Quote from: CRKrueger;792694He wasn't, at all.  He was a loser who wanted to punish women for not fucking him, and punish men who women were fucking.  He killed more men then women.  Since he hated everyone with a normal sex life, or indeed any sex life, that, by definition, included women as well as men.

I could equally well blame divorce, selfish dysfunctional parents, and a twisted Californian lifestyle of assumed right-to-privilege ('everything should be mine') for Eliott Rodger. I could also take an HBD line and say he was 'running amok', which seems more common among east-Asians than other races - though whites and other races occasionally do it too, east-Asians do it disproportionately to their low rates of other sorts of violent crime. As noted, he hated women for his being unable to get them to have sex with him (probably because he was creepy - he wasn't bad looking, and obviously not poor) but he mostly shot men. He was misogynist, but he was misanthropic in general. He had nothing to do with the MRA movement as far as I can tell. And even if he had posted on an MRA bulletin board they would not be responsible for him unless they had encouraged & approved his behaviour. I don't blame my Muslim neighbours for Jihadi John cutting the heads off aid workers in Syria.

Quote from: TristramEvans;792695This video is awesome...it's like if RPGPundit was a hot foreign chick

Yeah, awesome. :cool:

Quote from: Nexus;792700Hiring a prostitute is considered something only losers or the desperate have to do by some. "Real Men" don't have to pay for it". So may not have given him much emotional solace which is really what he probably wanted/needed.

It's funny; from what I can tell the kind of men who use expensive prostitutes tend to be more the 'Alpha' types like Eliott Spitzer - lots of money, self confidence, and presumably a high sex drive. I bet JFK wouldn't have turned down a pretty hooker. Likewise truckers, soldiers and such 'macho' guys are the main users of lower-class prostitutes. It's the 'Beta' or 'Omega' introvert types who avoid them. The 'Alphas' don't care about emotional solace, they just want a good fuck.

Quote from: S'mon;792722It's funny; from what I can tell the kind of men who use expensive prostitutes tend to be more the 'Alpha' types like Eliott Spitzer - lots of money, self confidence, and presumably a high sex drive. I bet JFK wouldn't have turned down a pretty hooker. Likewise truckers, soldiers and such 'macho' guys are the main users of lower-class prostitutes. It's the 'Beta' or 'Omega' introvert types who avoid them. The 'Alphas' don't care about emotional solace, they just want a good fuck.

Maybe its a cultural/regional thing. IME only being able to get sex that you're paying for isn't flattering for most guys. It means you can't attract/impress a woman so you have to pay one to pay attention to you.

Using a hooker is fine assuming hookers aren't not your only outlet. It doesn't affirm your "manhood" and gets you derided. Those alpha types, wealthy men, etc often have women pursuing them and even those lower on the scale have likely had girlfriends even wives. Then its a display of wealth and virility not desperation.

By emotional solace, I don't mean true love and romance but affirmation, acceptance perhaps some degree of affection. That he wasn't just looking for receptacle to bust a nut in. Or if he was that might not have been what he needed. But that's just me playing amateur psychologist on internet.

Quote from: Nexus;792723Maybe its a cultural/regional thing. IME only being able to get sex that you're paying for isn't flattering for most guys. It means you can't attract/impress a woman so you have to pay one to pay attention to you.

Using a hooker is fine assuming hookers aren't not your only outlet. It doesn't affirm your "manhood" and gets you derided. Those alpha types, wealthy men, etc often have women pursuing them and even those lower on the scale have likely had girlfriends even wives. Then its a display of wealth and virility not desperation.

Yes, I agree - I think that's the usual view.

I just think it's funny that most of the people who actually do have sex with prostitutes either also have lots of sex with non-prostitutes, or certainly could do so if they wished.

Quote from: TristramEvans;792695This video is awesome...it's like if RPGPundit was a hot foreign chick

That is an awesome video.

No wonder tBP is scared of #gamergate.

So I just mentioned the Syria Girl video to my semi-estranged wife (I live upstairs, she lives downstairs, we share the money* and childrearing, & I do all the housework - laundry, dishes, cleaning etc).... like me, she's not a Gamer. Unlike me, she gets all her news from the left-liberal clickbait-media and her circle of mostly left-liberal friends online (her IRL friends seem more sensible).

She:
"I should have known you would support them!"

I think that's called 'shaming'. I'm pretty sure this must still be the common POV 'out there' amongst the 'right thinking' classes. Not just the committed SJWs, but the general mass of media-aware lumpenintelligentsia. Unless they are directly threatened by a particular SJW campaign (eg in my wife's case, by the threat of burly male transgenders being allowed to play Rugby against her and crunch her bones) they just lap up whatever they're told by the standard outlets. She probably thinks she's showing solidarity with oppressed female games journalists.

*Mostly earned by me and spent by her, but she did start working again recently after a couple years' couch-potatoing.

Quote from: apparition13;792512So you're arguing that the existing status quo in which speech can be, and is, censored on a whim is awesome because the alternative would be inconvenient to web admins?

I'm saying the alternative is having half a million freaks posting things you never wanted to know existed let alone see. I'm speaking from extensive experience there, technically it falls under free speech and does not include harm to anyone(aside from the original victims).

I've stomped out such things at least three times, then had the fun of figuring out exactly where to toe the line after that. Which yes, means it's entirely in the hands of web admins. This isn't convenience, it's the simple reality of it. I don't have to put up with people being assholes, and the same measure I use to deal with that other admins can use to deal with material they don't like.

If you want different, start working on a publicly funded internet. I'm certain it's possible, and I'm certain it'll end the same way. But at least that way the admins would be public servants and/or bound to the law restricting government action on the topics. As for the bit of California on speech, well, California says a lot of things.

Ill be perfectly honest, but as far as GG goes, I have no idea whats going on. I feel like I walked in late into one of those sitcom situations where someone has put tape across the middle of the floor in a shared apartment. I cant understand what certain things (some girl writing a lame videogame called Depressionquest and her ex saying nasty things about it and her) have to do with others (journalistic integrity, some girl getting a bomb threat because she was going to speak at some videogame con, etc). I don't know what NotYourShield are talking about (probably because I havent come across any GG mentions in other media). As a kneejerk reaction Im for any side that the mods at RPGnet are against, but I also simply dont care that much abouut videogames in general (or thier associated medias). I hear good points from both sides, I hear stupidity from both sides, but mostly I hear things that I dont know enough about to even feel like I can have an informed opinion on.

The Syriagirl video was fun to watch and listen to, but also smacked of Conspiracy Theorizing. The antiGG stuff I read seems to conflate completely nonpartisan criticisms of gaming journalism with some specific domestic dispute that as far as I can tell had nothing to do with the coining of the phrase #gamergate, but Ive come across some solid points about sexism in gaming, and a lot of wild stories I have no idea the veracity of. I watched one of the videos of the girl who got a bomb threat (the "Mrs. Man" video), and I thought it was a well presented and mildly entertaining argument that was worth at least consideration, but I dont know what it has to do with her getting threatened or what relation she has to GG.

It almost seems like everybody involved in GG on one side or another is having thier own argument about completely unrelated things. Is GG journalistic ethos or sexism? Why if one person is talking about the former does the latter even come into play in the discussion, or vice versa? Arent these two completely seperate issues that deserve to be addressed separately?

Anyways, Im going to go watch the Syria girl tell me why the US bombing Syria has nothing to do with Cobra...er, ISIS...

Quote from: woodsmoke;792668I can understand why some want to keep the focus on journalistic integrity in order to avoid an ideological pissing match, but I honestly think it's a mistake to pretend GG has nothing to do with feminism, not least because I don't see games journalism as being all that relevant. I don't remember the last time I visited Kotaku, RPS, et al even before this whole thing kicked off. If I'm interested in a game, I'll look it up on YouTube in order to see it in action.

To me, it seems readily apparent that GG is at least as much about telling these self-righteous ideologues to take their bullshit political agenda and get the fuck out of our hobby. Most games are not sexist, most gamers are not sexist and the vast majority of what those on the anti-GG side would label misogyny is absolutely nothing of the sort, so sit down, shut up and just play the fucking game.

The problem is, you've got a whole lot of very vocal people using the hashtag and saying it has nothing to do with feminism, and everything to do with holding games journalism accountable.

So GamerGate folks need to figure out what their movement is about, and stay on message.  Because right now it's very, very muddy.  The anti-GG people have a very simple message they can hammer all day long: GamerGate is about misogyny.  And one simple message will win against two or three parallel or conflicting messages everyday of the week and twice on Tuesday.

If GamerGate is about gaming journalism, then the anti-feminism guys need to take a hike, because that's where the misogynistic minority hang out, and you lose possible allies whenever someone starts looking into the topic and finds hateful shit.  Sure, they may find hateful shit on the other side, too, but then they abandon the topic altogether, rather than joining your side.

If GamerGate is about taking on Third Wave Feminism, then the gaming journalism ethics guys need to take a hike, because they're reaching across the aisle to the moderates on the other side and doing their best to disassociate the hashtag with anti-feminist thought.  And the assholes shitposting misogynistic crap need to be kicked the curb forthwith, because they make everyone else look bad, and play right into the hands of anti-GG.

Men's rights advocates were late in addressing the misogynistic assholes infecting their ranks, and now their movement is tarnished, and a lot of good work is either hindered or gone unrecognized.

One of my passions is Old English and Anglo-Saxon history.  But the amateur Anglo-Saxonists sat by while their interest was hijacked by BNP-types at best, and fucking neo-Nazis at worst.  Now everytime I go to a non-academic site devoted to the subject, I have to make sure it's not being run by pretty unsavory people.

It sucks.  But it doesn't matter how much you cry "We're not with them" if they're crying "We ARE with them!"  Especially when your opponents are also saying, "They're with them!"  As far as anyone on the outside is concerned, that's a 2 to 1 vote.

Message.  Message.  Message.

Quote from: MrHurst;792739I'm saying the alternative is having half a million freaks posting things you never wanted to know existed let alone see. I'm speaking from extensive experience there, technically it falls under free speech and does not include harm to anyone(aside from the original victims).

Free speech goes both ways. If someone's free speech is infringing someone else's free speech, limiting the first person's speech may be permissible. Drawing the line where you have competing right in conflict is complicated; so is how you draw the line.

QuoteI've stomped out such things at least three times, then had the fun of figuring out exactly where to toe the line after that. Which yes, means it's entirely in the hands of web admins. This isn't convenience, it's the simple reality of it. I don't have to put up with people being assholes, and the same measure I use to deal with that other admins can use to deal with material they don't like.

There are a lot of unemployed lawyers, and more coming off the production line every year. Look, an untapped resource for web admins.

QuoteAs for the bit of California on speech, well, California says a lot of things.

Yes it does, a lot of things that other states eventually follow up on. It is also not alone, 39 states have similar clauses, though several have explicitly not followed CA, while New Jersey, Colorado and Mass have similar but not identical policies to CA.

The US Supreme Court changed it's mind on the issue once, it could change it again as well. It also hasn't yet ruled on an internet case. It's only a matter of time before one works its way through the system.

How could one person's free speech limit another person's free speech?


On a side not Im always amused at how much a fuss the human species makes over the sounds that come out of thier holes.

I don't know if I posted it before, but I think this timeline built here helped me get somewhat of a handle on the whole thing.

http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/336432/The-GamerGate-Chronicles/#vars!date=2014-08-09_20:08:30!

Apparently it all started with Zoe Quinn supposedly being harrassed by a group of "incels" in some hole called "wizardchan". They denied it.

Then Zoe Quinn was somehow involved in some sort of even meant to promote women game developers. Apparently she accused them of exploiting women, and some time later the whole thing imploded. Suspiciously, then she was trying to set up her own event for the same purpose (may have taken donations, I don't remember).

Then the infamous "The Zoe Post" from the cuckolded boyfriend appeared. I'm sure there were people who had a cow about that alone (even though it's none of their damn business). However, after reading most of the facebook messages posted, I can also see that she comes across as a pathological liar-- which then may suggest a pattern in the mind of people, given the other crap with the Fine Young Capitalists event and other apparently shady crap.

However, this all goes beyond her. I guess there was something called DoritoGate that happened at some point, and other issues, such as a secret mailing list and the fact that apparently these game journalists were supporting financially the devs they covered, and a lot of people jumped onto the #GamerGate thing.

Problem with that Iosue is that the anti-gamergate are full of corrupt journalists and social justice warriors.  The two go hand and hand so it is impossible to separate the two.  Sad part for gamergate is that your not only supporting journalistic integrity, but also against the social justice bullshit that those corrupt journalists hide behind.

Quote from: Iosue;792759One of my passions is Old English and Anglo-Saxon history.  But the amateur Anglo-Saxonists sat by while their interest was hijacked by BNP-types at best, and fucking neo-Nazis at worst.  

How on Earth could JRR Tolkien stop Oswald Mosley from showing a keen interest in Old English? :confused: I don't understand what you think the amateur Anglo-Saxonists should have done? And what could they have done to stop an interest in Anglo-Saxon history being smeared by cultural Marxists as equating to Nazism?

From what I can tell, when you engage with this sort of frame at all, you fall victim to it. The only thing you can do is ignore it, while deleting (without comment) any pro-Nazi comments on your Anglo-Saxon history discussion board.
I heard on Honey Badger Radio about what sounded like a mistake by Paul Elam, an MRA. He posted on his site 'Do not post this sort of comment! I will delete it!' - along with a highly misogynist comment. The SJWs then naturally took that misogynist comment, stripped out the surrounding context, and reposted it as 'Paul Elam says this!'