 

[Cosmogony]

I don't think Trans people hold an unanimous opinion on anything.

This directly contradicts the following

But if we are talking about Trans issue in particular, then yes they have the BEST opinion on what it's like to be Trans.

So they do hold an unanimous opinion after all?
How have you determined this?

And to the bolded......I respect people's opinion on things I disagree with. Here are a few.

1. I disagree with most people on how bad Sony is for the recent banning of certain sexual like or sexual-lite images in some of their Japanese video games. But they make a good point on the censorship and I think those people may be proven right if Sony keeps pushing it further.

2. I understood what people were saying with the lastest Battlefield game and how EA were talking down to some of their customers. I didn't agree with those people that were mad about the Battlefield advertising as I thought it was fine, but those people made good points.

3. I disagree for the most part about the MK11 contreversay with the outfits, but those people that want the women to be dressed sexier (aka more like the characters in the 90s and 00s) make good points and aren't totally wrong.

All of that is fine and dandy.
If, however, you think people should change their opinions simply because they hurt the feelings of others, why isn't that universal?

If people should change their opinion if it offends Trans people - alledgedly - why is it that Trans people don't have to change theirs if other people are offended as well?

I don't have to harness this obvious contradiction because I do not think opinions and behaviours should be changed simply because they may offend someone somewhere on the planet. This applies to me, to you, to people I agree with, to people I disagree with. To everyone.

I don't need to make up special categories to either exempt people from or burden people wth rights and obligations.

See none of this is that hard. We don't have to create BS narratives and throw on our cape to save these corporations.

I fail to see the relevance of the above in the context of this exchange.

 

[mckmas8808]

This directly contradicts the following



So they do hold an unanimous opinion after all?
How have you determined this?





All of that is fine and dandy.
If, however, you think people should change their opinions simply because they hurt the feelings of others, why isn't that universal?

If people should change their opinion if it offends Trans people - alledgedly - why is it that Trans people don't have to change theirs if other people are offended as well?

I don't have to harness this obvious contradiction because I do not think opinions and behaviours should be changed simply because they may offend someone somewhere on the planet. This applies to me, to you, to people I agree with, to people I disagree with. To everyone.

I don't need to make up special categories to either exempt people from or burden people wth rights and obligations.



I fail to see the relevance of the above in the context of this exchange.

I said they hold the "best" opinion on what it's like to be Trans. Not "unanimous". Those two words are different and mean different things. Words matter. And you're not going to convince me or anybody of worth that a non-trans person, in general, will have a better opinion of "life as a Trans person", than someone that's actually Trans themselves.

Why does it feel like you are trying to either pick a fight or continue fighting some kind of culture war here? Why the conflict? I'm saying some very basic stuff here.

 

[deriks]

They don't need to bomb anything because their gameplay(er) is basically a kamikaze. I mean, the guy that played Doom killed his career as a gamer journalist.

 

[Yoshi]

Why are you trying to frame this as mere political disagreement when Polygon journalist's statement that he would find it "“trickier […] to review this one if Doug is involved.” is quasi Mafia-style extorsion, along the lines of "Great business you have over here. It'd be a shame if you were to lose it to arson."

That's your reading of it. Mine is that it would be more difficult for him, because is fond of Earthworm Jim, but as per the site's policy, having someone like Tennapel on the team will necessitate a discussion of the developer involved. Polygon has next to no power over the makers of Earthworm Jim and if a single reviewer wrote a more negative review for the game, it would not really matter to the studio. It is not comparable to setting someone's business on fire.

Yes or No question. Do you think the above is legitimate, rational?

These are two independent questions. Rationality is hard to say, because it depends on the goals. Legitimate: As I understand it yes, because it is according to the way the website operates in its critical reception of games, putting an extra emphasis on social issues and there is a certain group of readers who are interested in these issues when it comes to evaluating a game. Being open about the criteria that play into a review is legitimate. Using social issues that may or may not influence the game's content as a discussion point in a review is legitimate as well. I am not interested in that view as a reader, which is why I do not use Polygon for reviews (but for other reports, I do), but others are and it is fine that a website exists that caters to those viewpoints.

No no no. No.
Polygon has the right to exist and cater to whatever rabid demographic they choose. They can publish whatever they want and score games under whatever criteria they choose. That's not the issue.

The issue is whether or not it is legitimate and rational for Polygon to issue a veiled threat that the game is going to score poorly, not because of its quality, not because of the gameplay, not because of graphics, story, controls, UI, VA, not because of all of that, but because the journalist in question has an issue with one of the team member's political views on an entirely unrelated matter?

The expressed political views of the creators are of interest to a signficant group of readers - you should know a large chunk of such people, they were very prominent around here when the JonTron debate regarding Yooka and A Hat in Time was raging - and can legitimately be an issue in a review on a website that focusses on such issues (among other things).

If you think that's reasonable and fair and rational, come out clean and say so. Don't beat around the bush,

Again, rationality cannot be judged here, because it depends on what the goals are that the actor wants to achieve. It can be rational though. Is it reasonable? Based on the values the website stands for yes. Is it fair? As far as I know all games are treated equally in that regard, so no matter the game, if someone with repulsive views that he has expressed publically is on the team, it will be discussed. So yes, it is fair, because everyone is treated the same.

Could you spare me the 50-feet strawman?

Can you rephrase that question with SI units? On a more serious note: This is no strawman. Polygon has a specific target audience. This audience cares for such issues and thus it is fine for them to discuss them however they want in a review, including reflecting them in the review score. I may not agree with the review score, but there are numerous other outlets that do not put any emphasis on such issues in games.

They can review the game fairly, according to its quality, and include a footnote on the politics of the individual, if they so wish.

They can also let it influence the rating, because they feel it takes away from the game to know a person with repulsive views worked on it.

I didn't compare the two.
Who has?

You:

As much as being poisoned is, perhaps, preferable to being gas-chambered.

 

[Cosmogony]

(…)


They can also let it influence the rating, because they feel it takes away from the game to know a person with repulsive views worked on it.

I know their rationale.
Do you think it's a fair and intellectually honest positon to hold?
Does this only apply to videogames or does it extend to socks, donuts, pornography and aircrafts?

You:

That's not the comparison being made.

 

[Yoshi]

Do you think it's a fair and intellectually honest positon to hold?

It is fair if they use the same criteria for all games. I see no intellectual dishonesty in this. If you do, please explain it to me. The closest thing would be my person reason why I do not care about such issues: In any sufficiently large team there will be people with shit views, so I do not think it is right to punish the whole team for one outspoken bad apple, when most teams will have bad apples, just not as outspoken. However, it is a tangible difference if someone has expressed repulsive views or if one holds them in secret.

Does this only apply to videogames or does it extend to socks, donuts, pornography and aircrafts?

If there is an audience interested in such issues for socks, donuts, pornography or aircrafts, enthusiast press for those areas may use such criteria for their product reviews as well. It is likely a majority will not be interested in such discussions, so there will likely still be a good supply of product reviews not taking such issues into consideration.

 

[Cosmogony]

I said they hold the "best" opinion on what it's like to be Trans.

Look, if you think they hold the best position, no qualifiers, it means that in your opinion they hold a consensial, even unanimous position, which would be the best.

I would at least in principle dispute that, given how I have watched a number of Trans people arguing against the positions seemingly held by most Trans activists. So which of the two is the best position, if both are held by Trans people?

Not "unanimous". Those two words are different and mean different things.

Again, if you claim Trans people hold the best position, singular, you are implying they hold an unanimous view which is the best.

Which they do not. Because different Trans people hold different potions.

Words matter. And you're not going to convince me or anybody of worth that a non-trans person, in general, will have a better opinion of "life as a Trans person", than someone that's actually Trans themselves.

No, Sir. That is a very irrational view to hold.
What shines light on the life of trans people in general is not anecdotal accounts, this or that personal testimony, but evidence and data that cut through personal ulterior motivations, peer pressure from any angle, confirmation bias and the general human predisposition to steer depictions of reality in their favour.

This has been acknowledged centuries ago and is at the basis of progress. Yet you would have us revert back to the good old days of pre-epistemology.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Why does it feel like you are trying to either pick a fight or continue fighting some kind of culture war here? Why the conflict? I'm saying some very basic stuff here.

Because I disagree with you.

 

[ThatGamingDude]

It is fair if they use the same criteria for all games. I see no intellectual dishonesty in this. If you do, please explain it to me. The closest thing would be my person reason why I do not care about such issues: In any sufficiently large team there will be people with shit views, so I do not think it is right to punish the whole team for one outspoken bad apple, when most teams will have bad apples, just not as outspoken. However, it is a tangible difference if someone has expressed repulsive views or if one holds them in secret.

Agreed whole heartedly

I'm typically that dude that people bring into teams for being cooperative in the team, but a complete rebellious ass hole the rest of the time. Show up to meetings early, but out of dress code sort-a-shit

Gotta challenge yourself and others to grow!

If consumers actually gave that much of a shit what 1 person in the entire team does, instead of understanding to just replace that person and not the whole, we'd live in an incredibly different world.
Considering I'd be the catalyst that got multiple companies/teams shut down, if we're being honest >.>

If there is an audience interested in such issues for socks, donuts, pornography or aircrafts, enthusiast press for those areas may use such criteria for their product reviews as well. It is likely a majority will not be interested in such discussions, so there will likely still be a good supply of product reviews not taking such issues into consideration.

Socks - Issues with labor conditions in other countries
Donuts - Issues concerning health
Pornography - Phew, sex work rights? Let's not even touch that topic, yikes
Aircrafts - I mean, yeah, totally; safety, efficiency, etc

In a reality we understand as duality, you're going to have the 1 to the 0 anywhere ya go.

 

[TheMay30thMan]

Just remember guys, it’s toxic when consumers review bomb games due to what’s going on being the scenes, but it’s just and right when journalists do it.

 

[Mista]

I wonder what the world will be in 10-15 years. A shithole that’s for sure..

 

[oagboghi2]

I wouldn't take anything The Quartering says seriously whatsoever; dude admits he runs a marketing company, gets kicked out of multiple communities for being a pompous ass, and makes a website for "just the facts of gaming," but posts horrid shit like this:

Guide: How to be a Proper Corporate Slave!

Good day to you, students! The topic of today’s lesson is 'How To Become A Proper Corporate Slave Gamer'. MANY people these days aspire to be true corp

www.exclusivelygames.com

Even if it is a joke, just the same sort of clickbait shit marketing people advise writers to do.

Weird he's in marketing and has click bait articles on his website.

The Quatering loses sponsorship, sponsor quotes an Escapist article as the reasoning

The Quartering, Jeremy, has recently lost a sponsor, Trade Coffee, because of an article posted by Escapist Magazine. I wanted to bring up a few discussion points about this and see NeoGafs' thoughts. Long version is under the spoiler for people who just want a tldr thread. -=- The Quartering...

www.neogaf.com

Attacking the source doesn't change the facts of the story. Unless you can prove he is lying, this is irrelevant

 

[blu]

This Polygon?

That imp dashing in horror will haunt me for the rest of the night.

 

[ThatGamingDude]

Attacking the source doesn't change the facts of the story. Unless you can prove he is lying, this is irrelevant

I never said he was lying, what I did call to attention was his intent(s), and credibility from his actions.

Can you point out specifically where I stated he is lying?

 

[Sqorin Hammerfarf]

Nothing will come of this, just like nothing ever came of the many times I've threatened to bomb Polygon.

 

[IzukuMidoriya]

This has nothing to do with dumb GamerGate revenge anymore. This is plain out attacking a man's religious-based thought as per group identity thinking.

TenNapel has made no secret of his religious beliefs, and that's common in the Christian community to be skeptical of the whole transgender identity things. It's not transphobic, it's not even one of these types that call everyone 'transtrenders', it's just him going off his principles and religious convictions. But no, that's wrongthink and shall not be tolerated.

 

[mckmas8808]

Look, if you think they hold the best position, no qualifiers, it means that in your opinion they hold a consensial, even unanimous position, which would be the best.

I would at least in principle dispute that, given how I have watched a number of Trans people arguing against the positions seemingly held by most Trans activists. So which of the two is the best position, if both are held by Trans people?




Again, if you claim Trans people hold the best position, singular, you are implying they hold an unanimous view which is the best.

Which they do not. Because different Trans people hold different potions.



No, Sir. That is a very irrational view to hold.
What shines light on the life of trans people in general is not anecdotal accounts, this or that personal testimony, but evidence and data that cut through personal ulterior motivations, peer pressure from any angle, confirmation bias and the general human predisposition to steer depictions of reality in their favour.

This has been acknowledged centuries ago and is at the basis of progress. Yet you would have us revert back to the good old days of pre-epistemology.

Thanks, but no thanks.



Because I disagree with you.

No you are picking a fight with me because you are fighting a culture war. I never said any specific Trans person's beliefs mean more than the next. The bolded that you said doesn't conflict with anything that I've said. Evidence and data are just individual accounts collected in mass amounts and then put together in one place. That's literally what I said.

So what is it that you "ACTUALLY" disagree with? What depictions of reality are you talking about sir?

This has nothing to do with dumb GamerGate revenge anymore. This is plain out attacking a man's religious-based thought as per group identity thinking.

TenNapel has made no secret of his religious beliefs, and that's common in the Christian community to be skeptical of the whole transgender identity things. It's not transphobic, it's not even one of these types that call everyone 'transtrenders', it's just him going off his principles and religious convictions. But no, that's wrongthink and shall not be tolerated.

Why would Christians be skeptical of the "Transgender identity things"? What exactly has he said?

 

[oagboghi2]

Vox Media are swimming in cash, laughing at the GamerGate manbabies!

Are you sure about that? Vox media loses money. They are currently going through layoffs.

I never said he was lying, what I did call to attention was his intent(s), and credibility from his actions.

Can you point out specifically where I stated he is lying?

There is no reason to attack his credibility, because we know he telling the truth here.

Like I said, it's irrelevant

 

[Cosmogony]

It is fair if they use the same criteria for all games. I see no intellectual dishonesty in this. If you do, please explain it to me. The closest thing would be my person reason why I do not care about such issues: In any sufficiently large team there will be people with shit views, so I do not think it is right to punish the whole team for one outspoken bad apple, when most teams will have bad apples, just not as outspoken. However, it is a tangible difference if someone has expressed repulsive views or if one holds them in secret.

Really?

Let's call upon Polygon then.

Polygon's About Reviews

This is their own rather extensive breakdown of the review and score system. I couldn't find any explicit or implicit mentions of the political views of individual team members being taken into consideration. In fact, I did not find any mention of extrinsic factors being taken into account at all. Everything in there suggests otherwise.

So either the cited review policy is just PR for public consumption or, contrary to what you seem to be suggesting, it's not their policy to drop these issues into the equation. This means an exception is being made in this instance, to answer your premise.

I rest my case.

If there is an audience interested in such issues for socks, donuts, pornography or aircrafts, enthusiast press for those areas may use such criteria for their product reviews as well. It is likely a majority will not be interested in such discussions, so there will likely still be a good supply of product reviews not taking such issues into consideration.

This is another conflation that seems to have you mixed up. A political view that has no effect whatsoever on the way a game is developed or on the final product itself is not comparable to issues that either or both impact the development process and the final product.

Again, Polygon is free to do whatever they want and their customer base equally free to seek the kind of product they desire. But Polygon can't issue a long-winded About Reviews page that doesn't correspond with critical cases such as this without granting me the legitimacy to call them out.

 

[IzukuMidoriya]

Why would Christians be skeptical of the "Transgender identity things"? What exactly has he said?

Just the whole idea of giving trans people carte blanche to run the whole of society to their delicacies, plus just the whole idea of trans people being all of a sudden "real women and/or men". You transitioned, but your DNA says otherwise, we're not saying you aren't having this issue.

I guess I worded it in a way that didn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

[Outrunner]

Gamers are not Polygon's audience. They are not writting for us, just ignore them.

 

[ThatGamingDude]

There is no reason to attack his credibility, because we know he telling the truth here.

Like I said, it's irrelevant

First it's that I'm saying he's lying, now it's no reason to attack his credibility. Moving the goal posts much?

Discussing someone's credibility when they're interpreting and reporting facts is 100% something to bring up.

I don't give a fuck if he's lying or not; if the dude isn't credible because of how emotional he acts when interpreting and reporting, or acts like a fucking prick to many nerd communities (And key players in those communities) to the point where he's legit BANNED from them and can no longer interpret and report on, that speaks volumes about his ethics and work.

He can try to rebrand himself all he wants; his face is pretty damn known. Hence why his channel tries to cover a multitude of topics and he never kept up with them.

The dude is banned from Gen Con, and black listed in Magic; how the fuck do you manage that lol

 

[Thabass]

I don't think I've called Polygon a true journalist website in quite a while. They are a blog website with bloggers. Obsessed and unprofessional bloggers at that.

I get being upset with people having a position of power and having hateful positions, but at the same time, it doesn't do you any good if you're going to be unprofessional about it. This is why I don't like putting political opinions in reviews.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

That video is way too long. What happened?

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

I wonder what the world will be in 10-15 years. A shithole that’s for sure..

All of us, eventually:

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

Remember when people like this guy decided to boycott Kingdom Come Deliverance because it was "problematic" and the game ended up selling great? Gaming journalists have rendered themselves useless to the industry, no one should pay attention to them.

But the game only sold well because certain people bought it out of spite. I remember getting it because people praised it but the game played like shit, was uninteresting and the characters were blander than bread.

 

[manfestival]

But the game only sold well because certain people bought it out of spite. I remember getting it because people praised it but the game played like shit, was uninteresting and the characters were blander than bread.

Feels like yall are giving too much credit to the spiteful crowd. This also oversimplifies the reasons for the sales.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

Feels like yall are giving too much credit to the spiteful crowd. This also oversimplifies the reasons for the sales.

I gave too much credit to other gamers telling me it wasn't a piece of shit if anything. The game got so much attention JUST because of "them" and before that people were barely even talking about it.

 

[anthraticus]

I don't think the average gamer even knows about or goes to these sites.

They're just for ppl from reset era who want to hear this type of crap over & over again.

 

[Yoshi]

Really?

Let's call upon Polygon then.

Polygon's About Reviews

This is their own rather extensive breakdown of the review and score system. I couldn't find any explicit or implicit mentions of the political views of individual team members being taken into consideration. In fact, I did not find any mention of extrinsic factors being taken into account at all. Everything in there suggests otherwise.

So either the cited review policy is just PR for public consumption or, contrary to what you seem to be suggesting, it's not their policy to drop these issues into the equation. This means an exception is being made in this instance, to answer your premise.

I rest my case.



This is another conflation that seems to have you mixed up. A political view that has no effect whatsoever on the way a game is developed or on the final product itself is not comparable to issues that either or both impact the development process and the final product.

Again, Polygon is free to do whatever they want and their customer base equally free to seek the kind of product they desire. But Polygon can't issue a long-winded About Reviews page that doesn't correspond with critical cases such as this without granting me the legitimacy to call them out.

It is a pretty rare thing for some team member to come out with repulsive views, off the top of my head I could just name Yooka, AHiT, the Kingdom game and Amikrog / this game here. There probably are more, but considering the small number of games affected, I feel it is OK to not write about this in general review guidelines. Still, all similar cases should be treated similarly, that's clear.

 

[zwiggelbig]

Is it just me, or did things actually get waaaay more out of hand in the last few months with stuff like this? Like, actively trying to torpedo games for not adhering to some arbitrary gold standard of morality.

I wonder how many sites wil boycot cyberpunl

 

[mckmas8808]

Just the whole idea of giving trans people carte blanche to run the whole of society to their delicacies, plus just the whole idea of trans people being all of a sudden "real women and/or men". You transitioned, but your DNA says otherwise, we're not saying you aren't having this issue.

I guess I worded it in a way that didn't make a whole lot of sense.

Weird, because the evidence supports some humans being Trans. Keep in mind it's a super minority of the human race (I believe like 1.5%). What makes you male and female doesn't simply come down to your private parts or DNA. We has a human race are understanding more about ourselves the longer we are on this Earth.

 

[oagboghi2]

First it's that I'm saying he's lying, now it's no reason to attack his credibility. Moving the goal posts much?

Discussing someone's credibility when they're interpreting and reporting facts is 100% something to bring up.

I don't give a fuck if he's lying or not; if the dude isn't credible because of how emotional he acts when interpreting and reporting, or acts like a fucking prick to many nerd communities (And key players in those communities) to the point where he's legit BANNED from them and can no longer interpret and report on, that speaks volumes about his ethics and work.

He can try to rebrand himself all he wants; his face is pretty damn known. Hence why his channel tries to cover a multitude of topics and he never kept up with them.

The dude is banned from Gen Con, and black listed in Magic; how the fuck do you manage that lol

Bringing up credibility is an attempt to throw doubt on the story. There is no reason to do so since he isn't editorialazing anything this happened.

You're personal feelings about the quartering are irrelevant to the facts of what happened.

 

[silentz]

What is the name of that movie?

Equilibrium - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0238380/

 

[angelic]

It's worth noting that businesspeople don't give a shit what creatives (and I include "reviewers" in that) think. They are regarded as children who create content, but their beliefs and opinions are to be ignored. In fact, it's more noteworthy if a reviewer type creative doesnt have idiotic politics.

I know it's annoying to people in gaming circles like us, but genuinely, we've nothing to fear. Polygon is meant to be a home of stupid views. Just like IGN, Gamespot, and any such site. It would be more noteworthy if they actually did talk sense, as they hire to a template of young, dumb, will work for cheap. Of course they are dim. And worry not, absolutely nobody except for us pays them any attention.

The biggest proof that the left is not listened to, is how loudly they always have to shout.

 

[Bolivar687]

He says he's not a Polygon writer:



I don't have much of a take on this either way other than this is another way we've failed probably multiple generations of university grads, demonstrated by this dude having such horrible ideas of journalism, not even realizing it, and then doubling down when its pointed out to him.

 

[ThatGamingDude]

Bringing up credibility is an attempt to throw doubt on the story. There is no reason to do so since he isn't editorialazing anything this happened.

You're personal feelings about the quartering are irrelevant to the facts of what happened.

Not on the specific story, the entire outlet.

I think you're missing what I'm trying to convey, and don't feel like attempting to explain it further.

You can refer to previous posts for clarification.

Thanks and hope you have a good one dude-manskies

 

[IzukuMidoriya]

Weird, because the evidence supports some humans being Trans. Keep in mind it's a super minority of the human race (I believe like 1.5%). What makes you male and female doesn't simply come down to your private parts or DNA. We has a human race are understanding more about ourselves the longer we are on this Earth.

Oh, no doubt about it. There's definitely trans people and it is a real thing, but it's really blown out of proportion vs. how many people actually are trans out there.

If you're trans, get the hormones and do a decent effort to pass, I think it's only fair to show respect on their transitional gender. I'll gladly use your pronouns as long as it's not something ridiculous like the "xe/xir" crap. I do have an issue with the reassignment surgery, however, just based on the problems it can cause later on, but that's up to the person to choose, and not me.

 

[mckmas8808]

Oh, no doubt about it. There's definitely trans people and it is a real thing, but it's really blown out of proportion vs. how many people actually are trans out there.

If you're trans, get the hormones and do a decent effort to pass, I think it's only fair to show respect on their transitional gender. I'll gladly use your pronouns as long as it's not something ridiculous like the "xe/xir" crap. I do have an issue with the reassignment surgery, however, just based on the problems it can cause later on, but that's up to the person to choose, and not me.

The 150 pronoun thing is over the top stupid. Agreed.

 

[Platinumstorm]

Is it just me, or did things actually get waaaay more out of hand in the last few months with stuff like this? Like, actively trying to torpedo games for not adhering to some arbitrary gold standard of morality.

Yes, but there is the conservative counter culture to this as well. Both sides are stupid,and this site focuses more heavily on the conservative rage justice.

 

[crowbrow]

But it's not even about them being transparent about the kinds of critiques they're making - the dude straight up says reviewing this game will be trickier because of the conflict of interests. They can't do their jobs anymore because their political agendas make it impossible for them to assess a product independently from the creators.

His job in this case involves reviewing games with all the SJW crap in mind. Sure it is nonsense and pathetic but he is basically doing his job and being upfront about it.

 

[Nymphae]

His job in this case involves reviewing games with all the SJW crap in mind. Sure it is nonsense and pathetic but he is basically doing his job and being upfront about it.

Right, that was my point, we already know Polygon's MO. But the reviewer is going beyond mere transparency about the things we already know Polygon does, and saying he will find his task harder now because of these ideological hangups. And I haven't dug into this story really, but again, what is the actual threat here? Another Polygon review is no threat, I don't even understand what they are threatening to do.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

Yes, but there is the conservative counter culture to this as well. Both sides are stupid,and this site focuses more heavily on the conservative rage justice.

Oh, totally. But the other side of the fence has been actively shitty for a long time. They were at least a known quantity.

 

[Shmunter]

First it's that I'm saying he's lying, now it's no reason to attack his credibility. Moving the goal posts much?

Discussing someone's credibility when they're interpreting and reporting facts is 100% something to bring up.

I don't give a fuck if he's lying or not; if the dude isn't credible because of how emotional he acts when interpreting and reporting, or acts like a fucking prick to many nerd communities (And key players in those communities) to the point where he's legit BANNED from them and can no longer interpret and report on, that speaks volumes about his ethics and work.

He can try to rebrand himself all he wants; his face is pretty damn known. Hence why his channel tries to cover a multitude of topics and he never kept up with them.

The dude is banned from Gen Con, and black listed in Magic; how the fuck do you manage that lol

Not defending, and have no information on it, but I would hesitate that an anti-sjw + any type of indiscretion would result in such an outcome. Precisely as per the issue discussed here, a very fitting parallel.

 

[lock2k]

This Polygon?

Should change their name to Parkynson lol

 

[lock2k]

Article says Dave Parry. It's Dave Perry. Games journalism, everybody.

Dave Parry sounds like an artistic name for a Street Fighter 3 pro player lol

 

[Vampire On Titus]

both sides are trapped in an eternal cycle of outrage over the other following some blind doctrines instead of sensibility and empathy. Fuck them all.

I'm equally sick and tired of it. On both sides too.

Both sides complain about media they don't like, but only one side morally condemns the media they dislike. Claiming that it normalizes hate and its fans are bigots.

Both sides call each other insulting names, but only one side uses character attacks that do legitimate reputational damage or can cost your livelihood. Labeling someone an SJW isn't the same as labeling someone a White Supremacist.

Both sides can be annoying, but they aren't both authoritarian.

I'm seeing this a lot in the threads that have to do with backlash against SJW nonsense. Any time someone complains or criticizes something (in relation to the culture war) the refrain is: "you guys sound just like the people you hate." "How are you different than ResetEra?" The crucial difference being they're not advocating it be censored and they're not labeling others as bigots for their taste. Which is legitimately the entire difference.

Can critics of SJWs be overzealous, annoying or obsessed? Yes. But so long as they're not playing the moral police or self appointed censor, they're not anywhere near as bad as the SJW side.

 

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

This Polygon?

Gamers Journalist.

No doubt about it xD

 

[Wink]

Both sides complain about media they don't like, but only one side morally condemns the media they dislike. Claiming that it normalizes hate and its fans are bigots.

Both sides call each other insulting names, but only one side uses character attacks that do legitimate reputational damage or can cost your livelihood. Labeling someone an SJW isn't the same as labeling someone a White Supremacist.

Both sides can be annoying, but they aren't both authoritarian.

I'm seeing this a lot in the threads that have to do with backlash against SJW nonsense. Any time someone complains or criticizes something (in relation to the culture war) the refrain is: "you guys sound just like the people you hate." "How are you different than ResetEra?" The crucial difference being they're not advocating it be censored and they're not labeling others as bigots for their taste. Which is legitimately the entire difference.

Can critics of SJWs be overzealous, annoying or obsessed? Yes. But so long as they're not playing the moral police or self appointed censor, they're not anywhere near as bad as the SJW side.

It might be legitimately a difference in some cases. But there's more than enough spreading of falsehoods and trying to suppress other people's rights on both ends. Politically speaking one can easily argue the extreme leftist opinions having taken root to be a direct response to decades of suppressing minorities' rights and as with everything it goes to extremes before we settle into a new understanding of normalcy. You may put the emphasis on censorship is bad, this side is against it, so it's better. But not only is that a half truth at best when looking at the complete picture, it's only one aspect in a complex discussion; it's never that easy, even if it makes you feel better to be "on the right side that is entirely different" from what you oppose. Personally I can stand the shit on the front page of resetera every day about as much as I can stand another right wing ideolog youtuber whining about some perceived SJW stuff in game x and movie y as if it violated his sister, again, talking about the extremes on both ends here, not the more balanced and well argued takes that can be found out there if one cares to wade through the muck.

 

[Vampire On Titus]

It might be legitimately a difference in some cases. But there's more than enough spreading of falsehoods and trying to suppress other people's rights on both ends. Politically speaking one can easily argue the extreme leftist opinions having taken root to be a direct response to decades of suppressing minorities' rights and as with everything it goes to extremes before we settle into a new understanding of normalcy.

It seems that the "both ends" you're referring to are left and right. For one, those aren't the sides I referred to. Which were SJWs and critics of SJWs. Which isn't a purely left/right divide by any stretch. I'm hoping people already understand that. But that's my bad for assuming if people don't. What does your reach into "decades of suppressing minority rights" have to do with the distinction I laid out? It doesn't make my point any less valid. It's an entirely separate conversation about the cause of "extreme leftist opinions," as you put it. You're welcome to have that conversation if you like but it's not addressing my point.

You could very well say that my argument isn't sufficiently broad as to capture the full scope of what causes the political pendulum to swing between extremes. And you'd be right about that. But I'm not gonna feel too badly about it since it's clearly not what I'm talking about.

Also, let's not broaden the scope to include vague indictments like "spreading falsehoods." As if any example of an SJW critic simply lying is a knock against my argument. That's completely irrelevant. I was making a specific point about criticism vs moral condemnation. I never said or even implied there's a side that's hasn't "spread falsehoods."

You may put the emphasis on censorship is bad, this side is against it, so it's better. But not only is that a half truth at best when looking at the complete picture, it's only one aspect in a complex discussion; it's never that easy, even if it makes you feel better to be "on the right side that is entirely different" from what you oppose.

You're overreaching and this is misrepresentation. I never said any side is "the right side that is entirely different" The whole point of my post was to say that despite their numerous shared flaws there is a crucial difference that is often overlooked on this forum. Did you miss the part where I plainly said SJW critics can be super flawed? Yet you're off to the races imagining that I'm taking some emotional comfort in placing myself on a "side." That's not even the "side" that I spoke about.

Personally I can stand the shit on the front page of resetera every day about as much as I can stand another right wing ideolog youtuber whining about some perceived SJW stuff in game x and movie y as if it violated his sister, again, talking about the extremes on both ends here, not the more balanced and well argued takes that can be found out there if one cares to wade through the muck.

Well, for one, it's telling that even your hypothetical right wing ideologue isn't engaging in the kind of moral condemnation I spoke of (IE, my whole point). He's being hyperbolic and whiny. Worse still, hyperbolic and whiny over a potential false positive...

Is that annoying? Yes it is. You might even call it "overzealous, annoying or obsessed" like I already did in my first post. But there's a difference between being annoying and being annoying while labeling everyone who disagrees with you a white supremacist.

Again, you're the one making this a left/right dichotomy. I said "critics of SJWs" which spans the political spectrum. I'm not right wing and there are full blown Marxists who criticize political correctness and SJWs.