Woooah.
Would you like to weigh in on the comparative deadliness of Renaissance Spanish windmills? :P
What mouselock said. I may not be a big fan of the way Brad sometimes carries himself, but you, Nathan, are way out of line. Wrong as I may feel Brad’s statements may be, he like everyone else deserves to be treated with a modicum of decency and respect. If he does not reciprocate that’s on him.
And seriously, Nathan, if that’s all you have to add, please give eveyone (including you) a break and return to lurking.
Hahahaha you linked a Brietbart article
I read Brietbart’s autobiography, too. He was an interesting guy.
That website is Fox News-level junk. I am sure you knew that.
I know that people like to deny the legitimacy of a person so they don’t have to address the ideas in question. I read the article, and nothing in it seemed speculative to me. Kuchera had a chance to put his side of the issue forward, and declined to do so, which is more courtesy than Kuchera gave Wardell.
For context Nathan was reacting to Brad siccing the internet lynch mob, via Twitter, on another forum comprised partially of current and ex QT3 members. I’d also say that a reasonable percentage there doesn’t even participate in the threads where Brad comes up, so Brad’s also willing to negatively affect a lot of people as collateral damage.
Better that than Polygon or Kotaku article.
I have a pragmatic view of Brietbart, sure its right wing, sure its regular comment base is a cesspit, but Milo has been a useful tool and has done some sterling work, much like the Daily Telegraph occasionally pops up something decent (i.e MP expenses) whilst generally being the polar opposite of what I usually read, as I only really read The Guardian.
The Guardian itself of course is only covering GG/online issues with a SJW slant, and the bloggers they are using for non important work (i.e not Snowden or indyref or the like) have been parroting the usual SJW doctrine; If you don’t kowtow to the cult of SJW you are a misogynist/racist/ableist, but much like the tale of the scorpion killing the frog its riding across the river, I don’t blame The Guardian for being The Guardian.
They did make a big mistake running with the Emma Watson hoax without checking the facts, because they used their blogger contingent to cover it, not journalists. At least today they’ve recognised it was a hoax and have clarified the story.
Why do you guys keep misspelling “Breitbart” as “Brietbart” so consistently? Is this some kind of juvenile “Micro$oft” putdown?
I don’t read BF, so I don’t know what went on there. But if it’s of the nature of what I’ve seen here, along the lines of “someone said bad things about you in a lawsuit’s pleadings, and I’m going to maintain that they were 150% true even though the suit was dismissed and the accuser never had to back up her claims under oath,” I can see how that would get annoying.
And also, there are internet lynch mobs that do what you tell them to do? Why has no one told me this before?
because spellcheck doesnt recognise it as a typo? i and e are easily mixed up.
You musn’t forget that gamergate is made up of and lead by Master Cat Herders.
This seems like one of the better takes I’ve seen about the situation. I think it’s totally fair to say Double Fine screwed up, and people have a right to be upset or disappointed or whatever, but there have also been a lot of people suddenly leaping to assume the absolute worst. Like, I can totally imagine how at the time Early Access is this brand new thing, Prison Architect seems to promise this kind of success story, Double Fine itself had wild unexpected success with kickstarter… so it’s easy to imagine thinking how they maybe have the opportunity to strike gold twice. In hindsight all of this looks like a terrible idea of course that doesn’t appropriately account for the risks involved. But it’s hard to do that with something new. Readjust to new data and move on.
Because “i before e except after c” was drilled into my head at a young age. By nuns.
I guess all the stuff Brad says happened to him and Stardock where there is literally zero proof is good enough for you. An article that has this video embedded at the bottom of it:
Do you even read the internet ever?
If that’s your standard, then there “is literally zero” proof for a lot of things that people believe to be true. Up to and including criminal convictions based solely on witness statements. But if that’s your standard, then why are you assigning full credibility to the similarly unproven statements in the employee’s complaint?
Or maybe I’m misunderstanding. Is your contention that the harassment that Wardell described in the article is imaginary or falsified? Or that Wardell’s statement about the consequenses of the lawsuit on his ongoing business practices is imaginary or falsified? Or is it that everything on a website that doesn’t share your ideology must be untrue, because only people who agree with you can be truthful and correct? There are many layers indeed.
All the time. And it has never done what I tell it to do.