Hellis said
No. I see you still stick to the whole "Summarize points in the most patronizing way possible" trick.
It's called saving space, and in your case it really was stuff that is commonly discussed by gamers and since it didn't relate at all to my point on Kotaku being trustworthy I didn't need to quote it specifically.
All the stuff you said on Playstation Consoles in Japan is true. But it was not at all what I was asking about, it was off topic.
In the same way if say I asked about being able to trust Fox News, and you referenced a lot of info on say Christianity.
It wasn't what was being asked, it wasn't relevant to the question or topic at hand.
Hellis said
And adding personal attack by claiming i am being passive aggressive. Good golly sir, you fit right in with a MSNBC panel.
No, the fact you outright lectured all that console stuff to me as if I didn't know a thing about it, and then went on to say that this was stuff 'anyone would know' actually is a passive aggressive of suggesting I don't know what I'm talking about. Instead of outright saying "I don't think you understand", you chose to say/suggest two different things when put together have the clear intention of that message without outright saying it.
Hellis said
What you display is a form of elitism, trying to patronize whoever argues with you by reducing quotes to snippets that is meant to highlight some percieved notion of inferiority such as "obvius stuff about gamer culture".
No, it's just me rather annoyed that you're getting hostile and making assumptions about what I do and don't know about gaming.
Especially when I was simply asking if someone saw a certain story from another source, and wasn't even asking about the things you are making assumptions about me on.
And when you try to assume what I do or don't know, and then take a moral high ground as a result. I'm gonna call you out on it, and I'm not going to take the effort I usually do in these things to be nice about it. Especially since you've done this twice in the same thread, first with the feminism, now with gaming and Kotaku. Both being things where you should already known my knowledge/stance on the issues if you paid any attention to what I've said in any other thread on those topics.
Hellis said
Magic; No. Just No. They showed images of the launch, it was a wasteland.
They could of very easily walked there at any time and did that. Just after selling the consoles, before a line would be formed.
Hellis said
They had videos of it in other coverage.
Not the article I listed though, so I wouldn't of seen that.
And if I don't trust a source, I'm not going to spend a bunch of time looking through more articles of said source.
My time is better invested in finding a source I do trust. Which is exactly what I was doing.
Hellis said
They are in that regard as credible as they can get.
Not very credible then, if it's based on easily set up pictures. Plus, if a site was willing to lie and be dishonest on one topic it is not that hard to believe to they would be dishonest on another.
That seriously should be a hard concept, that those who are dishonest can be dishonest.
Hellis said
Kotaku is also a blog based site, alot of the writers are freelance or work independant from one another.
Same site approving it, same site putting it under their name.
I'd rather use a site that I can trust, than not trust sites dig through it for individuals who 'might' be trustworthy.
Hellis said
You yourself say its obvious in regards to what they are covering (consoles), yet you tried to contrive it into being part of the whole "gamer is dead" coverage.
I suggested it as a
possibility.Also, just because Xbox generally isn't successful in Japan doesn't automatically mean it's going to be a total wipe. Nor does it mean all skepticism on a Kotaku should be removed. If a source is untrustworthy it should remain being seen as untrustworthy, no matter what topic they switch to.
Hellis said
They lied (please provide a proper article/reference material about this by the wayl) about things completely unrelated to the xbox ones Japanese launch.
They've been listed throughout this entire discussion... You have actually been reading it and not just trying to nit-pick and villainize stuff I've been saying... right?
Hellis said
You can backpedal all you want,
I'm sorry, but not fitting your pre-conceived image of who I am is not backpedaling. It's calling out bullshit.
Hellis said
All that "Obvius" stuff about gaming culture? Extremely relavant to the subject at hand
I've just explained how gaming culture doesn't instantly relate to if a source is trustworthy. But please, try to convince me of this point again. Maybe you're right and then I'll back and admit to it.
Hellis said
as it's been linked to misogony accusations and sensationalism drivel. Gaming culture has a massive problem about exclusivity, and the gaming industry suffer from alot of heavy catering to certein demographics.
Oh I see. It's relevant to now gaming culture isn't perfect.
Which was never once argued or denied. But it does not argue if a certain site can be trusted or not.
Seriously, let me make this perfectly clear.
An culture or industry having issues does not suddenly make a source trustworthy.
When I ask "I don't trust this source, can someone show me a trustworthy source?" it literally means that.
It does not mean "I deny that console issues, gamer discrimination etc. exists and/or I possess no knowledge on said issues".
Imagine if say a Magazine did a story on say "More people are now coming out as Gay in the Toronto Area", but this same Magazine also recently tried to accuse a boy of being raped when in fact he was raped by some girl?
If I then came to people and said "Hey guess, I just found this story about more people coming out as Gay. It sounds believable, but I'm not sure that I trust the source cause of how they tried to condemn the victim of a rape. Can I see another source?". It wouldn't then suggest or imply that this Magazine is suddenly trust worthy cause they reported one plausible story. Nor does it mean that I suddenly lack any knowledge on LGBT topics, it literally means I do not certain one source, and I'd rather have a more trustworthy one to hear from.
Hellis said
So its relavant, to the topic of the thread.
Relevant to gaming? Yes.
Relevant to Zoe Quinn? No.
Relevant to if Kotaku can be trusted? No.
Hellis said
You don't get to wave it off. You don't have a point.
Sorry, calling out your misrepresentations of what I'm saying is not waving it off. It's me saying "Hey, you're putting words in my mouth! That's not what I'm saying".
And just because my point is not what you want it to be doesn't mean I don't have a point. It just means I have a point, you'd rather not have to deal with me having.
Hellis said
Kotaku may have been dishonest in their coverage of something, they may simply have acted on lacking information. You do not know that. YOu assume, the way the very ones we critize right this moment assumed and waved their virtual pitchforks around.
But they were still dishonest, one way or another.
May it have been intentional or not they gave false info, they did not fact check to make sure there stuff was accurate.
Therefore as a source of news and information they are unreliable and untrustworthy.
Hellis said
It was by a different person, writing a different kind of blog regarding a entirely different subject.
And like stated above, same site that approved it. Under the same company/name.
Why shift through an untrustworthy site for the chance of some honest people, when I just find an honest site to begin with?
Hellis said
Passive agressive? You might wanna look up what that word means before you toss it at somebody.
passive–aggressive adjective
Definition of PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE
: being, marked by, or displaying behavior characterized by the expression of negative feelings, resentment, and aggression in an unassertive passive way (as through procrastination and stubbornness)
— passive–aggressive noun
Such as say indirectly suggesting I know nothing about this topic? Negatively acting as if I was trying to start something on this, and making claims I didn't make?
Granted at this point you seem to be more aggressive than passive aggressive (and I admit at this point I've gone aggressive too now. Now that I'm being completely straw manned, and having someone claim I'm wrong due to two completely unrelated concepts). But regardless this was merely a note on the way you try to suggest my lack of knowledge, this holds no real relevance to the actual discussion.
So I'm dropping this Aggressive-Passive Aggressive crap now, discussing it holds no purpose.
