I think the reps were selected via reddit poll; but I wasn't there when it happened. There were two Breitbart journos in the GG rep group for Airplay. IMO they weren't bad for being from that outlet; but I know nothing other than its righty and not very concerned about PC in their articles, but also that they don't parrot the narrative from the ''progressive'' sites.

Either way, the facts discussed at Airplay were facts and no one can be wrong when they're spouting numbers.

I can't even begin to imagine what you think a good faith disagreement looks like. Or...it looks like agreement, doesn't it? Or submission?

Your points have been acknowledged, I just didn't think they were valid. I explained why, and I got more, different justifications, which I also acknowledged and criticized. In general, that's how a philosophical argument goes: One person points out flaws in the argument advanced by another, then they try to determine whether those flaws are destructive of the whole argument or can be worked out with greater specificity or small alterations. In general, one party to the argument doesn't call the other a troll and a moron then declare victory.
L0000000000000000L

(Those were two Roman '50's surrounding a series of zeroes; it's fully correct and inarguable.)

You don't explain anything, you just dismiss them out of hand. Anyone which a drop of intelligence can tell you are full of shit when it comes to Patricia Hernandez and Anna Anthropy. That you don't have any problem whatsoever with the fact that a journalist has helped get her friend such mention. You don't address at all how rules of professional journalism exclude this. Nope, you like her games, so everything is fine and dandy, its somehow deserved that one developer keeps getting her freeware reviewed...

You also don't seem to have a problem that a prominent game journalist is giving money to a mostly unknown game developer and then writing in her defense. Nope, all that is okay in your SJW crazy in the head world.

Your real problem is this, you make spacious claims that about us not pinning down all instances that might be called problematic. I've got news for you, son. This is the real world, Not everything is cut and dried nor can all things have a line drawn through it for right or wrong. You unknowingly try to take advantage of this fact by nitpicking, diversion, goalpost moving and distraction, refusing to get pinned down to anything. Then you have the audacity to claim we are the one's who are inconsistent.

The reason the word troll came up is because that is what you are. You've been making post after post for two days now, all with next to no useful content, filled with stupid arguments like claiming sending money to a Patreon account is just like buying a game which clearly it isn't.

And you are right, in general one party doesn't call the other a troll, but sometimes they do because that is exactly what the other party is doing...

Oh, clearly it isn't. Now it all makes sense. When you just said it wasn't, I didn't understand, but now...if only you had asserted harder the first time, I would have realized that your bare assertion was irrefutable.
And really? "SJW crazy in the head world"? Have I said the first word about any social justice cause at all? Oh, no doubt it's "obvious to anyone with a brain" what my gender politics are from my standards for argument. After all, everyone knows that analytic philosophy departments are hotbeds of militant feminism.
This is just so silly! I honestly didn't come here to mock your argumentative skills or basic intelligence. I actually wanted to do some distinguishing and defining and figure out what is unique about Patreon, because it is a novel system. But, alas, here I am calling you a thin-skinned, philosophically-illiterate simpleton. Ain't life funny.

Its is a lumber that exists; what is wrong?
Anyhoo, facts = facts no matter who reads them out.

Why so defensive? :)

Your first para is basically a passive aggressive and patronizing insult. "The point of homing in on a specific disagreement is to work out the reason for that disagreement, ..." So why don't you? I invited you to do it at least twice already...

Your second para finishes with an ad hominem. The circularity is caused by you not wanting to "work out the reasons for that disagreeement", the bad faith I still accuse you of and have justified why - feel free to prove me wrong by changing your behavior, and changing the subject is also all on you - starting from bringing in the unecessary DLC season pass example/ question which you didn't even try to explain its relevance... ;)

Your third is a strawman - I didn't posit anything as unacceptable. And disingenuous - you really don't know what the verb inform means? ;)

Your fourth is - maybe - a consequentialist argument. You do know consequentialism does not exhaust the ethical possibility space right? It's also begging the question - objectivity and to inform are not "meaninglessly general" - and much less meaningless in the context of GG, since they they are the core I see in terms of GG ethos regarding gaming journalism. But smart of you to try and pretend there is nothing to discuss at that level. :)

Your fifth is pure disingenuity. The features that are ethicaly problematic have been pointed to you repeatedly, explicitly and implicitly. I was even open enough to point out how normal reviews are also slightly "problematic" when you buy the game yourself, or did you miss that? My position is logically consistent and I have very little idea what your position even is. Let me repeat:

In general (and this is broader than gaming journalism) these are problematic (I can detail how) and you should be able to identify how each plays a part in the GG narrative:
1 - sensationalism, and the abandonment of the information ethos for entertainment
2 - propaganda, and the abandonment of the information ethos for ideological indoctrination
3 - explicit rejection of objectivity, and associated abandonment of the universality of truth
4 - increasing proximity to the subjects of journalism, for whatever egoist motives

Specifically in relation to the only object level topic I have so far engaged you with in detail, namely around Patreon subsidies, it's a clear example of 4) . The motives are irrelevant, do you really see zero ethical issue with a patron taking on any authority to judge or otherwise influence public opinion on something he literally patronized? A gaming journalist should avoid funding in such a direct way any individual whose products he might cover, just like political journalists should avoid donations to politicians - to avoid the obvious conflict of interest.

And finally you close with a really nice strawman/ad hominem/insult. Sneering? Really? And malicious? Says who? Notice how often I say the motives are irrelevent... good intentions and bad consequences are compatible, and vice versa... as a pseudo-consequentialist why is malice even relevant? Whatever, your conflation of unethical with malicious is actually revealing.

At this point I have given you ample opportunity to engage openly. You could have argued why you disagree with the objectivity or the information ethos. But you just dismissed them as meaningless... You could have argued why you don't consider the conflict of interest of patronizing an author more problematic than buying a product, but you offered an orthogonal argument about consequences. Ah, I almost forgot, you did offer the distinction between buyer and bought, but I think I explained why I see that as reductionist.

Talk to you some other time I guess... I really don't believe you're interested in an honest discussion. Please feel free to prove me wrong...

Are you a Markov chain citing random logical fallacies? My second paragraph finished (sarcastically) with, "After all, everyone knows that analytic philosophy departments are hotbeds of militant feminism." In what possible sense is that ad hominem? Who do you even think it's aimed at? This is why I go on to insult your intelligence. (Which also is not an ad hominem argument; it's an insult.)

QuQu's GG RECAP, first half of August:

RECAP

Edit:

Well because it is Friday I throw in some fun:

Culture in Gaming

You're confusing me with Rwarehall... suggest you reread the whole chain of back and forth with that in mind... both avatars are kind of similar in colors.

He and me have very different styles. I'm more the sarcastic patient condescending one, and he is the direct impatient confrontational one. That should steer you properly...


Edit: Funny as this was at least you now have me convinced you're not an alt account... in my very first reply to you I was also provocative based on that assumption...

So, welcome to the GOG forums. You chose the most flamey of threads to jump into, that makes you either brave or stupid, likely both. Worry not, you're in good company, and I include myself in that...

So you take, "So I tried to elicit a distinguishing factor of Patreon, and thus ensued a lot of circularity, accusations of bad faith, and changing the subject," as an ad hominem argument? That's a description of things that happened; it's not any kind of argument.

Yep.

Implicitly what you did with that was to call me either stupid or malicious. Disagree? An insult is not strictly an ad hominem, but it's close enough to one for the level of the discussion so far. Which low level I consider you mainly responsible for.

By the way, since you probably missed it in the parallel posting, let me restate my welcome. You're crazy to come straight to this thread, but whatever rocks your boat I guess...

So in a discourse full of insults, insults are to be considered (invalid) logical assertions? That's absolutely witless. What are the alleged conclusions of these arguments[sic] which do not follow from their premises? Because the intended one is, "I have less and less respect for my interlocutors," which I assure you follows quite naturally.
And furthermore, in what way are these extraneous ad hominem arguments[sic] of any relevance? They're plainly not central to my larger argument (as evidenced by my declining to call them arguments). Dismiss them as evidence and move along, or object to them as insults (and then mop up the accusations of bad faith and cries of "troll" and "SJW"). What's the point of so scrupulously tallying extraneous ad hominem arguments[sic]?
Could it be...to discredit the rest of what I said by painting me as the sort of person who uses ad hominem arguments?

Vaina?

What about the harm to people who buy based on recommendations like that, thinking that they're made objectively? And what about the harm to other indie developers who don't have friends in the media and are expecting to succeed based solely on merit? Or those who have coverage dangled in front of them in exchange for favors? That last one is fun because it shows that they're clearly aware of her game (Seedscape) and are willing to cover it, but she said no and they didn't. Go ahead—try to find an article about the game. It's like a Where's Waldo where Waldo didn't actually bother showing up.

So yeah, this is a multi-billion-dollar industry we're talking about, filled with a bunch of people whose jobs depend on this. "It's just games and no one is impacted by ethical failings" doesn't suffice as an argument in light of such things.

My friend's a blue piller and buys into a lot of the rather ridiculous bullshit that passes for feminism these days. It astonishes me sometimes how MRAs are horrible people, but feminists have a point. In my experience that's backwards if anything. You're more likely to run into a crazed feminist than a crazed MRA on the internet. Most of the "MRAs" on the internet aren't even MRAs so much as trolls and anti-feminists.