[Non-political] News that makes you Laugh/Cry/Both...

Count Arioch the 28th · Wed Aug 27, 2014 7:30 am

Laertes wrote:I used to volunteer in a charity shop. About fifty percent of what people donate is simply chucked out as unsaleable. It's done quietly so as not to offend the donors but I don't think they care that much: a lot of people treat "donate it" as being exactly like "chuck it out" but with some conscience salve thrown in.

I knew someone that every time she cleaned out her house she literally took the garbage to the goodwill to donate. When I explained to her that they only want things they can resell she looked at me like I was retarded.

Laertes · Post by **Laertes** » Wed Aug 27, 2014 11:50 am

I've never actually seen anyone hand in actual garbage, but broken stuff? Yeah, all the time. Some of it gets repaired, most doesn't.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Thu Aug 28, 2014 5:37 am

Maxus wrote:
Prak_Anima wrote:That's actually really awesome. There are two main problems with Goodwill, as I've seen, one, that they treat their employees like crap, and two, that they don't often handle the donations well after receiving them*. However, if they can fix the first thing, this looks like it at least is better about the second, and is pretty awesome to boot.
We also only started wearing uniforms at their insistence. We wore blue vests before, but they came to have a meeting and saw us dressed like real people and they couldn't have that.

I'm not very business savvy so excuse me if this comes off as a retarded question but "why did they bother?" Is there some kind of money to be made by changing the dress code that worked fine with no problems to include an entire outfit?

Morat · Post by **Morat** » Thu Aug 28, 2014 7:13 am

MGuy wrote:I'm not very business savvy so excuse me if this comes off as a retarded question but "why did they bother?" Is there some kind of money to be made by changing the dress code that worked fine with no problems to include an entire outfit?

Decisions aren't made by "the business", they're made by "a dude" or "a group of dudes". So if a manager gets annoyed that the grasping lower orders are getting too big for their britches, he can display his dominance by making them wear silly outfits. It's not likely to make performance so much worse that his bosses notice it, so there's no consequences for him. Besides, all the other managers do it, so nobody cares.

Occluded Sun · Post by **Occluded Sun** » Fri Aug 29, 2014 7:24 pm

Ebola virus has mutated during course of outbreak
At this point, I fear it's only a matter of time before the virus either develops an infectious asymptomatic stage, an effective means of airborne transmission, or both.

Every time there's a new outbreak, the dice get rolled again. Sooner or later they'll roll a natural one. And just look at their chart of ebola outbreaks since 1976...

Longes · Post by **Longes** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 5:32 am

Madagascar should close its ports right now.

Corsair114 · Post by **Corsair114** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 11:05 am

I found this article to be a particularly enjoyable read RE: current events in the land of gaming journalism. Still not more important than ebola, but interesting.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 4:58 pm

Corsair114 wrote:I found this article to be a particularly enjoyable read RE: current events in the land of gaming journalism. Still not more important than ebola, but interesting.

Okay, any article about Zoe Quinn that does not mention the fact that she launched a censorship campaign across the internet to stop people from talking about her (not scrub private contact info, but stop people from saying "hey, Zoe Quinn slept with a journalist") possibly-read-almost-certainly sometimes employing even blatantly illegal tactics like filing false DMCA claims is a bullshit piece of non-journalism. That is a thing that happened.

The fact that people on 4chan are mean (and a vocal minority actual misogynists) does not actually change that, because the notion that victimization implies legitimacy is an actual strawman those vocal misogynists use to make fun of feminists. And adopting that actual strawman as your actual position on feminist controversies will make you a fucking parody. Articles that take the stance that Zoe Quinn can't possibly have done anything wrong because people are being mean to her on the internet are jokes - at least, I wish they were, but apparently these people are serious. If you are literally not capable of approaching issues with a broader perspective than binary tribalism, don't approach issues at all. Just accept that you should not talk about them, or try to tell other people about them, and don't.

You do not have the right to not be spoken about. That's bullshit. If you do something people think they need to talk about, they can and will talk about it. Especially if you are a developer who fucked a journalist, because that genuinely raises questions about whether or not the divide between the industry side and the journalism side is as strong as it should be (it isn't) even in the absence of a specific conflict of interest (in this case, there probably isn't). Professionals should not be sleeping with journalists who report on their industry. And when they do, those professionals are not the ones who get to declare "no it's cool man" and then purge any and all discussion about it. Not only because that sort of censorship is prima facie wrong, but because whether or not it is or isn't a problem very clearly isn't for the people involved to decide, in the same way that when we put people on trial for crimes we don't ask them, "do you think what you did is a problem, or should we just leave you alone?" It is completely appropriate for people to want to talk about how close industry professionals are to the journalists who report on them.

And you especially do not get to use DMCA claims as a false pretense for censorship. Not only because, again, that sort of censorship is prima facie wrong, but because that is not what copyright is for and it is correctly fucking illegal to do that!

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 5:13 pm

As usual, DSMatticus said it better than I ever could. The false DMCA claims are what especially grinds my gears. We had enough of that shit with the YouTube Atheist Shitbirds a few years back. Unless you have one hell of a reason to do that people who false flag are the scum of the earth.

Count Arioch the 28th · Sat Aug 30, 2014 5:14 pm

DSMatticus wrote:
Corsair114 wrote:I found this article to be a particularly enjoyable read RE: current events in the land of gaming journalism. Still not more important than ebola, but interesting.
Okay, any article about Zoe Quinn that does not mention the fact that she launched a censorship campaign across the internet to stop people from talking about her (not scrub private contact info, but stop people from saying "hey, Zoe Quinn slept with a journalist")

There is no proof that was her. Most of the sites do not check the veracity of copywrite claims, they just take things down. If I could be arsed to do so, tomorrow DSMatticus could have half the internet taken down and they wouldn't even bother to make sure I was who I said I was...

Longes · Post by **Longes** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 5:33 pm

http://gawker.com/russian-bank-will-giv ... 1627512505

Laertes · Post by **Laertes** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 5:45 pm

Really, DSM? I like you and I think you're a smart guy, but if your takeaway from the "Zoe Quinn gets attacked by the Internet Hate Machine" incident is that the bit that needs to be in bold is her actions rather than theirs, I think your paragraph needs rewriting.

Quinn did have an ex who works as a game reviewer. He and his site did not actually review her game. To the best of my knowledge she has not tried to bribe anyone, whether reviewer or website, in order to put out yellow press in order to mislead people into buying games they would not enjoy. She has not had anyone fired for writing articles critical of her games. This places her head and shoulders, morally, above Bobby Kotick and John Riccitiello.

Quinn has used DMCA takedown notices as a method of defending herself from harassment (often directly libellous harassment.) She has not used them to prevent people criticising quality of her games. This places her head and shoulders, morally, above Bobby Kotick and John Riccitiello.

However, these are not the important points. The important point is that the Internet Hate Machine has decided to deliberately target a depressive and send her death threats and rape threats, attempting to end her career and ruin her life. They have decided to do this knowing full well that she's a depressive, presumably because they do not believe that the possibility of her being driven to incapability or suicide is a bad thing. This is the big thing. I notice that you have not touched on it here.

From what I've seen of you, I have a high opinion of your intelligence. I don't believe that you're a member of the Internet Hate Machine. I don't even believe that you see it as the weather, unjust but something we're helpless against. I believe that you genuinely think they're monsters, and take her side against them a hundred percent, and just didn't mention that here. I hope I'm right in this belief.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 5:50 pm

Laertes wrote:Quinn has used DMCA takedown notices as a method of defending herself from harassment (often directly libellous harassment.)

No, fuck you. If you use DMCA takedowns for expedited censorship then you're no better than Brett Keane. People use false DMCA claims because it's more arbitrary and faster than a normal YouTube or even police investigation; they don't use it because the law has failed or to protect themselves.

DSMatticus wrote:From what I've seen of you, I have a high opinion of your intelligence. I don't believe that you're a member of the Internet Hate Machine. I don't even believe that you see it as the weather, unjust but something we're helpless against. I believe that you genuinely think they're monsters, and take her side against them a hundred percent, and just didn't mention that here. I hope I'm right in this belief.

If you're being intentionally condescending, well, congratu-fucking-lations. That was easily a 10/10 on the patronizing scale. What next, you gonna pray for DSMatticus and bless his heart? If that was genuinely heartfelt, I... I don't even know what to say. That's so goddamn cheesy it's making my eyes bleed. God, this is some real sappy fucking affinity fraud bullshit.

In either case, you should be ashamed that you slathered that drivel onto this message board. That has to be one of the dumbest paragraphs I've ever read and I was here for the entire fucking Elennsar saga.

Laertes · Post by **Laertes** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 6:02 pm

No, fuck you. If you use DMCA takedowns for expedited censorship then you're no better than Brett Keane. People use false DMCA claims because it's more arbitrary and faster than a normal YouTube or even police investigation; they don't use it because the law has failed or to protect themselves.

Um, no. Brett Keane mounted sustained campaigns of harassment at people, deliberately trying to drive them off the web. Quinn has done nothing of the sort. Indeed, she is the target of this manner of campaign.

I think this bears stating explicitly: if a person comes under attack from a campaign which is either aimed at driving them to suicide, or aimed at silencing them and doesn't care if there is a very real suicide risk involved, then they are going to use whatever means they can to defend themselves. I have a great deal of sympathy with that. This is not political speech aimed at overthrowing an unjust regime. This is not a grassroots campaign to counter big-money advertising budgets. This is just a bunch of assholes trying to outdo one another in being as shitty to a particular target as they can.

If you're ignoring the actions of the Internet Hate Machine and just focusing on ensuring that she defends herself in a way that is absolutely acceptable to you, then that is the equivalent of coming down against the protestors in Ferguson, Missouri, because they were jaywalking whilst running away from police.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 6:19 pm

Filing false DMCA citations against people is both illegal and unethical, whether the people you're targeting are assholes and criminals or not. And while you can make a case that extreme douchiness justifies extreme responses, you have to actually make that claim if you want to defend a person who has done that. Simply pretending that the valid part of the criticism doesn't exist while focusing on the bullshit and hate speech makes your article a deliberately deceptive strawman.

Look, I've been targeted by the Something Awful goon squad before. There are long tirades on Something Awful about how Frank Trollman is a stupid horrible person who should kill himself. That Frank Trollman they are talking about is me in real life. It's ugly and revolting, and those people are horrible people. But I did not break any laws defending myself from them, and I wouldn't expect people who supported me to pretend I hadn't if I had.

That article is a bad article. It is written to deceive rather than to inform. It supports a tribal and unnuanced view of the world and the world is a worse place because it was written. The Goon Squad are worse people, and they write things that are worse. But honestly, that's just Godwinning the discussion. Writing bad articles and doing bad things is only very slightly excused by the fact that the people you are most mad at are worse than you.

-Username17

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 7:45 pm

Certainly it is true that an article that covers Zoe's censorship campaign while conveniently omitting the hate campaign that provoked it would be no better and probably even worse than the reverse. In fact, while we're discussing the subject, let's go ahead and point out that the InternetAristocrat's videos are also extremely one-sided and spend a lot of time on the completely debunked idea that Zoe's relationship with Nathan led to actual positive press for Depression Quest.

I also want to stop and point out that I did not know that this had been debunked for a solid day or two after first looking into the subject, which itself happened a full week after the accusation first became popular, because news websites that are happy to report about gossipy drama surrounding Max Temkin are absolutely unwilling to post even a sympathetic article about Zoe Quinn. This whole information black-out thing is not only abandoning the moral highground, it's also allowing patently false rumors to perpetuate.

Yeah, Bobby Kotick is worse than Zoe Quinn. That's like the gaming industry version of being better than Hitler - it doesn't really say anything about the moral strength of someone to say that they are not quite at the nadir, and what it implies is that they actually are pretty terrible people such that only a comparison to the worse people around will cast them in a favorable light.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 9:17 pm

Count wrote:There is no proof that was her. Most of the sites do not check the veracity of copywrite claims, they just take things down. If I could be arsed to do so, tomorrow DSMatticus could have half the internet taken down and they wouldn't even bother to make sure I was who I said I was...

There is no proof because Zoe Quinn has categorically refused to comment on the basis that whether or not those youtube videos were taken down by her is a private matter. Spoiler: it isn't a private matter, and that is exactly what you would say if you the answer was "yes, I did that, but I would rather we talk about how I am a victim of harassment, which is true but completely tangential" as opposed "no, I did not do that. Separately, I am a victim of harassment." If I were internet famous and a bunch of youtube videos were taken down in my name and I did not do it, I would fucking say so. And then go on to continue not talking about my genitals, which are completely separate from the illegal use of DMCA claims.

But the fact is that this shit happened everywhere on multiple sites and sometimes people involved have come forward to point fingers very conclusively at Zoe Quinn. For example, a bunch of reddit moderators have just fucking said "yes, Zoe Quinn told us from her official account to delete all posts about Zoe Quinn, and reddit admins told us to comply." And while Zoe isn't saying shit publicly herself, when people suggest that such a censorship campaign would be unethical her close friends and associates have leapt to defend her by viciously attacking those people. You can quibble about whether or not individual acts are hers or not, but it is basically irrefutable that the censorship campaign happened.

Laertes wrote:Really, DSM? I like you and I think you're a smart guy, but if your takeaway from the "Zoe Quinn gets attacked by the Internet Hate Machine" incident is that the bit that needs to be in bold is her actions rather than theirs, I think your paragraph needs rewriting.

If your takeaway is that you can't condemn Zoe Quinn for unethical and illegal censorship of discussion about journalists sleeping with people from the industry they are supposed to report on because a bunch of a misogynists hate her, then I don't like you and think you are a dumbass.

There is nothing valuable in adopting such a binary worldview that you cannot condemn two different groups/individuals at once for different things. If you cannot condemn harassment and censorship simultaneously because the person performing the censorship is a victim of harassment by a small and vocal subset of the people she is censoring, then you are and forever will be completely fucking useless in any ethically complicated matter.

Laertes wrote:Quinn has used DMCA takedown notices as a method of defending herself from harassment

You don't know what harassment means. "People are talking about you on the internet" is not harassment. Writing articles about Zoe Quinn is not harassment. Even if they are tabloid-tier gossip. Even if they are shaky allegations of specific misconduct. Even if they are broad questions about journalistic integrity when there's no clear line between developers and journalists. Deliberately threatening or intimidating Zoe Quinn is harassment. Zoe Quinn did not ask websites to censor her private contact info or threats (which is already policy for many of them, and absolutely acceptable as a matter of safety from both petty harassment and potentially actual violence). She asked websites to censor any and all discussion about her.

And as for the "Internet Hate Machine" bullshit... the reason it's impossible to have a discussion about this on any place saner than 4chan is because Zoe Quinn nuked those discussions off the face of the planet. The only thing her censorship crusade did is to guarantee that the "Internet Hate Machine" had a permanent voice in this topic, because she fucking silenced all the dissenting voices that were even remotely saner than that. You don't get to bitch about how your detractors are total scum after forcefully removing any and all detractors that aren't total scum from the discussion. Don't get me wrong: there will always be assholes on 4chan who do terrible things, but the quality of this discussion is what it is because Zoe Quinn shat all over it in a misguided attempt to control it. It would have been better if she hadn't - it's sure as fuck impossible for it to have been worse. It still wouldn't have been sunshine and roses. These things never are.

Laertes wrote:However, these are not the important points. The important point is that the Internet Hate Machine has decided to deliberately target a depressive and send her death threats and rape threats, attempting to end her career and ruin her life. They have decided to do this knowing full well that she's a depressive, presumably because they do not believe that the possibility of her being driven to incapability or suicide is a bad thing. This is the big thing. I notice that you have not touched on it here.

I have not touched on it, because it is literally fucking irrelevant to whether or not it okay to prevent people from discussing the ramifications of such close social ties between developers and journalists (or even how terrible a person Zoe may or may not be, which is tabloid-tier gossip, but so is Charlie Sheen's drug habit, but still not harassment and in fact protected speech). Again: you are setting up this ridiculous false dichotomy in which it is either support everything Zoe Quinn has ever done or support the assholes who send her anonymous threats. The fact that you are clinging to that dichotomy out of some perverted sense of camaraderie is exactly why events like these are successful recruitment drives for internet misogyny - because a bunch of stupid people engage in petty tribalism while wearing the feminist label, and the end result is that feminism looks like stupid, petty tribalism that will defend its own in lockstep as opposed to a coherent ideological movement with values and goals.

You and people like you are bad for your causes, and you need to either shut up or grow up while adults talk. How's that for condescending assholery? For fuck's sake, is it really so hard to understand that people who support noble causes can do terrible things? Is it at all difficult to grasp that victims can also be culprits? Because if you can't understand those things you are genuinely useless and the world would be a better place if you stopped trying to take part in these discussions. I fucking mean that. I am not saying that out of personal ill will for you (though you certainly have earned a great deal of it today), but because feminism is a real cause that is trying to protect real people and people like you are hurting it by making it look completely without integrity or principle. A bunch of shitstains are on the dark corners of the internet right now ranting that feminism is bullshit because censorship is wrong and look how everyone is defending a feminist's censorship crusade - and they're going to recruit people into their shitstain ideology because censorship is wrong and so many people are defending this feminist for her censorship crusade.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 6:11 am

wait, what?

There are parts of the internet that aren't a hate machine?

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 6:14 am

It's the parts contain some of the porn and cute animal pictures.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 6:18 am

I was three minutes too late to make a porn joke. Damn.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 8:25 am

Well, we all know why the net was born.

Count Arioch the 28th · Sun Aug 31, 2014 8:47 am

I know why the net was born...

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 2:57 pm

InternetAristorcrat's most recent video on Quinn:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km3DZQp0StE

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 6:33 pm

We're two weeks into this and the InternetAristocrat's blatant editorializing is still the best summary of the situation.

I don't really have words for that.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:37 pm

Chamomile wrote:We're two weeks into this and the InternetAristocrat's blatant editorializing is still the best summary of the situation.

I don't really have words for that.

I was going to make a similar horribly depressing observation, then decided I would rather go cheer myself up by watching commercials about abused puppies.

It is difficult to understate the hilarity of a dozen different media outlets publishing the exact same angry defensive rant on the exact same day. Because clearly, the best thing to do when being accused of deeply unprofessional levels of intermingling is to conclusively demonstrate that you are coordinating talking points and are in fact all different heads on the exact same hydra.