Hm, shall I point out to Will that he is diving too?
Shall I point out to Sacrosanct that he missed my point?
Shall I point out that Will, despite his failings, has a point?
Shall I point out that Snowman also has a point?
Is there any point in me pointing things out?
Am I doing something wrong?

Heh, I may have to resort to an alternative approach and just ask a few questions:

What are you arguing for?
What do you hope to accomplish?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;798900Wait, what?  Pardon me for not using the appropriate color sarcasm font, but what I said was total sarcasm.  I thought that was pretty obvious.  That isn't even remotely close to what he did.

"I don't find her ugly, and why should it even matter to the content of the argument?"

Except that's not what you said. You said:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;798720Yes.  She's not ugly.  Not really my type, but she's not an ugly person or anything.  It seems people have been attacking her appearance based on this situation, and that's pretty low.

At no point does this address her argument, at least to my understanding. It purely addresses people making comments on physical attractiveness. That may not have been your intent, but it's pretty damn easy to think we're discussing physical attractiveness, not the merit of one's arguments, from your initial post (in fairness, if you HAD phrased it like your subsequent post, I would 100% agree with you).

Which plays into this:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;798845because the context of that back in forth was attacking someone's appearance as if it were relevant to their position.

His response was to attack Zoe's appearance and counter with "our side" has better looking women.  Why even bring that up, especially in the context of the conversation (why does a woman's appearance matter to the argument), unless you somehow think the appearance of a woman matters to the argument.

Obviously I wasn't the only one to notice that.

If you make the assumption, that S'mon was equating attractiveness to the merit's of their argument, I can see your point. If, however, S'mon thought you were merely having a conversation on physical attractiveness, he may have merely presented her as an example of a more attractive woman, from his perspective.

I know you've jumped to that assumption, because until you explained your reasoning I was at a loss why you thought ANY PART of the conversation was about "attractiveness equals merit". Your assertion came out of left field to me (and I imagine S'mon too).

Quote from: Sacrosanct;798892By the definition of what misogyny is, what he did was misogynistic.  That's not really up for debate because that's what that word means.  Cut and dry.  You can't start ignoring the definition of what words mean when they don't fit your agenda, because otherwise that makes you (general you) an apologist.

:cool:
So, Sacro, what "non objectifying" use of "Sweet Ass" were you originally using?

Quote from: Catelf;798907What are you arguing for?

For better ethics in journalism, at this point.
The entire ordeal has opened my eyes to how corrupt and unethical news organizations, from the small to the large, have become in the US.

I've gone from "take a news story with a grain of salt" cynical, to full blown "are they making this shit up?!?" tinfoil hat assery, now.

QuoteWhat do you hope to accomplish?

Hopefully a push for greater ethics within journalism, or at the very least, for the worst offenders to reveal themselves, so I can avoid them in the future.

Quote from: Will;798865Truly ethical video game reviews:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-ethical-video-game-reviews-post-gamergate-world/

Yes, Will, let's give people a little taste of that Cracked article...


Truly, a reasoned rebuttal for the ages. :rolleyes:

Also, in a lot of anti-GG, the most messed-up comments don't come from random trolls and anons, but supposed "professionals":

Ok, it's official: Sarkeesian has gone batshit insane.
https://archive.today/zcJla

Quote from: First sentenceThere's no such thing as sexism against men.

Quote from: S'mon;798840People can be 'homely' in the British* sense, and still be attractive to others, if they have a good spirit. Dworkin comes across so repulsive because her soul is so ugly, and there is a feedback loop where this ugliness of soul affects her physical appearance, too.

Yeah, it's just like Raold Dahl's "The Twits". "Homely" isn'tthe same as unattractive; being ugly is a combination of appearance, attitude, and self upkeep.


At the same time I also think taking relationship advice from Dworkin is about the same as taking financial advice from a homeless man.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;798847Man up dude, and stop being such an asshole.

"Man up"? ooooh...now whose being a misogynist?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;798892By the definition of what misogyny is, what he did was misogynistic.  That's not really up for debate because that's what that word means.  Cut and dry.  You can't start ignoring the definition of what words mean when they don't fit your agenda, because otherwise that makes you (general you) an apologist.

Actually the definition of misogyny is "the hatred or dislike of women or girls". Hmm...can you explain how posting a picture of a girl and saying she's cute  (and/or cuter than another girl) is "the definition of misogyny"?

I'm not asking that with any intended sarcasm or malice.

Quote from: Novastar;798912Ok, it's official: Sarkeesian has gone batshit insane.
https://archive.today/zcJla

Yeah, well, she knows her audience. Whatever rakes in the donations.

Quote from: Novastar;798908:cool:
So, Sacro, what "non objectifying" use of "Sweet Ass" were you originally using?

It's already been pointed out no fewer than twice that my comment was sarcasm, so I can't help but think your intentional ignoring of those makes this comment pretty disingenuous.

Quote from: TristramEvans;798914"Man up"? ooooh...now whose being a misogynist?

Quote from: TristramEvans;798915Actually the definition of misogyny is "the hatred or dislike of women or girls". Hmm...can you explain how posting a picture of a girl and saying she's cute  (and/or cuter than another girl) is "the definition of misogyny"?

I'm not asking that with any intended sarcasm or malice.

Pay attention Tristram.

"Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women."

"Man up" doesn't apply to any of that.  s'mon's post?  both bolded areas apply directly.

I hope you realize that all you're doing by acting like some sort of apologist for s'mon's comments, or trying to deflect attention from him to me, is show to the antiGG crowd that they have a legitimate point.  So congratulations for that.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;798921"Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women."

That doesn't answer my question.

Quote"Man up" doesn't apply to any of that.  s'mon's post?  both bolded areas apply directly.

"Man up" is the suggestion that to act more like a man is to be more mature. But you're right , it's not misogynistic, I erred, it's just sexist.

QuoteI hope you realize that all you're doing by acting like some sort of apologist for s'mon's comments, or trying to deflect attention from him to me, is show to the antiGG crowd that they have a legitimate point.  So congratulations for that.

Please dont involve me in your paranoid delusions. I have no association with s'mon.

Considering there's a completely non-ironic diatribe, advocating for pro-GG members to be sent to Death Camps, which is getting likes and retweets across Facebook and Twitter, I may be a bit on edge: (warning, this asshole's rant is super-long)
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/863/578/566.png

Quote from: Novastar;798930Considering there's a completely non-ironic diatribe, advocating for pro-GG members to be sent to Death Camps, which is getting likes and retweets across Facebook and Twitter, I may be a bit on edge: (warning, rant is super-long)
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/863/578/566.png

Wow.

I expanded that to a size to read it and the first thing I encountered was a person saying that the Jews only experienced the holocaust for 12 years, women were experiencing it throughout the whole of history until the 1970s.

I didn't have the tolerance for stupidity to continue. Don't even know who that was.

I can handle the fact there exists someone so hateful and deluded in the world; what's surprising is the amount of people who are cheering him on. :eek:

I read the whole thing. It is to laugh.

I sorta want to track his sorry ass down, on the interwebz, and take up his offer to debate, when Death is On The Line!

What with his wonderful grasp of facts and all, I'm pretty sure an unbiased moderator would give me the points, all of them.

Now: Finding an unbiased moderator? That might be a challenge in this day and age.

Did you know that 50 BILLION women have suffered oppression their entire lives until 1970?

That's funny because I've always heard that there are more people alive today than have died in all of history combined. That means he's off by a full order of magnitude, even accounting for hyperbole.