at one point there were valid arguments here. one big problem is that the underlying issue at stake here (the impartiality of gaming journalism and the reviews system) is right up there with country clubs not automatically tacking on gratuities after dinner and the rising cost of banana republic flat-front twill slacks in the hierarchy of first-world problems. I've played video games for most of my life, and I've been enmeshed in the internet since compuserve dialup on a windows 95 machine, but this is why everyone is raising an absolute shitstorm? developers and publishers have been either paying for or cashing in favors for artificially inflated game reviews since the first issue of nintendo power. no news there. would I like to see the institution of journalists and reviewers build a little integrity? sure, but I'm not about to dox or threaten anyone over it. I spend an unhealthy amount of time on reddit too, and I don't recall the alleged "SJWs" (by the way, throwing that label around doesn't really do much for one's credibility outside the bubble) first escalating the conflict to that level. are there idiots on both sides? this is the fucking internet we're talking about. have people gone too far with this? this "issue" persisting longer than 48 hours constituted going too far with it. there are fucktards and fuckups galore on all sides of this fucking thing. just let it die while some shreds of dignity remain.
the argument I'm not hearing often enough really can't be overstated here. way back at the beginning of this shitstorm, when the ex's dazzlingly whiny rant outed quinn to begin with, someone should've established this because it would've ended the whole thing before it began. the question of whether or not zoe quinn fucked a reviewer does not determine whether she as an individual is at fault for supposedly ill-gotten reviews. zoe quinn could fuck the entire staff of IGN and it wouldn't make her solely responsible for 'corrupting' the hallowed institution of gaming journalism. because it takes two fucking people to fuck. when a man fucks a woman (♫♪♫), is he, like, hypnotized and unable to write an objective review? it doesn't make zoe quinn a vile temptress who should be ashamed for daring to use her vagina in a cavalier fashion. it doesn't even prove conclusively that the review was skewed on account of the alleged coitus. and if a reviewer comes out and admits "yeah, I gave her a good review because she does this fucking thing with her..." it says way more about his degree of objectivity and journalistic integrity than it does about the inherent evils of her femininity. if a prosecuting attorney fucks (or has fucked) the defendant, their ass is right the hell off that case (and possibly under investigation themselves) - if you're a journalist and you become romantically entangled with the subject of your article or review or feature, it's on you to get the hell off that byline. the one argument the feminists would be incontrovertibly right about (if they could just stick to it) is that blaming the woman does fuck-all to fix or address or even correctly identify the problem. if you're gonna bitch about reviews being skewed by money or sex or job referrals, maybe you should take it up with the reviewers who allow themselves to be influenced?
