GamerGate, the Quinnspiracy, related controversy. :: Page 2 :: League of Legends (LoL) Forum on MOBAFire

Show more awards

Posts:

13418

Joined:

Rep:

Profile

Permalink | Quote | PM | | Report

Sorry for the late response, I've kind of been sick.

wrote:

I definitely disagree. Part of this is a decidedly feminist reading of the situation (unavoidable when the blame is focused on the woman involved rather than the man), but another large part is that a huge part of the focus was on parts of Quinn's sex life that had absolutely nothing to do with the asserted unprofessional relationship. Even if we accept that we need to talk about the fact that Quinn was sleeping with some specific people, it's still unnecessary (and IMO ****ed up) to include pretty much anything else about her sex life.

I disagree. If a public figure ****ed up bigtime then nothing should be off limits, again regardless of gender. That's just me though and I might be a tad bit harsh there.
But it can objectively be concluded that Quinn's sex life or at least part of it is relevant to this discussion. If you disagree with that it's definitely your feminist bias getting in the way.

Quoted:

Yeah, it's really hard for me to read people saying things about women and not assume that it's about gender. A huge part of this is sensitivity to feminist readings on my part, which means that I shove these kinds of readings into stuff.

I understand. It's okay. Just try to remember your own biases and act accordingly. I know it's not easy, but it helps the discussion.

Quoted:

I don't think it's true that I brought gender into this, though, because it's pretty obvious that we're talking about people. Who have gender. So gender's kinda' part of this. Nor do I think that Cau brought feminism into this. Because this involves a woman, so feminism is already a part of it. Asserting that these things aren't a part of the conversation is... Untrue. You can decide not to have these parts of the conversation or engage with them, but you shouldn't try to tell other people that the parts of the conversation you don't want to have don't exist or only exist because those other people are shoehorning them in.

Okay, let's look at it this way. Gender is a part of discussions only when gender has a relevance on the points being made. Gender is always has an effect, proven by your reactions, but it doesn't need to be a part of the discussion. We can and in my opinion should leave gender out of the discussion. At least when discussing the topic of corruption. The *****torm is an entirely different thing.

Quoted:

Mm. I'm not really sure. "personal connections" is pretty vague. Are we talking about actual romantic relationships? 'Cuz, yeah, you probably shouldn't review art created by a significant other (or ex-). I don't think that's very controversial. Or are you talking about something a little more acquaintance-y, like going out to have drinks with someone a few times? I'm not sure that kind of personal connection is actually very problematic, in general.

I mean personal connections of any kind. What you defined as "a little more acquaintance-y". It doesn't have to be problematic, but it's better to be honest about it, even if it doesn't affect the article.
I mean, this about the effects. A few words of honesty goes a long way to dispel doubts.

Here's some very reasonable words on the topic of this *****torm. TB is leading the debate once again and proving to be one of the most reasonable people out there:
http://blueplz.blogspot.gr/2014/08/this-game-supports-more-than-two-players.html

Here's an article involving TB that focuses more on the corruption part:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-07-16-blurred-lines-are-youtubers-breaking-the-law

[quote=Searz]Sorry for the late response, I've kind of been sick. [quote=lifebaka]I definitely disagree. Part of this is a decidedly feminist reading of the situation (unavoidable when the blame is focused on the woman involved rather than the man), but another large part is that a huge part of the focus was on parts of Quinn's sex life that had absolutely nothing to do with the asserted unprofessional relationship. Even if we accept that we need to talk about the fact that Quinn was sleeping with some specific people, it's still unnecessary (and IMO fucked up) to include pretty much anything else about her sex life.[/quote] I disagree. If a public figure fucked up bigtime then nothing should be off limits, again regardless of gender. That's just me though and I might be a tad bit harsh there. But it can objectively be concluded that Quinn's sex life or at least part of it is relevant to this discussion. If you disagree with that it's definitely your feminist bias getting in the way. [quote]Yeah, it's really hard for me to read people saying things about women and [b]not[/b] assume that it's about gender. A huge part of this is sensitivity to feminist readings on my part, which means that I shove these kinds of readings into stuff.[/quote] I understand. It's okay. Just try to remember your own biases and act accordingly. I know it's not easy, but it helps the discussion. [quote]I don't think it's true that I brought gender into this, though, because it's pretty obvious that we're talking about people. Who have gender. So gender's kinda' part of this. Nor do I think that Cau brought feminism into this. Because this involves a woman, so feminism is already a part of it. Asserting that these things aren't a part of the conversation is... Untrue. You can decide not to have these parts of the conversation or engage with them, but you shouldn't try to tell other people that the parts of the conversation you don't want to have don't exist or only exist because those other people are shoehorning them in.[/quote] Okay, let's look at it this way. Gender is a part of discussions only when gender has a relevance on the points being made. Gender is always has an effect, proven by your reactions, but it doesn't need to be a part of the discussion. We can and in my opinion should leave gender out of the discussion. At least when discussing the topic of corruption. The shitstorm is an entirely different thing. [quote]Mm. I'm not really sure. "personal connections" is pretty vague. Are we talking about actual romantic relationships? 'Cuz, yeah, you probably shouldn't review art created by a significant other (or ex-). I don't think that's very controversial. Or are you talking about something a little more acquaintance-y, like going out to have drinks with someone a few times? I'm not sure that kind of personal connection is actually very problematic, in general.[/quote] I mean personal connections of any kind. What you defined as "a little more acquaintance-y". It doesn't have to be problematic, but it's better to be honest about it, even if it doesn't affect the article. I mean, this about the effects. A few words of honesty goes a long way to dispel doubts. Here's some very reasonable words on the topic of this shitstorm. TB is leading the debate once again and proving to be one of the most reasonable people out there: http://blueplz.blogspot.gr/2014/08/this-game-supports-more-than-two-players.html Here's an article involving TB that focuses more on the corruption part: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-07-16-blurred-lines-are-youtubers-breaking-the-law[/quote]

"I love the dirty bomb tag because i get either

a) posts about the game

b) current world affairs" - steel-sentry