Dick Strawkins wrote:deLurch wrote:The Internet Aristocrat put together a summary video of the issue. I generally enjoy his work.
However, I feel like he seriously goes off the rails by jumping to the conclusion that she slept with several other writers, editors etc based on zero facts and evidence what-so-ever.
A lot of it is good and informative (watch it up to the 18 min point) but I agree he jumps to conclusions that are better explained by alternative scenarios.
For example, most of the behavior of geek media over the past few years can be explained better by the notion that they are avoiding being targets of callout culture through joining it themselves, and that this has an added advantage in driving traffic to their sites because SJW callout stories tend to be good clickbait - and clicks are the bread and butter of online geek media.
There may be occasional unethical actions like journalists sleeping with the subjects of their pieces but for the most part I don't think this stands up to scrutiny. Look at all the coverage that Watson or Sarkeesian have got. Is there any evidence that they have used sexual favors to garner the positive press? I don't think so. They get positive coverage because of their ability to use callout culture.
Now they certainly do other things that are unethical, dishonest and manipulative, but sleeping with journalists doesn't seem to be on that list.
Bang on as usual.
That video was part-informative / part-hysterical. Firstly, problems in game journalism are the first world-est of first world problems. Who cares, really? I'm an avid gamer, but I tend to go by forums/user reviews as much as the critic reviews. I don't get why people get so worked up because someone wrote an article about a game that they don't agree with. Just don't read them then, or favour another site. Or try to spend more time actually
playing the games...
I'm a bit more concerned with the willingness to delete comments that criticise the situation. There was a thread on Reddit r/gaming that was just a huge string of deleted comments with one or two still there, wondering where all the comments have gone.
As you say, one reason for this is to avoid being a target. Another, I think, is that they want to be seen as a progressive "ally of women". It's mere posturing - it might be a good look but it does nothing to actually
help women (which is of course a worthy cause); it is inherently selfish. I want to be seen as an ally of progressive causes too, but I would prefer it if I managed that by actually doing something productive rather than just continually saying "look how much of a not-misogynist I am". It's easy to do (too easy!) but doesn't actually help anyone.
Finally let's not forget that many of these people know each other in real life, and hang out in the pub and whatnot. That's sure to affect things. People also might
want to become friends with these characters, and "helping" them this way might be a way of befriending them. It clearly works. It's similar to the "you just want to get laid" accusation, but a bit more realistic, I think.
We shouldn't rule out the fact that they might be True Believers, but surely a True Believer would actually strive to figure out how to move forward. It's fairly obvious that many are, cynically, just in it for the "SJ cred".