Yeah man if I was cool instead I’d be furious about SJWs deviously ruining everything by sometimes mentioning misogyny, and also be crippled by severe developmental disabilities. That’s the chill way to go through life.
Aszurom
1702
Yeah, I meant outside of the “editorial” or “opinion” where it’s explicitly stated.
My understanding of the way things used to be was that if the editor signed off on it, and it got into print, that responsibility for the content fell on the editor. I was just wondering if in the age of blog-news sites if that had gone wild west, and the writers were just paid bloggers and not actually held to any sort of standard.
Like, in my home town we had one newspaper that was “The Beacon” and the other was “The Reporter”. The Beacon was a Democratic leaning paper, and the Reporter was Republican leaning. If you wanted to see both sides of the issue, you bought and read both. But, if a reporter working for the Beacon started reporting in a way that was unbalanced or even hostile towards their Democratic reader-base, such as endorsing a Republican candidate, the ownership of that was on the editor moreso than the reporter, because the editor signed off on it and let it run.
So, on these blog-news sites do they have a vetting process to make sure the content is aligned with the site’s stance, or can a writer just start championing whatever cause the feel like, using the site as a soapbox?
Busbecq
1703
Yeah, getting mad about stuff on internet forums is a strong sign of mental degeneracy.
magnet
1705
Reviews are quintessential opinion pieces.
Menzo
1706
I do think Aszurom is playing the “explain it to me like I’m 5 years old” and “I don’t have an opinion, I’m just asking questions” game. Nobody can be as naive as he’s pretending to be.
Nesrie
1707
No bill of right is going to protect you from opinion you don’t like; that’s not a realistic position to take. What do they want, a disclaimer on every review that says hey, warning you might not agree with me. And this idea that there is a singular school of thought behind these discussions just proves that group is not listening to the discussion; they’re just shouting in it.
My understanding of the way things used to be was that if the editor signed off on it, and it got into print, that responsibility for the content fell on the editor. I was just wondering if in the age of blog-news sites if that had gone wild west, and the writers were just paid bloggers and not actually held to any sort of standard.
Stop lying. It’s insulting. I know I swear on the internet and that’s uncivil, but do you understand that this shit is just as bad? I don’t know if you think you’re being clever and this will eventually lead to you unmasking some great hypocrisy, but if that’s the game here, just get to the point and spit it out.
It’s not being respectful of your audience to write the shit you write in this thread, you’re insulting everyone’s intelligence with each and every post.
You should put that foaming outrage into something more productive. You’ve become obsessed with Aszurom, speculating on his background, looking for opportunities to attack him personally, and generally becoming a one-note flute.
Get outside, enjoy some sun, play a game. Your schtick in this thread is tiresome, neither entertaining nor productive.
Aszurom
1710
No, I’m really that dumb.
Here’s a case in point:
Leigh Alexander writes something that gets a lot of people agitated. Should those people instead be writing to her editor saying “What did you publish this for?” instead of going after her directly as the writer. If her editor isn’t really a filter, then that’s not the correct option.
I think it’s bad form to go after the writer directly if there’s an editor who should have said “Yeah, we can’t print that because it’s bad form.”
When I was writing, if I’d attempted to write any of the stuff I’ve read going in either direction in the past 2 months, Geryk or Bauman would have put the hammer down. Maybe that sort of editor doesn’t exist in this new age. That’s what I’m wondering, legitimately.
Nesrie
1711
I am not sure what is going on with Aszurom’s rollercoaster ride of an opinion swapping but then ultimately coming back to the original one with every quote he brings up, but I am with Mike Virgil, it’s not worth it. It’s not that the rest of us don’t see it, it’s just not worth so much effort to point it out every two posts and come up with elaborate reasons for it.
Aszurom
1712
I’m not expressing an opinion, I’m wondering aloud how this actually works these days.
A fair point, there’s not much more to say on that.
Menzo
1714
Are you a shill? I don’t have an opinion about it, I’m just asking questions.
Aszurom is just one of the many dramatis personae in Dentons ICE project. I think Aszurom, Virgil Hilts, Brianna Wu and CH Sommers are the same guy, currently barricaded in his office being fed flat food under the door, earning some fantastic overtime.
Nesrie
1716
To be clear, I am not trying to pick on Aszurom. I think some of the positioning and opinions or questions as he calls them are… odd. But it’s not like it’s especially aggressive or rude or shaming or anything of that nature. I don’t mind conversing civilly with someone even if they are hard to follow, or I question the direction of their thoughts. Aszurom seems enthusiastic about the whole thing, and if there is manipulation in there, it’s not especially effective… so why not just let it be?
Haha, that one is well done.
Aszurom
1718
Honestly, I was pretty much done with it once you made that response about people being complex enough to hold multiple non-conflicting views of both sides, in a moderate/centrist sort of way. What I couldn’t understand is why that is impossible to find actually expressed “out there”. You would think that the bulk of the people would be able to say “Ethics is good, and treating people decently is something to strive for too. Also, stop writing terrible characters.” What I encountered instead was two walls of people and a lot of hostility toward any sort of mixed opinion. Horrific, yet profoundly interesting.
After that, it’s just about seeing how ridiculous the extremists on both sides look. It really is quite the spectacle. But as far as this thread goes, I don’t think I can do much more. I spent a lot of effort to keep pulling this wagon along for 50ish pages, and got as much conversation and debate about every aspect of it that I could bring in. Weathered a lot of trolling and misunderstanding of my intent, but we didn’t turn into a brawl and for that I’m grateful to everyone.
I’m just really tired of gamergate. Seems like a lot of people “out there” are getting weary of it too. Sure has been a huge time investment, although what I learned about you, me, and the way the Internet conducts itself was probably worth it. So, with that, I’m going to try to do something else for a while. I looked at Steam and saw I had only 5 hours of game time in that last 2 weeks. I think I’ll catch up on some non-controversial blog writing now.
Best part of it is that I really got to type a lot on my new keyboard. :-) Probably too much, sorry about the walls of text, it’s just so fun to type on.
Brianna Wu snaps off a guy’s head for “mansplaining”
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B13Dj6DCcAA4h04.jpg
Is there some additional context here that we’re missing?
