Given the drama lately... how quickly do you destroy stress balls, fidget spinners, and your liver around opened bottles of high quality spirits?
TBH, it doesn't even phase me. Not even the slightest pang of anxiety. I take the drama and redirect it towards something else.
That wasn't always the case. Even after the defamatory Kotaku hit-piece article about me and my "sexual harassing" ways I still genuinely believed that rising above the fray was the proper way. Absorb the hate, avoid it, ignore it and they'll go away. Except, of course, they didn't.
By ignoring the defamation and "being above it" what happened was the people who pretend to care about society and believe they have a duty to destroy "the evil people" (now referred to as "social justice warriors")simply made that narrative the accepted narrative.
I remember when "#gamergate" happened back in 2013. I wrote a post "Define yourself or be defined". Back then, many thought their issue was obvious enough that it couldn't get twisted. That is: #Gamergate is a hashtag for people who want to prevent gaming coverage to be based on the fringe politics and personal, sometimes intimate relationships of the journalists in order to improve ethics in game journalism".
If your opponents are political motivated game journalists who genuinely believe they have a moral duty to change the world, they will stop at nothing to define you. So now, #gamergate is known as the hashtag used by alt-right, misgynists who want to keep women and minority out gaming and probably rape things or something. Or at least, that's what I keep reading.
So no, you can't rely on their integrity. Define yourself before you get defined. That's where the 5 rules come in:
Consider this from yesterday:
Nathan Grayson, the "journalist" best known for banging one of his subjects, works at Kotaku, the disgraced media outlet that effectively ruined my reputation with their defamatory "sexual harassment" article. Despite having been proven wrong, they actually self-reference to continue their narrative that we're bad.
Not everyone at Kotaku is a "bad guy". But when your labor pool are people willing to work for basically nothing in San Francisco you're not going to get the best and brightest.
But the irony of a Kotaku reporter using Kotaku's now discredited reporting as self-supporting evidence of us being a "bad company" was too rich to ignore.
Rule #1: You attack someone's livelihood, don't be surprised if they respond in kind. Will Stephen talk to Nathan? I don't know. Unlike most of the ilk over there, he's actually an accomplished journalist. I suspect, at the very least, he winced.
Here's a Rule #5: Don't set rules for others you don't follow yourself. Don't spew out hate into the universe expecting it to not return back.
This person, an editor as Mashable, decided to accuse us of "dog whistling" because we hired Adam Baldwin for voice acting (man, these guys are really going to go nuts when they find out all the other people we got to VO).
Here's an example of rule #3. Just plain ridicule of a wannabe journalist.
Here's a rule #1. Hayden here, made a tweet that said "Company with problematic views hires actor with problematic views". Not sure what views he thinks Stardock has that are problematic. Given the lack of diversity that exists on 2nd Street in San Fran (it's white male central) one can only guess what they think is "problematic".
When I asked what was problematic about Stardock this led to him alleging that we have gone through 6 PR firms in the last 6 years. Pretty sure that's not the case but I do know that we have switched up PR firms after the last few game cycles because the results were poor. Perhaps the PR companies did do their job but the SJWs they deal with are so corrupt they just refused to cover things their readers might want to know about.
This is probably more of an answer than you were looking for.
The points being:
1. Don't instigate Internet drama.
2. If someone does instigate drama directed at you, DO NOT try to absorb it, use one of the 5 rules to redirect it.