[Aardwolf]

Being merely accused of a crime should not ruin your life or anything like that. The fact that it may do so is undeniable proof that those accused of crimes are discriminated against, and it is especially true for sex crimes due to more moral panic, and doubly so for men (sentencing gap).

Discrimination is absolutely not a zero sum game, it has many aspects that intersect in various ways and situations and it affects both genders.

Also, judicial crimes should be taken a lot more seriously than other crime. "Better let hundred criminals go than convict one innocent" rings a bell? Well, its true for rapists, too. So while false rape allegations are statistically much smaller issue than rape, it should not be needlesly trivialised.

My sentiments exactly! I even contemplated using the "zero sum game" terminology earlier.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" - William Blackstone
I'm glad I looked that up. I was about to attribute it to Ben Franklin!
Edit: apparently Franklin said the version with 100. 'k

Small caveat: there are more kinds of justice than putting people in jail. Restraining orders are a thing, for example.

**** people who make false accusations of rape-all five percent of them. They're condemning others who a were raped to have their cases ignored. There. You may now continue the attempt at distraction.

You know what's worse than snark? Wrong snark.

Yes, it's probably much lower than 5%; it's hard to get an exact number due to wildly inconsistent record-keeping (and bias) among police departments.

Did you really think his 5% statistic is what I was calling "wrong", rather than his ascription of a motive to my post, which I put in bold, or are you willfully misinterpreting me as an excuse to add more snark?

No, only people actually discriminated against get to claim "discrimination".

Are you seriously saying that this is not a thing?

I can think of one very prominent example, where a lot of people, who I must assume are reactionary anti-"rape culture" types, pretty much assumed the guy was guilty without evidence, and where law enforcement was ready to deprive him of liberty without charge and without the request (and seemingly against the wishes of) the women involved. Do I need to say who, or can you guess? Initials are JA.



Look, guy, all I'm saying is that some people go from "rape victims too often don't get justice" to "if someone is accused of rape, certainly they must have done it". Fine, maybe it isn't "discrimination" against men; I should have called it what it is: "prejudice".

[Grizzly]

How did we get from a girl accused of cheating on people to rape?

[Lorric]

How did we get from a girl accused of cheating on people to rape?

Check page 6 for where this came up.

[AdmiralRalwood]

Did you really think his 5% statistic is what I was calling "wrong", rather than his ascription of a motive to my post, which I put in bold, or are you willfully misinterpreting me as an excuse to add more snark?

Whether it was an intentional attempt at a distraction or an unintentional one is irrelevant; it is a distraction. My mistake for assuming you were taking issue with the only part of the sentence that didn't border on the tautological. If you desire, I shall henceforth cease assuming good-faith debate intent on your part.

No, only people actually discriminated against get to claim "discrimination".

Are you seriously saying that this is not a thing?

Not a statistically-significant thing, no.

I can think of one very prominent example, where a lot of people, who I must assume are reactionary anti-"rape culture" types, pretty much assumed the guy was guilty without evidence, and where law enforcement was ready to deprive him of liberty without charge and without the request (and seemingly against the wishes of) the women involved. Do I need to say who, or can you guess? Initials are JA.

No, I can't guess; I'm not a mind-reader, those initials don't mean anything to me, and googling them is unhelpful. I am not responsible for citing your own sources. You'll also have to explain how anecdotal evidence is meaningful in any way.

Look, guy, all I'm saying is that some people go from "rape victims too often don't get justice" to "if someone is accused of rape, certainly they must have done it".

"Some people" do just about anything; what "some people" do or do not do is irrelevant unless you're saying they're participating in this thread, in which case you should cite specifics.

Fine, maybe it isn't "discrimination" against men; I should have called it what it is: "prejudice".

The two words are synonymous in this context; it's still not happening.

[Aardwolf]

You know what, **** this. Since you can't even read my posts without completely misinterpreting them in a way that no other person would misinterpret them, respond to 666maslo666's post instead.

Being merely accused of a crime should not ruin your life or anything like that. The fact that it may do so is undeniable proof that those accused of crimes are discriminated against, and it is especially true for sex crimes due to more moral panic, and doubly so for men (sentencing gap).

Discrimination is absolutely not a zero sum game, it has many aspects that intersect in various ways and situations and it affects both genders.

Also, judicial crimes should be taken a lot more seriously than other crime. "Better let hundred criminals go than convict one innocent" rings a bell? Well, its true for rapists, too. So while false rape allegations are statistically much smaller issue than rape, it should not be needlesly trivialised.

[AdmiralRalwood]

Since you can't even read my posts without completely misinterpreting them in a way that no other person would misinterpret them.

Point out exactly where I have misinterpreted what you said, or I will default to the assumption that the reason you're not going into specifics is because you have no specifics to take issue with; if you want to have a productive debate, then actually debate. If you want to rant on the internet and have every random stranger agree with everything you say, then get out.

Being merely accused of a crime should not ruin your life or anything like that.

You're right, it shouldn't.

The fact that it may do so is undeniable proof that those accused of crimes are discriminated against

...No. The "fact that something may happen" is proof of absolutely nothing (except itself, in the usual tautological fashion). It is a fact that asteroids my strike the earth. This fact is proof of nothing. It is a fact that the sun may explode tomorrow (or have already exploded a few minutes ago!). This fact is proof of nothing. It is a fact that purple elephants may cause cancer just by looking at them. This fact is proof of nothing.

We have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. We also have a moral responsibility to provisionally assume that any accusation may be true. Accusing someone of rape is an invitation for everyone to publicly vilify you: victim-blaming is still the primary response to any rape accusation. It's rather surprising how many people seem to think the vast majority of rape-accusers must really want to undergo public humiliation in exchange for possibly maybe potentially getting somebody else convicted (but then, the conviction rate is still astonishingly low). If you want to ponder un-researchable numbers, ponder this: what percentage of "false" rape accusations are actually the person involved decided to say it was a false accusation just to get it over with?

Also, judicial crimes should be taken a lot more seriously than other crime. "Better let hundred criminals go than convict one innocent" rings a bell? Well, its true for rapists, too. So while false rape allegations are statistically much smaller issue than rape, it should not be needlesly trivialised.

You'll have to point out where anybody trivialized false rape accusations. They've been referred to as a distraction from the topic at hand (and boy howdy have they ever been!) and as less significant than actual rape. Neither of those are saying that they are trivial. If you take issue with either of those statements, explain how.

Lest we forget, the topic at hand is that someone's ex-boyfriend publicly aired some dirty laundry and it erupted into a gigantic internet ****storm alleging corruption and trading sex for favourable reviews despite the indicated game journalist not ever actually writing a review of the game in question, the game in question being free, and there being no evidence for anything aside from the ex-boyfriend's say-so. Somehow this topic has now become about some people trying to talk about how horribly discriminated against men are.

[Grizzly]

and there being no evidence for anything aside from the ex-boyfriend's say-so

THe ex-boyfriend has even specifically denied the aforementioned ffs.

[Mr. Vega]

I just got permabanned on the Escapist for posting articles of government sites getting hacked and claiming they were false flag operations started by the Quinnspiracy. Meanwhile, they're letting through posts arguing that women who "stay in their place are fine." Welcome to our gaming community.

Arouet? If so, then what exactly does it tell about the gaming community that repeating all-caps troll posting results in a ban, but non-trollishly (and without caps!) expressing an opinion, no matter how unsavoury/stupid/misguided/whatever, doesn't?

Oh come on, only one post did I use caps. Mockery and ridicule is not the same as trolling. And my point was sound: the Pentagon can get hacked, but the 4channers are really claiming it's absurd Polytron could get hammered? By a community known to be super hacker friendly?

[Mr. Vega]

And here's a cutting question for ya: if this is really about going after corruption among journalists, why has the overwhelming majority of the attention and harassment been directed towards Quinn? Why not go after the male journalists that supposedly gave her preferential treatment? Why has 99% of the rage been pointed at her and anyone who specifically defends her? Why not aim the guns of reddit and 4chan mainly at Nathan Grayson, or whoever else supposedly engaged in actual journalistic dishonesty? Why the lopsidedness?

[Bobboau]

two reasons. one) they get more of a response going after Zoe. it brings people like you out of the woodwork who would not defend the reporter and that is more entertaining to people like /b/ and /v/. so there is a feedback loop reinforcing going after Zoe. two) it seems as though she was the instigator, and she is at the center of it. If the reporter had slept with 5 other people in exchange for good reviews and she was but one of them, yeah she would be getting a disproportionate amount of flack simply because she would likely be the highest profile person involved (and for reason #1) but I would imagine the center of mass of the response would be much more in his direction than it is now.

I do agree with you in that the reporters involved should get more blame than Zoe if the allegations are true. you don't get mad at the multinational corporation when the politician accepts their bribe.

[deathfun]

Because there's probably some deep seeded issues that the initial folks need resolved. The rest are just a whole bunch of sheep following the crowd

[Mr. Vega]

two reasons. one) they get more of a response going after Zoe. it brings people like you out of the woodwork who would not defend the reporter and that is more entertaining to people like /b/ and /v/. so there is a feedback loop reinforcing going after Zoe. two) it seems as though she was the instigator, and she is at the center of it. If the reporter had slept with 5 other people in exchange for good reviews and she was but one of them, yeah she would be getting a disproportionate amount of flack simply because she would likely be the highest profile person involved (and for reason #1) but I would imagine the center of mass of the response would be much more in his direction than it is now.

https://twitter.com/hyerpes/status/501929960228274178
https://twitter.com/armabeast/status/502264934265536512
https://twitter.com/Bored_Cubed/status/501930068818808832

Or you can go with the much simpler conclusion, backed up by the words of the "investigators" themselves.

[Bobboau]

oh, look at that people saying hurtful things on the internet, is it Tuesday already?

I mean because there is an angry mob doing all sorts of horrible things, everyone not opposed to them, not specific actions they take but "them" meaning anyone not defending the focus of their rage, must be just as horrible as them by association. right?

[Mr. Vega]

The Escapist thread I cited was filled with posts who treated the word feminist as a slur. If I had to make an serious estimate of the fraction that were of that type, I'd say it was between 1 in 5 to 1 in 3. Barely a word was spoken against this by almost all of the other posters. Reddit was far worse. I refuse to look at what's being said on 4chan. I was accused of white knighting for sex after tweeting in support of Quinn by multiple people within 10 minutes of posting it. This is far from the first crusade against a female developer featuring a preponderance of slurs and rape threats (see Jennifer Hepler, who actually had her family and children threatened). Combine this with the exclusive attention Quinn is getting compared to the male reporters supposedly involved in this affair, I'm going to make a very reasonable leap of judgement, based upon the limited amount of information at my disposal, to conclude that there is no ****ing way that this is really about censorship or corruption, and that hatred of prominent women, by a significant portion of the male gaming demographic, who make games that don't appeal to them, thus invading 'their' space, is the primary driving force behind this witch hunt.

Is this going to be one of those things where as long as you can find 3 people who aren't saying anything horrible you're going to automatically discount the presence of these people as a numerically significant fraction of Quinn's attackers? "See, look at this guy who isn't saying that! Don't you dare generalize!" I am generalizing, because I believe I have reasonable grounds to do so. And by reasonable, I mean standards much higher than what you are current requiring of your own opinion. To which I am adding my personal hatred of misogyny, acquired from years of experience and by being an actual ****ing human being with a conscience.

And when people are persisting in making increasingly ridiculous claims with no actual remotely trustworthy evidence to support it (which has been pretty well discussed here), the next step is to start looking for what prejudice is fueling the sentiments.

Let's see if I can get you to admit this has happened before. Can you please attempt to defend the Jennifer Hepler affair, Bobboau?

[666maslo666]

hatred of prominent women, by a significant portion of the male gaming demographic, who make games that don't appeal to them, thus invading 'their' space, is the primary driving force behind this witch hunt.

There are other important driving forces:

1. The fear that game reviewers will push bad games made by women in the name of being progressive or due to sexual favors, even tough said games dont have much merit on their own. Which could arguably be a legitimate concern. The original video plays right into that fear.

2. Trolling. Do not underestimate its influence on this. This is a charged topic with great internet drama potential. Your own angry first post on this topic is evidence of that. If I was a troll, I would be truly delighted by it.


In other news, 4chan has decided to give money to women game jam, so at least something good has come out of this:
https://i.imgur.com/E7XZaKz.png

[Mr. Vega]

hatred of prominent women, by a significant portion of the male gaming demographic, who make games that don't appeal to them, thus invading 'their' space, is the primary driving force behind this witch hunt.

There are other important driving forces:

1. The fear that game reviewers will push bad games made by women in the name of being progressive or due to sexual favors, even tough said games dont have much merit on their own. Which could arguably be a legitimate concern. The original video plays right into that fear.

So.....you're worried that if we don't do something about it a number of female developers will start literally whoring for good reviews. I'll save you the trouble of trying to think any more.

It's not going to happen.

Here's a more likely scenario (and by more likely, I mean a probability above 0.00%). This scene is going to embolden the bottom of the barrel to organize and launch concerted attacks at any female developer who draws their attention, with the goal of keeping their pastime free of the taint. The results could be long lasting harm to the industry, the indie scene in particular, a further blackening of the gaming community in the eyes of the public, and a push for real censorship of online discussion just to make gaming forums liveable again. There is a very real risk that displays like this will in the long run alienate people from the idea of widespread free speech on the internet.

I played Depression Quest a month ago and liked it quite a bit, by the way. Zoe Quinn didn't even screw me for that last sentence. As far as you know. There could be terrible consequences if you don't keep your guard up, no?

[Flipside]

I still really don't understand why this has become an issue on the level that it has. Not only have most of the original assumptions been proved wrong, even if they were true, this is nothing, really really nothing compared to the massive conflict of interest that can rise from the fact that these magazines review games made by companies whose advertising revenue they count on, that's a far more insidious problem than the (incorrect) accusation that one female developer had sex with a reviewer to get a good review.

There is no real outcome from this that actually achieves anything, because people are shooting at a tiny little target and ignoring the elephant in the room.

That's why I always rely on Metascores and never buy a new release, you're likely to get a far more accurate rating if you look at averages over specifics.

[deathfun]

There is no real outcome from this that actually achieves anything, because people are shooting at a tiny little target and ignoring the elephant in the room.

This

Although I feel like I should now play the game simply because well, then I'll have some sort of idea what the hell she actually made for a game

[Mr. Vega]

I still really don't understand why this has become an issue on the level that it has. Not only have most of the original assumptions been proved wrong, even if they were true, this is nothing, really really nothing compared to the massive conflict of interest that can rise from the fact that these magazines review games made by companies whose advertising revenue they count on, that's a far more insidious problem than the (incorrect) accusation that one female developer had sex with a reviewer to get a good review.

There is no real outcome from this that actually achieves anything, because people are shooting at a tiny little target and ignoring the elephant in the room.

That's why I always rely on Metascores and never buy a new release, you're likely to get a far more accurate rating if you look at averages over specifics.

Hence my argument that this has little to do with actual concern over corruption.

[Sarkoth]

Wow, I just spent three hours reading pretty much all of this.

I'm not sure what's more saddening. The whole story or the immeasurable amount of time that has been put into blowing it up like a balloon.

There's tens of thousands of people and situations like that. Every single day. This is not even a drop a water in the sun, it's a single molecule in a whole sea of water.