While there have been a few reasonable heroes of discourse on both sides of the #gamergate fiasco, overall I feel there are too many horrible people on both sides and too many convoluted nested chains of events for this to be worth taking a stand over (except in the general sense that no one should be threatened and harassed over it, obviously).
That said, for me personally the most interesting thing to come out of it all is the #notyourshield protests, where women and minorities tired of being spoken for raised concern about being used to deflect attention from SJW weak points and malfeasance. I'd been expecting this sort of thing to blow up more and more in online discourse, and now I'm wondering where it's going to go next, if anywhere. What do you all think?
(http://i.imgur.com/ZPQLQID.jpg) (http://imgur.com/ZPQLQID)
For the record, while I am and remain very socially liberal, I had been feeling increasing discomfort over the way SJW types were using women/minorities prior to #gamergate. I never talk about this in real life because the necessary nuance is difficult to achieve and that can be a professional/social death sentence in New York circles. I'm still nervous bringing it up online.
I think it's telling when you look at a photo of the attendants of the XOXO Fest, "described itself as celebrating creativity and innovation in forms it considered alternative or disruptive to the prevailing social or professional context ("democratizing media and innovation")", and a regional Fighting Game Tournament:
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/842/406/d0a.png)
...lot of white guys, with a few token white women, in that first pic. All the colors of the rainbow in the second.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;790898For the record, while I am and remain very socially liberal, I had been feeling increasing discomfort over the way SJW types were using women/minorities prior to #gamergate. I never talk about this in real life because the necessary nuance is difficult to achieve and that can be a professional/social death sentence in New York circles. I'm still nervous bringing it up online.
I'm very liberal in nearly every facet of my life. I'm pro-labor, I've been a member of 3 labor unions, sat on the board of one and worked for another. I've attended rallies, protests, meetings etc... since I was in high school. I've knocked on doors for ballot initiatives and candidates.
So I say this from a position of utmost love.
Modern leftism, as is expressed and carried out online, is broken. It's come full circle to be an amazingly anti-liberal force. Basically every tenet of liberalism is violently attacked and denounced by online leftists.
It makes me very sad to see my fellow travellers burning down everything we're supposed to be fighting for.
At this point I've basically stopped talking about it online because anyone who raises an objection, no matter how small, to the glorious crusade will be cast out of the tribe and likely face harassment for their effort.
I still keep in contact with some of my old activist buddies and more than a few have done basically the same thing. It's gotten so toxic and wrong-headed we want basically nothing to do with it anymore.
it's like I've been saying for years now. Animal Farm
Quote from: Sacrosanct;790979it's like I've been saying for years now. Animal Farm
The worst part is you can't get away.
Now I'm a horrible, horrible sexist racist pig because I play Mario and refuse to apologize for it to some self appointed grand poohba of leftism or flagellate myself in front of a crowd.
And any attempt to deny any accusation against you will be taken as definitive proof of your guilt.
You can't play their game, but if you don't you lose anyway :(
Quote from: Piestrio;790981Now I'm a horrible, horrible sexist racist pig because I play Mario.
I'm ashamed to say the phenomena had to hit me in several of my personal hobbies before I really started to accept intellectually that sometimes constant cries of victimhood really are overreaching.
I started getting put off a few years back when they started talking about freedom of speech as a purely legalistic concept and started mocking the very idea that it could be a value that a private citizen/organization could legitimately uphold.
That whole "freedom of speech only means the GOVERNMENT can't censor you, not that you can't be harassed, fired, blacklisted and banished from society forever, what are some kind of hate monger that actually thinks people shouldn't be punished for speaking their minds?"
And I'M ashamed to admit I bought into that at one point.
I've had to stop reading The Verge and Polygon because of this fiasco. Their coverage has been so downright awful, vicious and one-sided that they are barely above a Murdoch tabloid at this point.
On the other hand, you have TechCrunch publishing what might be the best article about GamerGate so far (http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/gamergate-an-issue-with-2-sides/).
This article (http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/09/gamergate_explodes_gaming_journalists_declare_the_gamers_are_over_but_they.html) from Slate is very relevant too.
I am on gamergate/notyourshield side all the way. Spent too many years being called a racist and sexist pig by these social justice gaming "journalists" in both of my favorite hobbies. I am fed up with their bullshit and what is worst they don't have the decency to practice what they shove down our throats.
What makes it painful is that I use to be a liberal and almost quite progressive I might add. If there is any good that the social justice assholes had done is that I am no longer liberal. I vote republican on the next election because that is how bad those assholes had done to me.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;790898I never talk about this in real life because the necessary nuance is difficult to achieve and that can be a professional/social death sentence in New York circles. I'm still nervous bringing it up online.
That is a horrible state of affairs.
"Freedom of speech, but no freedom from consequences." A personal bugbear of mine as it seems to be a
licence to tantrum rather than engage in debate.
Quote from: JongWK;791013I've had to stop reading The Verge and Polygon because of this fiasco. Their coverage has been so downright awful, vicious and one-sided that they are barely above a Murdoch tabloid at this point.
On the other hand, you have TechCrunch publishing what might be the best article about GamerGate so far (http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/gamergate-an-issue-with-2-sides/).
Good article. I'm a feminist, I agree with many of the same things written up thread, it does look like the left is turning on itself and self destructing. The article points out at the end the main point of what is wrong, specifically about moral crusaders, and if the tactics are wrong, they are wrong no matter which side that uses them.
An example of moral crusading at its worst is the war on drugs, 30 years into it and we still have a drug problem, and the 4th amendment has been so eroded that it has ceased to exist in all but name. The police are becoming so militarized that law enforcement is becoming a RoE and the people are the enemy. This is a threat, this is reality.
Quote from: Piestrio;790978Modern leftism, as is expressed and carried out online, is broken. It's come full circle to be an amazingly anti-liberal force. Basically every tenet of liberalism is violently attacked and denounced by online leftists.
I spend a fair bit of my time keeping tabs on the worst of the conservative, racist and just plain looney parts of society. It amuses me. It amused me far less when I looked at this particular chunk of liberalism and realized not only did they use the same tactics, as far as I could tell they had the same goals. I had a day where I realized I could unironically and utterly seriously ask the question of "Why do you hate freedom?" to people I was in a conversation with who thought of themselves as liberal. Was one of my last days over on the purple.
I don't think I'd mind so much if they spent less time validating the claims of the far right.
Quote from: Snowman0147;791020What makes it painful is that I use to be a liberal and almost quite progressive I might add. If there is any good that the social justice assholes had done is that I am no longer liberal. I vote republican on the next election because that is how bad those assholes had done to me.
I don't think you'll find much solace on the right; they're being torn up by their own infighting over purity issues in every possible branch of policy and society.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;791057I don't think you'll find much solace on the right; they're being torn up by their own infighting over purity issues in every possible branch of policy and society.
This is true. Both the left and the right have been hijacked by ever increasingly narrow echo chamber viewpoints of lunacy.
It's kind of weird that both sides feel the need to become
even more extreme, neglecting and forgetting an excluded (I'd also haphazard, majority) middle, till it's time to vote that is. Then "The Pandering" takes place...
Quote from: WongJKI've had to stop reading The Verge and Polygon because of this fiasco.
I've stopped reading all Gawker media (which the Nerdist and io9 are hard to pass up), but Cracked was the surprise loss for me.
Cracked let ZQ write her own article, on what GamerGate was about, and tried to write it off as neutral (while banning counter-arguments).
Bull...shit. I'm sure Nixon would have written a neutral article on WaterGate, a month after it happened, too. :rolleyes:
You know, I actually don't mind if your anti-GG; the Escapist is definitely anti-GG, but (and this is important), they allowed people to disagree on their forums. They didn't outright ban people for having the contrary view.
Even if I disagree with you, if you're willing to have the debate, that earns you a fair shake of respect in my eyes. It also makes me feel like you might
actually believe in what you're saying, rather than saying something with an ulterior motive (be cool, feel morally superior, don't want to be called names, etc).
Yeah, I used to really like Cracked too, but then they followed up on GG with this article (http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-ways-gamergate-debate-has-made-world-worse/) by Luke McKinney. Needless to say, I think it's a pretty shitty one sided article that has some major problems
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;790898What do you all think?
I think Twitter Outrage Wars are nonsense, until we see activism from either side in real life actions. So far GG is 99% digital spank. Let's see what the landscape looks like in late 2015 and see if GG had any positive/negative effect.
My bet is that October 2015 will be too filled with its own new Twitter Outrage War for anyone to care about this one.
Quote from: Novastar;791109You know, I actually don't mind if your anti-GG; the Escapist is definitely anti-GG, but (and this is important), they allowed people to disagree on their forums. They didn't outright ban people for having the contrary view.
Correct. And the anti-GG crow knocked out The Escapist's forum with a DDOS attack (http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/20/the-escapist-forums-brought-down-in-ddos-attack/) for a while, shortly after TE refused to take it down.
Eric Kain from Forbes is doing some excellent, balanced coverage of the debacle (http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/10/09/gamergate-is-not-a-hate-group-its-a-consumer-movement/). To quote:
Quote from: ForbesI don’t agree with everything I see associated with the tag, and there really are hateful people out there using it, too, but by and large what I see in #GamerGate are a lot of very disgruntled, jaded, and alienated gamers. They’re not alienated because they feel the world is evolving beyond their comfort zone, they feel alienated because the media is outright telling them they need to hurry up and die. This feels particularly disingenuous when this same media appears more interested in being chummy with developers and publishers or pushing a specific social agenda, and less concerned with games and the people who play them.
Well worth the read, if you have five minutes.
Quote from: Piestrio;791002I started getting put off a few years back when they started talking about freedom of speech as a purely legalistic concept and started mocking the very idea that it could be a value that a private citizen/organization could legitimately uphold.
That whole "freedom of speech only means the GOVERNMENT can't censor you, not that you can't be harassed, fired, blacklisted and banished from society forever, what are some kind of hate monger that actually thinks people shouldn't be punished for speaking their minds?"
And I'M ashamed to admit I bought into that at one point.
It's a surprisingly wide spread and (I hate to say it) toxic outlook in progressive circles. In part because so many that buy into the current trends are utterly convinced of there moral and ethical superiority they feel that can do no wrong.
Amusingly it strikes me as similar to the way the "heroes" in police procedural shows often run roughshod over civil rights and the bounds of legal authority because the "know" their target is guilty and we're supposed to root for them (and can because of our perspective we know they're right).
Quote from: Nexus;791254Amusingly it strikes me as similar to the way the "heroes" in police procedural shows often run roughshod over civil rights and the bounds of legal authority because the "know" their target is guilty and we're supposed to root for them (and can because of our perspective we know they're right).
It's a poetic twist of circumstances:
Dirty Harry used to be a
right-wing fantasy...
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;791259It's a poetic twist of circumstances: Dirty Harry used to be a right-wing fantasy...
Overtly left-Wing cop shows (which are common in the UK) IME tend to focus on rooting out internal corruption within the police 'service'. Shows like Between The Lines and especially Prime Suspect have the hero(ine) battling the sexist racist white male patriarchy.
US shows like 'Law & Order' are anti-WASP (the villains are WASP, the heroes are typically white non-WASP), but I wouldn't exactly call them left-wing; I expect they reflect the preferences of someone like Republican former New York Mayor Bloomberg pretty closely. Law & Order isn't really a Social Justice Warrior show in the manner of the BBC police procedurals.
Law and Order did a few shows showing black criminals and how far their lawyers would go to defend them. There was a few times when the defense lawyers tried to guilt trip the protagonists. Hell it showed some very guilty people getting off free. This is not due to corruption in the system, but it did show that the system isn't completely perfect either.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;790898For the record, while I am and remain very socially liberal, I had been feeling increasing discomfort over the way SJW types were using women/minorities prior to #gamergate.
I can sympathize and for more reason than the gamergate debacle. I consider myself to be fairly liberal but the modern day progressive movement has become something I can't really back anymore. The behavior is so smug, self righteous and holier than thou and employs many of the same tactics its followers found objectionable in the "enemy" with demands that are increasingly OTT and even somewhat authoritarian to the point of being repressive like they're going to cram their particuar view of "Right Thinking" down everyone's throat.
Now it's gotten to the point of "If you're not with us, you're against us" or "you HAVE to publicly choose a side or we'll assume that you're against us".
This:
http://inurashii.tumblr.com/post/99751399160/gamergate-and-the-golden-mean-fallacy
And with that goes all of my urge to be interested in internet conversations or debates regarding social justice.
Quote from: Necrozius;791609And with that goes all of my urge to be interested in internet conversations or debates regarding social justice.
Mine died years ago. To think if liberals had done the wise thing and snip out the cancer this shit would had never been a damn issue. Seriously social justice warriors are the crazies of the left as the tea party is the crazies of the right.
Quote from: Necrozius;791609Now it's gotten to the point of "If you're not with us, you're against us" or "you HAVE to publicly choose a side or we'll assume that you're against us".
This:
http://inurashii.tumblr.com/post/99751399160/gamergate-and-the-golden-mean-fallacy
And with that goes all of my urge to be interested in internet conversations or debates regarding social justice.
Blind irony piled on top of blind irony. The author of that piece cites Bush as a villain in a piece that advocates Bush tactics.
I was talking about this with a friend two days ago. His tactic for dealing with people like this on any end of any spectrum when they shove themselves into your space? Just say "sorry" as sincerely as you can, with no disclaimers / qualifiers / elaborations, but as soon as they aren't paying attention anymore go on with your life as if nothing happened. Words speak louder than actions for these types, and they don't have as much sway as they think they do. Your customers will still be your customers as long as you don't say anything that can be used against you.
At least, that's how he sees it.
Quote from: Necrozius;791609Now it's gotten to the point of "If you're not with us, you're against us" or "you HAVE to publicly choose a side or we'll assume that you're against us".
This:
http://inurashii.tumblr.com/post/99751399160/gamergate-and-the-golden-mean-fallacy
And with that goes all of my urge to be interested in internet conversations or debates regarding social justice.
The bit that undermines the whole argument:
QuoteGamerGate is not an official entity, but it IS an existing collective. There are no membership lists, no appointed leaders, and no expulsion process. Anyone can set goals, anyone can promote materials. This gives GG a tremendous amount of flexibility and has allowed it to bring together a lot of people quickly and dodge a lot of potential liability issues. But to any rational person, that should be a double-edged sword: it means that the group cannot disavow membership of harassers.
Either GamerGate can be a collectivist "people's movement" that shields harassers, or it can be an organization with clear goals, bylines, leadership, and the ability to tell someone to get the hell out.
In contrast, "anti-GamerGate" is not a movement. It's a stance. Someone who literally hates video games can be anti-GG (and probably is, unless it's Milo). Anti-GG doesn't have manifestos or operations or chatrooms, it's a just a description applied to anyone who says "Hey, this is fucked up." If you live somewhere that's Crip or Blood territory, you don't say that there's a third "no-colors" gang. That's just people who aren't in a gang.
(Bold is from the post). The post is saying there is no middle ground. The bold is saying anti-gamergate is the people who aren't in a gang; the unfortunates caught in the crossfire who just want to be left alone to live their lives.
So just who is the gang the GG crew is fighting with? It's not themselves, could it be some anti-GG crew? If so, who would the people not in a gang be?
I think some prescriptions for Sombunall are in order.
Quote from: Necrozius;791609Now it's gotten to the point of "If you're not with us, you're against us" or "you HAVE to publicly choose a side or we'll assume that you're against us".
This:
http://inurashii.tumblr.com/post/99751399160/gamergate-and-the-golden-mean-fallacy
And with that goes all of my urge to be interested in internet conversations or debates regarding social justice.
Only a SJW would conflate outrage at journalistic corruption combined with first world elitist snobbery with Apartheid. What's next, the Martin Niemoller quote?
Quote from: Necrozius;791609Now it's gotten to the point of "If you're not with us, you're against us" or "you HAVE to publicly choose a side or we'll assume that you're against us".
This:
http://inurashii.tumblr.com/post/99751399160/gamergate-and-the-golden-mean-fallacy
And with that goes all of my urge to be interested in internet conversations or debates regarding social justice.
Shit, man, what else do you expect from a Tumblrina.
You know, the more I think about it, the less I like the term "Social Justice Warrior" to describe these people; one can be honestly passionate about Social Justice, and just oblivious (or place less emphasis) on other issues (our justice system puts a heavier penalty on Murder than Rape; I would do it the other way around. But that lies with my priorities, which can & are different than the next guys).
Ergo, the problem isn't so much "Social Justice Warriors"; they can actually be a good thing, acting as a moral compass.
The problem is with "Social Justice Profiteers"; people that USE social justice as a means to profit personally, whether financially or socially. For them the cause is not important, merely how it can benefit them, whether in supported stance amongst their peer group (you believe the "right" things), extra clicks to articles (clickbait revenue), or direct contribution to Patreons and KS projects (i.e. the REAL money).
I think of them as Social Justice Hipsters and Posers.
Social Justice Trolls, because that is what they are doing, trolling the conversation.
Troll is well enough ! They are not entitled to a fancier moniker, since they are just trolling using justice and social equity as an alibi for their appalling behaviour and bullying !
As I asserted in a different conversation, I think the most important thing to point out is that there can be such a thing as a shitty activist, and at this time, there are plenty of them, regardless of the label. After that, the best thing to do is to hold them accountable for their role in the conversation; Consultant-Gate is a great example of that in action.
Quote from: NovastarYou know, the more I think about it, the less I like the term "Social Justice Warrior" to describe these people...
I agree. #Gamergate would have been much more effective if it hadn't muddled the message with unclear terms like that. Social justice is a good thing. Shilling, scamming, posing, overreacting and overreaching are not.
Quote from: JamesV;791783Consultant-Gate is a great example of that in action.
So did we mostly win that? I stopped paying attention, sorry.
Quote from: Novastar;791734You know, the more I think about it, the less I like the term "Social Justice Warrior" to describe these people
I like it because it fits with how they see themselves, and isn't inherently derogatory. 'Social Justice Profiteer' would be like calling a Tea Partier a 'Teabagger' - it's just an insult.
If 'SJW' now has a derogatory implication (it does!) it's because of the actual behaviour of the SJWs. I think that's a good thing.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;791789I agree. #Gamergate would have been much more effective if it hadn't muddled the message with unclear terms like that. Social justice is a good thing. Shilling, scamming, posing, overreacting and overreaching are not.
So did we mostly win that? I stopped paying attention, sorry.
Mostly, and I think that things may have been different if it hadn't have been for the willingness for people to document as much of the conversation as possible, ask questions, and demand evidence. It was assertive without being abusive, and persistent, and I think that was the best possible way to handle it; let the hyperbole of the extremists discredit themselves.
The message of gamergate is quite clear. They are sick and tired of social justice warrior gaming journalists. They are sick of the gaming press accusing their customers of being women hating pigs. They are sick of the double standards that the gaming press applies on people, but never apply on themselves. Gamergate is just fed up on the social justice crowd and the corrupt gaming press.
The only reason the message looks muddy is because anti-gamergate crowd want to keep it muddy. It is really their only defense as they don't have a leg to stand on morally and ethically speaking.
Quote from: Snowman0147;791627To think if liberals had done the wise thing and snip out the cancer this shit would had never been a damn issue.
Neither "side" of "liberals" or "conservatives" can control the conversation of small groups on the internet. And that's a good thing. As much as the parties shit themselves when anyone "goes off message", that is kinda the whole point of freedom of speech.
For better or worse, the "cancer" must be allowed to exist if the rest of us are to enjoy true freedom of speech, not just carefully curated echo chambers.
I do not agree with the SJW or the Teabaggers, but I defend their right to spank it until it breaks off...and also for them to post their thoughts on the interwebs.
Maybe I am wrong, but I have not seen any notable effect offline in the real world of the supposedly massive online memes and controversies.
With all the LoLcats and Squee pics, you'd think every animal shelter should be empty by now.
Again, maybe I am wrong and I would be happy to click links to articles you have that shows the offline effects of these SJW or other online movements.
Quote from: Spinachcat;791877Neither "side" of "liberals" or "conservatives" can control the conversation of small groups on the internet. And that's a good thing. As much as the parties shit themselves when anyone "goes off message", that is kinda the whole point of freedom of speech.
Except they have been fairly effective at stifling the free speech of people that don't toe their line. Reddit is a major online speech forum, getting shunted off that is the online equivalent of being told you're free to protest all you want, just do it outside the city limits.
Quote from: dragoner;791748Social Justice Trolls, because that is what they are doing, trolling the conversation.
I like the terms "Outrage Brigade" (plural) and "Outrage Addicts" (singular).
I think Bart Simpson may have been correct, Gen Xers needed a Vietnam to even them out and perhaps the Millennials need something a bit stronger. Its a pity neither of them have gotten either to date.
;p
Quote from: Spinachcat;791877Again, maybe I am wrong and I would be happy to click links to articles you have that shows the offline effects of these SJW or other online movements.
Hey Novastar do you have that pic of the death threat syringe that a guy recieved? Spinachcat want to see evidence.
Quote from: apparition13;791880Except they have been fairly effective at stifling the free speech of people that don't toe their line. Reddit is a major online speech forum, getting shunted off that is the online equivalent of being told you're free to protest all you want, just do it outside the city limits.
I disagree. Reddit isn't a public square. It's a corporate website. I don't expect a for-profit company to defend free speech if that speech could endanger profits.
And as we've seen with RPG.net, strict moderation only leads to people abandoning that forum for others with less moderation. If Reddit squelches too many voices, then those voices (and readers) will go elsewhere.
Quote from: Snowman0147;791903Hey Novastar do you have that pic of the death threat syringe that a guy recieved? Spinachcat want to see evidence.
I've heard about it. But just like a random jackass sending "anthrax" dust in the mail isn't a national wave of terror, I don't see how the various threats, doxxing, phone calls to employers, etc by represents more than jackassery, thuggery and cyberbullying by a few shitheads, not an offline movement that affects the masses, or even a notable segment of the population.
I am also not seeing Blizzard, EA, Nintendo, etc feeling the need to say "because of (GG or anti-GG) we are now doing XYZ instead of ABC" - but maybe I am just unaware. If so, I am happy to read links.
Quote from: apparition13;791880Except they have been fairly effective at stifling the free speech of people that don't toe their line. Reddit is a major online speech forum, getting shunted off that is the online equivalent of being told you're free to protest all you want, just do it outside the city limits.
That's because it's a private site at the end of the day. Not exactly like standing on a public street and speaking your mind.
That being said, there's nothing they can do to stop others from setting up their own cheap web server and write whatever the heck they want there. Might eventually be the best option since I heard that even 4Chan started censoring people.
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;791934That's because it's a private site at the end of the day. Not exactly like standing on a public street and speaking your mind.
That being said, there's nothing they can do to stop others from setting up their own cheap web server and write whatever the heck they want there. Might eventually be the best option since I heard that even 4Chan started censoring people.
You mean like 8chan? Which got nailed by a DDoS attack? Along with a few other sites?
Quote from: Warboss Squee;791984You mean like 8chan? Which got nailed by a DDoS attack? Along with a few other sites?
That can happen to any site whether you own it or not, unfortunately. At least there's no bossman who can censor you without that cheap tactic.
Quote from: Spinachcat;791917I've heard about it. But just like a random jackass sending "anthrax" dust in the mail isn't a national wave of terror...
...except when it did happen, our government DID make it a "national terror attack". :p
Quote...I don't see how the various threats, doxxing, phone calls to employers, etc by represents more than jackassery, thuggery and cyberbullying by a few shitheads, not an offline movement that affects the masses, or even a notable segment of the population.
Well, realize it never was targeted at "a notable segment of the population"; it only affects people who 1) identify as Gamers, 2) Have internet, 3) Read online journalism, and 4) can be arsed to give a fuck.
QuoteI am also not seeing Blizzard, EA, Nintendo, etc feeling the need to say "because of (GG or anti-GG) we are now doing XYZ instead of ABC" - but maybe I am just unaware. If so, I am happy to read links.
Intel and the UAT have pulled ads off Gamasutra, due to e-mail writing campaigns. "Operation Disrespectful Nod" is probably the smartest idea out of GamerGate, seeking to hit these unethical bastards in the only place they actually care about, their wallets.
...aaaaaaaaand... Anita Sarkeesian cancels speech, after death threats (http://www.standard.net/Police/2014/10/14/Feminist-speaker-cancels-appearance-at-USU-after-terror-threat.html)
QuoteLOGAN — Canadian-American author, blogger and feminist Anita Sarkeesian has cancelled her scheduled Wednesday speech at Utah State University after learning the school would allow concealed firearms at the event despite an anonymous terror threat promising "the deadliest school shooting in American history."
Utah State confirmed Sarkeesian's decision to cancel in a tweet sent out shortly after 6:30 p.m. Tuesday.
University officials originally decided to move forward with Sarkeesian's speech after several staff members received an anonymous email terror threat on Tuesday morning from someone claiming to be a student proposing "the deadliest school shooting in American history" if it didn't cancel the Wednesday lecture.
The school later reversed their announcement after a discussion with Sarkeesian over whether firearms would be allowed at the event.
"Sarkeesian was informed that, in accordance with the State of Utah law regarding the carrying of firearms, if a person has a valid concealed firearm permit and is carrying a weapon, they are permitted to have it at the venue," reads a statement on the university's website.
Sarkeesian, well-known for her advocacy for improved portrayals of women in the video gaming industry, took to Twitter on Tuesday night to express her frustration with police.
"Forced to cancel my talk at USU after receiving death threats because police wouldn't take steps to prevent concealed firearms at the event," Sarkeesian tweeted.
Officers wouldn't agree to new security measures, Sarkeesian said in another tweet.
"Requested pat downs or metal detectors after mass shooting threat but because of Utah's open carry laws police wouldn't do firearm searches," she said. I'm safe.
Sarkeesian reassured her Twitter follows the recent cancellation didn't mean she was intimated.
"I will continue my work. I will continue speaking out," Sarkeesian tweeted. "The whole game industry must stand up against the harassment of women."
The email author wrote that "feminists have ruined my life and I will have my revenge, for my sake and the sake of all the others they've wronged."
USU officials earlier consulted with federal, local and state law enforcement and determined it was safe to allow Anita Sarkeesian to give her presentation, said spokesman Tim Vitale.
In order to determine the degree of risk the letter posed, police ran the information they had through the FBI cyber terrorism task force and a number of other statewide database analysis information centers.
"They determined the threat seems to be consistent with ones (Sarkeesian) has received at other places around the nation," he told the Standard-Examiner. "The threat we received is not out of the norm for (this woman)."
The email was sent to Ann Austin, director of the Center for Women and Gender Studies, along with several others, according to a spokesman for the center.
Sarkeesian is the author of the video blog "Feminist Frequency" and the video series Tropes vs.Women in Video Games, which analyzes how women are depicted in pop culture. She was scheduled to speak at 11:30 a.m. in the Taggart Student Center Auditorium.
My first thought is decidely unkind:
"I trample over your 1st Amendment Rights all the time! Who would have thought you'd be so protective of your Second and Fourth, amiright?"
Sacrosanct posted this elsewhere and I thought it was tragically relevant.
Quote from: SacrosanctYou probably only got brought up because they're doing a purge over at TBP, officially making it a bannable offense to support GG under rule#2. So they are on their witch hunt to identify anyone who might. Which is ironic, seeing as how doxing and harrassing are the reasons they are giving for banning people (because that's what GG turned into, and if you support GG, that's what you support*). But as always, hypocrisy is no stranger to those folks.
*for the record, and I've been pretty quiet on this whole issue of GG because I haven't been surrounding myself in it, I think a lot of awful things have been done in the name of GG, and that's what the anti-GG groups has focused on rather than the legitimate issue of journalistic integrity. Another irony, because watch how pissed they get when you talk about how protestors are a bunch of looters and hooligans, to which they will quickly respond with, "you can't tar the entire legitimacy of this protest by the actions of a few wackos." They'd be right of course, but funny how they don't apply the same logic when it's not convenient.
I'm totally using that hooligans at a protest example the next time something like this spills into my life.
I guess here's the thing for me. I've never really got worked up about the journalistic intergrity part, despite it being a legitimate complaint, because I guess that's parr for the course in our society. People in influence and/or power get together to make the rules. Every industry has been that way. Why should gaming nerds be any different.
Also, the threats and behavior by some of the pro-GG group is downright appalling. Threats and harrassment are never OK. NEVER.
Which is why the goons at RPG.net really give me a bad taste. Because on the surface, they get outraged about this harrassment and threats. As they should be. But why suddenly so silent when it's their own members doing it? We've all see the death threats that Pundit got over consultant gate. Nary a peep from this soldiers of justice.
And that's what bugs me. Blatant and utter hypocrisy based solely on their own personal agendas. That tells me that they don't give a rat's ass about Anika or Quinn. They are using them only as tools to go after personal agendas of their own. Because if they did care about harassment and death threats, they'd be upset about all of it, and not excuse (or even engage in themselves) in the very same behavior they are condemming.
Vile examples of humanity. And that's my opinion.
*Edit* And to anyone who reads this post and says, "Not everyone anti-GG condones or engages in harrassment themselves." I'll quickly add, "and not everyone who is pro-GG condones or engages in harrassment of Anika or Quinn either."
You can't have it one way and not the other folks. Not if you have a shred of integrity.
This is where, to someone not wired in to the personalities involved, rpg.net's actions really look weird. As near as I can tell, the sequence went something like this.
Zoe Quinn's ex goes psycho.
This creates two reactions: outcry about gaming journalism, and ugly harassment of Quinn.
In response to the harassment gaming journos collude to write death of the gamer articles.
This collusion comes out, further increasing outcry over gaming journalism ethics. Gamergate hashtag is born.
Rpg.net bans the hashtag and anyone associating with it. Criticism of feminist critics is okay. Criticism of game journo collusion is okay. But use of the hashtag in specific response to a specific incident of collusion? Insta-ban.
What am I missing?
Iosue: Basically, GG is a hate group, so you can't go 'yay GG!' there any more than you can say 'well, the Nazis aren't all bad, they had great ideas about train scheduling.'
(As an aside, 'gamergate' is such a pretentiously overwrought label.)
A hate group consisting of all those people they're supposed to hate. #notyourshield.
Quote from: Will;792233Iosue: Basically, GG is a hate group, so you can't go 'yay GG!' there any more than you can say 'well, the Nazis aren't all bad, they had great ideas about train scheduling.'
Forgetting the GGers themselves for a minute, consider this. Thanks to this mess we will not be able to discuss ethics in gaming journalism or overreaching social justice advocates for a while without someone conveniently tarring the critics as part of a "hate group" with a hidden agenda, even if they don't use the gamergate label on themselves. It's just too good a tool to pass up.
This doesn't strike you as somewhat worrisome?
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;792243Forgetting the GGers themselves for a minute, consider this. Thanks to this mess we will not be able to discuss ethics in gaming journalism or overreaching social justice advocates for a while without someone conveniently tarring the critics as part of a "hate group" with a hidden agenda, even if they don't use the gamergate label on themselves. It's just too good a tool to pass up.
This doesn't strike you as somewhat worrisome?
Additionally, it presumes an argument that if applied to all groups equally will leave everyone a 'hate group'.
Feminism? They never shut down Andrea Dworkin! Hate Group.
Civil Rights? One of the Black Panther founders advocated for sexually assaulting white women as a form of politcal protest! Hate Group.
Gay Rights? I can't believe they allowed lesbian separatists into their camp! Hate group.
You know what's a hate group? Nazis. Because they're 1. organized and 2. the core of their organization is advocating hate.
I mean jesus H christ, grow up.
as somebody involved in #gamergate the accusations that all the hate is coming from us is ether naïve or insincere view on the topic. presumably many SJW live in there own little hug box.
Quote from: Novastar;792127...aaaaaaaaand... Anita Sarkeesian cancels speech, after death threats (http://www.standard.net/Police/2014/10/14/Feminist-speaker-cancels-appearance-at-USU-after-terror-threat.html)
My first thought is decidely unkind:
"I trample over your 1st Amendment Rights all the time! Who would have thought you'd be so protective of your Second and Fourth, amiright?"
I actually live in UT and am a member of a local atheist group. It's currently tearing itself apart over this story, with those who are familiar with Anita's history of dishonesty pointing out the matter was investigated by several government agencies (including the FBI Cyber Terrorism Task Force), every single one of which determined it wasn't a credible threat and there wasn't sufficient justification to suspend the students' constitutional rights in order to satisfy the overblown demands of the speaker. On the other side, of course, you have the feminists and SJWs pointing and screeching hysterically at everyone who doesn't immediately agree with them about what a horrible travesty the whole thing is. I'm half convinced if this discussion were taking place in person rather than online someone would have started literally slinging shit.
It's been interesting to see the different backgrounds of those on the side of USU. Some of them are staunchly anti-feminist (like myself), some of them see feminism and social justice as a good thing but don't like Sarkeesian's sliminess, some are firearm enthusiasts and CCP holders who don't give two flying fucks about feminism, video games or any of the rest of it but agree with USU's decision on the grounds that their rights don't end where some self-important public speaker's delicate feels begin.
Some of the latter group have even taken to sardonically using #NotYourBogeyman in response to the hysterics of the SJWs and PC Police. I'm rather keenly amused by that bit.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;792243Forgetting the GGers themselves for a minute, consider this. Thanks to this mess we will not be able to discuss ethics in gaming journalism or overreaching social justice advocates for a while without someone conveniently tarring the critics as part of a "hate group" with a hidden agenda, even if they don't use the gamergate label on themselves. It's just too good a tool to pass up.
This doesn't strike you as somewhat worrisome?
If someone feels compelled to link in 'overreaching social justice advocates?'
It's not worrisome, it's proving the fucking point.
Quote from: Will;792268If someone feels compelled to link in 'overreaching social justice advocates?'
It's not worrisome, it's proving the fucking point.
So you think there are groups/causes that are intrinsically immune to overreaching? That there can be no legitimate doubts about or criticism of how some members of that group/cause are doing things?
Please remember, I'm socially liberal. I believe social justice has value. I'm not defending any of GG's awful behavior, but I refuse to simply dismiss the reasonable ones and my own growing discomfort with this rising groupthink.
I don't want to fight here. I don't want to pick an "us vs. them" side. I just want people to notice how complex this stuff is. I personally believe Gamergate is one of many such culture clashes to come, not just in video games, and I'm
not looking forward to any of them. Looking for nuance will be beneficial in the long run.
Quote from: Novastar;791990...except when it did happen, our government DID make it a "national terror attack". :p
Of course, but what was the end result? When the great wave of anthrax never came, the administration lost credibility (the bush who cried wolf) and the media looked like hysterical jackasses to everyone except idiots and old people. Much like today's "ebola's gonna kill us aaaaaaall!!!"
Quote from: Novastar;791990Well, realize it never was targeted at "a notable segment of the population"; it only affects people who 1) identify as Gamers, 2) Have internet, 3) Read online journalism, and 4) can be arsed to give a fuck.
Exactly. It's tempest in a teacup. I read a panicky article about how GG is the future of politics and we're all gonna die (or something something) because the GG "methods of attack" in the teacup is going to take over all future political discourse.
Maybe they're right. Political discourse in the US is caveman level stupid, so maybe worst-possible-troll behavior is up next.
Quote from: Novastar;791990Intel and the UAT have pulled ads off Gamasutra, due to e-mail writing campaigns.
That is a notable example of online "activism" having an actual effect offline. Though, I wonder if Intel and UAT weren't finding Gamasutra a useful marketing outlet even before GG.
Quote from: Novastar;792127...aaaaaaaaand... Anita Sarkeesian cancels speech, after death threats (http://www.standard.net/Police/2014/10/14/Feminist-speaker-cancels-appearance-at-USU-after-terror-threat.html)
I can't blame her 100%. She's a drama queen with a supposed history of dishonesty (I heard stuff, but never fact checked it)...BUT put yourself in her shoes for a second. If you really got for-realsie death threats, WTF would you not ask for extra protection? That shit in Santa Barbara went down because that whackadoodle wasn't taken seriously enough.
Of course, I'm only gonna believe the death threats were credible threats after its confirmed by law enforcement.
In some ways, I am actually surprised Anita's not trying to martyr herself. For her cause, she's actually worth more dead than alive. The dead are the most marvelous props for any cause. Heck, she'd almost be worth as much even if the shooter missed.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;792225I've never really got worked up about the journalistic intergrity part, despite it being a legitimate complaint, because I guess that's parr for the course in our society.
I agree.
Any journalism that depends on access is a joke. But without access, the readers get pissed they're not feeling close to the story. So journalism is fucked either way.
Wanna be all truthy with rock hard integrity? Great, nobody is gonna talk to you, except outcasts, has beens and those with an agenda. Good luck explaining to your readers why everyone else has better pics and better scoops.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;792243This doesn't strike you as somewhat worrisome?
Nope.
The GG / anti-GG debacle is going to color any online discussion about gaming journalism or SJW tactics for the near future. That's natural. It will be used as a cudgel to silence the other side, especially on RPG.net which is yet more reason to avoid that place.
RPG.net is an asshole full of disease. We should all agree to not touch it anymore and keep wondering why our fingers are covered in pus and shit.
Yes RPGPundit, I am looking at you, stop fingering the twerking Nurgle bum.
Quote from: Spinachcat;791917I disagree. Reddit isn't a public square. It's a corporate website. I don't expect a for-profit company to defend free speech if that speech could endanger profits.
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;791934That's because it's a private site at the end of the day. Not exactly like standing on a public street and speaking your mind.
And the idea that this is okay is part of the pernicious erosion of peoples' support of the right to free speech.
It has its origin in a US Supreme Court case Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (//Pruneyard%20Shopping%20Center%20v.%20Robins%20-%20Wikipedia,%20the%20free%20encyclopedia) that held that
Quoteunder the California Constitution, individuals may peacefully exercise - their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers
- under the U.S. Constitution, states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights
while also saying that this is not a federal right. In other words, the federal consititution doesn't require private entities from allowing free speech, although state constitutions may do so, they just can't do less.
This has become commonly thought of as saying that a right to free speech only applies to government violations, that it's okay for private entities to violate free speech rights; after all you can always hold your demonstration somewhere else, on public property.
Which is awesome, if there is public property. Where is the public property on the internet?
- Twitter? Private.
- Youtube? Private.
- Facebook? Private.
- Reddit? Private.
- 4chan? Private.
- Tumblr? Private.
- (Rpgnet? Private.)
The fact is that every major avenue of speech on the internet is private, and virtually every internet site is private.
There are no public spaces you can take your speech to, certainly not if you want to reach a mass audience.
So great, go make your own website. Lovely,
- Wordpress? Private.
- Bluehost and GoDaddy? Private.
Which means unless you can set up a server and do your own hosting, you can't even set up a site for yourself that couldn't be subject to private censorship. And forget about reaching a mass audience, or even the audience you want to reach.
If the government were to say you had the right to as much free speech as you like, as long as it's in your basement, and oh yeah, if we don't like it we can cut off all your utilities, there would be an uproar.
When private parties do it, meh, shrug, it's okay because they are private.
**********
Free speech is one of those "we hold these truths to be self-evident" rights which define liberty, and on which democracy depends. Liberty that stops outside of government activity isn't liberty. It doesn't matter how much free speech the government gives you if private parties can chill your speech. If you are afraid to speak because you are afraid of getting fired, or fined, or otherwise punished by private parties, you don't have the liberty to speak freely. A corporation that limits its employees speech as a condition of employment is violating its employees liberty and their right to free speech.
The idea that this is okay, that every single internet speech forum is privately owned and therefore are perfectly justified in violating their users liberty to speak freely is okay, is anti-liberty and anti-democracy. What people seem to forget is that in a democracy we are the government, and it is incumbent on all of us to act in defense of liberty rights, and that includes the owners of these sites. The only speech crime is infringing other peoples liberty to speak*. If you're advocating against someone else's right to speak, whether that be a gamer on rpgnet or Anita Sarkeesian in Utah, you're advocating against both liberty and democracy. You are acting like an autocrat, not a citizen of a free republic.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;792270So you think there are groups/causes that are intrinsically immune to overreaching? That there can be no legitimate doubts about or criticism of how some members of that group/cause are doing things?
I don't think any group is intrinsically immune.
There are certain phrases and views which often herald bullshit arguments, though. One is 'both sides!'
When one 'side' has hateful invective from a few folks, and the other side has pervasive social power, loads of hateful speech, and mass killers eager to do it's bidding, the argument of 'both sides do it!' comes across as a bullshit ploy.
There can be legitimate commentary. But when it overwhelmingly isn't, one is inclined to look for extraordinary evidence that THIS TIME it's not going to turn to vile crap.
Quote from: Necrozius;791609Now it's gotten to the point of "If you're not with us, you're against us" or "you HAVE to publicly choose a side or we'll assume that you're against us".
This:
http://inurashii.tumblr.com/post/99751399160/gamergate-and-the-golden-mean-fallacy
And with that goes all of my urge to be interested in internet conversations or debates regarding social justice.
Stopped reading at "...gender and race privileges..." because anyone who uses those terms is already a hopeless head-case.
Quote from: Novastar;791734You know, the more I think about it, the less I like the term "Social Justice Warrior" to describe these people....
This is part of my Greater Internet Pacification Theory in action - instead of marching on Selma, they can post pages of "correct" political theory about video games/gamers, YouTube tirades against (straight white men), then sit back and bask in the adulation of their fellow-travelers. They're tackling the Big Issue(s) of the Day, just like those soaked-to-the-bone, dog-torn, tear-gassed minorities back in the day. They're exactly the same! Why, it's safer this way - if they don't gather in large numbers, the Call of Duty commandos can't do the same to them!
Fuckers - get real or get lost. Fight a battle that matters.
Quote from: Will;792277When one 'side' has hateful invective from a few folks, and the other side has pervasive social power, loads of hateful speech, and mass killers eager to do it's bidding, the argument of 'both sides do it!' comes across as a bullshit ploy.
I... that... wait, I'm confused, are we talking about the "dead" and "irrelevant" gamers (according to the gaming press) or the Nazis you compared them to in your earlier post?
If you're talking about the Nazis then I totally agree, that's a bullshit ploy.
Referring to the MRA douchebag who killed a bunch of people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings
I've heard it lofted that Sarkeeviboo (or whatever the hell her name is) is being a hysterical nitwit making a bunch of noise about something that's clearly just hot air.
But, you know, both sides pales when one side has people metastisizing into killers and one side doesn't. (Though feel free to point out the rash of pro-feminist killers, if I missed them)
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;792270So you think there are groups/causes that are intrinsically immune to overreaching? That there can be no legitimate doubts about or criticism of how some members of that group/cause are doing things?
Just to revisit this one, again... the verminous SJW-flag-flying mods of RPG.net ejected me in one of the early pogroms against the infidels of rpg.net, so clearly I am at least somewhat open to the notion that causes can over-reach.
Quote from: Will;792288Referring to the MRA douchebag who killed a bunch of people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings
I've heard it lofted that Sarkeeviboo (or whatever the hell her name is) is being a hysterical nitwit making a bunch of noise about something that's clearly just hot air.
But, you know, both sides pales when one side has people metastisizing into killers and one side doesn't. (Though feel free to point out the rash of pro-feminist killers, if I missed them)
Valerie Solanas just tweeted a 100% agreement with what you said.
Heh, a veritable touch.
Could someone summarize what the Hell this is all about?
Some people are sending death threats and some one committed adultery but it was the person she was in a relationship's fault and at some point video games were involved?
Quote from: Nexus;792299Could someone summarize what the Hell this is all about?
Some people are sending death threats and some one committed adultery but it was the person she was in a relationship's fault and at some point video games were involved?
From the outside looking in, it all looks like a huge circle jerk.
Quote from: Machinegun Blue;792300From the outside looking in, it all looks like a huge circle jerk.
Yeah, people are flipping out because what, the video game press mostly functions as a PR conduit? They are surprised by this? They care? I'm just totally mystified. It's like people being shocked to discover gambling in Vegas.
Gamergate in 90 seconds (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipcWm4B3EU4)
Quote from: Will(Though feel free to point out the rash of pro-feminist killers, if I missed them)
You'll have to scroll down about 60% down the article, where it provides a bevy of news links (not all related to 3rd Wave Feminists, admittingly):
http://archive.today/zm68v (http://archive.today/zm68v)
And of course: http://gamergateharassment.tumblr.com/ (http://gamergateharassment.tumblr.com/)
And of course, no post of mine is complete without tweets from Leigh Alexander, the Editor-at-Large for Gamasutra, the focal piece for "Gamers are Dead!"
http://i.imgur.com/WJZIrZ7.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/WJZIrZ7.jpg)
(curious, a prominent member of the anti-GG crowd, actively
advocates doxxing the opposition, rather than
condemning it. What's that called again? Oh, yeah. Hypocrisy.)
Quote from: Spinachcat;792273In some ways, I am actually surprised Anita's not trying to martyr herself. For her cause, she's actually worth more dead than alive. The dead are the most marvelous props for any cause. Heck, she'd almost be worth as much even if the shooter missed.
...
Hmm, someone actually wrote this, so I'll ask: What do you believe her cause IS?
Seriously. Is it to desexualize games? Is it to force female characters into every game? Is it to destroy the gamer 'culture'? Is it to personally profit from controversy? What exactly is she trying to do besides analyze games in a somewhat academic and patronizing way? My bet it it's the 'patronizing' part that's got everybody up in arms.
Quote from: apparition13;792274Which is awesome, if there is public property. Where is the public property on the internet?
You don't own your IP address either, often only
rent your server, and I've been telling people this for years. And to make matters worse people aren't 'linking' to the things they're criticizing anymore either, because they don't want to 'give them a voice'. Well guess what? If you're talking about them YOU'RE GIVING THEM A VOICE (also, Google is smart enough to see what you're doing anyway).
There is no free speech on the internet as we know it. It's a brave new world where what you say can be remixed to mean anything anybody wants, and bad faith assumptions are the rule of the day. Hell, people don't even worry about being anonymous before they say terrible things anymore, because they figured out there's
no repercussions for the harm they cause.
...FUCK!
Quote from: Daztur;792305Yeah, people are flipping out because what, the video game press mostly functions as a PR conduit?
That is part of it.
http://www.fastcompany.com/3021008/why-video-games-succeed-where-the-movie-and-music-industries-fail (http://www.fastcompany.com/3021008/why-video-games-succeed-where-the-movie-and-music-industries-fail)
QuoteThe video-game industry is projected to grow from $67 billion in 2013 to $82 billion in 2017. At the same time, global movie revenue, both DVD and ticket sales, hit an estimated $94 billion in 2010, down 17% after inflation from 2001.
It is possible to find critics of film, that will pan a terrible (yet hyped) movie (Transformers franchise, I'm looking at you!).
Shadows of Mordor, supposedly a very good game on it's own merits,
only had advance copies sent to reviewers that signed contracts
not only promising favorable reviews, but for the reviewers to actively shill the game too.
(and was this story broke by Games Journalists? nope. It was broke by TotalBiscuit, a fellow internet critic. Just like GameGaters broke the story that 40,000 EA accounts had been hacked, a story the Journalists were actively
suppressing, to curry favor with EA.)
The payola has gotten laughable; the days of a free game before release are long gone. Reporters get sent to lavish hotels, free alienware laptops, and paid "consulting" gigs. Which is still kind of funny, as it's obviously a payoff, yet they spend how many millions on the game, and Games Journalists take about $500 to bribe.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/10/GameJournoPros-joking-about-paid-reviews-and-mocking-Phil-Fish (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/10/GameJournoPros-joking-about-paid-reviews-and-mocking-Phil-Fish)
In the end, if you have sexual, financial, or familial ties to a subject of a story you're reporting on, disclose it! Or better yet, recuse yourself from the story!
Is simple ethics
really such a terrible burden to bear?!?
Quote from: Daztur;792305Yeah, people are flipping out because what, the video game press mostly functions as a PR conduit? They are surprised by this? They care? I'm just totally mystified. It's like people being shocked to discover gambling in Vegas.
I think it's more that the gaming press seems to actively hate their readers and apparently buy all the negative stereotypes about "gamers" repeatedly calling gamers neck beards, basement dwellers, misogynists, virgins, etc...
Which if I read gaming websites or gave a shit I could see would be irksome.
But overall I'm too old and busy to give a shit about a bunch of people getting their panties in a twist about stupid bullshit and behaving badly.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;792310...
Hmm, someone actually wrote this, so I'll ask: What do you believe her cause IS?
Seriously. Is it to desexualize games? Is it to force female characters into every game? Is it to destroy the gamer 'culture'? Is it to personally profit from controversy? What exactly is she trying to do besides analyze games in a somewhat academic and patronizing way? My bet it it's the 'patronizing' part that's got everybody up in arms.
The cause is money. Her work is questionable, and uses other people's gameplay in videos with shoddy reasoning and in some cases outright falshoods.
For which she got a lot of money.
Quote from: Will;792288Referring to the MRA douchebag who killed a bunch of people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings
I've heard it lofted that Sarkeeviboo (or whatever the hell her name is) is being a hysterical nitwit making a bunch of noise about something that's clearly just hot air.
But, you know, both sides pales when one side has people metastisizing into killers and one side doesn't. (Though feel free to point out the rash of pro-feminist killers, if I missed them)
Conflating pro-GG folks with a mentally disturbed man who went on a shooting spree? Maybe I'm misreading you, but if not? Jesus, you are a fuckwit.
Might want to go see what karen straughan, an actual MRA had to say on the subject.
Here's a good comment about gamergate from rpgcodex that i agree with.
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/worst-thread-ever-general-gaming-sjw-dumping-ground-currently-airing-gamergate.90469/page-367#post-3542787
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;792310Hmm, someone actually wrote this, so I'll ask: What do you believe her cause IS?
I assume her goal is very close to what she said in her KS for "Tropes vs Women": she wants to create a video series, that can be shown in academic settings, on the issues of sexism.
QuoteSeriously. Is it to desexualize games? Is it to force female characters into every game? Is it to destroy the gamer 'culture'? Is it to personally profit from controversy? What exactly is she trying to do besides analyze games in a somewhat academic and patronizing way? My bet it it's the 'patronizing' part that's got everybody up in arms.
Well...
Objectively we can say she has profited nicely from Tropes vs Women; it generated over $158,922, for 6 videos over the last 18 months. Roughly $30,000 a video, or $1000 a minute of content, currently. Plus paid speaking engagements, when people aren't being asshats.
Now whether that was money well spent, or was another $55,492 potato salad KS (link (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/324283889/potato-salad)), is for people to judge on their own.
The "patronizing manner" seems to be a hallmark of 3rd Wave Feminism, which I'll freely admit I do not like. It's a personal bias, to be sure, but 3rd Wave Feminism seems to benchmark itself on "Victimization to the Patriarchy" rather than "Empowerment of Women". For me it's the same mindset of "Rise to Excellence", rather than "Lower Expectations of Greatness". But that's a personal preference.
I will however, take great umbrage to the claim that her video's meet any sort of "academic rigor". They are poorly sourced (often linking to paid speaking engagements of other 3rd Wave Feminists), poorly researched (using studies that have: limited respondents, poorly sourced respondents, loaded data, and cherry-picked conclusions), and no rigorous peer review.
She can feel free to claim it's her critique, or paid analysis, of sexism in gaming. But to claim it's "academic" or should be shown in schools...well, I guess right after they show the Young Earth Creationists video, they can play hers too. They're both equally junk science.
**edit* you know what, fuck it. Not worth pointing out the blatant irony yet again like it would somehow change things.
Quote from: Bastetson;792321Here's a good comment about gamergate from rpgcodex that i agree with.
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/worst-thread-ever-general-gaming-sjw-dumping-ground-currently-airing-gamergate.90469/page-367#post-3542787
Hmmm, don't think I'd call it the most neutral article/post I've seen (It's definitely pro-GG), but it does match up a lot to my own observations.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;792320Conflating pro-GG folks with a mentally disturbed man who went on a shooting spree? Maybe I'm misreading you, but if not? Jesus, you are a fuckwit.
Might want to go see what karen straughan, an actual MRA had to say on the subject.
I have to agree with you Warboss. That is fuck up logic that Will used.
How can anyone say the few are responsible of the actions of the many? I mean I don't even think all gaming journalists are corrupt pieces of shits. I just view those that are own by Gwaker and follow in line with the shitty social justice warrior side as corrupt pieces of shits. Mainly for their lack of honesty, double standards, and how they treat their customers.
Hell it is like that guy that threaten to do a mass shooting unless Anita Sarkeensian leaves the university. Some pro-gamergate guy had posted that he would give a 3,000 dollar reward to anyone that catches (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq798B0z5qc) the son of a bitch. Should we lump that guy with the sick fuck that went out to give out mass shooting threat because both may have supported gamergate? No! All massive leaderless groups have their fair share of shits and there are also a fair share of saints too. I just don't see the anti-gamergate guys getting rid of their trash that make them look bad. I see the pro-gamergate people posting reward money despite the fact it helps a person they do not like.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;792310Hmm, someone actually wrote this, so I'll ask: What do you believe her cause IS?
I don't know.
I haven't studied her work enough to be able discern what her actual cause may be, beyond what we have seen with her "Tropes vs. Women" project.
I don't see evidence of academic rigor, but the History Channel is still dares to call itself the History Channel so when you are selling to an echo chamber all you need is truthiness.
I can't honestly have a major problem with her making money, even if her final product is crap. 68 million people eat at McDonalds every day.
As for her dying as martyr, I may seem callous, but I am fascinated by fucked up aspects of mankind and history records a litany of martyrs for causes that make you go WTF? when you read how petty some of these squabbles appear given time and distance, but must have been incredibly emotionally overcharged at the moment.
If anyone takes my comment for some hope that harm befalls her, this is quite mistaken. If anything, I fully defend her right to speak and her right to feel safe from death threats.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;792310There is no free speech on the internet as we know it. It's a brave new world where what you say can be remixed to mean anything anybody wants, and bad faith assumptions are the rule of the day.
I disagree with the first part. TheRPGsite offers us 99.99% free speech. I've been here for years and I have never felt that I needed to curtail anything I have wanted to say. I suspect there are other sites that offer that freedom as well.
As for your second part, you are correct. Everything (words, pics, audio) can be twisted for whatever use. As for bad faith assumptions, that's the nature of the medium. Human communication that isn't face to face loses too much necessary nuance.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;792320Conflating pro-GG folks with a mentally disturbed man who went on a shooting spree?
I think that was Will referring to my post. I was referencing why I support Anita asking for more security if the death threats were real. In light of how death threats can manifest into actual deaths, aka the UCSB killings, I don't blame any controversial speaker for being extra wary (whether or not I agreed with that speaker).
To claim that someone has made a death threat is to make an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be taken as valid; such evidence must be independently verifiable in order for the standard of fallibility to be met. Not one death threat claim made to date achieves this goal, including the present one. Instead, we see theater made to manipulate the emotions of observers into mindless support of the drama-makers. That, folks, is fraud.
Quote from: SpinachcatI was referencing why I support Anita asking for more security if the death threats were real. In light of how death threats can manifest into actual deaths, aka the UCSB killings, I don't blame any controversial speaker for being extra wary (whether or not I agreed with that speaker).
It's also easy for us, who don't deal with it regularly, to be kind of blase about the threat. It's not so easy after a near-miss, or a particularly poignant threat. We're not the one in the cross-hairs.
The Cynic in me thinks she's pissed at Brianna Wu "getting her air time" (as Wu has made rounds at MSNMC, HuffPo, CNN, and CBS tomorrow, IIRC), but I'm really trying not to be so damn jaded I can't see the other side, too.
(Which those have been fun to watch, "Woe is me" Wu. Never ask her about the sockpuppet account she used to harass pro-GG; never ask about her attempt to use a picture of an
austistic asian boy in the middle of a meltdown, as a Meme to diss pro-GG; never point out that the post that supposedly doxxed her appeared 2 minutes AFTER she tweeted she'd been doxxed (I suppose her attacker could have been nice, and sent her an e-mail first... :rolleyes: ))
Quote from: Will;792233Iosue: Basically, GG is a hate group, so you can't go 'yay GG!' there any more than you can say 'well, the Nazis aren't all bad, they had great ideas about train scheduling.'
In similar news, I saw a guy named Will make some hateful statements awhile back. It wasn't you, but since you're named Will it follows that you're responsible for literally every single person named "Will" on the internet.
Asshole.
Meanwhile, back in reality: Literally every single group in existence has shitty people in it. And in the era of mass social media, those shitty people are going to say shitty things that get broadcast to the world.
There were Democrats who tweeted death threats about George W. Bush. Does this make every single Democrat an asshole? Is every single Republican an asshole because of the idiotic things Republicans says on Twitter about Obama?
There have been death threats directed at Michael Bay because he makes shitty movies. Does this mean everyone who thinks Michael Bay makes shitty movies is part of an "anti-Michael Bay hate group"?
Of course it fucking doesn't.
And if it does, then the anti-GG group has some serious problems because, as others have pointed out (and cited in this thread), they included threats of violence and death.
Which is, of course, another reason you'd be an asshole in this fantasy version of reality. (As if being named "Will" wasn't enough.)
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;792335To claim that someone has made a death threat is to make an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be taken as valid; such evidence must be independently verifiable in order for the standard of fallibility to be met. Not one death threat claim made to date achieves this goal, including the present one. Instead, we see theater made to manipulate the emotions of observers into mindless support of the drama-makers. That, folks, is fraud.
I'll back that up a little, though.
Anita's death threats have been investigated by the FBI.
At Utah, the University statement does say they talked with local and federal Law Enforcement.
I can't speak for Zoe or Brianna (though Brianna says she did file a report with Boston PD, which should be easily verifiable), but I do think legitimate death threats have been issued against Anita.
And death threats are one of those things you
really don't want to be wrong about...
Quote from: Justin AlexanderAnd if it does, then the anti-GG group has some serious problems because, as others have pointed out (and cited in this thread), they included threats of violence and death.
That's one of the parts I don't get; anti-GG brings up anons and trash accounts, and accuses us of bad behavior off them; I show you bad behavior from mainstream people, supposedly professional journalists, and they get a free ride? WTF???
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;792243Forgetting the GGers themselves for a minute, consider this. Thanks to this mess we will not be able to discuss ethics in gaming journalism or overreaching social justice advocates for a while without someone conveniently tarring the critics as part of a "hate group" with a hidden agenda, even if they don't use the gamergate label on themselves. It's just too good a tool to pass up.
This doesn't strike you as somewhat worrisome?
SJWs are a hate group. And they engage in a lot of 'projection'.
Quote from: Will;792288(Though feel free to point out the rash of pro-feminist killers, if I missed them)
Jared Loughner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting) was left-wing, but AFAIK his politics weren't the main reason for shooting Gabrielle Giffords. The Leftist assassin who murdered Pim Fortuyn in Holland would have been pro-feminist, but shot Fortuyn for his anti-Muslim-immigration stance.
In general there are not shootings motivated specifically by being pro or anti feminist, compared to eg immigration or abortion it's typically not a shooting issue. Someone who shoots abortionists may be anti-feminist but they don't shoot abortionists for being feminists, they shoot them for being abortionists. Likewise I don't think pro-feminists have shot anyone for being anti-feminist.
One common feature of nearly all shooters, including pro-feminist shooters, is that they are male. And lone shooters are usually mentally disturbed, possibly made worse by drugs, including steroids.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;792335To claim that someone has made a death threat is to make an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be taken as valid; such evidence must be independently verifiable in order for the standard of fallibility to be met. Not one death threat claim made to date achieves this goal, including the present one. Instead, we see theater made to manipulate the emotions of observers into mindless support of the drama-makers. That, folks, is fraud.
I would say that if someone has a history of lying, there is a good chance they are lying. OTOH it doesn't take much to make an anonymous death threat on the Internet with no intention of carrying it out.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;792337There were Democrats who tweeted death threats about George W. Bush. Does this make every single Democrat an asshole? Is every single Republican an asshole because of the idiotic things Republicans says on Twitter about Obama?
There have been death threats directed at Michael Bay because he makes shitty movies. Does this mean everyone who thinks Michael Bay makes shitty movies is part of an "anti-Michael Bay hate group"?
Of course it fucking doesn't.
Agreed - you only share responsibility if you endorse the behaviour.
I don't know about Sarkessian, but I give her the benefit of the doubt when it comes to threats. Though, it goes without saying, that she is opportunistic in taking advantage of them when she chooses to highlight them while almost completely ignoring well reasoned critiques of her ideas.
I also know that she completely distorts her examples in order to support her point. I don't know if she is sincere in that she actually has a distorted view, or if she is machiavellian enough to distorting things on purpose.
Quote from: Teazia;791902I think Bart Simpson may have been correct, Gen Xers needed a Vietnam to even them out and perhaps the Millennials need something a bit stronger. Its a pity neither of them have gotten either to date.
;p
Gen Xers? We're all grown up and in our 30s and 40s man. This is a Gen Yer's thing.
Quote from: apparition13;792274And the idea that this is okay is part of the pernicious erosion of peoples' support of the right to free speech.
Not liking it doesn't make it less true. If it wasn't website administrators would have to deal with legal rigamarole in ejecting serious problem users. Run a couple sites a while and you will understand full well why people sit on that issue for a while. There are some true blue lunatics out there.
QuoteWhich is awesome, if there is public property. Where is the public property on the internet?
You can get decent hosting for five bucks a month, less if you're willing to learn a few things. Most hosts could care less unless they get threatened with legal action. HTML basics can be picked up in a few minutes.
If Timecube guy can, so can you.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;792310...There is no free speech on the internet as we know it. It's a brave new world where what you say can be remixed to mean anything anybody wants, and bad faith assumptions are the rule of the day. Hell, people don't even worry about being anonymous before they say terrible things anymore, because they figured out there's no repercussions for the harm they cause.
...FUCK!
Pretty much, unless you're running your own hosting company or fuck, internet provider, you're at the mercy of somebody saying you can(or perhaps more correctly not saying you can't). Run through this issue a handful of times. Look at any of the attempts to get porn banned on the internet, between laughing bouts you might learn something about skimming free speech out of the system.
Quote from: Will;792277I don't think any group is intrinsically immune.
There are certain phrases and views which often herald bullshit arguments, though. One is 'both sides!'
When one 'side' has hateful invective from a few folks, and the other side has pervasive social power, loads of hateful speech, and mass killers eager to do it's bidding, the argument of 'both sides do it!' comes across as a bullshit ploy.
There can be legitimate commentary. But when it overwhelmingly isn't, one is inclined to look for extraordinary evidence that THIS TIME it's not going to turn to vile crap.
Funny thing is, I completely agree with you here. I'm fairly sure I'm doing so from a position which is the polar opposite of your own, but I do agree with the idea expressed.
Quote from: Will;792288Referring to the MRA douchebag who killed a bunch of people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings
In addition to the person who mentioned Valerie Solanis up-thread, it bears stating that Elliot Rodger never once self-identified as an MRA. That's a bold-faced lie from the keyboards of feminists and SJWs. The closest he came to having even a tangential connection to the MRM was having an account on an anti-PUA forum.
For the record? PUAs have nothing to do with the MRM either. The imagined association between them is yet another lie from the keyboards of feminists and SJWs. In fact, PUAs and MRAs generally dislike each other; most PUAs see MRAs as beta losers whining about not getting laid while most MRAs see PUAs as social nihilists who've decided nothing can be done about everything going to Hell so they may as well enjoy the ride.
James Desborough seems to have had a meltdown, and there is some worry he may harm himself.
https://mobile.twitter.com/GRIMACHU/status/522851034147094528
If anyone has a means of reaching him, or friends and family that can check in on him ease do so. I don't know him personally, but I'm posting here in case someone does.
Well, I will admit that 'crazed killers' is a cheap shot anyway, and the weakest point of my argument.
Because crazed killers are, well, crazy, and while I think certain mindsets might appeal to them more than others, that is the faintest of damning, because they are PRIMARILY motivated by being crazy motherfuckers.
(It's been noted repeatedly that mass killers show almost no common characteristics, beyond the typical 'most violent criminals tend to be men.')
A stronger argument would be to point out that, on the smaller scale, misogyny causes a huge amount more day to day suffering than feminism.
But, again, as folks have suggested in various ways, Gamergate and most of those involved in it (on any 'side') is ultimately mostly about slacktivist online posturing and nothing real. At least until doxxing ends up with someone out of a job, raped, or murdered.
While I am sympathetic to a lot of their philosophy and aims, I will agree that SJWs are largely engaged in slacktivism writ large.
I know a lot of folks spectating this and feeling deeply involved who really really really need to unplug for a week.
Quote from: Novastar;792338I'll back that up a little, though.
Anita's death threats have been investigated by the FBI.
At Utah, the University statement does say they talked with local and federal Law Enforcement.
I can't speak for Zoe or Brianna (though Brianna says she did file a report with Boston PD, which should be easily verifiable), but I do think legitimate death threats have been issued against Anita.
And death threats are one of those things you really don't want to be wrong about...
Anita says that they've been investigated by the FBI; I have yet to see an independent statement confirming that. The University's statement does confirm that Anita presented them with the anonymous email threatening a shooting spree; it does not confirm that it is substantial- and law enforcement's reaction indicates that it was not. Again- no arrests, no independent confirmation of inquiries, nothing but the say-so of the claimants. I am disinclined to give them any further benefit of the doubt.
QuoteThat's one of the parts I don't get; anti-GG brings up anons and trash accounts, and accuses us of bad behavior off them; I show you bad behavior from mainstream people, supposedly professional journalists, and they get a free ride? WTF???
And this is one of the reasons why. Savvy folks who've paid attention know that "anonymous" isn't, for the most part, a thing in reality; if it is wanted, your identity can be traced and confirmed well enough to hold up in court. What you have to do to acquire and maintain sufficient anonymity is such a bother for most people that they don't do it- and that includes most folks at the *chans and so on.
Hell, the anti-GG reaction is straight out of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals:
- Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.
- Never go outside the experience of your people.
- Whenever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.
- Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
- Ridicule is Man's most potent weapon.
- A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
- A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag.
- Keep the pressure on.
- The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
- The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure on the opposition.
- If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
- The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
- Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
You can see this all through the anti-GG side of things from the get-go, and that they are failing (and they are; one of the signs is the continued insistence of success) is in part due to the pro-side having some semblance of tactical sense and sussing out what's being done and countering it.
However, the real strength--as this pushes beyond gaming and into the wider cultural warfare, starting with a push to aid atheists resisting this sort of shit in their sphere--will be on the consistent stand to demand verifiable evidence or Get The Fuck Out (i.e. to cease paying any heed to individuals or institutions making such claims if they can't be bothered to allow for them to be falsified). The purpose is to allow for onlookers to review the evidence and confirm on their own what is claimed, de-politicizing the process in the long run and restoring confidence that folks doing this aren't working a con- and that is the big issue, that the anti-GG crowd are covering for a big, long con.
Quote from: Will;792444A stronger argument would be to point out that, on the smaller scale, misogyny causes a huge amount more day to day suffering than feminism.
But, again, as folks have suggested in various ways, Gamergate and most of those involved in it (on any 'side') is ultimately mostly about slacktivist online posturing and nothing real. At least until doxxing ends up with someone out of a job, raped, or murdered.
While I am sympathetic to a lot of their philosophy and aims, I will agree that SJWs are largely engaged in slacktivism writ large.
I know a lot of folks spectating this and feeling deeply involved who really really really need to unplug for a week.
I can agree with all of this.
Quote from: wmarshal;792443James Desborough seems to have had a meltdown, and there is some worry he may harm himself.
https://mobile.twitter.com/GRIMACHU/status/522851034147094528
If anyone has a means of reaching him, or friends and family that can check in on him ease do so. I don't know him personally, but I'm posting here in case someone does.
It seems like his wife has found him. He seems to be safe.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Kostika/status/522868985550086144
Quote from: Will;792444A stronger argument would be to point out that, on the smaller scale, misogyny causes a huge amount more day to day suffering than feminism.
Globally? Probably. In Sweden? I doubt it (though the Muslim rape gangs in Malmo may be misogynist, but I think their main motivation is racist). In the USA? Hmm - looks about a toss up to me. The US does have a lot of misogyny. OTOH, a lot of that misogyny is a reaction to feminism. OTOH, the radical feminism may be partly a reaction to the misogyny, which would make it completely circular... two bad things, each feeding on the other.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;792450Hell, the anti-GG reaction is straight out of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals:
- Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.
- Never go outside the experience of your people.
- Whenever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.
- Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
- Ridicule is Man's most potent weapon.
- A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
- A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag.
- Keep the pressure on.
- The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
- The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure on the opposition.
- If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
- The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
- Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
You can see this all through the anti-GG side of things from the get-go, and that they are failing (and they are; one of the signs is the continued insistence of success) is in part due to the pro-side having some semblance of tactical sense and sussing out what's being done and countering it.
Well, Alinsky developed his system for use against bureaucracies, it works against magazines and games corporations, but it's not really designed to work against a group as diffuse as 'gamers', who are more akin to a general population. I think that is the problem they (the SJWs) are having. If they could control all avenues of communication they would be ok, and they made a strong attempt at that, but the Internet of course was designed to root around 'damage' (originally nuclear strikes!) - individual sites can be taken out, but silencing communication is nearly impossible unless they can jail everyone who expresses an unapproved opinion.
A lot of recent vocal misogyny might be a reaction to feminism, but the idea that misogyny in general is a reaction to feminism is... laughable.
I mean, what, men didn't let women vote because of 1600s era feminism?
I suppose the fact most western governments didn't let most men vote until anywhere from 50 to as little as 10 years before that is due to misogyny as well? Or is that just pinned on [strike]Satan[/strike] The Patriarchy?
I'll agree that misogyny in general being a reaction to feminism is absurd (though I can't help but question the very premise of "general misogyny"), but most of the vocal criticisms of the worst elements of female behavior in general and feminist ideology in particular I've encountered in the past several years have absolutely been a reaction to feminism.
Also? Criticizing feminism ≠ misogyny. Hell, for that matter, criticizing women doesn't necessarily equal misogyny. That word has been bandied about so much for everything the person saying it doesn't like for so goddamn long it's virtually lost all meaning.
Just wait for major general misogyny! He's really zooming up the ranks.
And... are you really saying there's no such thing as misogyny because there's also racism? Uh wut?
Criticizing feminism (or women) is not, de facto, misogyny. But... it often is. And in certain contexts it's reasonable to wait for extraordinary evidence it isn't.
There are conversations where I think 'that sounds reasonable, but we're on suspicious terri... aaah, there it is.'
Quote from: MrHurst;792434Not liking it doesn't make it less true. If it wasn't website administrators would have to deal with legal rigamarole in ejecting serious problem users. Run a couple sites a while and you will understand full well why people sit on that issue for a while. There are some true blue lunatics out there.
So 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?
Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerAnita says that they've been investigated by the FBI; I have yet to see an independent statement confirming that.
Milo HolyfuckIcantsayhislastname of Breitbart tweeted that he confirmed that the FBI was investigating, early on.
Now, the strength and veracity of those death threats, is another matter entirely. The recent article following up with USU, paints the threats as incredibly weak, and the previous threats were much of the same weaksauce. Which makes her recent cancellation more of a political statement about our 2nd and 4th Amendments (conceal carry); if she thinks Gamers are "Toxic", heaven help her if she pisses off the NRA!
Quote from: WillA stronger argument would be to point out that, on the smaller scale, misogyny causes a huge amount more day to day suffering than feminism.
The problem becomes, what definition of "misogyny" and "feminism" are we using?
My definition of misogyny tends to be more extreme than "people being mean to me on the Internet!"
Quote from: Will;792489Just wait for major general misogyny! He's really zooming up the ranks.
And to think, just a few years ago everyone was lamenting about how horrible it was that he was a private. It's nice to see the brass recognize true talent.
Quote from: WillAnd... are you really saying there's no such thing as misogyny because there's also racism? Uh wut?
Who said anything about racism? In much of the western world any man who didn't own property wasn't allowed to vote until (very nearly) the same generation in which women were granted the right. I imagine this probably did disproportionately affect blacks in some places, just as economic inequality continues to disproportionately affect them in different ways today, but it was by no means exclusive to them.
Seriously, are there any concrete differences in position between GamerGate and anti-GamerGate? That is, if I say "I am pro-GamerGate" - does that say anything definite about my position on anything?
It seems like no one is publicly standing up in favor of death threats, or in favor of lack of journalistic integrity. Instead, virtually all of the debate is about identity politics and/or judgement of particular people or groups, such as opinions about the behavior of Zoe Quinn and/or Eron Gjoni as people.
Quote from: jhkim;792531Seriously, are there any concrete differences in position between GamerGate and anti-GamerGate? That is, if I say "I am pro-GamerGate" - does that say anything definite about my position on anything?
It seems like no one is publicly standing up in favor of death threats, or in favor of lack of journalistic integrity. Instead, virtually all of the debate is about identity politics and/or judgement of particular people or groups, such as opinions about the behavior of Zoe Quinn and/or Eron Gjoni as people.
Pretty much this. Whatever it's origins, right now it looks like to me like you have two groups talking right past each other. One's going "Yeah, there are a lot of misogynist assholes out there, but forget that right now, look at all the GAME JOURNALISM CORRUPTION!" While the other is saying, "Yeah, there's a lot of game journalism corruption out there, but forget that right now, look at all the MISOGYNY!"
I'll just say this. Anita Sarkeesian and/or Zoe Quinn may be dishonest people, but if Gamergate wants to have any effect, it needs to stay on target and stick to the message. Forget the SJW crap, leave them and the pottymouth 14 year olds getting their misogyny on to their own devices, and just focus on the journalism sites. Because everytime someone makes a reasonable case for ethics in gaming journalism but tacks on stuff about militant feminists or the dishonesty of Sarkeesian and Quinn, they're tying in game journalism ethics with that whole, ultimately irrelevant mess.
Quote from: Novastar;792519The problem becomes, what definition of "misogyny" and "feminism" are we using?
My definition of misogyny tends to be more extreme than "people being mean to me on the Internet!"
Well, yeah. When I'm talking harm I'm talking about big stuff, like 'you make less money' or 'women should wish real hard for raises' or 'women can shut down rapepregnancies' or 'she shouldn't have dressed that way if she didn't want to get raped' and so on.
I tend to weigh 'women being brutally raped and people shrugging' a lot more than 'feminist on campus makes me feel bad.'
Quote from: woodsmoke;792530Who said anything about racism? In much of the western world any man who didn't own property wasn't allowed to vote until (very nearly) the same generation in which women were granted the right. I imagine this probably did disproportionately affect blacks in some places, just as economic inequality continues to disproportionately affect them in different ways today, but it was by no means exclusive to them.
So explain to me exactly how women getting votes 10-50 years after men isn't related to misogyny. (And in the US, it's more like 60-70 years, depending)
Quote from: Will;792559Well, yeah. When I'm talking harm I'm talking about big stuff, like 'you make less money' or 'women should wish real hard for raises' or 'women can shut down rapepregnancies' or 'she shouldn't have dressed that way if she didn't want to get raped' and so on.
I tend to weigh 'women being brutally raped and people shrugging' a lot more than 'feminist on campus makes me feel bad.'
The problem, as with MRA, is that you have crackpots who have appropriated the term who push ideas like "PIV" sex being rape, cheescake images being about hating women, etc.
When you get into discussions calling these out, you usually get "But that's not *MY* feminism." Funny how that is a legitimate excuse, but when it comes to Gamergate or MRA, no it's no longer a valid excuse.
Honestly, the whole gendersphere and assorted "social justice" spaces are extremely toxic and draining if you spend too much time in them.
Quote from: Iosue;792543Pretty much this. Whatever it's origins, right now it looks like to me like you have two groups talking right past each other. One's going "Yeah, there are a lot of misogynist assholes out there, but forget that right now, look at all the GAME JOURNALISM CORRUPTION!" While the other is saying, "Yeah, there's a lot of game journalism corruption out there, but forget that right now, look at all the MISOGYNY!"
I'll just say this. Anita Sarkeesian and/or Zoe Quinn may be dishonest people, but if Gamergate wants to have any effect, it needs to stay on target and stick to the message. Forget the SJW crap, leave them and the pottymouth 14 year olds getting their misogyny on to their own devices, and just focus on the journalism sites. Because everytime someone makes a reasonable case for ethics in gaming journalism but tacks on stuff about militant feminists or the dishonesty of Sarkeesian and Quinn, they're tying in game journalism ethics with that whole, ultimately irrelevant mess.
I think this is about all that needs to be said about the issue. I like how this seems to be ylthe only thread on the internet were people can discuss this in a civil way.
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;792572The problem, as with MRA, is that you have crackpots who have appropriated the term who push ideas like "PIV" sex being rape, cheescake images being about hating women, etc.
When you get into discussions calling these out, you usually get "But that's not *MY* feminism." Funny how that is a legitimate excuse, but when it comes to Gamergate or MRA, no it's no longer a valid excuse.
Honestly, the whole gendersphere and assorted "social justice" spaces are extremely toxic and draining if you spend too much time in them.
I don't know about GamerGate, but with MRA? I have yet to see a single long-term MRA type who didn't turn out to be a misogynist.
Also, 'MRA' itself is generally internet-heavy posturing and a relatively small group, while 'feminist' includes easily 1/3 of the US.
So. I think it's more of an excuse simply because 'feminist' is quite clearly a broader, more diffuse group.
Quote from: Daztur;792576I like how this seems to be ylthe only thread on the internet were people can discuss this in a civil way.
I've found many others, but they aren't as common as they should be. It's like trying to find a clear-eyed, even-handed discussion of American politics.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html
Ok, so 1 in 5 US folks identify as feminist, the vast majority actually believe in equity, and you can argue just where the line should be drawn between those two points.
As for MRA... there are older men's rights groups, so I suspect the Trilby brigade are basically a recent posturing variation latching onto older movements. Not sure about population numbers, but I'd be flabbergasted if 'MRA' was anywhere near 1 in 5 of the US.
Quote from: Will;792589Also, 'MRA' itself is generally internet-heavy posturing and a relatively small group, while 'feminist' includes easily 1/3 of the US.
I'm honestly curious where you're getting that number.
Quote from: Nexus;792595I'm honestly curious where you're getting that number.
Same where he got the bloodthirsty legions of MRAs willing to apparently wage campaign of terror and mass murders.
Quote from: Will;792589I don't know about GamerGate, but with MRA? I have yet to see a single long-term MRA type who didn't turn out to be a misogynist.
That's pretty unfortunate. I've met quite a few people that are interested in legitimate issues that effect men primarily that aren't misogynists ( I guess they could be extraordinarily well?). Actually they'd probably hold allot of common ground with some feminists except there's this reflexive "Attack on sight" thing going on between the two groups, at least online.
I like to think there are allot of people that interested in improving social issues but want to avoid the gender based lines both MRA and Feminism draw.
Will don't believe the Huffington Post. It is full of biased bullshit. So please get your head out of your ass.
So I attempt to find some hard numbers, use them even when they somewhat undermine my point (since you could say that '1/5 isn't 1/3', or argue the notion that feminism is actually about equality).
And Snowman decides that the best way to show that my post isn't reasonable is to offer no material or counterargument beyond 'yer stupid.'
Nexus:
1/3 was a guesstimate, which is why I attempted to find a more solid number. But there is also a potential debate of what should be properly called 'feminism.' Is it 'everyone who believes in gender equity'? Is it only folks who call themselves feminists and ascribe to various theories/waves?
I, and others, have noted that there are a lot of potentially useful male-perspective approaches to social issues. MRA is hopelessly tainted at this point, so the challenge would be how to actually do something else without getting infested by misogyny.
Some folks have pointed out that the most productive groups working on 'men's issues' are focused on specific issues, and doing that, rather than slacktivist theorizing and posturing on the internet. So there's that. (Like shelters and food, legal aid, etc.)
Similarly, I believe privilege is a very important and real thing, but that 'privilege' has unproductive kneejerk reactions due to what it sounds like.
You can argue until you're blue in the face that 'privilege' ACTUALLY means something else, but communication is about producing the reaction you want, and, well.
This affects not just people who are new to the idea but 'advocates' who start acting like everyone who has privilege is Scrooge McDuck.
Frankly, even the term 'has privilege' is a mistake, IMO.
I have yet to find a good word to use, though. 'perceptive screening' and other stuff is cumbersome.
Quote from: Iosue;792543Pretty much this. Whatever it's origins, right now it looks like to me like you have two groups talking right past each other. One's going "Yeah, there are a lot of misogynist assholes out there, but forget that right now, look at all the GAME JOURNALISM CORRUPTION!" While the other is saying, "Yeah, there's a lot of game journalism corruption out there, but forget that right now, look at all the MISOGYNY!"
From a pro-GG perspective, that isn't how it feels (someone else can make the counter-argument from the anti-GG side). It feels more like:
"One's going "Yeah, there are misogynist assholes out there, and we condemn them on either side of the debate, look at all the GAME JOURNALISM CORRUPTION!" While the other is saying, "Yeah, I don't have to address your argument because of the MISOGYNY!"
The article posted earlier above is really dead on, in it's point: at this point, I think neither side believes the other is acting in good faith. And I really don't know how to start a dialogue with someone, who's pushing an agenda, and yet denying me mine.
If folks really want to rail against journalistic corruption, I'd suggest starting something else up and not use Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn as examples. And don't talk about women/feminism.
I mean, game journalism is _absurdly_ corrupt. Why do you even need to bring these up? There are plenty of examples to use.
For the sake of argument, let's say anti-GG folks are engaged in pure propaganda. Whether or not you think it's fair, when you slide over into 'those damned feminists' or whatnot... you are confirming to the confused audience that the propaganda is valid.
Stuff like this doesn't help:
(https://scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/10291108_1565325977030551_4918827006873937851_n.jpg?oh=e0976a26606fcb206eafc313918246d2&oe=54F30872)
Yeah, maybe his misogyny is COMPLETELY UNRELATED to GG. But that argument wears thin after a while.
Quote from: Will;792589I don't know about GamerGate, but with MRA? I have yet to see a single long-term MRA type who didn't turn out to be a misogynist.
Honey Badger Radio (http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/)? Or I guess in your world-view the anti-feminist ladies there are self-hating misogynists by definition?
Quote from: Will;792593http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html
Ok, so 1 in 5 US folks identify as feminist, the vast majority actually believe in equity, and you can argue just where the line should be drawn between those two points.
http://www.livescience.com/21216-americans-ufo-belief.html (http://www.livescience.com/21216-americans-ufo-belief.html)
QuoteA new survey finds that 80 million Americans, or 36 percent of the population, believe UFOs are real. One in 10 respondents say they have personally witnessed an alien spaceship.
One in three Americans also believe in aliens. Get two Feminists together, and one of them will tell you about the time they saw an alien spacecraft. :p
And honestly,
only 1 in 5 Americans believe women are equal to men? 62% of women in the US, believe they're inferior/superior to men?
Once again, definitions are important, when you start citing statistics.
Quote from: Mark Twain"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Quote from: Daztur;792576I think this is about all that needs to be said about the issue. I like how this seems to be ylthe only thread on the internet were people can discuss this in a civil way.
Hey, Will called me a whiny bitch. I found that problematic, and triggering. :(
S'mon, are you saying the women there are MRA? Or anti-feminists? MRA is a subset of anti-feminism, not synonymous.
Quote from: Novastar;792608And honestly, only 1 in 5 Americans believe women are equal to men? 62% of women in the US, believe they're inferior/superior to men?
Once again, definitions are important, when you start citing statistics.
(rubs his head) You know what's also important? Reading the fucking posts and links you are going to weigh in on.
1 in 5 people in the US identify as feminists.
76-86% of people in the US believe in equity between the sexes.
So, this rather depends on how you define 'feminism.'
If you see it as a specific intellectual movement, then the number is at ~20%. If you see it as a belief, then it's much higher.
And then there is the interesting point about WHY most US folks refuse the label despite ostensibly believing in feminism.
Will, anti-GG is not without sin, as well:
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/848/891/006.png_large)
One person's analysis (anecdotal, I will admit):
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/848/921/ee2.jpg)
Quote from: Will;792610S'mon, are you saying the women there are MRA? Or anti-feminists? MRA is a subset of anti-feminism, not synonymous.
Wait, when did MRA
immediately equate to anti-feminism?
I will admit a lot of Real World MRA's come off that way; but being an advocate for Men's Rights is closer to classical Feminism (everyone's equal), than a lot of Feminism being preached today.
I quite seriously think most of the folks who have tweeted or gotten 'involved' in GG should unplug for a week and go do some woodworking or talking to people or something.
In Thomas More's Utopia, there was an idea that when something was proposed in their legislature, everyone was forbidden to make any statement about the proposal for at least... a day? A week? I forget.
Because people tend to weigh in, then dig in their heels and go nuts trying to save face.
500 years old, but the principle remains.
(And yes, I include myself in this)
Quote from: Novastar;792617Wait, when did MRA immediately equate to anti-feminism?
I will admit a lot of Real World MRA's come off that way; but being an advocate for Men's Rights is closer to classical Feminism (everyone's equal), than a lot of Feminism being preached today.
I would argue, strenuously, that MRA has almost nothing to do with being an advocate for Men's Rights.
I mean, hell, I advocate for men's rights. I consider myself a feminist as much for men as for women.
(Although, on the line of 'words people feel are tainted,' I wonder if we should start talking about Egalitarianism again and drop some of the specific words)
Quote from: Will;792610S'mon, are you saying the women there are MRA? Or anti-feminists? MRA is a subset of anti-feminism, not synonymous.
Yes, they would all call themselves MRA, as far as I know. I only know Karen Straughan well, though. You could try watching her videos (https://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat/videos) (best to start from the earliest) and see if you think she hates women.
lol, and then there's people doing a horrible disservice to everyone (but mostly themselves), by trying to flame themselves...
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/848/574/d97.png)
Can I build bridges by saying I think Twitter really sucks and fosters the worst elements of online communication?
You can build bridges by getting your head out of your ass. Seriously people are offering evidence and your not paying attention. Novastar been offering a lot of evidence in other threads as well. S'more been offering you links to a highly intelligent woman that knows what the hell she is talking about. Hell I had offered a link of a guy (who supports gamergate) offering money to anyone that can capture the asshat that sent the mass shooting threats.
Where is your evidence to support your claims? Oh you got is Huffington Post which I wouldn't trust at all. In fact no one should trust them.
Quote from: Will;792626Can I build bridges by saying I think Twitter really sucks and fosters the worst elements of online communication?
Whole-heartedly.
I don't actually use it myself (these images are archived elsewhere), and after GamerGate, I can pretty much promise that I never will.
140 character limit seems
engineered to be the perfect length, to post something to piss off large sums of people with! :p
Quote from: Snowman0147Oh you got is Huffington Post which I wouldn't trust at all. In fact no one should trust them.
Oh, I don't know, I read the Huffington Post all the time. I just remember to take into account it's bias, same as when I read Fox or MSNBC articles (and, unfortunately more & more, CNN articles too :banghead:)
It's why with Brianna Wu breaking the story into MSM (MSNBC, HuffPo, CNN, CBS), they're all running the Misogyny angle. One, because that's the story Wu is selling, but also because Misgyny is sexy. It sells well. It's a story they have experience running. Journalistic ethics and integrity? That's shit they talk about back at college, not in the real world, where it's dog-eat-dog for ratings. Hell, people might even start looking into the unethical shit that MSM does! Misogyny is an easier sell, and doesn't rock their journalistic boat.
The problem is Wu is literally the worst candidate for them to run with. She created a sockpuppet account, to directly attack pro-GG. She tried to make an meme
using the picture of an autistic asian child in full meltdown, to mock Gamergate. She announced she had been doxxed on Twitter 2 minutes before the offending tweet showed up (she can tell the future!). Brianna, is going to lose it
spectacularly in the future, on live TV.
Quote from: Will;792626Can I build bridges by saying I think Twitter really sucks and fosters the worst elements of online communication?
No argument here, wish the whole thing would vanish in a puff of volcanic ash.
Quote from: Will;792589So. I think it's more of an excuse simply because 'feminist' is quite clearly a broader, more diffuse group.
On what do you base this? personal opinion?
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;792637On what do you base this? personal opinion?
Observation? Feel free to make a counter-argument.
Quote from: Will;792626Can I build bridges by saying I think Twitter really sucks and fosters the worst elements of online communication?
They are like most other social media companies and revenue generating community sites in this regard.
Quote from: Will;792638Observation? Feel free to make a counter-argument.
Well, when you come up with some hard numbers, then we can argue, because my observation is that the MRAs are diverse too.
One in five people identify as Feminists, but I'll hazard if you asked people "Do you believe men and women are equals, and each should get equal representation?", you'll get an outstanding high percentage of people in the US who agree with that statement, which is the aim of classical Feminism.
The
problem, is that modern Feminism has been hijacked by Radicals. So you get a mismatch of Classical Feminists, sex-positive feminists, sex-negative feminists, 3rd Wave Feminists, and outright misandrists, all under the umbrella.
And it's bad enough that over 60% of women, will not claim membership in an ideology that expressly
should champion them.
Quote from: Christopher HitchensQuote from: WillObservation? Feel free to make a counter-argument.
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
Quote from: Novastar;792641One in five people identify as Feminists, but I'll hazard if you asked people "Do you believe men and women are equals, and each should get equal representation?", you'll get an outstanding high percentage of people in the US who agree with that statement, which is the aim of classical Feminism.
The problem, is that modern Feminism has been hijacked by Radicals. So you get a mismatch of Classical Feminists, sex-positive feminists, sex-negative feminists, 3rd Wave Feminists, and outright misandrists, all under the umbrella.
And it's bad enough that over 60% of women, will not claim membership in an ideology that expressly should champion them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html
QuoteBut asked if they believe that "men and women should be social, political, and economic equals," 82 percent of the survey respondents said they did, and just 9 percent said they did not. Equal percentages of men and women said they agreed with that statement, along with 87 percent of Democrats, 81 percent of independents and 76 percent of Republicans.
There are two ways you could take this:
Feminism as a movement makes people steer clear.
Anti-feminism has successfully spread propaganda to make people reject the label (and some of the aims).
I think it's a combination weighted a bit toward the second.
So, Novastar, you claim I am making claims without proof... you think MRAs represent anywhere near 20% of folks in the US?
The link's title supports Novastar's assertion:
"Poll: Few Identify As Feminists, But Most Believe In Equality Of Sexes"
People don't need anti-feminism in order to distance themselves from the word "feminism". The toxicity in the movement does that all on its own:
http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2014/08/04/its-a-real-mystery-as-to-what-prompts-people-to-become-anti-feminists-noh/
Yes, it does.
I said that 2 pages back. There's no 'I'll hazard,' that was something I pointed out.
(This is my last post in this thread, since clearly almost nobody can be bothered to read posts before responding)
I can't remember the last time I saw an "Anti-Feminism Rally!"
I can remember the last time I saw a Feminism Rally; considering how uncomfortable it made me and my wife, I think it's the former, not the latter, that see's low adoption of the Feminist moniker.
QuoteSo, Novastar, you claim I am making claims without proof... you think MRAs represent anywhere near 20% of folks in the US?
Not even close. I'd be surprised if 2% identify themselves as MRA's; they have an absolutely toxic reputation (not helped when MSM portrays mass murderers as part of the group), and there's a societal expectation that men "man up", rather than actually discuss many of the issues that MRA's advocate for.
And yet, we have the 82% stat; it should swing both ways.
Quote from: Will;792644http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html
There are two ways you could take this:
Feminism as a movement makes people steer clear.
Anti-feminism has successfully spread propaganda to make people reject the label (and some of the aims).
I think it's a combination weighted a bit toward the second.
So, Novastar, you claim I am making claims without proof... you think MRAs represent anywhere near 20% of folks in the US?
As someone who once identified as pro-feminism, because honestly, who's not for equality, it was the men and women that used the label to slander and tear down anyone who they could that turned me off the movement. These days I'm neither pro-men or pro-fem, they're both a pack of assholes. And before anyone starts with "but they're not all like that" bs, no, they are not like that on both sides, but when your frontrunners are assholes, it might be time to go a different way.
Quote from: Novastar;792641One in five people identify as Feminists, but I'll hazard if you asked people "Do you believe men and women are equals, and each should get equal representation?", you'll get an outstanding high percentage of people in the US who agree with that statement, which is the aim of classical Feminism.
The problem, is that modern Feminism has been hijacked by Radicals. So you get a mismatch of Classical Feminists, sex-positive feminists, sex-negative feminists, 3rd Wave Feminists, and outright misandrists, all under the umbrella.
And it's bad enough that over 60% of women, will not claim membership in an ideology that expressly should champion them.
This seems to have it's ups and downs. So Gallup found a peak of identification with the term "feminism" at 33% in 1992, going down to 25% in 2001.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/6715/feminism-whats-name.aspx
I didn't find a Gallup update, but I found another set of surveys indicating that number a voters who identify as feminists has been increasing from 2008 to 2012, to around 40%. (Though the absolute numbers are not directly comparable since voters are not representative of the whole population.)
http://www.msmagazine.com/winter2013/feministfactor.asp
I'd love to see other numbers if people have them.
I'm doubtful about the issue of radical co-option being particularly modern. While there are certainly radical feminists, there were also plenty of radical feminists in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. (Valerie Solanas, among others, for example.) Really, feminism has always been a broad umbrella since its origins in the 19th century.
Quote from: Will;792560So explain to me exactly how women getting votes 10-50 years after men isn't related to misogyny. (And in the US, it's more like 60-70 years, depending)
That's easy; with rights come responsibilities, though it was the other way around where voting was concerned. With the notable exception of the U.S. (where the American Civil War kick started the issue), men in most other western countries got voting rights largely as a response to protests against military conscription. The idea they should be expected to put on a uniform, pick up a rifle and go off to fight and probably die on some foreign battlefield for a government they had no say in naturally rubbed them the wrong way, and as public sentiment opposing military conscription mounted the Powers That Be realized it was time to include a carrot with the stick they'd been using for the past several centuries.
Except in the case of women's suffrage, of course. When women were granted voting rights the corresponding expectation of civil service was conveniently forgotten about, just as it's been every time women have been granted legal privileges equaling those of men over the past century or two.
Virtually every time feminists have pointed at (perceived) institutional inequality and screeched
"Misoooogynyyyyy!" at the top of their lungs there's been a perfectly reasonable explanation for that thing working the way it did given the context of the circumstances in which it occurred. That doesn't necessarily mean those things are always fair or that they can't be done better, but it does put the lie to this obsessive preoccupation with finding discrimination in every inconvenient shadow.
Quote from: Novastar;792605From a pro-GG perspective, that isn't how it feels (someone else can make the counter-argument from the anti-GG side). It feels more like:
"One's going "Yeah, there are misogynist assholes out there, and we condemn them on either side of the debate, look at all the GAME JOURNALISM CORRUPTION!" While the other is saying, "Yeah, I don't have to address your argument because of the MISOGYNY!"
The article posted earlier above is really dead on, in it's point: at this point, I think neither side believes the other is acting in good faith. And I really don't know how to start a dialogue with someone, who's pushing an agenda, and yet denying me mine.
I 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.
Ok, I can now say that, thanks to an involuntary vacation from my previous job, and the fact that this "gamergate" thing seems to be a thing to so many people, I've spent about 8 hours over the last two days watching videos about it on YouTube.
Why? I have no fucking idea, aside from the fact that it sucks you in like any other reality TV show I guess.
After watching a ton of videos from people like Thunderf00t and the InternetAristocrat, (and not just the Sarkeesian related vids, but many others related to Zoe Quinn and others), I have to say that people I might not consider "fellow travelers" on many other fronts (TF for example is a rampant Atheist but an awesome general-interest science presenter, for example), I think I can say that Feminists and their White Knight Enablers have done for the Atheist movement and video-gaming industry what their smaller and less effective sycophants are trying to do to the tabletop RPG industry.
It's... just an epic, atomic face-palm (to borrow a phrase), but the patterns, claims, and terminology are unmistakable if you watch videos about the Atheist and computer game turmoil and then compare them to the SJWs on TBP about... well, anything. It is a LITERAL case of "If you're not with us, you're against us" - with no possible middle ground. Irony, it seems, is lost on the SJW Crusaders.
Holy shit, we're through the looking glass here, people...
This is why I get angry at people that just play rpgs that look at gamergate with a shrug and yet complain about social justice warriors plaguing rpgs. It is literally the SAME FUCKING THING. The social justice warriors are attacking at all fronts and all media.
While I usually say there is two sides to every story this one only has one sane side. That side are the hobbyists that are sick of double standard assholes that love to shove their world view down in other people's throats. It is literally sane people versus zealots. I feel bad for any woman and/or minority that disagree with social justice view points because the fanatics will go on feeding frenzy on them.
Quote from: Will;792288Referring to the MRA douchebag who killed a bunch of people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings
That's awful, though the whole time I read it I nodded and went uh-huh heard that crap before. 9 times out of 10 serial killers are motivated by feelings of resentment towards women. I suspect most of the other 10% are women themselves.
But the reason I posted this reply was to ask, in what way was this guy a Men's Rights Activist?
Quote from: Daztur;792305Yeah, people are flipping out because what, the video game press mostly functions as a PR conduit? They are surprised by this? They care? I'm just totally mystified. It's like people being shocked to discover gambling in Vegas.
Yep, the last time I read any "videogame journalism" it was mid-90s issues of Nintendo Power.
Quote from: TristramEvans;792692That's awful, though the whole time I read it I nodded and went uh-huh heard that crap before. 9 times out of 10 serial killers are motivated by feelings of resentment towards women. I suspect most of the other 10% are women themselves.
But the reason I posted this reply was to ask, in what way was this guy a Men's Rights Activist?
He 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.
This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45H25Sc6fig) is awesome...it's like if RPGPundit was a hot foreign chick
Quote from: TristramEvans;792692But the reason I posted this reply was to ask, in what way was this guy a Men's Rights Activist?
For whatever reason, several news sites labeled him as such:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings#Misogyny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings#Misogyny)
Rodgers was definitely Misogynistic, but his rage was more directed at women as a gender (for not having sex with him), and men who were sexually active (particularly PUA (Pick-Up Artists)).
I never read any part of his Manifesto that dealt with the visitation Rights of divorced fathers, or the unfairness of alimony distribution, etc.
Quote from: Will;792471A lot of recent vocal misogyny might be a reaction to feminism, but the idea that misogyny in general is a reaction to feminism is... laughable.
I mean, what, men didn't let women vote because of 1600s era feminism?
[joking] Its all because of Babylon. The only matriarchy in Western civilization that to this day, millenia later, is still synonymouus with the most awful civilization of all time. The entire patriarchy is just men getting their just dues from history's biggest mistake[/joking]
Quote from: Novastar;792696For whatever reason, several news sites labeled him as such:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings#Misogyny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings#Misogyny)
Rodgers was definitely Misogynistic, but his rage was more directed at women as a gender (for not having sex with him), and men who were sexually active (particularly PUA (Pick-Up Artists)).
If he was out to kill PUAs aren't there certain segments that should be cheering him?
...
...
I'll show myself out.
Quote from: Nexus;792698If he was out to kill PUAs aren't there certain segments that should be cheering him?
...
...
I'll show myself out.
I couldnt help thin king reading his "manifesto" where he whined on and on about being a 22 year old virgin and his disbelief that menof minorities were able to get sex from white women when he couldnt and blahblahblah Imsohornyandlonelyblabh blah blah was...
hadnt this guy ever heard of prostitutes? I mean, if he was able to save up 5K to spend on guns, well, lets just say Im pretty certain 5k could have fixed that whole virginity problem for him...
Quote from: TristramEvans;792699I couldnt help thin king reading his "manifesto" where he whined on and on about being a 22 year old virgin and his disbelief that menof minorities were able to get sex from white women when he couldnt and blahblahblah Imsohornyandlonelyblabh blah blah was...
hadnt this guy ever heard of prostitutes? I mean, if he was able to save up 5K to spend on guns, well, lets just say Im pretty certain 5k could have fixed that whole virginity problem for him...
Hiring 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.
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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45H25Sc6fig) 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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45H25Sc6fig) 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 (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/17/Exposed-the-secret-mailing-list-of-the-gaming-journalism-elite) and the fact that apparently these game journalists were supporting financially the devs they covered (http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/815/687/917.jpg), 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!'
Quote from: TristramEvans;792772How could one person's free speech limit another person's free speech?
You haven't heard of speakers being unable to speak because parts of the audience shout them down?
Quote from: TristramEvans;792772How could one person's free speech limit another person's free speech?
They find it so triggering and problematic that it leaves them unable to speak?
Quote from: apparition13;792804You haven't heard of speakers being unable to speak because parts of the audience shout them down?
That is a situation where security needs to escort those people out of the building.
Quote from: Iosue;792759The 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.
In general, I agree with you. A clear, concise message is very important.
That said, I simply don't see sufficient evidence to convince me of this constant refrain that GG is full of or being weighed down by misogyny. None of the prominent voices in the movement I'm aware of have said Thing 1 that even borders on implying a genuine hatred of women. Most of the well-received comments on the videos and articles posted by those prominent voices don't contain anything a rational person who hasn't drunk the feminist Kool-Aid would interpret as discriminatory toward women.
I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I am saying (again) the vast majority of what's commonly labeled misogyny by feminists and SJWs is nothing of the sort. That word has been thoroughly abused and applied with so many different interpretations in so many and such varied contexts as to be functionally without meaning. It's gotten to the point of essentially becoming a corollary to Godwin's Law for me; if I can't personally verify a thing empirically demonstrates or implies a genuine, pathological hatred or distrust of women I simply stop paying attention as soon as someone says it because in doing so they've already lost.
Part and parcel of opposing the presence of these postmodern religious ideologues in my hobby is refusing to engage on their terms.
Quote from: woodsmoke;792817That said, I simply don't see sufficient evidence to convince me of this constant refrain that GG is full of or being weighed down by misogyny.
The fact that you don't see the misogyny means that you're a misogynist.
Quote from: jeff37923;792814That is a situation where security needs to escort those people out of the building.
And yet it happens constantly, with free speech arguments on both sides. Or there are such vociferous protests at the announcement of someone speaking that whoever did the inviting caves and cancels the speech.
Now translate that to the online context. Where do you draw the line between legitimate free speech and free speech that interferes with the ability of others to speak? E.g., how much trolling is too much? How off topic is too far? What's the line between harassment and vigorous debate?
Quote from: apparition13;792825Now translate that to the online context.
You can't. Its impossible to shout over a person online, there's nothing forcing anyone to read what anyone else writes.
Quote from: TristramEvans;792829You can't. Its impossible to shout over a person online, there's nothing forcing anyone to read what anyone else writes.
while this is literally true, online you have dog piles where several people all respond to the same person in waves, making it impossible for them to reply to everyone and effectively turning the conversation into an echo chamber as the person's comments get lost in the noise
Quote from: Sacrosanct;792831while this is literally true, online you have dog piles where several people all respond to the same person in waves, making it impossible for them to reply to everyone and effectively turning the conversation into an echo chamber as the person's comments get lost in the noise
Sure, but thats only a problem if a mod comes in and censers them for not going with the crowd. They wouldnt have to respond to everybody, they could still say their piece. If thier worry is they wont be heard, well, thats not something Im too worried about. I believe in the freedom of speech, but not in the right to have others listen to you. Does it suck being the lone voice of reason in a mob of idiocy? Sure. Its a situation Im sure we've all experienced. But thats humanity. A few reasonable people and hordes and hordes of ignorant, self-absorbed morons. That will never change. But online your words are still there for any other person to common along and read. And one can always just go start a blog.
Quote from: Werekoala;792824The fact that you don't see the misogyny means that you're a misogynist.
Kafka would be proud.
Remember back when Xbox Live became popular?
Remember when games became dominated by teens whose viciousness ruined the Xbox experience for many people? Some pimpled motherfuckers were truly outrageous in their insults.
Those teens from back then have gotten older, and some continue to the trash talk of their earlier years, but now its on Twitter, Facebook, etc, where trash talk is text that does not vanish and can be splattered across sites and platforms.
As a former middle school teacher, trash talk was common among teen boys. School authorities considered it "hate speech" which was an idiotic overreaction because rarely did the kids actually mean any real harm by their words.
Interestingly enough, it was my experience as a teacher, that the trash talk almost always avoided real insults to kids to whom it would harm. Why? The shitass little fuckers trash talking each other were classmates, often friends and trash talking was a game with each other. The problem with the web is that we don't know the person on the other side of the screen.
Unfortunately, the overly sensitive, the PC police and the outrage brigade want us to believe that that trash talking is actual hate. But I don't believe they are going to win.
Quote from: Iosue;792759So GamerGate folks need to figure out what their movement is about, and stay on message. Because right now it's very, very muddy.
There is no way for any "organization" to stay "on message" in the internet age. Both political parties with billions of donor dollars can do nothing about someone "going off message" and the other side taking that post/video/tweet/pic and making it viral.
As much as I despise the GOP, even I do not believe their real political platform includes emailing racist jokes about Obama, regardless if many of their voters believe otherwise. The web is uncontrolled, and it may stay uncontrollable. Even the President of the Free World can't stop a Congressmen from posting dick pics in an election year.
For better or worse, we must welcome the new normal and learn to navigate its wild frontier.
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.
I am a fan of the viking heavy metal band Amon Amarth. So I am well aware of the reaction by some people online of 3,2,1 OMFG, Spinachat is a NAZI!!!
Last month, Amon Amarth was playing Riverside, California which is out in the desert boondocks of Southern California and close to San Bernardino, a low income desert area that has had history of being considered a white supremacy enclave.
Because of the online comments over the years (both pro-and against Amon Amarth) I figured the concert was going to draw skinheads and the neo-Nazi crowd BUT I was amazingly wrong. What I discovered offline at the concert, was the band drew a wildly diverse crowd who were really happy partying with each other.
I mention this anecdote because I believe the offline world of gamers will trump whatever happens online.
Quote from: Snowman0147;792796Sad part for gamergate is that your not only supporting journalistic integrity, but also against the social justice bullshit that those corrupt journalists hide behind.
Hashtags and Twitter don't allow nuance. Regardless of how the media demands we think in simplistic terms, we must all remember that it is 100% probable that real people exist on both sides of whatever who do not agree with 100% of the "ideas" of their "side".
I believe many SJWs who play video games would prefer a more honest, less embedded journalism in their hobby. Why? Nobody wants to buy a lame game being pimped by a journalist who's on the take.
Quote from: Spinachcat;792847Unfortunately, the overly sensitive, the PC police and the outrage brigade want us to believe that that trash talking is actual hate.
This is key to understanding the difference between what the half-informed
think 4chan is and what 4chan
really is.
Although that defense aside, that place is still a douchebag generator and deserves some of its flak.
Quote from: Spinachcat;792847I am a fan of the viking heavy metal band Amon Amarth. So I am well aware of the reaction by some people online of 3,2,1 OMFG, Spinachat is a NAZI!!!
Last month, Amon Amarth was playing Riverside, California which is out in the desert boondocks of Southern California and close to San Bernardino, a low income desert area that has had history of being considered a white supremacy enclave.
Because of the online comments over the years (both pro-and against Amon Amarth) I figured the concert was going to draw skinheads and the neo-Nazi crowd BUT I was amazingly wrong. What I discovered offline at the concert, was the band drew a wildly diverse crowd who were really happy partying with each other.
I mention this anecdote because I believe the offline world of gamers will trump whatever happens online.
Funny story about Amon Amarth. Back in Portland they played a show at the Hawthorne Theater where I was bouncing. I'm a tiny wee man, and it was a very stressful job that I don't miss that much. Anyway, a back of war skins showed up about 20 deep. Security begged our boss to not let them in, but he's the boss and didn't want the hassle.
Someone makes a phone call the the local SHARPS, who show up and proceed to beat the living piss out of the nazis. I can't say I enjoyed watching some trailer trash psycho get his teeth kicked into this throat, but I can't say I was shedding any tears.
Anyway, back in the realm of stupid/tedious internet drama, some genius over on Polygon posted the teardown that Siskel and Ebert did of horror movies back in the 80's, how they were all some sublimated rebellion against female empowerment. I know, right?
The current moral panic bearing a striking resemblance to previous moral panics aside, the point of the article was that Siskel and Ebert didn't have to deal with death threats.
Now, let's ignore the fact that I would bet my left nut that they got at least a few nasty threatening letters. But it's shocking how utterly oblivious this cat is to think that the ease of twitter and email might have a lot more to do with threats than the huge pain in the ass of assembling a letter from newspaper clippings and your own blood.
That teardown, Bee Tee Dubs, is still fucking loathed in Horror fan circles. It marked a point where horror fans were on the defensive for about a decade. Not only were you a Satan worshipping serial killer, you also hated women.
Quote from: JonWake;792884Funny story about Amon Amarth. Back in Portland they played a show at the Hawthorne Theater where I was bouncing. I'm a tiny wee man, and it was a very stressful job that I don't miss that much. Anyway, a back of war skins showed up about 20 deep. Security begged our boss to not let them in, but he's the boss and didn't want the hassle.
Someone makes a phone call the the local SHARPS, who show up and proceed to beat the living piss out of the nazis. I can't say I enjoyed watching some trailer trash psycho get his teeth kicked into this throat, but I can't say I was shedding any tears.
What are SHARPS, and how are they able to beat up hundreds(?!) of Neo-Nazis? :confused:
Judging by Louis Theroux documentaries, I got the impression that all the Nazi Skinheads in southern California couldn't make a throng '20 deep'.
Quote from: S'mon;792886What are SHARPS, and how are they able to beat up hundreds(?!) of Neo-Nazis? :confused:
Judging by Louis Theroux documentaries, I got the impression that all the Nazi Skinheads in southern California couldn't make a throng '20 deep'.
Sharpskins, I assume, skinheads, but no Nazis or racist, original skinheads used to like blues and reagge and such.
I might be wrong of course.
When I think about it, it may be just as well to add my viewpoints:
If you are up into it, all one side(the SJW's) see is the misogyny, and all the other side (GamerGate) see is corruption hiding behind, or even siding with SJW's.
If you have distance enough from it to rather stay outside of it, you see that both sides are "toxic", to a degree.
If you are really removed from it, but somehow still engaged in it, you might find it interesting.
I find it interesting, but I am well aware of how disturbing it seems or even is.
The GamerGate started up with Zoe, but the SJW tied it in with the misogyny that Sarkeesian was met with.
Sure, Sarkeesian was met with decent counterpoints too, but a lot of those included misogyny, or things that could easily be interpreted as such.
Oh, and if you don't take my word for it, I frankly don't care, my point is simply that both sides is at fault.
No, bear with me a bit here, you might misunderstand me.
At fault, but not how you may think.
So how?
If your goal is to cut through the corruption, then ignore the bullshit and do something against it that is constructive!
Same if you are with the SJW or think you are:
Look at Vivian James, despite the comments that you may see surrounding it, it is actually a good example of what may be done.
Gamers like actual games, sex might seem to sell, but exaggerated sex and fanservice do not, it is just stupid.
Gamers care more for playability, replay value.
"Depression Quest"? Who'd like to play anything like that, really? I have been depressed, I know how it feels in reality.
Give me rather any 2D Metroid game, or a metroidvania with a femme or a furry as protagonist, and i'm far more happy, that is what I call a GAME.
.... Sorry for the rant.
Also, for a game reviewer to declare that "Gamers are dead" .... it is potential suicide, I mean, who are you reviewing for?
Quote from: TristramEvans;792839Sure, but thats only a problem if a mod comes in and censers them for not going with the crowd. They wouldnt have to respond to everybody, they could still say their piece. If thier worry is they wont be heard, well, thats not something Im too worried about. I believe in the freedom of speech, but not in the right to have others listen to you. Does it suck being the lone voice of reason in a mob of idiocy? Sure. Its a situation Im sure we've all experienced. But thats humanity. A few reasonable people and hordes and hordes of ignorant, self-absorbed morons. That will never change. But online your words are still there for any other person to common along and read. And one can always just go start a blog.
There's the right of other people to not listen, and the inability of people who want to listen to hear because of the noise. When does speech become noise preventing other speech, that's one of the tradeoffs.
Quote from: apparition13;792896There's the right of other people to not listen, and the inability of people who want to listen to hear because of the noise. When does speech become noise preventing other speech, that's one of the tradeoffs.
Thats solely an offline issue though, so doesnt pertain to what I said.
Quote from: TristramEvans;792829You can't. Its impossible to shout over a person online, there's nothing forcing anyone to read what anyone else writes.
A little late in response, but I agree. Comparing a real life public speaking disruption to an online forum discussion disruption is disengenuous. The two are not that alike at all.
Quote from: TristramEvans;792899Thats solely an offline issue though, so doesnt pertain to what I said.
Yes it does.
You are wrong, actually.
Consider 300+ comments, and 250+ is either trolling, misogynist, stupid or textspeak.
The remaining may be sensible, but a lot of their comments is wasted on the stupid, misogynist and trolling, leaving only a small fraction for the actual message they are trying to say, not to mention if the ones with misogynist comments claim they are SJW's when they aren't.
That is an effective drowning out, with no involvement from mods.
Sure, I probably exaggerates, but the point is that rubbish reasoning, forced defence, and trolling might easily drown out sensible comments.
Quote from: S'mon;792886What are SHARPS, and how are they able to beat up hundreds(?!) of Neo-Nazis? :confused:
Judging by Louis Theroux documentaries, I got the impression that all the Nazi Skinheads in southern California couldn't make a throng '20 deep'.
SkinHeads Against Racial Prejudice - an anti neo-Nazi movement that first came about in the early nineties on the East Coast. It was a part of the Punk/Alternative scene in Florida, Rhode Island, Massachusitts, and New York from what I remember back then.
Quote from: TristramEvans;792695This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45H25Sc6fig) is awesome...it's like if RPGPundit was a hot foreign chick
Awesome.
I seriously want to post a link to that at TBP.
(Would Get me banned though)
Quote from: The Ent;792911Awesome.
I seriously want to post a link to that at TBP.
(Would Get me banned though)
Clearly what this Syriagirl needs is a white guy to tell her she is brainwashed, what she should really be offended about, and should be on the side of the SJW instead.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;792917Clearly what this Syriagirl needs is a white guy to tell her she is brainwashed, what she should really be offended about, and should be on the side of the SJW instead.
Indeed...
They hate women - and people of colour, and of course especially women of colour - who don't "act like they're supposed to".
Quote from: TristramEvans;792899Thats solely an offline issue though, so doesnt pertain to what I said.
Signal to noise ratio does not necessarily involve sound.
Quote from: Catelf;792904Yes it does.
You are wrong, actually.
Consider 300+ comments, and 250+ is either trolling, misogynist, stupid or textspeak.
The remaining may be sensible, but a lot of their comments is wasted on the stupid, misogynist and trolling, leaving only a small fraction for the actual message they are trying to say, not to mention if the ones with misogynist comments claim they are SJW's when they aren't.
That is an effective drowning out, with no involvement from mods.
Sure, I probably exaggerates, but the point is that rubbish reasoning, forced defence, and trolling might easily drown out sensible comments.
Yeah, I a ready addressed that it can get buried in post before last, but one is still able to say their piece. That , to me, is enough. I understand some people might feel thier posts should be "important" and worthy of more attention than the morass of posts by idiots, but I dont personally see that as a free speech issue. One is still able to say whatever they want, and others can read it if they wish. Is it "drowned ouut" in that it can get buried amid other posts? Sure. But is it "drowned out" so that they cant say what they want t o say and exercize their freedom of speech? No, thats not possible, no matter how many other posters type in caps locks. Free Speech has to include everyone, even though everyone might mean an army of fools.
Quote from: apparition13;792924Signal to noise ratio does not necessarily involve sound.
But only sound can prevent signal. If the ratio is your sole concern, then I refer back to what I said about the human condition. I just dont see how that can be a free speech issue as one cannot alter the ratio without denying
someone free speech. Free speech includes the morons, the trolls, and the degenerates. Thats the price. There are times Ive struggled with it (see the Hatred thread), but in the end I think its worth the price.
Quote from: Werekoala;792824The fact that you don't see the misogyny means that you're a misogynist.
/slowclap
Quote from: Sacrosanct;792917Clearly what this Syriagirl needs is a white guy to tell her she is brainwashed, what she should really be offended about, and should be on the side of the SJW instead.
Yeah, she's a female POC, but she's also crazier than a bag of cats. It's like having a cut-rate Alex Jones on your side.
Quote from: S'mon;792886What are SHARPS, and how are they able to beat up hundreds(?!) of Neo-Nazis? :confused:
Judging by Louis Theroux documentaries, I got the impression that all the Nazi Skinheads in southern California couldn't make a throng '20 deep'.
Sorry, mate a clarification: there were about 20 or 30 nazis there. West coast gangster slang vs. official military designation.
Quote from: JonWake;792884Funny story about Amon Amarth. Back in Portland they played a show at the Hawthorne Theater where I was bouncing. I'm a tiny wee man, and it was a very stressful job that I don't miss that much. Anyway, a back of war skins showed up about 20 deep. Security begged our boss to not let them in, but he's the boss and didn't want the hassle.
Someone makes a phone call the the local SHARPS, who show up and proceed to beat the living piss out of the nazis. I can't say I enjoyed watching some trailer trash psycho get his teeth kicked into this throat, but I can't say I was shedding any tears.
Anyway, back in the realm of stupid/tedious internet drama, some genius over on Polygon posted the teardown that Siskel and Ebert did of horror movies back in the 80's, how they were all some sublimated rebellion against female empowerment. I know, right?
The current moral panic bearing a striking resemblance to previous moral panics aside, the point of the article was that Siskel and Ebert didn't have to deal with death threats.
Now, let's ignore the fact that I would bet my left nut that they got at least a few nasty threatening letters. But it's shocking how utterly oblivious this cat is to think that the ease of twitter and email might have a lot more to do with threats than the huge pain in the ass of assembling a letter from newspaper clippings and your own blood.
That teardown, Bee Tee Dubs, is still fucking loathed in Horror fan circles. It marked a point where horror fans were on the defensive for about a decade. Not only were you a Satan worshipping serial killer, you also hated women.
Recalling Ebert is very ironic, seeing how the same press lambasted him a few years before he kicked the bucket, when he said that games aren't art.
Quote from: JonWake;792941Yeah, she's a female POC, but she's also crazier than a bag of cats. It's like having a cut-rate Alex Jones on your side.
Id rather have her than Alex Jones. She could be batshit insane, but she is still mesmerizing. I know thats not very PC of me, but its the damned truth.
Quote from: JonWake;792942Sorry, mate a clarification: there were about 20 or 30 nazis there. West coast gangster slang vs. official military designation.
OK, thanks. & thanks to above for explaining SHARPS to me, Google was unhelpful unless I wanted to buy a pen. :)
I just heard a piece about "Gamergate" and the threats against that feminist video critic Anita (I'm not even going to try and spell her last name) on our local college radio station. First time I ever heard about this stuff offline. That was kind of a surreal.
I didn't know that "fighting words" was something of a legal term and that they were not protected under free speech in the U.S.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words
It seems very nebulous, of course.
Quote from: Catelf;792890The GamerGate started up with Zoe, but the SJW tied it in with the misogyny that Sarkeesian was met with.
There is no question both Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian met with significant, blatant, vicious and threatening misogyny. There are so many reasons to disagree or dislike or even rail against either of these people without any regard to their gender.
It's like the GOP vs. Hillary and Obama. There is no reason to discuss gender or skin color when both individuals have plenty of actions deserving to be criticized, but when gender/color is brought up it only discredit the speakers and the speaker's audience.
Quote from: Catelf;792890Gamers like actual games, sex might seem to sell, but exaggerated sex and fanservice do not, it is just stupid.
I believe there is room for niche games that cater to specific tastes, including exaggerated sex, fanservice and themes that do not appeal to the mainstream. Even themes the mainstream may consider offensive. Even games I would never want to play.
I don't disagree with some on the anti-GG side who feel that mainstream games could do more to appeal to female gamers, perhaps without losing their current audience in the process. But the idea that all games must conform to the SJW ethos is problematic.
Quote from: Catelf;792890"Depression Quest"? Who'd like to play anything like that, really?
I could see potential value in such a program, but not as entertainment or game, but a therapy tool if it was done correctly with the input of actual health professionals.
In the ADHD therapy realm, several years ago a "game" came out where the kids were wired up to a pulse recording device and by managing their breathing, fidgeting and anxiety via the lowest possible pulse, they scored points they could turn in for prizes. I believe "game-ification" of education, therapy and more areas could be great tools in the future...IF done right.
Regarding broader issues of free speech and journalism here:
Quote from: TristramEvans;792936But only sound can prevent signal. If the ratio is your sole concern, then I refer back to what I said about the human condition. I just dont see how that can be a free speech issue as one cannot alter the ratio without denying someone free speech. Free speech includes the morons, the trolls, and the degenerates. Thats the price. There are times Ive struggled with it (see the Hatred thread), but in the end I think its worth the price.
I'm not an expert, but I believe that current law allows for public assembly without disruption. That is, an unpopular group can stage an assembly on public ground - and others can't just walk among them and hold up twice as many countering signs. Opposers could form a counter-rally nearby, but not in the middle of the minority group's assembly.
I think a similar principle should hold online. So people with an opposing viewpoint should be able to have their own view expressed elsewhere, but can't drown out people in an individual thread.
Online has some qualities like live assembly/protest, but also some qualities like print media. If I have written an offensive/inflammatory book, I can't have it printed for free - and most of the major publishers might refuse to print it. As long as I have some avenue to print and distribute it, though, then free speech is satisfied.
Likewise, for online, it shouldn't be required for any particular site to publish my comment in their thread. If my comment has only the same visibility as me standing on a physical street corner and/or my self-printed book, though, that is fine. There is no obligation that major sites not moderate my comment any more than major publishers publish my book.
More specifically to GamerGate:
Quote from: Spinachcat;793073I could see potential value in such a program, but not as entertainment or game, but a therapy tool if it was done correctly with the input of actual health professionals.
In the ADHD therapy realm, several years ago a "game" came out where the kids were wired up to a pulse recording device and by managing their breathing, fidgeting and anxiety via the lowest possible pulse, they scored points they could turn in for prizes. I believe "game-ification" of education, therapy and more areas could be great tools in the future...IF done right.
I'm sure there is potential for therapy tools - but there are tons of fictional works in all sorts of media that focus on mentally ill
characters without being therapy. For example, I enjoyed the film of "A Beautiful Mind" as entertaining portrayal of a mentally ill character. The Depression Quest game is parallel to a short story about a character with depression, not a therapeutic tool.
Not everyone is going to like a short story about a character with depression, which is fine. Tastes differ. That doesn't mean that someone who likes a short story about someone with depression is part of a conspiracy, or is a danger to the latest action movie or fantasy novel.
Quote from: jhkim;793087Not everyone is going to like a short story about a character with depression, which is fine. Tastes differ. That doesn't mean that someone who likes a short story about someone with depression is part of a conspiracy, or is a danger to the latest action movie or fantasy novel.
I think the conspiracy was among the game journalists who pushed her 'game', although I suppose maybe having sex with her caused them to genuinely like her 'game'.
What I'm seeing with GamerGate is a grass-roots rebellion against the journalist-media class, who seek to serve as arbiters of opinion. In a way I'm not sure the particular values of that class matter so much, except in influencing who rallies to them/is willing to accept their message. But even a lot of people who share their political values seem to be against their attempt to control the information-flow. Obviously this rebellion makes the journalist-media class angry.
For the record and for what it's worth, I've played two games Zoe Quinn was involved in because GamerGate brought them to my attention: FEZ, which she did the Steam port QA for on behalf of the notorious Phil Fish, and Depression Quest.
FEZ (which I played on Steam) is an awesome game and everyone involved deserves applause for it and should be proud, regardless of what they are like as people. Part of the deeper GG narrative is that Phil Fish is an example of someone who undeservedly got attention for a game because corrupt game journalists, who liked the cut of his hipster SJW jib, were doing him favors. I dispute this.
Depression Quest is very meh on every level of evaluation: game, artistic statement, writing, piece of programming (what there is of it)*, you name it. At least it's free and really short, so it shouldn't take anyone too long to reach their own conclusions about it.
EDIT: *I'm not sure how to fairly evaluate this actually, now that I think about it. It's really basic, and feels "templaty", but gets the job done I guess? I'm not sure what more it really needed. Is "flair" even appropriate for a game about depression?
Actually, from what I've seen, everyone agrees Phil Fish made an awesome game with FEZ. The problem was he's taken forever to follow up on it, which rings of "one-hit wonder".
Quote from: S'mon;793118I think the conspiracy was among the game journalists who pushed her 'game', although I suppose maybe having sex with her caused them to genuinely like her 'game'.
Can you name some people who are in this conspiracy? It seems to me that given that the problem is journalistic ethics, the ones in the spotlight ought to be unethical journalists. However, instead the only name I am hearing is designer Zoe Quinn.
I understand that Eron Gjoni claimed that Quinn had a relationship with game journalist Nathan Grayson. However, as far as I know, Grayson has not reviewed any of Quinn's games. Is your assertion that Grayson did review her game? Or is it that other journalists also had an undisclosed with Quinn and gave her game reviews? Or is it that Grayson used unethical persuasion of fellow journalists on behalf of Quinn?
Quote from: S'mon;793118What I'm seeing with GamerGate is a grass-roots rebellion against the journalist-media class, who seek to serve as arbiters of opinion. In a way I'm not sure the particular values of that class matter so much, except in influencing who rallies to them/is willing to accept their message. But even a lot of people who share their political values seem to be against their attempt to control the information-flow. Obviously this rebellion makes the journalist-media class angry.
In my experience, it is normal for reviewers to push for works that are different than the most popular works. For example, movie reviewers tend to promote little art films even though audiences are most after Transformers and Titanic and such. Is this what you mean by seeking to serve as arbiters of opinion?
I'm not sure what you mean by attempting to control the information-flow. Do you mean that they are trying to control simply by publishing and promoting popular websites like Kotaku? Or do you mean that they are engaged in unethical means of sabotaging other information flow? If the latter, I'd like to hear more about that.
Grayson did not "review" Depression Quest, but he certainly gave it favorable coverage. He posted two articles about Greenlight, out of 50 games, he mentioned only three (DQ was one mentioned), used screenshots of DQ as the only graphic in both articles, and generally used DQ as an example of "good" indie games (praising it both for it's subject matter, but also as a technical marvel, which it is not).
On the question of "gaming journalists" actively colluding to control the narrative:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/17/Exposed-the-secret-mailing-list-of-the-gaming-journalism-elite (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/17/Exposed-the-secret-mailing-list-of-the-gaming-journalism-elite)
I'll also note, most of these "private discussions" happened about 10 days before over a dozen articles were blitzed out over 24 hours, decrying "Gamers are dead". Once they realized censorship was not going to work, they jumped straight to character assassination.
EDIT: I'll also note, GamerGate has not been about Zoe Quinn for quite a while. People keep trying to re-insert her, to fuel the misogyny charges (yet, they're ok with enabling an emotionally abusive woman, who allegedly sleeps with multiple partners without benefit of protection). It bad enough that the pro-GG side has re-dubbed her "Literally Who?" (LW), so as not to signal boost her professional victimhood.
Quote from: Novastar;793200Grayson did not "review" Depression Quest, but he certainly gave it favorable coverage. He posted two articles about Greenlight, out of 50 games, he mentioned only three (DQ was one mentioned), used screenshots of DQ as the only graphic in both articles, and generally used DQ as an example of "good" indie games (praising it both for it's subject matter, but also as a technical marvel, which it is not).
OK, looking that up, I can see posts by Grayson fitting that in January and February, 2-3 months prior to Grayson's alleged relationship. Do you believe that he had a conflict of interest at the time of the coverage that he should have revealed? Or did he post later coverage after there was a conflict of interest?
Quote from: Novastar;793200On the question of "gaming journalists" actively colluding to control the narrative:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/17/Exposed-the-secret-mailing-list-of-the-gaming-journalism-elite (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/17/Exposed-the-secret-mailing-list-of-the-gaming-journalism-elite)
I'll also note, most of these "private discussions" happened about 10 days before over a dozen articles were blitzed out over 24 hours, decrying "Gamers are dead". Once they realized censorship was not going to work, they jumped straight to character assassination.
EDIT: I'll also note, GamerGate has not been about Zoe Quinn for quite a while. People keep trying to re-insert her, to fuel the misogyny charges (yet, they're ok with enabling an emotionally abusive woman, who allegedly sleeps with multiple partners without benefit of protection). It bad enough that the pro-GG side has re-dubbed her "Literally Who?" (LW), so as not to signal boost her professional victimhood.
Novastar - you yourself brought up Quinn on post #16 in this thread - comparing her to Richard Nixon - as well as your comments about her quoted above. She has been mentioned by a number of others in this thread as well. Personally, I would be glad to drop any discussion of people's personal lives and stick to what our personal positions on issues are.
Regarding collusion - I don't think there is any expectation that journalists shouldn't talk among themselves about what they think and write. Publishers can and should make choices about what they are going to cover in order to further their business. I don't think journalists can or should pretend to be "fair and balanced". They have their opinions like anyone else, and the key is mainly to be honest about those.
Things that cross the line would be if journalists are pressured to lie or misrepresent, or to prevent others being heard who represent others. As far as I can see from your link, the supposedly colluding journalists in question genuinely believed in what they were writing. I haven't read their coverage to tell if they lied about their subjects or themselves - if so that would be an ethical issue. But simply talking among themselves isn't unethical.
Following up on something from the James Desborough thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=30852) (on the Pundit's Forum):
Quote from: Warthur;793186Here is the bottom line: GamerGate is a leaderless movement. This has many upsides, but one big downside, and that is that if a significant enough subfaction of GamerGate wants to make it about hate and harassment, then that's what GamerGate is going to be in part about, and precisely because the movement has no leadership or central hub you can't actually distance GamerGate from its most toxic members. They each as individuals have just as much ability to define what the movement is about as you do, and the more 4chan trolls and MRA idiots they convince to climb onto their bandwagon the more momentum they can get behind their vision of the thing.
I agree with this, and I think it's an important point.
If I post on GamerGate, I could say "I identify with GamerGate, and I am genuinely interested in game journalist ethics, and I have not participated in or approved of personal attacks on women designers." However, I couldn't necessarily say that GamerGate is really about what I think, and not about what various trolls think.
This is what I said earlier. If there were some sort of defining GamerGate statement or post, I could agree or disagree with exactly what was said there. As it stands, though, it seems to me that GamerGate is just a nebulous statement of identity politics. I have no idea what I am saying by claiming that I am pro-GamerGate or anti-GamerGate.
There's also an article on 3/31/14, about the failed/torpedo'd? Game_Jam, that ends with Zoe setting up her own Rebel Game Jam (with contributions going directly into her bank account). Not about Depression Quest, but positive coverage all the same.
And yes, I mentioned her in regards to an article she wrote for Cracked; even in the best of circumstances, I don't think someone being accused of ethical failures is going to write an unbiased article about their accusers.
Did you actually read what was in the article?
They actively censored any discussion, on any of their media. Ben Kuchera heavily leaned on others to censor any talk, even on discussion forums. Kyle Orland wanted to get her a "Get Well" gift! Senior Editors basically let it be known, they wouldn't accept a narrative other than the one they perpetuated.
Are you really alright with only one view, only one, being presented by the press?
Also remember, this is not a list amongst peers or even fellow journalists in a publication; these are supposedly competing magazines, colluding to provide a single frame of reference.
It's the difference between Rosa Parks being "A Call for Civil Rights", rather than "Uppity woman gets kicked off bus".
(http://techraptor.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/gamergate-support-430x330.jpg)
Quote from: Novastar;793239Are you really alright with only one view, only one, being presented by the press?
Also remember, this is not a list amongst peers or even fellow journalists in a publication; these are supposedly competing magazines, colluding to provide a single frame of reference.
I am not in favor of pressuring editors or authors to be fair and balanced and provide multiple viewpoints on any given issue. I associate this with arguments over creationism and/or climate change, with some people demanding that their side of the argument be covered.
That's a choice for the editors, and like everyone else, they have free speech and are not required to express any particular viewpoint. If there is some sort of money exchanged or threats involved, then that would be unethical corruption - but editors are free to argue and make points with each other in private discussion. Again, that's part of free speech.
If you don't like the current press, then you should read and support alternative press. I don't like what FOX News is saying, but I absolutely support their right to continue to exist and provide their viewpoint (except for times when they lie).
Quote from: jhkim;793244I am not in favor of pressuring editors or authors to be fair and balanced and provide multiple viewpoints on any given issue. I associate this with arguments over creationism and/or climate change, with some people demanding that their side of the argument be covered.
There's a difference between "fair & balanced", and just admitting the other side's position; currently it's split between negative dismissal ("They say it's about "unthical journalism", as if that could be a thing!") and outright not even giving us that courtesy ("GamerGaters says it's about something else, but it's ALL JUST MISOGYNY!")
I can say a fair number of anti-GG's are concerned over allegations of misogyny, and it's a valid concern. A fair number of trolls are in both camps, trying to poison the debate. I also think the normal advocates for Feminism in video games are fairly radicalized, and maybe not the best people to make your case, as they are profiteering quite well off the issue.
QuoteThat's a choice for the editors, and like everyone else, they have free speech and are not required to express any particular viewpoint.
True dat.
QuoteIf there is some sort of money exchanged or threats involved, then that would be unethical corruption...
And it's pretty obvious, from the Indie scene to the AAA publishers,
that is happening. One article even mentions a PR guy estimating that buying a review costs about $550 on the West Coast. Damn.
Quote- but editors are free to argue and make points with each other in private discussion. Again, that's part of free speech.
But not the part when they not only start telling their own people what to write, but others not associated with the publication. There is a heavy implication that if anyone wrote about GamerGate, they would be blacklisted.
Hell, they already blacklisted this guy:
http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/10/gamergate-destructoid-corruption-and-ruined-careers/ (http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/10/gamergate-destructoid-corruption-and-ruined-careers/)
QuoteIf you don't like the current press, then you should read and support alternative press. I don't like what FOX News is saying, but I absolutely support their right to continue to exist and provide their viewpoint (except for times when they lie).
I have.
I've also sent e-mails to Kotaku and Gamasutra's advertisers, letting them know my disappointment with those publications, and recommending if they want to reach me as a consumer, they might want to stop advertising at "Gamers are Dead" websites in favor of Tech Raptor, NicheGamer, GoodGamers.us, etc
Quote from: jhkim;793244If you don't like the current press, then you should read and support alternative press. I don't like what FOX News is saying, but I absolutely support their right to continue to exist and provide their viewpoint (except for times when they lie).
And consumers have the right to say "Piss off, dickheads", and take their money with them, and make sure the advertisers know why they're going.
If Kotaku wants to yark about how awesome feminism is and how shitty gamers are, they can do it on their own dime.
Um, doesnt just about every group of professionals have private mailing lists where they dont have to deal with fanboys? I mean, comics professionals have several, theres at least one professional authors one that I know of, I assume hundreds more. Why is this a big deal?
In addition, anyone who thinks that gaming journalists are actually "journalists" in an investigative-reporting, non-biased way is kinda deluding themselves. Its like thinking White Dwarf is a real magazine, not just a monthly catalogue. These people are advertising opinions, nothing more. there's no "stories" in gaming journalism, just a bunch of promotions for games a reviewer likes, and complaints about games they don't. I don't want unbiased reviews. I remember when there was this big call for unbiased rpg reviews at RPGnet (back when it was still about RPGs), and I read these reviews that went to great pains to be unbiased, and without fail, 100% of the time, these were the most boring, pointless reviews on the planet. If I read someone's review I want thier personal opinion, no holds barred. I dont have to agree with an opinion to find it entertaining.
Why is this group not going after Fox News if they're really concerned about ethics in journalism, a news source that actually impacts society? This all smacks of slactivism again to me.
Quote from: Novastar;793248There's a difference between "fair & balanced", and just admitting the other side's position; currently it's split between negative dismissal ("They say it's about "unthical journalism", as if that could be a thing!") and outright not even giving us that courtesy ("GamerGaters says it's about something else, but it's ALL JUST MISOGYNY!")
I can say a fair number of anti-GG's are concerned over allegations of misogyny, and it's a valid concern. A fair number of trolls are in both camps, trying to poison the debate. I also think the normal advocates for Feminism in video games are fairly radicalized, and maybe not the best people to make your case, as they are profiteering quite well off the issue.
From what I read, the main complaints seem to be primarily about how game journalists are all a bunch of feminists conspiring to push their political views onto others and not representing the views of many gamers. As you say, that might not be courteous to non-feminists, but it isn't inherently corruption or unethical. They have no obligation to represent the views of any particular gamers.
I certainly believe that there is corruption and lack of ethics within game journalism, such as paying for reviews, but that doesn't seem to be what GamerGate posters are focused on. I have seen no indication at all that the anti-GamerGaters are in favor of paying for reviews, or being soft on that. The reason that they are opposed to GamerGate is
because it is focused on other stuff.
Quote from: TristramEvans;793282Um, doesnt just about every group of professionals have private mailing lists where they dont have to deal with fanboys? I mean, comics professionals have several, theres at least one professional authors one that I know of, I assume hundreds more. Why is this a big deal?
If it's an information item only type of thread ("Hey! George Perez's art on
is awesome!" or "George Perez is going to start drawing for !"), it's no harm, no foul. BUT...when you start asking your competition (which is admittingly your peers, as well) about disciplinary actions, or openly advocate on the mailing list not to hire someone (blacklisting), or agree not to run a story because it could damage your relationship with a publisher (not releasing that EA Australia got hacked for 40,000 accounts), you've crossed a line.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>In addition, anyone who thinks that gaming journalists are actually "journalists" in an investigative-reporting, non-biased way is kinda deluding themselves. Its like thinking White Dwarf is a real magazine, not just a monthly catalogue. These people are advertising opinions, nothing more. </blockquote>And no one expects Game Informer to start exposing GameStop's questionable practices, either.<br>But that relationship is <i>known</i>.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>there's no "stories" in gaming journalism, just a bunch of promotions for games a reviewer likes, and complaints about games they don't. I don't want unbiased reviews. I remember when there was this big call for unbiased rpg reviews at RPGnet (back when it was still about RPGs), and I read these reviews that went to great pains to be unbiased, and without fail, 100% of the time, these were the most boring, pointless reviews on the planet. If I read someone's review I want thier personal opinion, no holds barred. I dont have to agree with an opinion to find it entertaining.</blockquote>I don't think anyone's honestly advocating 100% objective reviews; just be up front with your bias.<br><br>Bayoneta 2 got 9 or 9.5 on most review sites; it got a 7.5 on Kotaku. Not because the controls were buggy, the gameplay wasn't fun, no. Because the reviewer thought that Bayoneta was "over-sexualized", and it ruined his ability to immerse himself in the game.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Why is this group not going after Fox News if they're really concerned about ethics in journalism, a news source that actually impacts society? This all smacks of slactivism again to me.</blockquote>1) Considering how hard, fast and thoroughly the games press tried to censor the story, at this point, we have to take the news agencies that will give us the time of day (hence the use of HuffPo and Breitbart; MSNBC still has not reached out to any pro-GG that I know of, to try and get the other side of the story).<br>2) To the best of my knowledge, Fox News has not actively censored discussion on GamerGate.<br>3) To the best of my knowledge, Fox News has not run a coordinated effort to decry "Gamers are dead!"<br>4) Ergo, Association fallacy.<br><br>How "slacktivist" is it, if your drying up the pool of money they have to continue operations?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>October 22, 2014, 01:37:35 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;793374</cite>From what I read, the main complaints seem to be primarily about how game journalists are all a bunch of feminists conspiring to push their political views onto others and not representing the views of many gamers. As you say, that might not be courteous to non-feminists, but it isn't inherently corruption or unethical. They have no obligation to represent the views of any particular gamers. <br><br>I certainly believe that there is corruption and lack of ethics within game journalism, such as paying for reviews, but that doesn't seem to be what GamerGate posters are focused on. I have seen no indication at all that the anti-GamerGaters are in favor of paying for reviews, or being soft on that. The reason that they are opposed to GamerGate is <i>because</i> it is focused on other stuff.</blockquote>I have to disagree; on the pro-GG side, the argument is over journalistic ethics. The anti-GG wants to make it about Feminism. Ignoratio elenchi.<br><br>And wanting to maintain the corrupt status quo, is a stance as well. So, yes, anti-GG are making a stand to enable corruption. And mass censorship. They also openly call us terrorists and a hate group. While advocating illegal doxxing, against their opponents. And these aren't random anons on Twitter making these calls, they're from the supposed "professionals" (I'm thinking mostly of Leigh Alexander and Devin Faraci) on the anti-GG side.<br><br>And as a cheap parting shot; if your side has an actual "former" Neo-Nazi (Ian Miles Cheong, who still thinks "Jews = nothing") on it, you might want to look a little harder at who you're championing.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 22, 2014, 01:38:03 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;793244</cite>I am not in favor of pressuring editors or authors to be fair and balanced and provide multiple viewpoints on any given issue. I associate this with arguments over creationism and/or climate change, with some people demanding that their side of the argument be covered. <br></blockquote><br>Taking Creationism, the one issue we agree on (since you are one of those foolish Warmists, while I have studied the Science) :D - what possible negative effect is there from giving Creationists a platform? They are not going to convince anyone interested in empirical ascertainment of the truth, are they? Whereas banning their POV, like the banning of holocaust denial in Europe, lets them paint themselves as victims of a conspiracy - much as banning the Gamergate POV does.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>AmazingOnionMan</strong> on <strong>October 22, 2014, 02:48:39 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;793392</cite>And as a cheap parting shot; if your side has an actual "former" Neo-Nazi (Ian Miles Cheong, who still thinks "Jews = nothing") on it, you might want to look a little harder at who you're championing.</blockquote><br>Whoa there. If you want the public to look long and hard at who is on who's side, <i>both</i> sides have some rather miserable individuals stinking it up. <br>I hesitate to take a stand in this clusterfuck, because both sides demonstrate mindboggling stupidity. Over and over and over again.<br>I may find my self cheering for GG, but that's primarily because of some of the intensely annoying people who are on the other side.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>October 22, 2014, 03:03:15 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;793393</cite>Taking Creationism, the one issue we agree on (since you are one of those foolish Warmists, while I have studied the Science) :D - what possible negative effect is there from giving Creationists a platform? They are not going to convince anyone interested in empirical ascertainment of the truth, are they? Whereas banning their POV, like the banning of holocaust denial in Europe, lets them paint themselves as victims of a conspiracy - much as banning the Gamergate POV does.</blockquote>Yes, Creationists absolutely are going to convince people. I've seen varying poll numbers depending on how the question is phrased, but belief Creationism varies from roughly 25% to 45% of the U.S. population. <br><br>http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx<br><br>That said, I am 100% behind Creationists right to make their arguments, and I disagree with the banning of Nazi speech in Germany (for example). However, I also disagree with the bullshit cries that non-Creationist publishers and journalists are ethically demanded to give equal time and respect to Creationism or else they are engaging in censorship. <br><br>A scientific journal that refuses to publish a Creationist paper is not censoring Creationist voices. They are engaging in their own right to free speech. Creationists can and do publish their own books and journals. <br><br>Likewise, if a given website like Kotaku or whoever doesn't give equal time to GamerGate voices, that isn't censorship. I personally tend to prefer a place like this one where I can talk to people with differing viewpoints, but that's shouldn't be an absolute requirement.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>October 22, 2014, 03:31:54 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Amazed it took this long for people to notice:<br>http://theralphretort.com/zoe-quinn-couldnt-have-made-depression-quest-without-grayson/ (http://theralphretort.com/zoe-quinn-couldnt-have-made-depression-quest-without-grayson/)<br>TL: DR version: Reporter is thanked in HTML credits for game he later covered, and did beta-testing for said game prior to that.<br><br>Probably my favorite line in the comments: "Kotaku investigated Kotaku and cleared Kotaku".
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 22, 2014, 03:34:58 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;793406</cite>Yes, Creationists absolutely are going to convince people. I've seen varying poll numbers depending on how the question is phrased, but belief Creationism varies from roughly 25% to 45% of the U.S. population. <br><br>http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx<br><br>That said, I am 100% behind Creationists right to make their arguments, and I disagree with the banning of Nazi speech in Germany (for example). However, I also disagree with the bullshit cries that non-Creationist publishers and journalists are ethically demanded to give equal time and respect to Creationism or else they are engaging in censorship. <br><br>A scientific journal that refuses to publish a Creationist paper is not censoring Creationist voices. They are engaging in their own right to free speech. Creationists can and do publish their own books and journals. <br><br>Likewise, if a given website like Kotaku or whoever doesn't give equal time to GamerGate voices, that isn't censorship. I personally tend to prefer a place like this one where I can talk to people with differing viewpoints, but that's shouldn't be an absolute requirement.</blockquote><br>OK, fair enough, I think. If Kotaku make clear that they have a particular stance (presumably a SJW stance) and people who want the opposing view should go elsewhere, that seems ok to me. I generally prefer POVs to be upfront and explicit - I prefer Fox or MSNBC's obvious bias to the BBC's spurious claims of impartiality. <br>I don't think though that scientists use SJW style censorship tactics against creationists, because they are not afraid of creationists - they know they are right, the evidence is on their side. A scientist can accurately represent creationist arguments and still refute them. SJW tactics as seen on eg RPGnet are to ban anyone from putting forward a contrary POV. I understand the temptation - some unmoderated comments threads are cesspools - but the standard should be basic politeness, not political correctness.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>October 22, 2014, 03:40:46 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
So here's an example about the issue of corruption and ethics: <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;793382</cite>I don't think anyone's honestly advocating 100% objective reviews; just be up front with your bias.<br><br>Bayoneta 2 got 9 or 9.5 on most review sites; it got a 7.5 on Kotaku. Not because the controls were buggy, the gameplay wasn't fun, no. Because the reviewer thought that Bayoneta was "over-sexualized", and it ruined his ability to immerse himself in the game.</blockquote>I agree with the former statement. <br><br>So what's your issue with the review? Did the Kotaku reviewer openly state that his problem was with the over-sexualization, as implied by the quotes? Or did he lie and claim that the controls were buggy, for example?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>JRT</strong> on <strong>October 22, 2014, 04:08:40 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;793417</cite>So here's an example about the issue of corruption and ethics: <br><br><br>I agree with the former statement. <br><br>So what's your issue with the review? Did the Kotaku reviewer openly state that his problem was with the over-sexualization, as implied by the quotes? Or did he lie and claim that the controls were buggy, for example?</blockquote><br>The Bayonetta review he's talking about is not from Kotaku (which has a scoreless review system), but Polygon. Here's some articles on it.<br><br>http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/13/6957677/bayonetta-2-review-wii-u<br><br>http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/16/6990847/we-talk-about-our-bayonetta-2-review-on-our-podcast-quality-control<br><br>And here's a clear statement on Gamegate from Polygon.<br><br>http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/17/6996601/on-gamergate-a-letter-from-the-editor<br><br>What's starting to bug me from the GamerGate side of things is that some of the arguments seem to be unclear. There are two major factions to GG, the anti-feminist side, and the side that wants to root out "corruption in the gaming journalism". The former faction is pretty clear. The latter faction seems to be very fuzzy. <br><br>It seems that every time criticism of GG comes up, people assume that the reporter "is corrupt", which is an argument you see political groups making when they don't like the reporting. Plus, GG has appeared to ignore things like the recent controversy over Shadow of Mordor, which apparently had some deals going with YouTube folks. Honestly, it seems the only things I hear GG doing is either attacking the "big three" feminist targets that have been involved, or swarming the comments articles of anything critical of GG.<br><br>But what's really troubling are the campaigns to get advertisers off sites. How is that helping the integrity of the Journalists?! First of all, this smacks of trying to shut down opinions they don't like, which is the antithesis of journalism and free speech. Secondly, before all this craziness regarding the pro/anti feminist stuff came up--most people were concerned that game companies were too tight with ADVERTISERS. So basically, GG is trying to make what little independence there is in the PR-cozy gaming area even MORE dependent on advertisers?! Does anybody see how this is going to INCREASE the problem, not decrease it? <br><br>And the targets of this are troubling. Gamasutra is not really a news site but it's more a group of developer blogs, which is about 100% opinion. So, let's pull ads for them because one person wrote an article we didn't like. Let's go after Polygon because one guy disliked Bayonetta, and gave his honest opinion. Why should a review have to "toe the line" and not find stuff distasteful. A game could rub me the wrong way because it's got flashy anime-combat, it could be overtly violent, the plot could be dumb, etc. Why should critics be forced to shut up about that kind of thing. People wouldn't expect a movie reviewer to not comment about things they didn't like! <br><br>That's why it's hard for me to accept that GG is about rooting out journalist corruption, but rather it's more about politics. I think the group should split because there's so many decentralized views that they get confused.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>woodsmoke</strong> on <strong>October 22, 2014, 05:34:25 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
The reason people are going after Gamasutra and Polygon is they took part in the "gamers are over" propaganda blitz a couple months back. In doing so, they didn't just bite the hand that feeds them, they effectively declared war on it. Everything they're dealing with now is nothing more than the natural consequences of their own abject stupidity.<br><br>As for the ethics vs ideology divide, the best I can figure as to why some are maintaining GG has nothing to do with politics or feminism is they don't want gaming to get involved in and potentially weighed down by a larger cultural conflict. Personally, I don't think that's possible, not least because it seems pretty clear to me gaming is already involved in a fairly prominent capacity. I could well be wrong, though; I'm just Some Asshole on the Internet, same as most everyone else pontificating on all this.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>October 22, 2014, 05:47:57 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: JRT;793422</cite>The Bayonetta review he's talking about is not from Kotaku (which has a scoreless review system), but Polygon.</blockquote>Whoops, my bad.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>And here's a clear statement on Gamegate from Polygon.<br><br>http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/17/6996601/on-gamergate-a-letter-from-the-editor</blockquote>And look at that, Comments are closed!<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>What's starting to bug me from the GamerGate side of things is that some of the arguments seem to be unclear. There are two major factions to GG, the anti-feminist side, and the side that wants to root out "corruption in the gaming journalism". The former faction is pretty clear. The latter faction seems to be very fuzzy. </blockquote>Honestly, I don't think that's all that odd in a grassroots movement.<br>There is an advantage of "focusing the message" by having leaders, but it also gives the opposition a target to character assassinate. And it's not like someone's jumped up to say "I represent the Game Journalist Media!" either...<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>It seems that every time criticism of GG comes up, people assume that the reporter "is corrupt", which is an argument you see political groups making when they don't like the reporting.</blockquote>It's hard not to assume the worst, when your getting called names (Misogynist/Corrupt) by the other side.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Plus, GG has appeared to ignore things like the recent controversy over Shadow of Mordor, which apparently had some deals going with YouTube folks.</blockquote>And who broke that story? Totalbiscuit, a YouTube reviewer who is pro-GG.<br>Polygon ran an outrage article, on how they used the "sneak up and kill a baddie" mechanic, to get a kiss in the Tutorial.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Honestly, it seems the only things I hear GG doing is either attacking the "big three" feminist targets that have been involved, or swarming the comments articles of anything critical of GG.</blockquote>It's hard to address corruption and ethics in gaming journalism when:<br>1) The media does not want to acknowledge your complaint.<br>2) The media does not want to engage you.<br>3) The media paints you as a misogynistic hate group.<br><br>EDIT: and the last one is the most damning one; they've well and truly painted themselves into a corner with it. They CAN NOT engage Pro-GG at this point, after making that statement, without 1) admitting they lied and we never were a misogynistic hate group, or 2) they're willing to sit down and talk with a misogynistic hate group, which will get them eviscerated by the section of radical feminism they've brought in.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>But what's really troubling are the campaigns to get advertisers off sites. How is that helping the integrity of the Journalists?! First of all, this smacks of trying to shut down opinions they don't like, which is the antithesis of journalism and free speech. Secondly, before all this craziness regarding the pro/anti feminist stuff came up--most people were concerned that game companies were too tight with ADVERTISERS. So basically, GG is trying to make what little independence there is in the PR-cozy gaming area even MORE dependent on advertisers?! Does anybody see how this is going to INCREASE the problem, not decrease it? </blockquote>1) Revealing potential Conflict of Interests and refusing Payola/bribes is a professional ethics decision. While I'm willing to admit being paid piss poor rates for writing makes bribery more attractive, it still comes down to an ethical decision. I'm sure there's more than a few McDonalds workers that might put a "little something extra" in your food, for the right price. Would it be ethical for them to do so?<br>2) No, honestly, we want the corrupt websites to go out of business, and funnel advertisers to those who practice honest journalism. I don't just say "Gamasutra is ebil!" in my e-mails; I list out my grievances, tell them I will no longer patron <website>, and if they want to reach me with their advertisements, I can be found at <websites>. The advertisers can make their own decision from there.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>And the targets of this are troubling. Gamasutra is not really a news site but it's more a group of developer blogs, which is about 100% opinion.</blockquote>Really?<br>http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience_Gamers_are_over.php (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience_Gamers_are_over.php)<br>Huh. The link worked just fine for me. No passwords or special access required.<br>I have to assume the article was meant for anyone and everyone to read.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>So, let's pull ads for them because one person wrote an article we didn't like. </blockquote>No. Plenty of people have written articles I did not like.<br>Leigh Alexander specifically calls those on the other side of the debate out:<br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>These obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers -- they are not my audience. They don’t have to be yours. There is no ‘side’ to be on, there is no ‘debate’ to be had.</blockquote>Pretty obviously, she is wrong. And hell, if she was willing to re-engage, clarifying her position and admit she maybe misunderstood or maligned the opposition's viewpoint, a dialogue could start. But she doesn't. She keeps doubling down on the misogynerd comments. I feel no need to support such a person, and feel no remorse for letting the advertisers currently supporting her know that, and where they <b>can</b> reach me, in e-mails.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Let's go after Polygon because one guy disliked Bayonetta, and gave his honest opinion. Why should a review have to "toe the line" and not find stuff distasteful. A game could rub me the wrong way because it's got flashy anime-combat, it could be overtly violent, the plot could be dumb, etc. Why should critics be forced to shut up about that kind of thing. People wouldn't expect a movie reviewer to not comment about things they didn't like! </blockquote>That would be fine, if it wasn't <i>his only complaint</i>.<br>Literally, he praises the game otherwise throughout, saying it's an overall improvement over the original. His sole critique is how she's dressed, and the game's camera placement, that leads to "over-sexualization" in his opinion.<br><br>It should be noted, Polygon has also changed it's review score, when it has suited them:<br>http://slumz.boxden.com/f13/polygon-changes-drive-club-review-from-7-5-to-5-a-2132530/ (http://slumz.boxden.com/f13/polygon-changes-drive-club-review-from-7-5-to-5-a-2132530/)<br>http://www.giantbomb.com/battlefield-4/3030-39035/forums/polygon-changes-their-review-score-bf4-drops-from--1462715/ (http://www.giantbomb.com/battlefield-4/3030-39035/forums/polygon-changes-their-review-score-bf4-drops-from--1462715/)<br><br>And, it not like Polygon has ever rated an awesome game, as average before:<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_of_Us#Critical_reception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_of_Us#Critical_reception)<br> <br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>That's why it's hard for me to accept that GG is about rooting out journalist corruption, but rather it's more about politics. I think the group should split because there's so many decentralized views that they get confused.</blockquote>It's hard to escape politics, when people are trying to inject a socio-politic agenda into your arena.<br><br>And you know, abortion and climate control are two very different issues. I think the Democratic/Republican party should split in two, so these issues don't get confused... :p ;)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>crkrueger</strong> on <strong>October 22, 2014, 08:50:50 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: woodsmoke;793436</cite>As for the ethics vs ideology divide, the best I can figure as to why some are maintaining GG has nothing to do with politics or feminism is they don't want gaming to get involved in and potentially weighed down by a larger cultural conflict. </blockquote>Specifically, "Hey SJW's, stop forming Cabals to take over our hobby, thanks."<br><br>Anti-SJW is not anti-Feminism.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>JRT</strong> on <strong>October 22, 2014, 08:56:14 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;793441</cite>And look at that, Comments are closed!</blockquote><br>They have one comment that leads to the forum. Seems to be a good conversation there.<br><br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;793441</cite>2) No, honestly, we want the corrupt websites to go out of business, and funnel advertisers to those who practice honest journalism. I don't just say "Gamasutra is ebil!" in my e-mails; I list out my grievances, tell them I will no longer patron <website>, and if they want to reach me with their advertisements, I can be found at <websites>. The advertisers can make their own decision from there.</blockquote><br>Actually, if you truly care about corruption, you'd just vote with your wallet. By calling for a boycott, you are going beyond, you are actually working against the ethical standards you want by saying "hey, advertisers, bully these folks into complying with my side". That's how I see it.<br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Really?<br>Huh. The link worked just fine for me. No passwords or special access required.<br>I have to assume the article was meant for anyone and everyone to read.</blockquote><br>I did not say that it was a private site. I said that Gamasutra is not a "news site", it is more akin to an op-ed site, since it's a collection of publicly accessible blogs by game creators and some enthusiasts. And when it comes to op-ed pieces, by conduction a boycott, you're basically saying I want to punish an op-ed site simply because somebody there offended my feelings. If you were truly into journalistic ethics, this should be troubling to you. <br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>That would be fine, if it wasn't <i>his only complaint</i>.<br>Literally, he praises the game otherwise throughout, saying it's an overall improvement over the original. His sole critique is how she's dressed, and the game's camera placement, that leads to "over-sexualization" in his opinion.</blockquote><br>You still haven't explained why a reviewer giving a lower score to a game because he feels there's gratuitous T&A shots is somehow some sort of ethical corruption. Based on what I read, he feels the game is a bit exploitative and it turns him off to the overall experience. How does this proof any sort of corruption?<br><br>Calling for an advertiser boycott because somebody gave a lower review is probably the antithesis of what you want for journalistic integrity or artistic judgement. If another critic disliked the gratuitous blood in a game and decided to rate it a B- when the rest of the Internet gave it an A+, calling for a advertiser boycott is stupid and it only encourages more groupthink, more collusion, and actually tells advertisers yes, we want to punish people for criticizing your game.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>JRT</strong> on <strong>October 22, 2014, 08:59:07 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: CRKrueger;793462</cite>Specifically, "Hey SJW's, stop forming Cabals to take over our hobby, thanks."<br><br>Anti-SJW is not anti-Feminism.</blockquote><br>It's weird that this keeps coming up. So far, there seems to be a demonization of a few individuals, and it's weird that people somehow think people like Anita and Brianna are somehow going to overnight ruin AAA games because they have opinions. <br><br>If anything, I think there's a massive overreaction, and I suspect too many people fear--what, exactly? That we might have more nuanced female characters in games? That we might have games that aren't just aimed at the young single male?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>October 22, 2014, 11:54:29 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: JRT;793463</cite>They have one comment that leads to the forum. Seems to be a good conversation there.</blockquote>We'll just have to agree to disagree there, m'thinks.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Actually, if you truly care about corruption, you'd just vote with your wallet. By calling for a boycott, you are going beyond, you are actually working against the ethical standards you want by saying "hey, advertisers, bully these folks into complying with my side". That's how I see it.</blockquote>I see it as announcing my intentions, bringing it up to the advertiser, and giving them a chance to react, if they want my patronage. Just taking off would be punishing the advertiser, for the publisher's comments.<br><br>And hell, if the publisher wants to print an apology (especially for that "Bring Back Bullying" bullshit), and make lasting changes to their policies, to keep me and advertisers from leaving, I consider that acceptable as well.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>I did not say that it was a private site. I said that Gamasutra is not a "news site", it is more akin to an op-ed site, since it's a collection of publicly accessible blogs by game creators and some enthusiasts. And when it comes to op-ed pieces, by conduction a boycott, you're basically saying I want to punish an op-ed site simply because somebody there offended my feelings. If you were truly into journalistic ethics, this should be troubling to you. </blockquote>And as a publisher if you produce and distribute an op-ed, you own it. There was no disclaimer. It was written by "The Editor-At-Large", part of their professional staff. <br><br>And to be perfectly honest, the "Gamers are dead!" articles were ALL op-ed's, not news stories.<br>Spectacularly shitty ones, at that. It wasn't just biting the hand that feeds you, it was slapping your readership across the face and saying "Do I need to give you another?!?"<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>You still haven't explained why a reviewer giving a lower score to a game because he feels there's gratuitous T&A shots is somehow some sort of ethical corruption. </blockquote>I don't believe I ever said it was.<br>I said he was pushing a narrative ("over-sexualization").<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Based on what I read, he feels the game is a bit exploitative and it turns him off to the overall experience. How does this proof any sort of corruption?</blockquote>So, disliking a direction in art in the game (not saying the art is poor, or glitchy; just doesn't meet your artistic preferences), is worth downgrading a game 1.5 to 2 points, from your peers consensus?<br><br>Do I have anything definite? No, I'll grant you that.<br>But it does make it seem that, given the reasoning in the review, that Polygon is pushing an agenda.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Calling for an advertiser boycott because somebody gave a lower review is probably the antithesis of what you want for journalistic integrity or artistic judgement. If another critic disliked the gratuitous blood in a game and decided to rate it a B- when the rest of the Internet gave it an A+, calling for a advertiser boycott is stupid and it only encourages more groupthink, more collusion, and actually tells advertisers yes, we want to punish people for criticizing your game.</blockquote>Well, it's a good thing I've never called for a boycott over a review.<br>I've only ever criticized it as an example of "agenda pushing".<br><br>There's plenty of other things from their staff (mostly Ben Kuchera), that make me want to boycott their website.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 23, 2014, 02:39:16 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I can't see anything wrong with giving a game (Bayonetta) a lowish score and honestly saying this was because you disliked the over-sexualisation. People who don't share your preference can take that into account. Some people may then go buy it *because* you've drawn attention to the over-sexualisation.<br><br>Conspiring in the flurry of 'Gamers are Dead' articles, telling gamers they hate women, and such behaviour that shows general contempt for the audience that pays your salary, certainly looks worthy of a boycott to me. And there's certainly nothing wrong with telling advertisers this. <br><br>Gamers shouldn't have to put up with a game journalist class that despises gamers while taking their money. FWIW I don't expect SJWs to fund stuff they don't like, either, and if they were ever the oppressed class they claim to be or represent I'd say the same on their behalf. But a major feature of SJW activism is their constant dishonesty; they lie and distort constantly in service of their agenda - http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/21/From-Farage-to-Freud-how-the-cultural-Marxists-are-murdering-our-language/ - they're not honest actors, although they know how to fool many well-meaning left-liberals to take up arms on their behalf.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>October 23, 2014, 03:03:10 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;793485</cite>So, disliking a direction in art in the game (not saying the art is poor, or glitchy; just doesn't meet your artistic preferences), is worth downgrading a game 1.5 to 2 points, from your peers consensus?<br><br>Do I have anything definite? No, I'll grant you that.<br>But it does make it seem that, given the reasoning in the review, that Polygon is pushing an agenda.</blockquote>I'm not a big video-gamer, but from reading the review and knowing my video-gamer friends, that weighting seems perfectly reasonable. For some of them, the art described would be a deal-breaker - they wouldn't be interested in playing the game at all. For some of them, they might play it, but the gratuitous T&A would significantly detract from their enjoyment. And some of them probably wouldn't be bothered. <br><br>Is it really so hard to believe that this genuinely detracts from some people's enjoyment? Do you truly believe that the reviewer doesn't mind the T&A art in the game, and instead he is lying about his enjoyment solely to promote an agenda? <br><br>Seriously, imagine in your head for a minute if you were playing a game where there was a male lead character whose clothes kept coming off and he stood in various sexual poses. Would that make any difference in how you enjoyed the game? I know for many players, that would make a significant difference.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 23, 2014, 06:41:11 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: JRT;793422</cite>What's starting to bug me from the GamerGate side of things is that some of the arguments seem to be unclear. There are two major factions to GG, the anti-feminist side, and the side that wants to root out "corruption in the gaming journalism". The former faction is pretty clear. The latter faction seems to be very fuzzy.</blockquote><br>You could say the same about feminism: <br><br>http://siryouarebeingmocked.tumblr.com/post/100468222394/anti-feminism-pro-equality-elizabeththorne<br><br>Doesnt that bug you? Or is feminism exempt from that standard?<br><br>http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2014/10/22/things-that-are-not-consistent-noh/
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 23, 2014, 06:53:28 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: JRT;793463</cite>Actually, if you truly care about corruption, you'd just vote with your wallet. By calling for a boycott, you are going beyond, you are actually working against the ethical standards you want by saying "hey, advertisers, bully these folks into complying with my side". That's how I see it.</blockquote><br>None of those media outlets are entitled to sponsor's money, anymore than the 'nappy headed ho' idiot or Rush Limbaugh are.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Rincewind1</strong> on <strong>October 23, 2014, 07:24:08 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;793282</cite>Um, doesnt just about every group of professionals have private mailing lists where they dont have to deal with fanboys? I mean, comics professionals have several, theres at least one professional authors one that I know of, I assume hundreds more. Why is this a big deal?<br><br><br>In addition, anyone who thinks that gaming journalists are actually "journalists" in an investigative-reporting, non-biased way is kinda deluding themselves. Its like thinking White Dwarf is a real magazine, not just a monthly catalogue. These people are advertising opinions, nothing more. there's no "stories" in gaming journalism, just a bunch of promotions for games a reviewer likes, and complaints about games they don't. I don't want unbiased reviews. I remember when there was this big call for unbiased rpg reviews at RPGnet (back when it was still about RPGs), and I read these reviews that went to great pains to be unbiased, and without fail, 100% of the time, these were the most boring, pointless reviews on the planet. If I read someone's review I want thier personal opinion, no holds barred. I dont have to agree with an opinion to find it entertaining.<br></blockquote><br>That's not exactly the problem. The problem as I see and understand it, is that the opinions are far too heavily biased by the money and access deals. Let me put this in a practical perspective:<br><br>I have collected a certain gaming magazine from a year 2000 to about a year 2003, then got more copies of them when my buddy was getting married, so now I collect all monthly copies from 2000 to 2006. Back then, it was usual to see a certain amount of games panned or simply rated mediocre, given 5 or 6 out of 10 when they deserved to be named such. Tens were very rare, even nines were happening about once per magazine tops.<br><br>I pick up the same magazine today. All AAA titles have at least 8+ rating, in fact I can't find a single game rated underneath 7. The best show is the FIFA review - back in the day, FIFA's scores were very uneven, with certain editions being panned for being the same game with slightly refreshed graphics. Now, I actually take 4 magazines - one from year 2003, one from 2004, one from 2012 and from 2013 and suddenly, everyone's okay with FIFA in the last two ones, despite it being, well, practically the same game.<br><br>And you know, that's the problem - people want to read those opinions to see if the game's playable or not. And that's harder and harder to find, especially when everyone wants to play Serious Art Critic and forgets that if you want to discuss games as arts, <b>gameplay </b>is a crucial part of what actually districts games.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 23, 2014, 09:26:46 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;793382</cite>If it's an information item only type of thread ("Hey! George Perez's art on <issue> is awesome!" or "George Perez is going to start drawing for <title>!"), it's no harm, no foul. BUT...when you start asking your competition (which is admittingly your peers, as well) about disciplinary actions, or openly advocate on the mailing list not to hire someone (blacklisting), or agree not to run a story because it could damage your relationship with a publisher (not releasing that EA Australia got hacked for 40,000 accounts), you've crossed a line.</blockquote><br>What line is that, exactly? <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>And no one expects Game Informer to start exposing GameStop's questionable practices, either.<br>But that relationship is <i>known</i>.<br><br>I don't think anyone's honestly advocating 100% objective reviews; just be up front with your bias. </blockquote><br>Again, maybe its that I was raised on Nintendo Power, but for me, that bias is assumed. It occurs to me as naive to expect otherwise. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Bayoneta 2 got 9 or 9.5 on most review sites; it got a 7.5 on Kotaku. Not because the controls were buggy, the gameplay wasn't fun, no. Because the reviewer thought that Bayoneta was "over-sexualized", and it ruined his ability to immerse himself in the game.</blockquote><br>Which suggests the reviewer did make his bias known. If that was the basis for the bad review, then as a reader I know a) that this is not a person that judges games on the same basis as myself and b) that I will take thier "ratings" with a giant grain of salt. What I dont understand is, why are these magazines even necessary with the proliferation of independent online reviews? At least insofar as one's intention is to get an honest reaction to a game to know if they want to buy it. IF I pic up a gaming mag, its because I want to look at the pretty pictures, I honestly don't consider the text the work of serious journalists and its strikes me as odd that anyone would. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>1) Considering how hard, fast and thoroughly the games press tried to censor the story, at this point, we have to take the news agencies that will give us the time of day (hence the use of HuffPo and Breitbart; MSNBC still has not reached out to any pro-GG that I know of, to try and get the other side of the story).<br>2) To the best of my knowledge, Fox News has not actively censored discussion on GamerGate.<br>3) To the best of my knowledge, Fox News has not run a coordinated effort to decry "Gamers are dead!"<br>4) Ergo, Association fallacy. </blockquote><br>No, its not an association fallacy. Its about "journalistic ethics", which I keep reading from one side that GG is really all about. Fox News is the current poster child for yellow journalism, a dishonestly heavily biased news source that promotes a specific political agenda. If journalistic ethics is really a person's concern, I would assume that Fox News would be top of thier list, irregardless of how it specifically applies to the videogaming community. However, this is a movement specifically devoted to "gaming journalism", an industry that has ALWAYS been in the pocket of the companies developing games. I see no difference between that and the people so concerned about sexism in RPGs who are completely uninvolved in any efforts to combat sexism IRL. Sexism in RPGs, for what may or may not exist, is at the very least simply one facet of an aspect of society. ITs not the be all, end all, and fighting it in RPGs is meaningless if it continues in other areas of life that arent simply obscure forms of entertainment. So-called "SJW"s attack RPGs because its "safe". Theres no real consequences to dealing simply with a bunch of unfortunate hobbyists. I see that paralleled here. Attacking videogame journalism, an expression that has always meant nothing besides promotion, is safer than actually dealing with the problem of ethics in journalism that pervades the media these days. Its like trying to break a twig in half and claiming that you're destroying a forest. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>How "slacktivist" is it, if your drying up the pool of money they have to continue operations?</blockquote><br>From what Ive read, they did that themselves. The "death of the gamer" articles were basically the game mags shooting themselves in the face. Apparently these "reporters" had some inflated sense of importance that led them to believe that just because videogames have achieved a wider audience in society, that somehow includes gaming mags. That distorted sense of reality is amusingly sad in that the average person who may play wii or some game on their ipod is not the sort of person that seeks ot gaming magazines to follow the industry or get the latest dish on what's coming. Its the difference between people who avidly follow online what films are getting released, and the average viewer who doesnt even know of a film's existence until they see a trailer for it or happen upon a poster advertisement. Te hardcore gamers are the gaming mags audience, no one else. And by declaring "war" on that group, the so-called journalists basically bit the hand that fed them. It doesn't make the reaction of GG any less slactivist IMO, its still just a "safe" cause to bitch about online that requires no personal sacrifice or dealing with the greater issues facing society.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>crkrueger</strong> on <strong>October 23, 2014, 11:10:49 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
"Journalistic Ethics" is not just "AAA titles don't get lower then a 8 because otherwise they would get no access." It's also "A group of SJW using the success and popularity of Indie Games to collectively push a joint political agenda and collude to attack their own audience despite being supposed competitors."
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 23, 2014, 02:53:04 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: CRKrueger;793556</cite>"Journalistic Ethics" is not just "AAA titles don't get lower then a 8 because otherwise they would get no access." It's also "A group of SJW using the success and popularity of Indie Games to collectively push a joint political agenda and collude to attack their own audience despite being supposed competitors."</blockquote><br>"...and in the process lose thier readership" If a bunch of magazines wants to push thier agendas thats fine, no one needs to buy them. Theres plenty of other options for a gamer seeking news and reviews online. Its not a conspiracy so much as retardation. The AAA game companies know what their auudience wants and arent going to stop making games because some reviewers have swallowed the wrong colour pill. Ultimately radical feminism cant stand up to market research and basic finances.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Premier</strong> on <strong>October 23, 2014, 03:27:12 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;793282</cite>Why is this group not going after Fox News if they're really concerned about ethics in journalism, a news source that actually impacts society? This all smacks of slactivism again to me.</blockquote><br>That logic cuts both ways. All those SJW's who are hijacking gaming media (sad and corrupt as it is) and using it as a platform for the their crusade and who are haranguing about sexism in gaming and by gamers... if they're really concerned about sexism, why aren't they going after some genuinely large issue that actually impacts society? Like misogyny in American professional sports? Going after the small fry of gaming doesn't so much smack as <i>reeks</i> of slactivism. To me and to anyone with a brain.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 23, 2014, 03:28:43 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Premier;793620</cite>That logic cuts both ways. All those SJW's who are hijacking gaming media (sad and corrupt as it is) and using it as a platform for the their crusade and who are haranguing about sexism in gaming and by gamers... if they're really concerned about sexism, why aren't they going after some genuinely large issue that actually impacts society? Like misogyny in American professional sports? Going after the small fry of gaming doesn't so much smack as <i>reeks</i> of slactivism. To me and to anyone with a brain.</blockquote><br>Yeah, both sides of this thing juust seem like a bunch of myopic dorks. But thats geekdom I guess.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>October 23, 2014, 04:38:58 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans</cite>Why is this group not going after Fox News if they're really concerned about ethics in journalism, a news source that actually impacts society? This all smacks of slactivism again to me.</blockquote><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Premier;793620</cite>That logic cuts both ways. All those SJW's who are hijacking gaming media (sad and corrupt as it is) and using it as a platform for the their crusade and who are haranguing about sexism in gaming and by gamers... if they're really concerned about sexism, why aren't they going after some genuinely large issue that actually impacts society? Like misogyny in American professional sports? Going after the small fry of gaming doesn't so much smack as <i>reeks</i> of slactivism. To me and to anyone with a brain.</blockquote>I think that logic is flawed in both cases. <br><br>GamerGaters are reacting to gaming journalism because that's what they are close to. Likewise, gamers who are concerned with sexism react to sexism in their own personal sphere. <br><br>For example, if the clerk at my corner store is staring at and catcalling young women, I may react to that and take effort to do something about it. He argues back that they shoot girls for getting an education in Pakistan - why aren't I doing anything about that? That's a specious argument. I'm doing something about what is in front of me. <br><br>I agree that there are some genuine slacktivists, but just because someone is acting locally doesn't mean they are a slacktivist.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>October 23, 2014, 07:56:27 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Piestrio;790978</cite>I'm very liberal in nearly every facet of my life. I'm pro-labor, I've been a member of 3 labor unions, sat on the board of one and worked for another. I've attended rallies, protests, meetings etc... since I was in high school. I've knocked on doors for ballot initiatives and candidates. <br><br>So I say this from a position of utmost love.<br><br>Modern leftism, as is expressed and carried out online, is broken. It's come full circle to be an amazingly anti-liberal force. Basically every tenet of liberalism is violently attacked and denounced by online leftists.<br><br>It makes me very sad to see my fellow travellers burning down everything we're supposed to be fighting for.<br><br>At this point I've basically stopped talking about it online because anyone who raises an objection, no matter how small, to the glorious crusade will be cast out of the tribe and likely face harassment for their effort.<br><br>I still keep in contact with some of my old activist buddies and more than a few have done basically the same thing. It's gotten so toxic and wrong-headed we want basically nothing to do with it anymore.</blockquote><br>What's really funny is that the more strident the Left becomes, the less it accomplishes on a national level.<br><br>JG
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>October 23, 2014, 07:58:34 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: CRKrueger;793556</cite>"Journalistic Ethics" is not just "AAA titles don't get lower then a 8 because otherwise they would get no access." It's also "A group of SJW using the success and popularity of Indie Games to collectively push a joint political agenda and collude to attack their own audience despite being supposed competitors."</blockquote><br>Forget the gaming scene. The fact that many of us would prefer to get our news from Stephen Colbert and Andrew Sullivan is evidence that "journalistic ethics" is a phrase that ranks right up there with "pregnant virgin."<br><br>JG
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Bradford C. Walker</strong> on <strong>October 23, 2014, 08:28:39 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Something I noticed lately is that the frustration of the anti-GG side, as well as the continued opportunism exploiting both sides, reveals that what is going on is that GG has become an insurgency. The chaos created that allows people to play both sides for their own ends, the utter failure of the insurgents' enemies to comprehend the insurgency (and therefore doom their own side), and shows of asymmetric (social and political, rather than paramilitary) operations scoring successes in contravention to the narrative told- no, not Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraq, but this thing we're talking about here and now.<br><br>Insurgencies arise when a population experiences a foreign invasion in force, sees that it lacks the means to confront it conventionally (or that is cannot do so and win), and instead switches to an entirely different mode of engagement contingent on destroy the foreigners' will to continue the adventure. Operations target alliances (reducing the invaders' ability to continue), as well as the ones seen to provide for or benefit from the adventure ("hearts & minds", reducing the support for the adventure).<br><br>This is how the pro-GG side operates; they're targeting advertisers and exposing links in how the enemy's operations actually work and revealing intentions that the anti-GG side wants concealed (for whatever reason). The anti-GG side operates as a typical formalized institution acting in an imperial manner, especially in its delusion that both sides are playing the same game, and if no one on that side wakes up and starts leading their side to an effective anti-insurgency strategy soon they will find that their defeat in inevitable. Soon they will find that their allies and support base will desert them to save their own skins or preserve ideological purity.<br><br>And yes, there are known ways to break an insurgency. The anti-GG side, at this time, is too ignorant and incompetent to properly employ them.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>October 23, 2014, 08:34:17 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;793672</cite>Something I noticed lately is that the frustration of the anti-GG side, as well as the continued opportunism exploiting both sides, reveals that what is going on is that GG has become an insurgency. The chaos created that allows people to play both sides for their own ends, the utter failure of the insurgents' enemies to comprehend the insurgency (and therefore doom their own side), and shows of asymmetric (social and political, rather than paramilitary) operations scoring successes in contravention to the narrative told- no, not Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraq, but this thing we're talking about here and now.<br><br>Insurgencies arise when a population experiences a foreign invasion in force, sees that it lacks the means to confront it conventionally (or that is cannot do so and win), and instead switches to an entirely different mode of engagement contingent on destroy the foreigners' will to continue the adventure. Operations target alliances (reducing the invaders' ability to continue), as well as the ones seen to provide for or benefit from the adventure ("hearts & minds", reducing the support for the adventure).<br><br>This is how the pro-GG side operates; they're targeting advertisers and exposing links in how the enemy's operations actually work and revealing intentions that the anti-GG side wants concealed (for whatever reason). The anti-GG side operates as a typical formalized institution acting in an imperial manner, especially in its delusion that both sides are playing the same game, and if no one on that side wakes up and starts leading their side to an effective anti-insurgency strategy soon they will find that their defeat in inevitable. Soon they will find that their allies and support base will desert them to save their own skins or preserve ideological purity.<br><br>And yes, there are known ways to break an insurgency. The anti-GG side, at this time, is too ignorant and incompetent to properly employ them.</blockquote><br>Again, I find this disturbingly parallel to the Left's cluelessness in general.<br><br>JG
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>October 23, 2014, 09:03:43 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;793672</cite>And yes, there are known ways to break an insurgency. The anti-GG side, at this time, is too ignorant and incompetent to properly employ them.</blockquote><br>I'd add arrogant to that list. They've been told their whole life that they're not only special snowflakes, but that they're always <b>right</b>, so they can't conceive that everyone won't agree with them and put down the insurgency, pat them on the head and say "good job", and give them a cookie and a participation trophy.<br><br>Of course, the cookie and trophy is only the start. What they <b>really</b> want is access to the control panel of society so they can tell everyone else how to behave. For our own good, of course...
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>October 23, 2014, 09:09:37 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
This is a new low...<br>(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/852/663/366.jpg)<br><br>Seriously? <b>SERIOUSLY?!?</b><br>You want to stop people donating to a charity, to people in <i>actual need</i>, because you think the opposition is "weaponizing charity"?<br><br>The mental gymnastics to get to this point... :banghead:
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Iosue</strong> on <strong>October 23, 2014, 09:21:20 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;793672</cite>Something I noticed lately is that the frustration of the anti-GG side, as well as the continued opportunism exploiting both sides, reveals that what is going on is that GG has become an insurgency. The chaos created that allows people to play both sides for their own ends, the utter failure of the insurgents' enemies to comprehend the insurgency (and therefore doom their own side), and shows of asymmetric (social and political, rather than paramilitary) operations scoring successes in contravention to the narrative told- no, not Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraq, but this thing we're talking about here and now.<br><br>Insurgencies arise when a population experiences a foreign invasion in force, sees that it lacks the means to confront it conventionally (or that is cannot do so and win), and instead switches to an entirely different mode of engagement contingent on destroy the foreigners' will to continue the adventure. Operations target alliances (reducing the invaders' ability to continue), as well as the ones seen to provide for or benefit from the adventure ("hearts & minds", reducing the support for the adventure).<br><br>This is how the pro-GG side operates; they're targeting advertisers and exposing links in how the enemy's operations actually work and revealing intentions that the anti-GG side wants concealed (for whatever reason). The anti-GG side operates as a typical formalized institution acting in an imperial manner, especially in its delusion that both sides are playing the same game, and if no one on that side wakes up and starts leading their side to an effective anti-insurgency strategy soon they will find that their defeat in inevitable. Soon they will find that their allies and support base will desert them to save their own skins or preserve ideological purity.<br><br>And yes, there are known ways to break an insurgency. The anti-GG side, at this time, is too ignorant and incompetent to properly employ them.</blockquote>I dunno. From where I'm sitting, it looks like anti-GG is winning. Diving deep into Google, I have found some excellent blogs and youtube videos making excellent points for the pro-GG view, not least being that Jack Thompson got the same kind of over-the-top threats and harassment as Sarkeesian et al have claimed to receive, suggesting that that's less about misogyny than it is 14-year olds and douchebros spouting off from behind the safety of a monitor.<br><br>But aside from Breitbarts, which I always feel a little grimy after visiting, and David Auerbach's stuff on Slate, no news source that I've seen has given GamerGate any credit at all. At <i>best</i>, lip service is paid to claims of concern for game journalism. Sometimes they talk about a culture war. More often than not, it's described as an organized campaign of harassment of women in gaming. There's no nuance, no engagement with public figures associated with GamerGate, such as TotalBiscuit. If some types "gamergate" into a Google News search, the anti-GG articles far, far outnumber the positive ones. (Naturally, a good deal of that is due to anti-GG coverage by the gaming journalism sites that are GG's primary targets.)<br><br>Insurgencies work because generally there's reluctance to cause mass collateral damage to those who are not part of the insurgency. The anti-GG side doesn't worry about that. All that have to say is, "Do you despise misogyny, harassment, and Internet trolling? Then be against GamerGate." Intel pulls ads from Gamasutra because of an article that contemptuously stereotypes "gamers"? "Intel throws its hat in with GamerGate." Adobe pulls its adds from Gawker because of tweets in praise of the bullying of nerds? Literal headline: "Adobe walks into Gamergate, staggers around confusedly."<br><br>I can tell you what it means to be anti-GG. I can't tell you what it means to be pro-GG. Is it for game journalism ethics? Is it against overwrought social justice criticism? Is it against Third Wave Feminism? Any or all of the above?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>JRT</strong> on <strong>October 23, 2014, 09:26:03 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Unfortunately, the "charity" thing can be used to excuse bad behavior--it's an easy way to make any criticism or refusal of accepting the charitable donations a way to make the people refusing the donation or criticize the organization look bad.<br><br>It reminds me when the ME3 "Retaker" movement tried to donate to child's play and they were refused, and the PA guys pretty much summed up<br><br>http://www.penny-arcade.com/news/post/2012/03/22/childs-play-and-retake-mass-effect<br><br>It's a sort of PR move by controversial organizations to try to deflect criticism of their bad behavior. And I think charities should refuse to get involved in such political games. People should donate to charities because they believe in the charity, they should try to make it a PR move for their own organizations.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>October 23, 2014, 10:17:22 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: JRT;793689</cite>Unfortunately, the "charity" thing can be used to excuse bad behavior--it's an easy way to make any criticism or refusal of accepting the charitable donations a way to make the people refusing the donation or criticize the organization look bad.</blockquote>Yes, I imagine it does make it difficult to describe a group as a misogynistic hate group, when they donate to Anti-Bullying & World Hunger charities, and fund non-profit organizations looking to promote female developrs. Especially where your only "proof" of bad behavior is random anons.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>It reminds me when the ME3 "Retaker" movement tried to donate to child's play and they were refused, and the PA guys pretty much summed up<br><br>http://www.penny-arcade.com/news/post/2012/03/22/childs-play-and-retake-mass-effect</blockquote>Maybe I'm not reading that right, but it looks more like a problem that people didn't realize they were donating to a charity; they seem to have thought they were contributing to programming to add a new ending to ME3 (which I still haven't finished... :mad: )<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>It's a sort of PR move by controversial organizations to try to deflect criticism of their bad behavior. And I think charities should refuse to get involved in such political games. People should donate to charities because they believe in the charity, they should try to make it a PR move for their own organizations.</blockquote>I don't care if the KKK gives to UNICEF; hell, if anything, it means they have less money for their actual hateful activities, and someone starving gets to eat, or get an immunization that saves lives.<br><br>And fuck, dude. I don't think GamerGate, even at their worst, could ever be called the KKK, much less ISIS (though that doesn't stop the anti-GG's!). Amount of people who have died over GamerGate? Zero.<br>(and I'd like to keep it that way!)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Bradford C. Walker</strong> on <strong>October 23, 2014, 10:22:42 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Iosue;793685</cite>I can tell you what it means to be anti-GG. I can't tell you what it means to be pro-GG. Is it for game journalism ethics? Is it against overwrought social justice criticism? Is it against Third Wave Feminism? Any or all of the above?</blockquote>This is what I'm talking about when I explained that the anti-GG side doesn't get that they're in an insurgency, and don't see that they're not playing the same game. <i>This concept of narrative warfare is not how the pro-GG side wages war.</i>
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>JRT</strong> on <strong>October 23, 2014, 10:57:49 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;793703</cite>This is what I'm talking about when I explained that the anti-GG side doesn't get that they're in an insurgency, and don't see that they're not playing the same game. <i>This concept of narrative warfare is not how the pro-GG side wages war.</i></blockquote><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;793703</cite>This is what I'm talking about when I explained that the anti-GG side doesn't get that they're in an insurgency, and don't see that they're not playing the same game. <i>This concept of narrative warfare is not how the pro-GG side wages war.</i></blockquote><br>Ultimately, though, I can see them winning the battle but losing the war. It's unclear what the goals are, and if that's the case, mainstream "civilians" will most likely see the group by its worst elements. <br><br>If you're talking about the boycotts, if they are successful, I see journalism in gaming actually becoming worse due to the following.<br><br>If they force media outlets to be less forthcoming with opinions, you end up with an organization that becomes fearful to do one thing journalists should do--challenge their audience, sometimes telling people what they don't want to hear.<br><br>If they get advertisers to pull based on pressure, you are actually increasing the possibility of corrupting the process further. Because the biggest corruption complaints in the past were about advertisers pressuring people to give their games good reviews. I can't fathom why people think doing this is going to help journalism.<br><br>And the biggest concern I have is that people in gaming are going to start doing what too many people do nowadays--read only the news they like. News that doesn't challenge them, opinions that are exactly the same with their worldviews. I see a lot of attacking the messenger--everybody who doesn't agree with me is corrupt, biased, etc. There's little self-awareness now--if 90% of people are negative towards an ideology--perhaps it's not everybody else, perhaps its you. One thing I always did and still do is go to sites that are different or opposed from my political viewpoints--I remember reading a paper in the 90s with both liberal and conservative commentators. And while I disagreed with the party opposite from mine about 80% of the time, 20% of the time I agreed or felt they were on the right track. That kind of introspective analysis tends to be lacking today. Right now, the SOP is to not just dislike alternate opinions, it's to demonize them and make them go away. And I think we will all suffer if that type of thing increases.<br><br>Personally, I hope there is movement to help improve the quality of games coverage...but I don't think this particular movement is the one that will accomplish it.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>October 23, 2014, 10:59:05 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Eventually gamergate will win in the end. It might take the collapse of the game industry for it to happen. With little money going in the parasites will leave to find a new media to feed off with only die hards to keep up the crusade of shit. By that time all gamers will wise up and just ignore them to focus on making games. Eventually a new video game media will emerge from the wreckage of the old and it will remember what killed the last media.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>October 23, 2014, 11:43:16 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
One thing to bear in mind, and I'm not saying it flippantly. In the new "PC" era of warm fuzzy feelings and "if you're not with us, you're against us" activism, there's one angle to this that the Sarkeesians and Quinns of the world might just be missing.... <br><br>In their protected little shells of academia, where they were taught that their feelings can overcome all, they were never challenged. Their nascent worldviews were shaped and reinforced by a squishy anti-establishment mentality, honed to a flubbery edge, then released into the world to wreak their terrible justice on the oppressors. Their main weapon? Shame - the knowledge that anyone who dared to broach a view opposing them could be shouted down, cowed, and made into pariahs in the name of "fairness", or "equality", when in fact what they preach is a total societal inversion - "the Man" laid bare and impotent on the altar of Political Correctness. <br><br>However, they're going against people whose worldview is shaped by "conflict" - who are used to doggedly, stubbornly, aspergerly defying obstacles and re-re-re-retrying the same level 42 times until they overcome. People who will NOT lose, people who WILL relentlessly poke and prod and blast and note, in obsessive detail, the tactics of their enemies! They will adjust their strategy, and post endless FAQ's and playthroughs to overcome any challenge. <br><br>I think, this time, the forces of the SJWs have met their match. <br><br>At least, that's my hope....<br><br>Fly, video-game warriors! This is the greatest challenge you shall ever face and, in fact, may be the greatest challenge WE have ever faced. Stop the razor-bladed, laser-guided, dripping titanium-fanged Beasts From Beyond the Edge of Reality before they devour us all! <br><br>(again, this isn't necessarily sarcastic - in fact, hardly at all... really...)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 12:03:18 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;793632</cite>I think that logic is flawed in both cases. <br><br>GamerGaters are reacting to gaming journalism because that's what they are close to. Likewise, gamers who are concerned with sexism react to sexism in their own personal sphere. </blockquote><br>Well yeah, everyone's cause is ultimately about whats important to them. But that doesn't mean it has to remain focused like that passed adolesence. And I'd say for most people it doesn't. But with GG I can't see how so many people could take videogame magazines that seriously...<br><br>But otoh, I also dont see that looking for sexist enemies in gamers (of any variety) is seriously an attempt to make the world a better place (at least not to the extremes Ive seen it taken). Yes many gamers are socially ackward and dont know much about how to make girls happy (or basic etiquette as it were), and maybe that scantily clad elf picture or pixelboobed token videogame character is not for everyone, and yes the internet has TROLLS (its been infested since the beginning and the topical creames don't help); but to portray that as evil or wrapped up in some conspiracy to "keep women down" is such an exaggerated stance that it not only comes off as extreme, but its being proliferated by people who are Angry! and have thier own social akwardness issues. And theyre targeting a form of escapism that is dear to many hobbyists hearts, warts and all. But is still silly. Wayway wayyy to silly for the amount of anger its produced. <br><br>So I dont really see the reason to either side. Both side have extremists and both sides are characterizing the other by the small but very vocal minority of extremists. Its like none of them actually know anything about people and thus have no reasonable amount of empathy towards each other. And then Trolls. Trolls with bombs, trolls that cuss and call you bad names, trolls that make fun of you on the internet. Trolls doing what trolls do because they feed on the inevitable outcome. Using a troll's behaviour to hold up as a representation of society is like treating all dogs like they have rabies. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>For example, if the clerk at my corner store is staring at and catcalling young women, I may react to that and take effort to do something about it. He argues back that they shoot girls for getting an education in Pakistan - why aren't I doing anything about that? That's a specious argument. I'm doing something about what is in front of me. <br><br>I agree that there are some genuine slacktivists, but just because someone is acting locally doesn't mean they are a slacktivist.</blockquote><br>I'm ultimately not seeing the logic. I really cant take it that seriously. Not the journalistic ethics in gaming mags, not the brainwashing videogame tropes, not the rpg art that helps transmography our boyfolk into rapists. Its entertainment. Childish entertainment (I'm not saying that derrogatorily). I'd have the same reaction to political stances for or against Cosmo or Tigerbeat (shall we discuss the patriarchal and racist implications of Goofus & Gallant?)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 12:05:25 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Role playing games survived the satanic scare of the 80's. Video games survived the video games lead to violence outrage in the 90's to 00's. The two hobbies will out last the social justice warriors in the end. We gamers have a track record of two things. Being underdogs and eventually winning. We are the fucking cock roaches and we won't go extinct.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Bradford C. Walker</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 12:25:32 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: JRT;793705</cite>Ultimately, though, I can see them winning the battle but losing the war. It's unclear what the goals are, and if that's the case, mainstream "civilians" will most likely see the group by its worst elements.</blockquote>The goal of any insurgency is to repel the invaders, usually by grinding them down and wearing them out. "This is our land, and you don't belong here." You can see that this in the case by monitoring pro-GG conversations, live streams, videos, etc. because that is the language that their rhetoric takes.<br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>If you're talking about the boycotts, if they are successful, I see journalism in gaming actually becoming worse due to the following.<br><br>If they force media outlets to be less forthcoming with opinions, you end up with an organization that becomes fearful to do one thing journalists should do--challenge their audience, sometimes telling people what they don't want to hear.</blockquote>It will force a division between commercial business and ethical journalism; you can't have both in the same place. There's a reason for why you see so much approval for the BBC, CBC, NPR, Pacifica, and other media outlets that are not run as commercial enterprises. (Some are tax-supported, some are listener-supported, but the insulation is the same.)<br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>If they get advertisers to pull based on pressure, you are actually increasing the possibility of corrupting the process further. Because the biggest corruption complaints in the past were about advertisers pressuring people to give their games good reviews. I can't fathom why people think doing this is going to help journalism.</blockquote>Because what the gamer nation--and I use "nation" to as one for the "nation" part of "nation-state", in that it is a coherent population distinct to itself--wants is not opinions on things unrelated to its interests. TotalBiscuit has his dominant position in the nation because he does constrain himself so, when he is not railing about (a) others failing to do so or (b) others failing to meet the standards expected of them in the nation.<br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>And the biggest concern I have is that people in gaming are going to start doing what too many people do nowadays--read only the news they like. News that doesn't challenge them, opinions that are exactly the same with their worldviews. I see a lot of attacking the messenger--everybody who doesn't agree with me is corrupt, biased, etc. There's little self-awareness now--if 90% of people are negative towards an ideology--perhaps it's not everybody else, perhaps its you. One thing I always did and still do is go to sites that are different or opposed from my political viewpoints--I remember reading a paper in the 90s with both liberal and conservative commentators. And while I disagreed with the party opposite from mine about 80% of the time, 20% of the time I agreed or felt they were on the right track. That kind of introspective analysis tends to be lacking today. Right now, the SOP is to not just dislike alternate opinions, it's to demonize them and make them go away. And I think we will all suffer if that type of thing increases.</blockquote>No, what you're seeing is the expression of a distinction tribal identity in the face of external aggression. The fight over journalism, Social Justice wanker and the like are symbols and symptoms of what is really going on: invasion of already-occupied territory by a self-important imperialist institution after more for itself.<br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Personally, I hope there is movement to help improve the quality of games coverage...but I don't think this particular movement is the one that will accomplish it.</blockquote>It will. The cost will be the drawing and enforcement of a border, culling a lot of folks who don't belong from the land. "Gamer" will become as distinct a subculture as "gun owner" in the near future.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 12:47:26 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;793719</cite>The goal of any insurgency is to repel the invaders, usually by grinding them down and wearing them out. "This is our land, and you don't belong here." You can see that this in the case by monitoring pro-GG conversations, live streams, videos, etc. because that is the language that their rhetoric takes.<br><br>It will force a division between commercial business and ethical journalism; you can't have both in the same place. There's a reason for why you see so much approval for the BBC, CBC, NPR, Pacifica, and other media outlets that are not run as commercial enterprises. (Some are tax-supported, some are listener-supported, but the insulation is the same.)<br><br>Because what the gamer nation--and I use "nation" to as one for the "nation" part of "nation-state", in that it is a coherent population distinct to itself--wants is not opinions on things unrelated to its interests. TotalBiscuit has his dominant position in the nation because he does constrain himself so, when he is not railing about (a) others failing to do so or (b) others failing to meet the standards expected of them in the nation.<br><br>No, what you're seeing is the expression of a distinction tribal identity in the face of external aggression. The fight over journalism, Social Justice wanker and the like are symbols and symptoms of what is really going on: invasion of already-occupied territory by a self-important imperialist institution after more for itself.<br><br>It will. The cost will be the drawing and enforcement of a border, culling a lot of folks who don't belong from the land. "Gamer" will become as distinct a subculture as "gun owner" in the near future.</blockquote><br>I don't agree it's as line in the sand as that. I also don't think the average gamer is represented by the stereotypes being put on them. Or that the interpretations of their motivations is accurate. I also doint think gamers are the only ones with chips on thier shoulders or grudges brought plainly to bear. <br><br>A gamer is a subset of geek. Geeks, on the average, in my experience, are the most accepting and inclusive social group around. They know what it like to be freaks, and that bonds them together (IRL, not in games). And yes they can also be pedantic, socially obtuse, and juvenile, but most of them are not only accepting but more than willing to accept any who share thier interests as one of thier own. The SJW group, from my experiences online, are largely saying "we want to be a part of youur group, but your group needs to deal with our issues first and if what you like isnt what I like, or makes me unfomfortable, then it is badwrong and you must change your evil ways". I don't think the experiences of women who a) put themselves in the spotlight and b) approach geeks like they're hostile natives who need the Lord in their lives are typical in gaming. Its not been the experience of any girl Ive gamed with, and Ive gamed with many. About 30% of the gamers over 6 states and 3 countries I've lived in that I've interacted with. <br><br>And , perhaps most importantly, while I do believe there are games that include sexist elements that dont need to be there, I don't think its been overwhelming since 2 decades ago, and I don't think that its causing social harm. Frankly I just dont believe portrayals in fiction/media have the psychological impact ascribed to them.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Iosue</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 01:05:52 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;793703</cite>This is what I'm talking about when I explained that the anti-GG side doesn't get that they're in an insurgency, and don't see that they're not playing the same game. <i>This concept of narrative warfare is not how the pro-GG side wages war.</i></blockquote>And this what I'm talking about when I say Gamergate's message is as muddy as shit. I'm telling you that the only thing I know is that I'm not anti-GG, because I know what that is. I can't tell you I'm pro-GG because I don't know where its goals coincide with mine. And when say that, I get some bullshit about insurgency and narrative warfare, which again, as far as I can tell, is stuff that <i>you</i> think, but tells me nothing about GG.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Bradford C. Walker</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 01:28:55 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Iosue;793723</cite>And this what I'm talking about when I say Gamergate's message is as muddy as shit. I'm telling you that the only thing I know is that I'm not anti-GG, because I know what that is. I can't tell you I'm pro-GG because I don't know where its goals coincide with mine. And when say that, I get some bullshit about insurgency and narrative warfare, which again, as far as I can tell, is stuff that <i>you</i> think, but tells me nothing about GG.</blockquote>The message is this simple: "You are not One Of Us. This is our land. You don't belong here; you are trespassing. We define who is and is not of our kind, not you. We define what we will and will not accept, not you. We are a nation to ourselves, and not your subjects. Get out before we throw you out."<br><br>Your talk of media messaging is irrelevant; the pro-GG side already has its own internal channels of communication, because the pro-GG side rightly focuses on its own kind and cares not for foreigners. <i>That's how these insurgencies work.</i>
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Bradford C. Walker</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 01:38:29 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;793722</cite>I don't agree it's as line in the sand as that. I also don't think the average gamer is represented by the stereotypes being put on them. Or that the interpretations of their motivations is accurate. I also don't think gamers are the only ones with chips on their shoulders or grudges brought plainly to bear. </blockquote>You're right about the chips and grudges; when the chaos of insurgency breaks loose, third parties exploit it to settle their own disputes and advance their own agenda- often using one side or the other as cover.<br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>A gamer is a subset of geek. Geeks, on the average, in my experience, are the most accepting and inclusive social group around. They know what it like to be freaks, and that bonds them together (IRL, not in games). And yes they can also be pedantic, socially obtuse, and juvenile, but most of them are not only accepting but more than willing to accept any who share thier interests as one of thier own. The SJW group, from my experiences online, are largely saying "we want to be a part of your group, but your group needs to deal with our issues first and if what you like isnt what I like, or makes me uncomfortable, then it is badwrong and you must change your evil ways". I don't think the experiences of women who a) put themselves in the spotlight and b) approach geeks like they're hostile natives who need the Lord in their lives are typical in gaming. Its not been the experience of any girl Ive gamed with, and Ive gamed with many. About 30% of the gamers over 6 states and 3 countries I've lived in that I've interacted with. </blockquote>The problem--and the reason I call this imperial invasion--is that gaining acceptance by a native population requires that the outsider assimilate into the tribe- and the tribe defines what is and is not acceptable, not the outsider. Sure, gamers will welcome many, but <i>they have to become part of the tribe first</i>. This is the big "if" point that so many SJWs fail to grok: they are the outsiders, so they don't get a say in definitions or actions of the inside group.<br><br>Coupled to this is the failure to accept rejection by the tribe on the part of the outsiders. It's not their space--not their property--so they don't get to act as if they have property rights (which is what the demands of accommodation are- assertion of rights of ownership that don't exist). If you are not wanted there, then you either leave or you're picking a fight; why this is not comprehended by the anti-GG/SJW crowd (in this and related stuff) boggles me.<br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>And, perhaps most importantly, while I do believe there are games that include sexist elements that don't need to be there, I don't think its been overwhelming since 2 decades ago, and I don't think that its causing social harm. Frankly I just don't believe portrayals in fiction/media have the psychological impact ascribed to them.</blockquote>And therein lies the rub: this claim is constantly asserted not because it's true, but because it's a useful narrative warfare tactic to rally support from one's side and make them ready to do violence (literal, political, or some other means) to the Designated Enemy. It's downright propaganda- it's a fraud.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 01:41:03 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: JRT;793705</cite>And the biggest concern I have is that people in gaming are going to start doing what too many people do nowadays--read only the news they like. News that doesn't challenge them, opinions that are exactly the same with their worldviews. I see a lot of attacking the messenger--everybody who doesn't agree with me is corrupt, biased, etc. There's little self-awareness now--if 90% of people are negative towards an ideology--perhaps it's not everybody else, perhaps its you. One thing I always did and still do is go to sites that are different or opposed from my political viewpoints--I remember reading a paper in the 90s with both liberal and conservative commentators. And while I disagreed with the party opposite from mine about 80% of the time, 20% of the time I agreed or felt they were on the right track. That kind of introspective analysis tends to be lacking today. Right now, the SOP is to not just dislike alternate opinions, it's to demonize them and make them go away. And I think we will all suffer if that type of thing increases.<br><br>Personally, I hope there is movement to help improve the quality of games coverage...but I don't think this particular movement is the one that will accomplish it.</blockquote>Dude, I don't know if you noticed (I only noticed on Aug. 28th), the gaming mags are <i>already</i> pretty much in lockstep (something like 12+ articles of the "Gamers are dead" variety, in 48 hours).<br><br>That's part of the problem, and we want it to stop. So many of these writers freelance write at 6 different publications at the same time, but the message is the same, and actively reinforced. At this point, having some of these publications die would free up bandwidth for a diversity of opinion, especially if we can get the Games Journalists to stop using shit like GamesJournosPros.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;793714</cite>. But is still silly. Wayway wayyy to silly for the amount of anger its produced. </blockquote>I can't argue with that sentiment.<br>I just wanted a fairly mild discussion about revising journalistic practices (I'm sorry, don't write about games you've financially invested in! NO!), not a screeching match about how "I hates the Womynz".<br>EDIT: I, for one, was pretty happy with how The Escapist changed their policies.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Warboss Squee</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 02:01:26 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;793726</cite>The message is this simple: "You are not One Of Us. This is our land. You don't belong here; you are trespassing. We define who is and is not of our kind, not you. We define what we will and will not accept, not you. We are a nation to ourselves, and not your subjects. Get out before we throw you out."<br></blockquote><br>So the same message the anti-gate side was pushing before it was even called that?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 04:53:20 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;793672</cite>Something I noticed lately is that the frustration of the anti-GG side, as well as the continued opportunism exploiting both sides, reveals that what is going on is that GG has become an insurgency. The chaos created that allows people to play both sides for their own ends, the utter failure of the insurgents' enemies to comprehend the insurgency (and therefore doom their own side), and shows of asymmetric (social and political, rather than paramilitary) operations scoring successes in contravention to the narrative told- no, not Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraq, but this thing we're talking about here and now.<br><br>Insurgencies arise when a population experiences a foreign invasion in force, sees that it lacks the means to confront it conventionally (or that is cannot do so and win), and instead switches to an entirely different mode of engagement contingent on destroy the foreigners' will to continue the adventure. Operations target alliances (reducing the invaders' ability to continue), as well as the ones seen to provide for or benefit from the adventure ("hearts & minds", reducing the support for the adventure).<br><br>This is how the pro-GG side operates; they're targeting advertisers and exposing links in how the enemy's operations actually work and revealing intentions that the anti-GG side wants concealed (for whatever reason). The anti-GG side operates as a typical formalized institution acting in an imperial manner, especially in its delusion that both sides are playing the same game, and if no one on that side wakes up and starts leading their side to an effective anti-insurgency strategy soon they will find that their defeat in inevitable. Soon they will find that their allies and support base will desert them to save their own skins or preserve ideological purity.<br><br>And yes, there are known ways to break an insurgency. The anti-GG side, at this time, is too ignorant and incompetent to properly employ them.</blockquote><br>Interesting analysis, which ties into the 4th generation war theory I've read - in this case it's a virtual war. I agree that it is an insurgency against an established power structure. The pointing & sputtering from the anti-GG media & SJW, and their accusing the GGs of using the bullying tactics they routinely employ themselves, is amusing and ironic.<br>The SJW are not used to encountering a target that fights back, and this is causing them a lot of consternation. They are trained in Alinskyite tactics, which work great against bureaucratic organisations, but are not designed to work against the diffuse mass of the peasantry; Alinsky assumed the peasants were on his side, at least passively. One thing the SJW can do though is target companies like Intel, since these are formal bureaucratic structures - so the GG push for an advertising boycott by companies can be countered by SJW counter-attacks directed against those same companies, using the standard methodology.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 05:00:45 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Iosue;793685</cite>But aside from Breitbarts, which I always feel a little grimy after visiting, and David Auerbach's stuff on Slate, no news source that I've seen has given GamerGate any credit at all. At <i>best</i>, lip service is paid to claims of concern for game journalism. </blockquote><br>Holding the mainstream media outlets is the equivalent of holding the Green Zone in central Baghdad. It's hardly surprising that a dominant force can hold the central power structures; if it lost those it would no longer be dominant. What they can't do is hold the western deserts - they have no mechanism to put down the insurgency. They have no counter-narrative to offer the insurgent-sympathetic population. Telling them to FOAD was the strategic equivalent of disbanding the Iraqi army in 2003; it may not be recoverable.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 05:14:14 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: JRT;793705</cite>Ultimately, though, I can see them winning the battle but losing the war. It's unclear what the goals are, and if that's the case, mainstream "civilians" will most likely see the group by its worst elements. <br></blockquote><br>But as Bradford said, what the anti-GG SJW don't get is that this time their ability to control the minds of many "mainstream civilians" will not actually defeat the insurgency. The shaming isn't working. The insurgency's primary goal is not to influence the mass media, which mass media controls the opinions of the general population. They only care about their own little world of video gaming, in which the usual SJW tactics simply don't work. And it is 'little' only compared to the general population; this is still millions and millions of people, billions of dollars.<br><br>From what I can see, the goal of GG is to repudiate the SJW-controlled 'gamer media' and to alter the corrupt relationship between games companies and games journalists. From what I can see, this is definitely working. The GG are saying "You don't speak for us, and there are millions of us"; and the anti-GG game media don't have an effective response to that - they effectively said so themselves when they all got together and said "Gamers are dead".
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 05:20:23 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;793719</cite>The goal of any insurgency is to repel the invaders, usually by grinding them down and wearing them out. "This is our land, and you don't belong here." You can see that this in the case by monitoring pro-GG conversations, live streams, videos, etc. because that is the language that their rhetoric takes.</blockquote><br>Yeah - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR-fHoNQil4 :D
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 05:27:49 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;793726</cite>The message is this simple: "You are not One Of Us. This is our land. You don't belong here; you are trespassing. We define who is and is not of our kind, not you. We define what we will and will not accept, not you. We are a nation to ourselves, and not your subjects. Get out before we throw you out."<br><br>Your talk of media messaging is irrelevant; the pro-GG side already has its own internal channels of communication, because the pro-GG side rightly focuses on its own kind and cares not for foreigners. <i>That's how these insurgencies work.</i></blockquote><br>A lot of people are just completely incapable of understanding this message, which is why occupation forces tend to lose. An anti-GamerGate General Petraeus could presumably turn things around and pacify the occupied population, at least for awhile. But successful counter-insurgency would require the anti-GG to at least partially step outside their own SJW narrative, and I can't see that happening.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 05:32:18 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;793727</cite>The problem--and the reason I call this imperial invasion--is that gaining acceptance by a native population requires that the outsider assimilate into the tribe- and the tribe defines what is and is not acceptable, not the outsider. Sure, gamers will welcome many, but <i>they have to become part of the tribe first</i>. This is the big "if" point that so many SJWs fail to grok: they are the outsiders, so they don't get a say in definitions or actions of the inside group.<br><br>Coupled to this is the failure to accept rejection by the tribe on the part of the outsiders. It's not their space--not their property--so they don't get to act as if they have property rights (which is what the demands of accommodation are- assertion of rights of ownership that don't exist). If you are not wanted there, then you either leave or you're picking a fight; why this is not comprehended by the anti-GG/SJW crowd (in this and related stuff) boggles me.</blockquote><br>Refusal to recognise any property rights of the invaded/occupied population is pretty much a human universal. The colonists who took over America & Australia didn't recognise any property rights of the previous occupants, and that is entirely typical human behaviour. But the anti-GG SJW can't physically eliminate the Gamers they declared 'dead', so they have a big problem.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>JRT</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 05:44:12 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;793719</cite>It will force a division between commercial business and ethical journalism; you can't have both in the same place. There's a reason for why you see so much approval for the BBC, CBC, NPR, Pacifica, and other media outlets that are not run as commercial enterprises. (Some are tax-supported, some are listener-supported, but the insulation is the same.)</blockquote><br>That's the key problem right now. Gaming media is not that way because it is primarily a vehicle for promotion new games. The equivalent right now is probably entertainment reporting coverage. Virtually nothing in this sphere is serious civic business. And the fact that most people aren't willing to pay directly for journalism kind of makes it harder for those alternatives to spring up. <br><br>So I guess that's why I feel the so-called SJW stuff is overblown. I mean, Anita a threat? All she does is point out tropes that are a bit cliched and how gaming writers might be able to treat women better in the future. This area is minor compared to the concerns about gaming and media--so why is GG so obsessed with this factor? Or Brianna Wu. I understand the concerns of Zoe and Depression Quest--but it seems more people are attacking her than the outlets, and also compared to people being fired over low scores and big money influence--you're going to focus on one indie game? Again, that's why the message is so mixed. For what the overall goal would need to be this is taking up too much of the message.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 07:09:23 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: JRT;793705</cite>If you're talking about the boycotts, if they are successful, I see journalism in gaming actually becoming worse due to the following.<br><br>If they force media outlets to be less forthcoming with opinions, you end up with an organization that becomes fearful to do one thing journalists should do--challenge their audience, sometimes telling people what they don't want to hear.<br><br>If they get advertisers to pull based on pressure, you are actually increasing the possibility of corrupting the process further. Because the biggest corruption complaints in the past were about advertisers pressuring people to give their games good reviews. I can't fathom why people think doing this is going to help journalism.<br><br></blockquote><br>Don Imus, Rush Limbaugh and Faux News would love this rationale.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 07:13:57 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;793719</cite>It will force a division between commercial business and ethical journalism; you can't have both in the same place. There's a reason for why you see so much approval for the BBC, CBC, NPR, Pacifica, and other media outlets that are not run as commercial enterprises. (Some are tax-supported, some are listener-supported, but the insulation is the same.).</blockquote><br>I would not mind if these media outlets went the reader/ listener supported route.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>JRT</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 07:42:55 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;793770</cite>I would not mind if these media outlets went the reader/ listener supported route.</blockquote><br>Doubtful--probably because there's not enough significant content outside of mostly hyping and providing previews of upcoming games, then reviews, then misc content. Already many of the outlets try to broaden their base by reporting on other related genres.<br><br>The problem is most people aren't willing to pay for journalism anymore, and if they are, it's probably not going to be on the gaming industry but rather serious news--you might get people paying for the WSJ or NYT, but it's a lot harder to get people to pay or fund a consumer-reports styled independent publication dedicated to video games.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArtemisAlpha</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 10:48:09 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;793756</cite>Interesting analysis, which ties into the 4th generation war theory I've read - in this case it's a virtual war. I agree that it is an insurgency against an established power structure. The pointing & sputtering from the anti-GG media & SJW, and their accusing the GGs of using the bullying tactics they routinely employ themselves, is amusing and ironic.<br>The SJW are not used to encountering a target that fights back, and this is causing them a lot of consternation. They are trained in Alinskyite tactics, which work great against bureaucratic organisations, but are not designed to work against the diffuse mass of the peasantry; Alinsky assumed the peasants were on his side, at least passively. One thing the SJW can do though is target companies like Intel, since these are formal bureaucratic structures - so the GG push for an advertising boycott by companies can be countered by SJW counter-attacks directed against those same companies, using the standard methodology.</blockquote><br>Targetting Intel against "Gamergate", however, doesn't matter. At best, they might convince an advertiser to stay with a publication. But, gamergate is at its best when it has something solid to bring to an advertiser to say "we do not think your ad dollars should support this", which is why Sam Biddle and Max Read have made Gawker into a common target.<br><br>Those who are against gamergate are using every tool in their box to try to silence gamergate, and they've made it pretty clear that's what their goal is, and that is a hard target to hit. But, gamergate's goals aren't much simpler. While it's easy to say something like "gaming journalists should adopt a code of ethics, like the one published by the Society of Professional Journalists", that is a sea change for game journalism as it currently exists.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Pmir</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 11:01:20 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
http://gawker.com/how-we-got-rolled-by-the-dishonest-fascists-of-gamergat-1649496579<br><br>As a libertarian, I see this very response as the core problem with modern leftists. Disagree with them on any level and they label you quite literally as a nazi. It is not limited to gaming. I am involved in the hardcore/oi scene in NYC and have witnessed SJW types call in threats to venues because a band flew an American flag. Flag= nazi. I've seen Central Americans labeled as white supremacist nazis for the crime of not outwardly supporting socialist revolution.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 11:08:39 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Pmir;793796</cite>http://gawker.com/how-we-got-rolled-by-the-dishonest-fascists-of-gamergat-1649496579<br><br>As a libertarian, I see this very response as the core problem with modern leftists. Disagree with them on any level and they label you quite literally as a nazi. It is not limited to gaming. I am involved in the hardcore/oi scene in NYC and have witnessed SJW types call in threats to venues because a band flew an American flag. Flag= nazi. I've seen Central Americans labeled as white supremacist nazis for the crime of not outwardly supporting socialist revolution.</blockquote><br>I love how he asserts that GG is a "small, contemptible crusade" - as if the Sarkeesian/Quinn axis were some large, admirable crusade. <br><br>He's staring so hard at the bark of one small tree that he can't see the Ents gathering around him....<br><br>And the classic defense - "It was a joke!" - brilliant. And, and - meanies putting together advertiser lists and trying to get them to pull their advertising! That's a tactic ONLY THE LEFT is allowed to use!!! Wahhh!<br><br>Also, attacking a former advertiser in the manner he has chosen will likely cause remaining advertisers to... well, re-examine their relationship. Corporations don't like controversy, after all. I think that if GG wants to gain some more skins, this op-ed might be sent to other advertisers so they can see just what Gawker et.al. really thinks of them behind closed doors.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 11:12:34 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Pmir;793796</cite>http://gawker.com/how-we-got-rolled-by-the-dishonest-fascists-of-gamergat-1649496579</blockquote><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Max Read</cite>Failing to adequately cover this act of spinelessness was the first big fuck-up we at Gawker committed. Intel surrendered to the worst kind of dishonesty, and we allowed it to do so without ever calling it out. <b>So let's say it now: Intel is run by craven idiots. It employs pusillanimous morons. It lacks integrity.</b> It folded to misogynists and bigots who objected to a woman who had done nothing more than write a piece claiming a place in the world of video games. And even when confronted with its own thoughtlessness and irresponsibility, it could not properly right its wrongs.</blockquote>Nice way to talk about a former advertiser... :rolleyes:<br>And the last sentence, is pure unadulterated irony, coming from "Bring Back Bullying" Gawker.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 11:37:12 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I just read that. There is no way in hell your gonna get your advertisers back after posting that shit. All those insults are just going to ruin you in the end and won't do any thing against companies that want to avoid any thing that would ruin their brand. <br><br>This is a good method for gamergate to win. We just tell advertisers that the people they support are pissing off customers and show them the evidence. All we have to do is just wait for the "journalists" to spew out their shit, collect it as evidence, and present it for our case.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 01:11:11 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Pmir;793796</cite>http://gawker.com/how-we-got-rolled-by-the-dishonest-fascists-of-gamergat-1649496579<br><br>As a libertarian, I see this very response as the core problem with modern leftists. Disagree with them on any level and they label you quite literally as a nazi. It is not limited to gaming. I am involved in the hardcore/oi scene in NYC and have witnessed SJW types call in threats to venues because a band flew an American flag. Flag= nazi. I've seen Central Americans labeled as white supremacist nazis for the crime of not outwardly supporting socialist revolution.</blockquote>Yeah, comparisons to Nazis are always stupid, and they are annoyingly common. (Godwin's Law and all that.) That's a dumb article. <br><br>That said, I've also seen plenty of fascist comparisons come from libertarians as well as the modern right, where any federal control = Nazi.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 01:50:40 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Gawker is taking the strategy of doubling down and applying more spin. <br><br>As an aside, Gawker is basically another TMZ as far as I'm concerned. It's not serious journalism by any stretch of the word. <br><br>But seeing NPR come up with biased articles like this sucks:<br><br>http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/09/24/349835297/-gamergate-controversy-fuels-debate-on-women-and-video-games<br><br>Take this quote for example:<br><br>http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/10/22/357826882/pew-gaming-is-least-welcoming-online-space-for-women<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Some Gamergaters contend that what they're really rallying for is ethics in journalism, but New York Magazine's Jesse Singal calls that into question in a thoughtful piece, in which he writes, "Despite the fact that Gamergate 'isn't about' feminists or ... social justice warriors in general, all these figures and subjects have a weird, pesky habit of continuing to pop up wherever gamergaters assemble."</blockquote><br>Gee, do you think that has to do with the fact that supporters are being pegged as mysogynists a priori?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Warboss Squee</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 02:10:47 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;793803</cite>I just read that. There is no way in hell your gonna get your advertisers back after posting that shit. All those insults are just going to ruin you in the end and won't do any thing against companies that want to avoid any thing that would ruin their brand. <br><br>This is a good method for gamergate to win. We just tell advertisers that the people they support are pissing off customers and show them the evidence. All we have to do is just wait for the "journalists" to spew out their shit, collect it as evidence, and present it for our case.</blockquote><br>I find it's interesting that the 'how dare you attack us' crowd are constantly cranking out these attack pieces. Ignoring the trolls that infect both sides, and the mass of crazies this kind of things draws in, I don't see any attack pieces on the GG side.<br><br>Plenty of criticism, certainly, but nothing decrying the fan base as misogynistic children with a helping of cis scum and the usual hate speech that gets cranked out.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 03:26:30 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Pmir;793796</cite>http://gawker.com/how-we-got-rolled-by-the-dishonest-fascists-of-gamergat-1649496579<br><br>As a libertarian, I see this very response as the core problem with modern leftists. Disagree with them on any level and they label you quite literally as a nazi. </blockquote><br>Yeah, I read that article this morning. I'm not a gamer and originally couldn't care less about Gamergate. I'd probably tend to agree with the SJW that the hyper-sexuallisation of female characters in modern video games is obnoxious. The last game I played was Medieval 2: Total War, the sexist treatment or ignoring of women in the Total War games always annoyed me.<br>But seeing stuff like that from the anti-GG, or really vile stuff (http://mangans.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/journalist-wants-blood.html) directed against pro-GGers, including women, certainly pushes me to support the Gamergaters.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 03:33:59 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;793818</cite>Yeah, comparisons to Nazis are always stupid, and they are annoyingly common. (Godwin's Law and all that.) That's a dumb article. </blockquote><br>Occasionally there are real Nazis, but they are easy to miss amid the noise. Eg Golden Dawn in Greece actually are (originally) a Neo-Nazi organisation. But it took me a while to realise that, because Nazi is so over-used as a simple term of abuse. I think it was reading some not-so-Nazi white nationalist explaining GD's Nazi origins that finally convinced me.<br>Neo-Nazis use this to try to infiltrate right-wing organisations, much as Maoists & such far-left try to infiltrate left-wing organisations.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>woodsmoke</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 05:26:59 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: JRT;793763</cite>I mean, Anita a threat? All she does is point out tropes that are a bit cliched and how gaming writers might be able to treat women better in the future.</blockquote><br>Right. That's all she does. Never mind the veritable mountains of documented-and-sourced evidence of her being a con artist who's never met a logical fallacy she didn't like, a raging hypocrite who calls out these tropes as being bad then embraces them whole-cloth when it benefits her and, my personal favorite, the <i>literal video footage of her candidly admitting she's not a fan of video games</i> several years before claiming in her Kickstarter, in her TED Talk and everywhere else she was able to wrangle up a public speaking engagement that she's been an avid hobby gamer since she was a little girl.<br><br>The only context in which Anita Sarkeesian could be accurately described as a victim is when listing her chosen profession. She's not just an innocent li'l critic trying to highlight legitimate issues and make gaming better for everyone. She's a fucking con artist and the mouthpiece for an ideological bigot, and the fact people who may mean well but who aren't (as) invested in the hobby and don't really know what's going on keep telling gamers they're wrong to criticize Anita because she's just fighting the good fight is precisely why you see so much anger directed outward at damn near everyone who isn't part of GG. The same goes for Brianna Wu, Literally Who, Leigh Alexander and everyone else in the video games division of the Outrage Brigade.<br><br>I don't mean this as an attack at you, JRT, and I apologize if my response here seems excessively heated. I don't get the impression you're trying to antagonize anyone, but you're displaying a pretty clear and all-too-common ignorance of things that are fairly common knowledge among many gamers and which I've run into damn near everywhere GG is discussed.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 05:38:18 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: woodsmoke;793864</cite>Right. That's all she does. Never mind the veritable mountains of documented-and-sourced evidence of her being a con artist who's never met a logical fallacy she didn't like, a raging hypocrite who calls out these tropes as being bad then embraces them whole-cloth when it benefits her and, my personal favorite, the <i>literal video footage of her candidly admitting she's not a fan of video games</i> several years before claiming in her Kickstarter, in her TED Talk and everywhere else she was able to wrangle up a public speaking engagement that she's been an avid hobby gamer since she was a little girl.<br></blockquote><br>When she wraps everything with the neat label of "misogyny" as she cherry picks and distorts "evidence", she just does a disservice to whatever legitimate beef she might have.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>woodsmoke</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 05:47:50 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Honestly, I'm convinced Anita doesn't have any legitimate beef at all. Everything I've seen from her when she's not wearing her Feminist Pop Culture Critic hat has given me the distinct impression she doesn't give a rat's ass about video games, nor that she's even particularly bothered about feminism. Near as I can tell, Full McIntosh is the one with the ideology and agenda, Anita basically just seems to be in it for the money.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Bradford C. Walker</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 07:03:55 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: woodsmoke;793873</cite>Honestly, I'm convinced Anita doesn't have any legitimate beef at all. Everything I've seen from her when she's not wearing her Feminist Pop Culture Critic hat has given me the distinct impression she doesn't give a rat's ass about video games, nor that she's even particularly bothered about feminism. Near as I can tell, Full McIntosh is the one with the ideology and agenda, Anita basically just seems to be in it for the money.</blockquote>You're right. She's the front man, with the charisma and cunning, while McBoy is the would-be guru/cult leader looking to be gaming's answer to LaRouche.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 08:46:09 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
One thing we should all bear in mind about this and other SJW issues... we should all just shut up, relax, and let it happen - it'll be over soon.<br><br>The hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness of these people is stunning.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Sacrosanct</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 10:32:24 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Werekoala;793902</cite>One thing we should all bear in mind about this and other SJW issues... we should all just shut up, relax, and let it happen - it'll be over soon.<br><br>The hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness of these people is stunning.</blockquote><br>Possibly. And I agree that the most vocal SJWs have hijacked a legitimate cause just to slander people they don't like.<br><br>But here's the thing. This gamergate stuff? Look at this forum alone. We have people saying that the assholes who are harassing and threatening people don't represent the gamergate movement as a whole, we shouldn't tar everyone, etc. And those are all true things. But what I haven't seen is an actual effort by pro gamergate people to denounce this behavior whenever they see it.<br><br>I've made it very clear in the past just how much disdain I have for much of the SJW clique because their entire "argument' is to fight against harassment and doxing and threats while at the same time ignoring their side making threats, doxing, and harassing others. That level of hypocrisy just pisses me off. So if I am to have any integrity, and if pro GG folks want to take any sort of high ground, we must immediately and quickly shut down the misogynists and dickbags. We cannot simply just ignore them while saying, "Hey man, don't judge me like them because we aren't all like that." or "I don't condone that behavior" only when asked or accused. We must be proactive in addressing this. <br><br>Otherwise we aren't much different than the SJW clique.<br><br>It's just like Tea Party members should be the first to shut down racists because they're the first to see it. And like protestors should be the first people to shut down vandalizing anarchists. If you don't want to be accused of approving of dickbaggery, police your own group and shut down the dickbags.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 10:43:33 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Going to break my 'f this' separation for linking purposes:<br><br>http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/10/22/357826882/pew-gaming-is-least-welcoming-online-space-for-women<br><br>(http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/eduwonkette/upload/2008/06/degrees.jpg)<br><br>(https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/safe_image.php?d=AQDOa-ZANbJ2JrOs&w=487&h=326&url=http%3A%2F%2F38.media.tumblr.com%2Ff2012987a5943da605f4f713792387f6%2Ftumblr_ndi3ovZiTR1reegn2o1_1280.png)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 11:01:40 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
a) Computer science =/= gaming or video game development - if you want correlation = causation, check the dates in that graph with H1B visas from, oh, India? Might open your eyes a bit more. Also, holy shit look at all the female Engineers - Dilbert and Wally will be ecstatic! <br><br>b) So we're all Islamic Terrorists now - I mean, fer reals bro, how many times have we heard that JUST because most terrorists are Muslim, that not all Muslims are terrorists? But it doesn't apply in anyyyyyyy other situation. <br><br>Nice!
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 11:12:00 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;793925</cite>So if I am to have any integrity, and if pro GG folks want to take any sort of high ground, we must immediately and quickly shut down the misogynists and dickbags. We cannot simply just ignore them while saying, "Hey man, don't judge me like them because we aren't all like that." or "I don't condone that behavior" only when asked or accused. We must be proactive in addressing this. <br><br>Otherwise we aren't much different than the SJW clique.<br></blockquote><br>Well, yes, in theory - but how do you shut down free speech, yet claim to fight against those who would shut down free speech? <br><br>Maybe talk to them, reason with them, convince them of the importance of moderating their rhetoric (good luck, with gamers on the internet?) - but maybe we can reason with them. However, I will never vote with the "shut them down" crowd, no matter who "they" are trying to shut down. If nothing else, free speech makes it far easier to identify the assholes, instead of driving them underground.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Bradford C. Walker</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 11:14:12 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Werekoala;793932</cite>Well, yes, in theory - but how do you shut down free speech, yet claim to fight against those who would shut down free speech? <br><br>Maybe talk to them, reason with them, convince them of the importance of moderating their rhetoric (good luck, with gamers on the internet?) - but maybe we can reason with them. However, I will never vote with the "shut them down" crowd, no matter who "they" are trying to shut down.</blockquote>Furthermore, it's playing to the SJW strengths, and you can't win that way.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 11:22:57 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
The funniest thing to come out of GamerGate:<br><br>http://www.themarysue.com/gamergate-ant/<br><br>Also:<br>http://www.shaenon.com/ladygaming.html<br><br>(be sure to click on the 'Next' at bottom)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Pmir</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 11:23:46 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
If you are constantly on the defensive and apologising for whatever random asshole that has attached themselves to your group, then you have effectively been silenced. The conversation devolves into "maybe we'll address your concerns when you purge this guy" and "oh we still aren't going to take your views as legitimate because some new asshole showed up and spouted something stupid and he says he's on your side." The actual issue never gets addressed.<br> The key IMO is to stay strictly on topic. Refuse to be defined by a smear.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 11:28:13 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Pmir;793936</cite>If you are constantly on the defensive and apologising for whatever random asshole that has attached themselves to your group, then you have effectively been silenced. The conversation devolves into "maybe we'll address your concerns when you purge this guy" and "oh we still aren't going to take your views as legitimate because some new asshole showed up and spouted something stupid and he says he's on your side." The actual issue never gets addressed.<br> The key IMO is to stay strictly on topic. Refuse to be defined by a smear.</blockquote><br>Well said. Again, this goes back to my "We're all Islamic Terrorists now" comment. The cartoon posted by Will is pretty much on-topic until the last panel. When things go completely off the rails into LoonyTown Station is when that last panel is added. Just because there are members of a larger group who have radical, crazy, stupid ideas does NOT mean opponents of that group should have some moral "high ground" to paint the entire group with that ideology. <br><br>And yet... they do. Odd, that.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 11:32:39 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
The difference between this situation and Islamic Terrorism is that, broadly, the goals of the GG criminals and the GG non-criminals are largely the same, while those of Islamic terrorists and Islamic non-terrorists are not.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>October 24, 2014, 11:45:42 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;793939</cite>The difference between this situation and Islamic Terrorism is that, broadly, the goals of the GG criminals and the GG non-criminals are largely the same, while those of Islamic terrorists and Islamic non-terrorists are not.</blockquote><br>The difference between this situation and GamerGate is that, broadly, the goals of the Islamic Terrorists and the Muslim Religion are largely the same, while those of GG nutcases and GG as a whole are not.<br><br>Islam is an evangelical religion, in that they desire (in fact, insist) that the population of the entire world be converted to Islam. It's just that the terroristic faction of the religion employs a bit more, shall we say, percussive persuasion to the Infidels. <br><br>Ipso facto, Islamic terrorism is in line with the goals of the Muslim faith. Yet you would not speak harshly of the entire Muslim faith, I presume?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 01:12:54 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I thought you said your leaving the conversation for good Will.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>crkrueger</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 01:59:22 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Keep going Will - you do it long enough, awfulpurple will have to take you back.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 02:32:30 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Werekoala;793941</cite>The difference between this situation and GamerGate is that, broadly, the goals of the Islamic Terrorists and the Muslim Religion are largely the same, while those of GG nutcases and GG as a whole are not.<br><br>Islam is an evangelical religion, in that they desire (in fact, insist) that the population of the entire world be converted to Islam. It's just that the terroristic faction of the religion employs a bit more, shall we say, percussive persuasion to the Infidels.</blockquote>Islam as a whole has a set of principles and texts, various hierarchical organization, and centuries of history by which to judge it. Historically, Islam has tended to be militant but also relatively tolerant of other beliefs compared to Christianity. So a Muslim country would invade, but after invasion would allow other religions to be practiced - with moderately coercive conversion efforts like non-believers paying higher tax rates than believers. Christian countries have tended to be roughly as warlike, and more harsh on unbelievers - with forced conversions and penalties for overt disbelief. <br><br>These days, there are certainly differences between Christian countries like Ethiopia and Rwanda and Muslim countries like Somalia and Yemen, but more often people tend to compare first-world Christian countries with third-world Muslim countries. <br><br>As for GamerGate, there's seems to be no set of principles. There is only a one-word hashtag that likens Nathan Grayson's supposedly-corrupt coverage of Depression Quest to Nixon and Watergate, which I consider to be utterly stupid. To me, it just seems like more manufactured outrage, like ConsultancyGate with its outrage over Zak S and Pundit (which I was also opposed to).
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 05:17:40 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: CRKrueger;793962</cite>Keep going Will - you do it long enough, awfulpurple will have to take you back.</blockquote><br>:D<br><br>If there was any justice in the (SJW) world. :D
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 05:18:38 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;793965</cite>Islam as a whole has a set of principles and texts...</blockquote><br>Please don't feed the trolls.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 07:53:23 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;793939</cite>The difference between this situation and Islamic Terrorism is that, broadly, the goals of the GG criminals and the GG non-criminals are largely the same, while those of Islamic terrorists and Islamic non-terrorists are not.</blockquote><br>...<br><br><br>Seriously? <i>That's</i> the difference?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Rincewind1</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 07:56:14 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;793989</cite>...<br><br><br>Seriously? <i>That's</i> the difference?</blockquote><br>Well it's certainly not the amount of beards worn by each side.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;793965</cite>Islam as a whole has a set of principles and texts, various hierarchical organization, and centuries of history by which to judge it. Historically, Islam has tended to be militant but also relatively tolerant of other beliefs compared to Christianity. So a Muslim country would invade, but after invasion would allow other religions to be practiced - with moderately coercive conversion efforts like non-believers paying higher tax rates than believers. Christian countries have tended to be roughly as warlike, and more harsh on unbelievers - with forced conversions and penalties for overt disbelief. <br></blockquote><br>The "Muslims were much more tolerant than Christians" is a bit of an adage more than actual truth, as matters were much more complicated. The original caliphate's dynastic upheaval was caused by a civil war partially motivated by repression of Shia and religious minorities. In general, the tolerance was born less of faith, and more of prevalence of Greek and Roman influenced cultures that they have conquered and integrated into, as well as proliferation of ancient philosophy and culture in said regions, as compared to ancients' influences decline at that time in Europe. The overall wealth of the lands at the time helped a lot as well - at the time of Abbasid caliphate, Europe was just a poor, backwards stinkhole of the world, which had to rely on expansive trade to buy any luxury goods.<br><br>They were more tolerant not because of their faith, but because they were subjected to a higher, more tolerant culture at the time. Don't forget that things also changed later on, even within the Turkish Empire - yes, Jizya tax was a way to keep your faith, but you were practically banned from holding any office (in theory at least), and your children could be conscripted into military slavery.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>apparition13</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 08:43:55 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;793926</cite>Going to break my 'f this' separation for linking purposes:<br><br>http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/10/22/357826882/pew-gaming-is-least-welcoming-online-space-for-women<br><br>(http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/eduwonkette/upload/2008/06/degrees.jpg)<br><br>(https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/safe_image.php?d=AQDOa-ZANbJ2JrOs&w=487&h=326&url=http%3A%2F%2F38.media.tumblr.com%2Ff2012987a5943da605f4f713792387f6%2Ftumblr_ndi3ovZiTR1reegn2o1_1280.png)</blockquote>And your point is what? <br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;793939</cite>The difference between this situation and Islamic Terrorism is that, broadly, the goals of the GG criminals and SOME of the GG non-criminals are largely the same, while those of Islamic terrorists and SOME Islamic non-terrorists are not.</blockquote>Fixed your typo. Now repeat after me, sombunall: some, but not all. Sombunall GG are sincere about being fed up with payolla journalism, sombunall GG are fed up with people telling them what they like is wrong, sombunall GG are harrassers, sombunall GG support harrassers, sombunall -GG are sincere, sombunall -GG are fundamentalists who want to impose their wordview on others, sombunall games journalists are "corrupt", sombunall people on both sides have legitimate points and are getting drowned out by polarized ideologues.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 09:52:39 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
The vast bulk of GG is essentially anti-feminism. Ethics in gaming journalism is a symptom of this perceived problem.<br><br>The number of people who are GG and not anti-feminist is vanishingly small (I assume there are some, but I haven't actually seen any yet)<br><br>Re: Islam<br>The Iberian Moors were very tolerant (relatively speaking), and under the Umayyad Caliphate, Jews congregated to Spain (for a time, nearly all Jews worldwide lived in Spain), and so on.<br><br>But they were ethnically strongly Berber, and had some elements of democracy. Moorish Iberia was a place of learning and (relative) tolerance.<br><br>They have almost 0 resemblance to the radicalized arabic Islam of the modern era.<br><br><br>(As an aside, I've sometimes contemplated a Cthulhu game set in Al-Andalus)<br><br>Tristram:<br>Ok, it's one of two differences.<br>The other difference is that 'Gamergater' is a longer word than 'Muslim.'<br>Other than that there are no differences at all. <br>Stupid GamerGaters in their burkas.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Bedrockbrendan</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 09:56:55 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Rincewind1;793990</cite>They were more tolerant not because of their faith, but because they were subjected to a higher, more tolerant culture at the time. Don't forget that things also changed later on, even within the Turkish Empire - yes, Jizya tax was a way to keep your faith, but you were practically banned from holding any office (in theory at least), and your children could be conscripted into military slavery.</blockquote><br>While people romanticize it today, and there is good reason to use use lots of caveats when talking about toleration during Islam at its height, the toleration does in fact stem from their scripture (though like you point out there are other factors worth considering). But this is a very basic concept of Islam that led to their ability to co-exist with the other Abrahamic faiths. It is the notion of Jews and Christians as people of the book that enabled it. It was by no means all roses and sunshine (there was conflict and violence over religious differences) but on the whole it was more tolerant toward Christians and Jews than Europeans were at the time toward Jews and Muslims. Again that had to be understood for what if was: Jews and Christians were still second class citizens and had to pay a special tax; anyone outside that tradition stemming from Judaism was not covered by this though.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 10:32:38 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Yeah, I'm saying 'relatively' a lot because a second class citizen is WAY BETTER than being straight up tortured into conversion or buried in a pit for being a different religion.<br><br>(I found out recently that some of my ancestors were likely converted Spanish Jews. Huh!)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Bedrockbrendan</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 10:32:40 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794010</cite>Re: Islam<br>The Iberian Moors were very tolerant (relatively speaking), and under the Umayyad Caliphate, Jews congregated to Spain (for a time, nearly all Jews worldwide lived in Spain), and so on.<br><br>But they were ethnically strongly Berber, and had some elements of democracy. Moorish Iberia was a place of learning and (relative) tolerance.<br><br>They have almost 0 resemblance to the radicalized arabic Islam of the modern era.<br><br><br>(As an aside, I've sometimes contemplated a Cthulhu game set in Al-Andalus)<br></blockquote><br>This is because there are different schools of jurisprudence in Islam. The modern Salafi groups you hear so much about have a lot more in common with the Hanbali school, which even in medieval Islam could be quite strict and conservative. On the subject of a Dhimmis the schools have defined what groups are included differently and proscribed differing treatments as well.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Bedrockbrendan</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 10:36:07 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794018</cite>Yeah, I'm saying 'relatively' a lot because a second class citizen is WAY BETTER than being straight up tortured into conversion or buried in a pit for being a different religion.<br><br>(I found out recently that some of my ancestors were likely converted Spanish Jews. Huh!)</blockquote><br>I agree it was way better and I am not trying to undermine the idea that it was a better way to live than what you had in Europe at the time. Just trying to add some clarity on these points.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Bradford C. Walker</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 10:39:03 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
The pro-GG side has Christina Hoff Summers, and she's turning those near her in the media around.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>apparition13</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 11:12:36 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794010</cite>The vast bulk of GG is essentially anti-feminism.</blockquote>Disagreeing with Critical (Feminist) Theory interpretations of female representation in media <i>does not necessarily make someone anti-feminist</i>. Hell, "cheesecake is inherently misogynistic" is to a large extent why Zak wound up getting banned from rpgnet. <br><br>The difference in this case is that people objecting to CFTIoFRiM can't be banned from everywhere, are fighting back, and are getting labled anti-feminist because the object to <i>an</i> aspect of, even in academia, disputed and controversial suppositions about media representation effects and society.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 11:31:32 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
There may be some folks objecting to the particular type of feminism.<br><br>The vast bulk of what I'm reading from GG folks is anti-feminist, and the criminal misogynist fuckheads are different in volume, not kind.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 11:54:15 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;794035</cite>Disagreeing with Critical (Feminist) Theory interpretations of female representation in media <i>does not necessarily make someone anti-feminist</i>. </blockquote><br>Also, being anti-feminist (https://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat) does not make one sexist or misogynist or patriarchal, whatever Will says.<br><br>(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSyi0Qiw6zlOlbaZd1DN0cOQxScWjvSYKmDoj3J0zmj06aeKpCX7Q) <i>A (liberal, female) anti-feminist.</i>
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Rincewind1</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 11:54:17 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794010</cite>The vast bulk of GG is essentially anti-feminism. Ethics in gaming journalism is a symptom of this perceived problem.<br><br>The number of people who are GG and not anti-feminist is vanishingly small (I assume there are some, but I haven't actually seen any yet)<br><br>Re: Islam<br>The Iberian Moors were very tolerant (relatively speaking), and under the Umayyad Caliphate, Jews congregated to Spain (for a time, nearly all Jews worldwide lived in Spain), and so on.<br><br>But they were ethnically strongly Berber, and had some elements of democracy. Moorish Iberia was a place of learning and (relative) tolerance.<br><br>They have almost 0 resemblance to the radicalized arabic Islam of the modern era.<br><br><br>(As an aside, I've sometimes contemplated a Cthulhu game set in Al-Andalus)<br></blockquote><br>LOL WUT?<br><br>Seeing how at the time of Umayyid Caliphate of Cordoba there actually exists a Jewish Kingdom of Semien as well as the famed Khazar conversion to Judaism occurs, I am certain any claim of "almost every Jew in the world living there" is pure bovine faeces.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Tristram:<br>Ok, it's one of two differences.<br>The other difference is that 'Gamergater' is a longer word than 'Muslim.'<br>Other than that there are no differences at all. <br>Stupid GamerGaters in their burkas.<br></blockquote><br>Well, there's that slight issue of <i>people cutting infidels' heads off</i>. Seeing how you argued that MRAs have an army of terrorists willing to go in blazes based on one lunatic only semi - affiliated with MRAs, I am surprised you do not assume that every mosque must have a terrorist cell ready to go off at any moment's notice from Zubari (or however he's spelled).<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: BedrockBrendan;794011</cite>While people romanticize it today, and there is good reason to use use lots of caveats when talking about toleration during Islam at its height, the toleration does in fact stem from their scripture (though like you point out there are other factors worth considering). But this is a very basic concept of Islam that led to their ability to co-exist with the other Abrahamic faiths. It is the notion of Jews and Christians as people of the book that enabled it. It was by no means all roses and sunshine (there was conflict and violence over religious differences) but on the whole it was more tolerant toward Christians and Jews than Europeans were at the time toward Jews and Muslims. Again that had to be understood for what if was: Jews and Christians were still second class citizens and had to pay a special tax; anyone outside that tradition stemming from Judaism was not covered by this though.</blockquote><br>Actually, they kind of were, though much later on - the Mughalis experienced with Jizya on Hindus, though ultimately gave up due to the sheer risk of popular revolt. Then again, speaking of Mughalis and the famed tolerance - they demonstrate very clearly that the Islam Empires tolerance very often depended, just like in Europe, on attitudes and teachings the ruler adhered to - the militarisation of Sikhs occurred because one of the Mughal Emperors decided that it is time for Allah and only Allah.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Justin Alexander</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 12:02:39 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794010</cite>The vast bulk of GG is essentially anti-feminism.</blockquote><br>I'm curious to know exactly what you consider "essentially anti-feminism".<br><br>I've got even money spread between "circular logic" and "deliberate ignorance", but I'm always happy to be surprised.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;793998</cite>And your point is what? </blockquote><br>His point appears to be that some people who play RPGs are assholes, so all RPG players are assholes and RPGs should be banned.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 12:04:37 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
People killed in North America by Muslims this week: 2<br><br>People killed worldwide by GamerGaters this week: 0 <br><br>Yeah, exactly the same.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 12:08:23 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I'm having difficulty finding a solid quote on where most Jews lived in the Medieval period, so I'll cross that out. I had read it somewhere, but I don't know if 'most Jews lived in Iberia in the 10th century' is even close to accurate, my bad.<br><br>The following is kind of interesting:<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_under_Muslim_rule<br><br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Jewish_culture_in_Spain<br><br>(The treatment varied a lot, regionally and over time)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 12:10:59 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Justin Alexander;794050</cite>I'm curious to know exactly what you consider "essentially anti-feminism".<br><br>I've got even money spread between "circular logic" and "deliberate ignorance", but I'm always happy to be surprised.</blockquote><br>Anti-feminist: Don't agree with or like Feminism and is working against it.<br><br>This ranges from flat-out misogynist privileged dillholes to more nuanced 'equality is great but the Feminist movement has become isolated and reactionary and stupid.'<br><br>The common factor, though, is being opposed to Feminism.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 12:12:06 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;794046</cite>Also, being anti-feminist (https://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat) does not make one sexist or misogynist or patriarchal, whatever Will says.</blockquote><br>Good thing I didn't say any of those things, then.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Bedrockbrendan</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 12:23:34 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Rincewind1;794047</cite>owever he's spelled).<br><br><br><br>Actually, they kind of were, though much later on - the Mughalis experienced with Jizya on Hindus, though ultimately gave up due to the sheer risk of popular revolt. Then again, speaking of Mughalis and the famed tolerance - they demonstrate very clearly that the Islam Empires tolerance very often depended, just like in Europe, on attitudes and teachings the ruler adhered to - the militarisation of Sikhs occurred because one of the Mughal Emperors decided that it is time for Allah and only Allah.</blockquote><br>Sure this is why I mentioned the schools of jurisprudence in my next post. I was just working with the most narrow interpretation possible there because I didn't want to overstate my point but it certainly came to encompass more groups and many of the instances people point to are times when more groups were included. And like you point out the specific period matters. I am just trying to point out there is a solid basis in Islamic scripture for the practice of toleration you saw during its height. It shouldn't be confused with modern secular ideas of toleration though.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 12:26:51 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I forget the guy's name (he had some ironic name), but there was some muslim ruler of Jerusalem that forced Jews and Christians to convert and all muslims to pray toward wherever he was standing because he was Allah.<br><br>I think his subjects ended up killing him a lot.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 12:29:46 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Also, re: my comments about anti-feminism and misogyny:<br><br>I did say, much earlier, that GG is rife with misogyny. And I think it's overwhelmed by it. But I think that is a result of the core anti-feminism.<br><br>Because while anti-feminism doesn't have to be misogynistic, it's misogyny bait, much like men's rights. And like discussing border policy is racism bait.<br><br>If you want to prevent misogyny (or racism) to take over your movement, you need way more structure than 'bandwagon anyone can jump onto.'
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Bradford C. Walker</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 12:32:24 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794065</cite>Also, re: my comments about anti-feminism and misogyny:<br><br>I did say, much earlier, that GG is rife with misogyny. And I think it's overwhelmed by it. But I think that is a result of the core anti-feminism.<br><br>Because while anti-feminism doesn't have to be misogynistic, it's misogyny bait, much like men's rights. And like discussing border policy is racism bait.<br><br>If you want to prevent misogyny (or racism) to take over your movement, you need way more structure than 'bandwagon anyone can jump onto.'</blockquote>Insurgencies don't work that way, and they do just fine.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 12:44:40 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/24/how-some-gamergate-supporters-say-the-controversy-could-stop-in-one-week/<br><br>This is the two guys, one with a gun, as told by a 'reasonable' GG supporter.<br><br>In other words, misogyny (she slept her way to a better review!) kicked things off, stirred up the fires, and GGers are unwilling to change their banner because they are afraid that without the fire they won't be able to get their message out. The fire they say they don't condone or agree with.<br><br>Well, I'll agree with Walker that it has some of the hallmarks of insurgencies. Or terrorists.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Rincewind1</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 01:13:02 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794071</cite>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/24/how-some-gamergate-supporters-say-the-controversy-could-stop-in-one-week/<br><br>This is the two guys, one with a gun, as told by a 'reasonable' GG supporter.<br><br>In other words, misogyny (she slept her way to a better review!) kicked things off, stirred up the fires, and GGers are unwilling to change their banner because they are afraid that without the fire they won't be able to get their message out. The fire they say they don't condone or agree with.<br><br>Well, I'll agree with Walker that it has some of the hallmarks of insurgencies. Or terrorists.</blockquote><br>I missed the part where two people were killed, one shot. Do I need to pay to see the whole article?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 01:14:57 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;794066</cite>Insurgencies don't work that way, and they do just fine.</blockquote><br>But concern trolling <i>does</i> work like that. :p
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 01:18:03 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Um, no, misogyny did not kick things off - guys getting their rocks off and then writing positive articles did. If she'd slept with 5 different guys who did NOT proceed to write positive articles about her and her game(s), then we never would have heard of any of this. <br><br>TBH this is more about the 5 guys, not her, however "journalistic ethics" isn't neeeeearly as fun to fight as "OMG YOU GUYS MISOGYNY!" - again, showing how SJWs will use the tried and true tactic of deflecting from the actual issue at hand in order to advance their own agenda.<br><br>FWIW, I have a degree in journalism, and although it was many, MANY years ago, I do believe that we were taught about ethical behavior in reporting. Part of the problem (a big part) is that video game "journalists", for the most part, have never had formal training/education about what it means to be a journalist - they're just glorified bloggers.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 01:20:05 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
First off, you don't have to agree with everything some tumblrina or radfem says, or else be considered anti-feminist. If disagreeing that all heterosexual sex is rape, for example, makes me anti feminist then I'll gladly be considered that. Likewise with other half baked ideas. Start the purge.<br><br>Second, pointing out that there is in fact a conflict of interest and a pattern of deceit with the Literally Who situation is not misogyny. That's the kind of easy, thought stopping label that cults love to use in order to prevent people from ever questioning things. That's not even counting the fact that anger has been boiling before even Literally Who entered the public mind.<br><br>Third, how do you even begin to enforce who can use a hash tag?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 01:38:47 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Presented for your consideration:<br><br>http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/10/25/While-the-Media-Slanders-Gamers-as-Terrorists-GamerGate-Is-Hunting-Trolls-and-Abusers
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>crkrueger</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 01:41:35 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794054</cite>Anti-feminist: Don't agree with or like Feminism and is working against it.<br><br>This ranges from flat-out misogynist privileged dillholes to more nuanced 'equality is great but the Feminist movement has become isolated and reactionary and stupid.'<br><br>The common factor, though, is being opposed to Feminism.</blockquote><br>And so where does "equality is great, feminism is a great movement, but like many movements, has a very vocal, extremist wing that probably does more harm then good to the cause" range in that spectrum? You know, the vast excluded middle of what you probably call "anti-feminist". :rolleyes:
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>apparition13</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 01:43:29 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794065</cite>Also, re: my comments about anti-feminism and misogyny:<br><br>I did say, much earlier, that GG is rife with misogyny. And I think it's overwhelmed by it. But I think that is a result of the core anti-feminism.<br><br>Because while anti-feminism doesn't have to be misogynistic, it's misogyny bait, much like men's rights. And like discussing border policy is racism bait.<br><br>If you want to prevent misogyny (or racism) to take over your movement, you need way more structure than 'bandwagon anyone can jump onto.'</blockquote>You know Will, you keep saying "anti-feminism", why don't you define what the hell you mean by it. What policies that "feminists" espouse can someone disagree with and still be considered a feminist? What policy disagreements do you think cross the line to anti-feminist? Be specific.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 01:49:07 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;793925</cite>Possibly. And I agree that the most vocal SJWs have hijacked a legitimate cause just to slander people they don't like.<br><br>But here's the thing. This gamergate stuff? Look at this forum alone. We have people saying that the assholes who are harassing and threatening people don't represent the gamergate movement as a whole, we shouldn't tar everyone, etc. And those are all true things. But what I haven't seen is an actual effort by pro gamergate people to denounce this behavior whenever they see it.<br><br>I've made it very clear in the past just how much disdain I have for much of the SJW clique because their entire "argument' is to fight against harassment and doxing and threats while at the same time ignoring their side making threats, doxing, and harassing others. That level of hypocrisy just pisses me off. So if I am to have any integrity, and if pro GG folks want to take any sort of high ground, we must immediately and quickly shut down the misogynists and dickbags. We cannot simply just ignore them while saying, "Hey man, don't judge me like them because we aren't all like that." or "I don't condone that behavior" only when asked or accused. We must be proactive in addressing this. <br><br>Otherwise we aren't much different than the SJW clique.<br><br>It's just like Tea Party members should be the first to shut down racists because they're the first to see it. And like protestors should be the first people to shut down vandalizing anarchists. If you don't want to be accused of approving of dickbaggery, police your own group and shut down the dickbags.</blockquote><br>Quite.<br><br>jg
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 01:54:49 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794083</cite>First off, you don't have to agree with everything some tumblrina or radfem says, or else be considered anti-feminist. If disagreeing that all heterosexual sex is rape, for example, makes me anti feminist then I'll gladly be considered that. Likewise with other half baked ideas. Start the purge.<br><br>Second, pointing out that there is in fact a conflict of interest and a pattern of deceit with the Literally Who situation is not misogyny. That's the kind of easy, thought stopping label that cults love to use in order to prevent people from ever questioning things. That's not even counting the fact that anger has been boiling before even Literally Who entered the public mind.<br><br>Third, how do you even begin to enforce who can use a hash tag?</blockquote><br>#hashtagpolice
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>crkrueger</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 02:07:26 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;794087</cite>You know Will, you keep saying "anti-feminism", why don't you define what the hell you mean by it. What policies that "feminists" espouse can someone disagree with and still be considered a feminist? What policy disagreements do you think cross the line to anti-feminist? Be specific.</blockquote><br>If he defined it exactly, he couldn't use it like a club, blanket, umbrella, paintbrush, etc...<br><br>In other words, if you don't know what he means by anti-feminist - you're an anti-feminist.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Bradford C. Walker</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 02:14:08 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Werekoala;794085</cite>Presented for your consideration:<br><br>http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/10/25/While-the-Media-Slanders-Gamers-as-Terrorists-GamerGate-Is-Hunting-Trolls-and-Abusers</blockquote>Strange Days Indeed. (/Lennon)<br><br>Meanwhile, our own SJWs throw out a Newsweek article working data to slander the pro-GG side, once against demonstrating that they're like the dumbasses in the Green Zone thinking that keeping the media message high means that they're winning- while the countryside tunes them out and moves on without them.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Haffrung</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 02:31:24 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Werekoala;793902</cite>One thing we should all bear in mind about this and other SJW issues... we should all just shut up, relax, and let it happen - it'll be over soon.<br></blockquote><br>Yep. Outside certain zones of the internet, they're largely irrelevant. Get off your computer, take a walk, grab a coffee, and read a good book. Call your friends over and play a game. Level up your character in Skyrim. Have a beer and watch a hockey game. You'll find the SJW crusade has not touched or affected you in any way.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Werekoala;793929</cite>a) Computer science =/= gaming or video game development - if you want correlation = causation, check the dates in that graph with H1B visas from, oh, India? Might open your eyes a bit more. Also, holy shit look at all the female Engineers - Dilbert and Wally will be ecstatic! <br></blockquote><br>And so what if a lot more people who design video games are male than female? Women now make up clear majorities of graduates in law and medicine. Not to mention longstanding majorities in journalism and education. Only absolute fucking dorks lacking all perspective would regard designing video games as more influential than law, medicine, education, and journalism.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Rincewind1;793990</cite>The "Muslims were much more tolerant than Christians" is a bit of an adage more than actual truth, as matters were much more complicated. The original caliphate's dynastic upheaval was caused by a civil war partially motivated by repression of Shia and religious minorities. In general, the tolerance was born less of faith, and more of prevalence of Greek and Roman influenced cultures that they have conquered and integrated into, as well as proliferation of ancient philosophy and culture in said regions, as compared to ancients' influences decline at that time in Europe. The overall wealth of the lands at the time helped a lot as well - at the time of Abbasid caliphate, Europe was just a poor, backwards stinkhole of the world, which had to rely on expansive trade to buy any luxury goods.</blockquote><br>Sure. But it's no small thing that the Christians of the Mediterranean (North Africa, Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor) who were conquered in the first burst of Islamic expansion were perfectly content to accept the Arabs as rulers, and found them preferable to the rule of the Christian Byzantine Emperors. Even in matters of religion things calmed down under Arab rule compared to the fanatical divisions within Christianity at the time, when various schisms (Arianism, Monothelitism, etc.) fueled savage sectarian rioting and strife. Early Christianity wasn't exactly a happy-clappy brotherhood of shared values. And when Christian rulers of that era conquered non-Christian lands, such as Persia, they were most certainly on a religious crusade, and destroyed every pagan temple they came across.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Bradford C. Walker</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 02:48:16 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I am so disappointed in the trad-gaming folks who've gonr anti-GG. Some of them I am acquainted with, and yet they too display such gross incompetence in seeing GamerGate for what it is due to being far too wrapped up in the SJW paradigm. They're far quicker to block/silence/etc. dissenting opinions than the pro-GG folks I encounter, and are so cocksure of their positions that they can't see how they could fail--not be wrong, but fail to succeed--and they're talking like General Westmorland did in Vietnam. I won't be sympathetic when they realize that their media-centric shaming and meme-based mockery not only fails to get their desired results, but ends up pushing others to the pro-GG side due to the Streisand Effect.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 03:36:32 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Upon further reading, I disagree with the title of this thread. The most interesting thing to come out of Gamergate is <b>Vivian James</b>.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 03:47:55 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794054</cite>Anti-feminist: Don't agree with or like Feminism and is working against it.<br><br>This ranges from flat-out misogynist privileged dillholes to more nuanced 'equality is great but the Feminist movement has become isolated and reactionary and stupid.'<br><br>The common factor, though, is being opposed to Feminism.</blockquote><br>And if feminism didn't mean a bajillion different things to different people, that would mean something. <br><br>I actually like a lot of feminists. I read many of them. There's also a lot of them I hate. Its just like anything: Christian, Muslim, Athiest, Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Male, female: none of it has anything to do with whether or not the person is an asshole. <br><br>I won't identify as "feminist" or "pro-feminist" because I wont associate with the ridiculous extremists that use that term to justify them being horrible to other people. Just as I'm against misandry, but would never call myself a "Men's Rights Advocate" because there are just too many idiotic twits who hide under that phrase to get their sexism on.<br><br><br>I haven't yet come across damning proof that Gamergate is mostly or even largely about sexism. I hear a lot of people saying that, but no one backing up that claim.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Bradford C. Walker</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 03:50:09 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Within an hour of seeing that Newsweek piece, there is an answer: Newsweek's methodology was not competent. (https://medium.com/@cainejw/an-actual-statistical-analysis-of-gamergate-dfd809858f68)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 04:11:50 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;794111</cite>I haven't yet come across damning proof that Gamergate is mostly or even largely about sexism. I hear a lot of people saying that, but no one backing up that claim.</blockquote><br>I agree with you. The closet you get are people being fed up by the actions of the social justice warriors that had taken over gaming journalists which to be honest does create a lot of hate. Speaking to a wall is more productive than the anti-gamergate because the wall isn't activity trying to shut you down.<br><br>Which is why I called out Will on this. Sure I could be polite, but people been showing him evidence. He is literally choosing to ignore it and focus on what he is saying as if it is truth when it is proven other wise.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 04:33:03 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794083</cite>First off, you don't have to agree with everything some tumblrina or radfem says, or else be considered anti-feminist. If disagreeing that all heterosexual sex is rape, for example, makes me anti feminist then I'll gladly be considered that. Likewise with other half baked ideas. Start the purge.</blockquote>So, Arroz, hypotheticals aside, do you identify as a feminist? Or would you say no, for example because you think feminism has been co-opted and is now harmful? <br><br>More broadly, how many pro-GamerGaters here identify as feminist? <br><br>As for the hashtag, I think it's a tricky to identify with a hashtag unless it has some sort of defined set of values or definitional statement. I consider the tag name itself stupid, like most "Gate" tags such as D&D5's ConsultancyGate. Nathan Grayson's supposed corruption in covering Depression Quest is in no way comparable to Watergate, especially since his positive mentions predate his relationship with the author. I'm willing to believe that there are some well-meaning people posting under the tag, but that's not going to get me to sign up to it.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 04:33:28 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Oh and this is nice:<br><br>https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/525793436025118721 (https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/525793436025118721)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>woodsmoke</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 04:34:02 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Haffrung;794097</cite>Yep. Outside certain zones of the internet, they're largely irrelevant. Get off your computer, take a walk, grab a coffee, and read a good book. <b>Call your friends over and play a game.</b> Level up your character in Skyrim. Have a beer and watch a hockey game. You'll find the SJW crusade has not touched or affected you in any way.</blockquote><br>Generally speaking, I agree with you. Within the broader social context they're a tempest in a teapot. Unfortunately, it's demonstrably untrue within the much narrower context of hobby gaming.<br><br>That bit I bolded? My buddy and I fired up Borderlands: the Pre-Sequel yesterday. Within the first hour of gameplay there was a bit where Mr. Torgue got up on his social justice soapbox and spouted a bunch of textbook feminist bullshit about the friend zone being a misogynistic something something I stopped listening as soon as he invoked the misogyny corollary of Godwin's Law.<br><br>Up to that point, I'd been having fun with the game, and after facepalming for a few minutes I was able to shake it off and get back into the action. In that moment, though, I was totally taken out of the experience and forcefully reminded of the effect this postmodernist bullshit crusade has had on my hobby. This isn't the first time, either. In the announcement trailer for the Pre-Sequel, after the playable characters were introduced Mr. Torgue shouted "GENDER EQUALITY!" And don't get me started on the Lilith-as-Big-Mean-Gatekeeper subplot in the Assault on Dragon Keep DLC for Borderlands 2.<br><br>Nor is it limited solely to Gearbox/2K. Anita Sarkeesian, ethically bankrupt con artist and professional victim, has been hired by EA as a consultant for Mirror's Edge 2 - a game that was already doing everything gender ideologues say they want games to do, but apparently wasn't feministing <i>hard enough.</i><br><br>I've every confidence the hobby will eventually shake off the intellectual virus of this social Marxist propaganda, just as I'm sure the culture at large will. Right now, though, these assholes are fucking with my games, and I'll be damned if I'm just going to stand by and let them.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 04:42:44 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: woodsmoke;794117</cite>feministing</blockquote><br>An apt description of what the radical feminists are trying to do to us all.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 04:55:35 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;794116</cite>Oh and this is nice:<br><br>https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/525793436025118721 (https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/525793436025118721)</blockquote><br>Yep that is the type of attitude that gets people piss off and this pisses off everyone. No wonder people see feminists in a negative light because this is the type of narrative that took over because a certain group within the feminists wanted this to be the narrative. Thankfully we have women like this trying to fix things.<br><br>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MxqSwzFy5w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MxqSwzFy5w)<br><br>Oh you should see some of the tweets social justice warriors had said about this woman. You will find it quite enlightening in how social justice warriors treat those that "betray the narrative".
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 04:56:42 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Of course feminism means a bunch of different things. That's one reason there's a range of what you can define 'GamerGate' as.<br><br>The point is that it's _about_ anti-feminism, however you define feminism, more than it's about anything else.<br><br>The primary drive of GG is ideological warfare, not 'man, EA are being duplicitous dicks.'<br><br>If journalistic integrity was the core focus of GG, we'd be seeing a range of views unrelated to Social Justice, liberalism, and so forth. We'd be seeing liberals raging against GOP pro-business, we'd be seeing all sorts of stuff.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 04:57:12 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;794120</cite>Yep that is the type of attitude that gets people piss off and this pisses off everyone. No wonder people see feminists in a negative light because this is the type of narrative that took over because a certain group within the feminists wanted this to be the narrative. Thankfully we have women like this trying to fix things.<br><br>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MxqSwzFy5w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MxqSwzFy5w)<br><br>Oh you should see some of the tweets social justice warriors had said about this woman. You will find it quite enlightening in how social justice warriors treat those that "betray the narrative".</blockquote><br><br>LOL. That's the lady whose book I quoted which got me permabanned from RPGnet! lmao
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 04:57:57 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794121</cite>Of course feminism means a bunch of different things. That's one reason there's a range of what you can define 'GamerGate' as.<br><br>The point is that it's _about_ anti-feminism, however you define feminism, more than it's about anything else.<br><br>The primary drive of GG is ideological warfare, not 'man, EA are being duplicitous dicks.'<br><br>If journalistic integrity was the core focus of GG, we'd be seeing a range of views unrelated to Social Justice, liberalism, and so forth. We'd be seeing liberals raging against GOP pro-business, we'd be seeing all sorts of stuff.</blockquote><br>Why? We're not seeing that from the SJWs
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 05:00:54 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;794123</cite>Why? We're not seeing that from the SJWs</blockquote><br>What fucking sense does that make?<br><br>GG: 'It's not about anti-feminism!'<br>SJW: 'Yes it is!'<br>GG: 'I'm going to prove it with a lot of chatter about how feminism and SJWs are horrible!'<br><br><br>Acting as a mirror of SJW just proves their point, so if you are trying to show them up, you're... sucking at it.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 05:01:33 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Show me evidence, or stop it Will.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 05:02:50 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Rincewind1;794078</cite>I missed the part where two people were killed, one shot. Do I need to pay to see the whole article?</blockquote><br>Oh, sorry, missed this one earlier.<br><br>I was referring to my earlier post:<br><br>(https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/safe_image.php?d=AQDOa-ZANbJ2JrOs&w=487&h=326&url=http%3A%2F%2F38.media.tumblr.com%2Ff2012987a5943da605f4f713792387f6%2Ftumblr_ndi3ovZiTR1reegn2o1_1280.png)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 05:03:49 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;794125</cite>Show me evidence, or stop it Will.</blockquote><br>There is no evidence that would convince you, so, yeah, not playing your game.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Haffrung</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 05:06:30 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: woodsmoke;794117</cite>Generally speaking, I agree with you. Within the broader social context they're a tempest in a teapot. Unfortunately, it's demonstrably untrue within the much narrower context of hobby gaming.<br><br>That bit I bolded? My buddy and I fired up Borderlands: the Pre-Sequel yesterday. Within the first hour of gameplay there was a bit where Mr. Torgue got up on his social justice soapbox and spouted a bunch of textbook feminist bullshit about the friend zone being a misogynistic something something I stopped listening as soon as he invoked the misogyny corollary of Godwin's Law.<br><br>Up to that point, I'd been having fun with the game, and after facepalming for a few minutes I was able to shake it off and get back into the action. In that moment, though, I was totally taken out of the experience and forcefully reminded of the effect this postmodernist bullshit crusade has had on my hobby. This isn't the first time, either. In the announcement trailer for the Pre-Sequel, after the playable characters were introduced Mr. Torgue shouted "GENDER EQUALITY!" And don't get me started on the Lilith as Big Mean Gatekeeper subplot in the Assault on Dragon Keep DLC for Borderlands 2.</blockquote><br>Okay, that is annoying. Point taken. But I'm also willing to bet that sort of bullshit pisses off a lot more people playing Borderlands than it pleases. And the market will eventually sort that out.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 05:13:53 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
What demanding evidence to back up your statements is a game now? What makes you think your above evidence? So far I had seen the gamergate people, or those that can agree with them showing evidence to support their claims.<br><br>All you done was show a comic which isn't evidence.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 05:42:31 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Evidence for something which is a high level judgement of trends of a largescale movement? How exactly am I supposed to provide that?<br><br>Any singular examples can be shot down as anecdotal/outliers, whether by me or you.<br><br><br>All I can say is, even if you all are right about what GG 'really' is, if you think you're winning the argument, you are huffing fumes. Felicia Day gets better airtime.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 06:05:13 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794121</cite>If journalistic integrity was the core focus of GG, we'd be seeing a range of views unrelated to Social Justice, liberalism, and so forth. We'd be seeing liberals raging against GOP pro-business, we'd be seeing all sorts of stuff.</blockquote><br>My understanding is that it is about game-journal journalistic integrity, but the concern is specifically about game journals being taken over by SJWs. So the two are linked.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Warboss Squee</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 06:41:10 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794136</cite>Evidence for something which is a high level judgement of trends of a largescale movement? How exactly am I supposed to provide that?<br><br>Any singular examples can be shot down as anecdotal/outliers, whether by me or you.<br><br><br>All I can say is, even if you all are right about what GG 'really' is, if you think you're winning the argument, you are huffing fumes. Felicia Day gets better airtime.</blockquote><br>High level judgement? The fuck does that even mean?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 06:50:05 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;794132</cite>What demanding evidence to back up your statements is a game now? What makes you think your above evidence? So far I had seen the gamergate people, or those that can agree with them showing evidence to support their claims.<br><br>All you done was show a comic which isn't evidence.</blockquote><br>No, no - you're doing it wrong! Since he's "not going to play your game" anymore, that means he wins, and nothing you say going forward makes any difference so you may as well not even try. <br><br>Shut up, relax, and just go with it, baby - it'll all be over soon....
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 06:58:46 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Warboss Squee;794147</cite>High level judgement? The fuck does that even mean?</blockquote><br>'This is a deciduous forest.'<br><br>(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0t2FTfCcAA3HM6.jpg) (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0t2FNlCcAAkgus.jpg)<br>(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0t2E-YCcAAJbuf.jpg) (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0t2ExWCIAEhH8N.jpg)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Premier</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 07:14:48 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I gotta say that Will has finally convinced me. I mean, his arguments are logically sound. Furthermore, the statistics also back him up, just read it for yourselves:<br><br>(http://superfactory.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/22/pirate.gif)<br><br>Which clearly proves that<br><br>(http://www.pictures88.com/p/cartoon/cartoon_067.jpg)<br><br>and therefore Gamersgate has a consistent policy of<br><br>(http://asdfhj.com/wp-content/vaderwaterfilter7bj.jpg)<br><br>All that proves that GG is all about promoting misogyny. Will was clearly right all along, and we should apologise for ever doubting him.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 07:24:13 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
As an aside, funny statistical correlations:<br>http://twentytwowords.com/funny-graphs-show-correlation-between-completely-unrelated-stats-9-pictures/
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>apparition13</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 08:58:47 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Haffrung;794097</cite>Yep. Outside certain zones of the internet, they're largely irrelevant. </blockquote>Unless you're a college student in California, where they just passed a "yes means yes" law. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794121</cite>Of course feminism means a bunch of different things. That's one reason there's a range of what you can define 'GamerGate' as.</blockquote>And yet your only definition of GG seems to be anti-feminist, that's not a range. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>The point is that it's _about_ anti-feminism, however you define feminism, more than it's about anything else.</blockquote>Okay Will, this right here, this is a CLAIM, in fact it's 2 claims:<br><br>1. <i>The point is that it's _about_ anti-feminism, ... more than it's about anything else.</i> CLAIM 1: GG is more about anti-feminism than anything else. <br><br>2. <i>however you define feminism</i>, CLAIM 2: GG will meet CLAIM 1 regardless of how you define feminism. <br><br>A CLAIM by itself is empty of meaning, it is nothing but a bald assertion, anyone can claim anything. In order to make an argument you need to move on to step 2, GROUNDS. What EVIDENCE do you have to support your CLAIMS? In order to make your <i>cases</i>, and since you have CLAIM 2 you do in fact have "cases" rather than "case", you will need to provide evidence for CLAIM 1 for several definitions of "feminism". You will also need to provide WARRANTS for you GROUNDS, that means you need to JUSTIFY why the EVIDENCE you are using is GROUNDS for accepting you CLAIMS*. <br><br>Come back when you've done your homework. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>The primary drive of GG is ideological warfare, not 'man, EA are being duplicitous dicks.'</blockquote>If GG is an ideological stance, then it implies that feminism is an ideological stance, just another political ideology, rather than a moral or ethical system that should apply regardless of political ideology. Is that what you meant to imply?<br><br><br>Can you actually respond to one of my posts, or do you have so little faith in yourself and your beliefs that you will again take the cowards way out and talk around them without addressing me directly? <br><br><br>*Stephen Toulmin, Argumentation. There is a decent discussion on wikipedia; if you have to make arguments in an academic or professional setting you would be well served picking a copy up and learning to use it. By the way, this note is GROUNDS for the paragraph it is attached to, which is a CLAIM.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Rincewind1</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 09:05:59 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794136</cite>All I can say is, even if you all are right about what GG 'really' is, if you think you're winning the argument, you are huffing fumes. Felicia Day gets better airtime.</blockquote><br>So does Rush Limbaugh.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 09:13:31 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;794161</cite>And yet your only definition of GG seems to be anti-feminist, that's not a range.</blockquote><br>Except as people have commented a bunch of times, 'feminism' constitutes a bunch of different things. So... it IS a range. Just around a given topic.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;794161</cite>Okay Will, this right here, this is a CLAIM, in fact it's 2 claims:<br><br>1. <i>The point is that it's _about_ anti-feminism, ... more than it's about anything else.</i> CLAIM 1: GG is more about anti-feminism than anything else. <br><br>2. <i>however you define feminism</i>, CLAIM 2: GG will meet CLAIM 1 regardless of how you define feminism. <br><br>A CLAIM by itself is empty of meaning, it is nothing but a bald assertion, anyone can claim anything. In order to make an argument you need to move on to step 2, GROUNDS. What EVIDENCE do you have to support your CLAIMS? In order to make your <i>cases</i>, and since you have CLAIM 2 you do in fact have "cases" rather than "case", you will need to provide evidence for CLAIM 1 for several definitions of "feminism". You will also need to provide WARRANTS for you GROUNDS, that means you need to JUSTIFY why the EVIDENCE you are using is GROUNDS for accepting you CLAIMS*.</blockquote><br>Ok.<br>GG is not about a lot of things. It's not, for example, about the influence of Islam or Pokemon or Cosmic Rays on journalism. I can tell that by the lack of such topics being discussed by most people involved.<br><br>On the other hand, here and elsewhere, when people say 'it's not about feminism' they then proceed to say a bunch of stuff about how feminism is involved. It's happened many many many times in just this thread.<br><br>So, hey, evidence: read this thread.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;794161</cite>If GG is an ideological stance, then it implies that feminism is an ideological stance, just another political ideology, rather than a moral or ethical system that should apply regardless of political ideology. Is that what you meant to imply?</blockquote><br>The fact that you start with 'ideological' and then slip in 'political ideology' as if they were the same term is dishonest, to put it mildly.<br><br>Ideology doesn't have to be political ideology. It often isn't.<br><br>Of course feminism is an ideological stance. 'Women should be treated equally to men' is an ideological stance. From there, well, you get a bunch of other permutations and corollaries people argue about.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;794161</cite>Can you actually respond to one of my posts, or do you have so little faith in yourself and your beliefs that you will again take the cowards way out and talk around them without addressing me directly?</blockquote><br>It's your ability to discuss things rationally and honestly that I have very very VERY little faith in, even moreso after this post.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>apparition13</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 09:29:52 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Oh and Will, one more thing. This ones an observation; <br><br><b>If your side is the one making blanket statements, and the other side is the side making nuanced statements, your side is the one exhibiting prejudice. </b><br><br>The "sombunall" statements all seem to be coming from the GG side, the "tar everyone with the same brush" statements are coming from your side.*<br><br><br><br><br>*I'm not a gamer, so I don't identify directly with either side. I am a liberal social scientist, but an empirical one not a postmodern one, so I'm aware that SJW "concerns" are controversial, not settled in academia, and I'm not on the PM side of that debate. The only direct exposure I have to the any of the anti-GG figures is a couple of Sarkeesian's vids, and since I've personally been boycotting CSI** et al. for similar reasons (I grew entirely fed up with the "kill the hot chick, and if she's not the murder victim then she's the killer" trope) I'm sympathetic to her viewpoint. On the other hand, I don't think people who like CSI et al. are broken or immoral, and see no point in trying to get producers to stop making the shows they like they way they like them.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>apparition13</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 09:39:44 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794163</cite>Except as people have commented a bunch of times, 'feminism' constitutes a bunch of different things. So... it IS a range. Just around a given topic.</blockquote>So pick a definition and make an argument.<br><br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Ok.<br>GG is not about a lot of things. It's not, for example, about the influence of Islam or Pokemon or Cosmic Rays on journalism. I can tell that by the lack of such topics being discussed by most people involved.</blockquote>Much better, a claim, and some reasoning toward evidence. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>On the other hand, here and elsewhere, when people say 'it's not about feminism' they then proceed to say a bunch of stuff about how feminism is involved. It's happened many many many times in just this thread.<br><br>So, hey, evidence: read this thread.<br></blockquote>So use the multiquote function and make your argument.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>The fact that you start with 'ideological' and then slip in 'political ideology' as if they were the same term is dishonest, to put it mildly.<br><br>Ideology doesn't have to be political ideology. It often isn't.</blockquote>I'm a political scientist, of course ideologies are political. "Two sides" is political, arguments over policy are political, arguments over what society should look like are political arguments. This whole tempest in a teapot is steeped in politics, politicking, political ideologies, and political arguments. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Of course feminism is an ideological stance. 'Women should be treated equally to men' is an ideological stance. From there, well, you get a bunch of other permutations and corollaries people argue about.</blockquote>Very good, this is actually progress. When you say "permutations and corollaries" which ones are you including and which are you excluding when you are talking about feminism? Since you're not going to get anyone to (openly) disagree with "women should be treated equally to men", what policy package do you identify as feminist?<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>It's your ability to discuss things rationally and honestly that I have very very VERY little faith in, even moreso after this post.</blockquote>I got fed up with the way you were ducking my posts, so I decided to be an asshole. It seems to have broken the ice. Let's see where it goes, shall we?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 09:59:23 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;794115</cite>So, Arroz, hypotheticals aside, do you identify as a feminist? Or would you say no, for example because you think feminism has been co-opted and is now harmful? <br></blockquote><br>All I know is that I'm pro choice, pro equal pay, Pro equal opportunity, against domestic violence, sexual harrassment (depending on how it's defined, so no 'male gaze' bullshit), etc.<br><br>However, I'm not sure that in current feminism that would be enough to qualify me as an ally since I believe, for example, in due process even in accusations of rape. I don't believe that alleged victims get my belief unconditionally, etc. That is enough for a lot of people to consider me problematic at best, if not an outright woman hater.<br><br>I'd like to call myself one, but I doubt I've drank enough of the koolaid to be considered one by feminist activists.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>More broadly, how many pro-GamerGaters here identify as feminist? </blockquote><br>There is at least two. Zack ( I think) and someone else whose username escapes me.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>As for the hashtag, I think it's a tricky to identify with a hashtag unless it has some sort of defined set of values or definitional statement. I consider the tag name itself stupid, like most "Gate" tags such as D&D5's ConsultancyGate. Nathan Grayson's supposed corruption in covering Depression Quest is in no way comparable to Watergate, especially since his positive mentions predate his relationship with the author. I'm willing to believe that there are some well-meaning people posting under the tag, but that's not going to get me to sign up to it.</blockquote><br>Meh, the name is silly, as is DoritoGate, but that is irrelevant to the issues. I think that journalistic integrity is enough as a statement. The more one look into it, the more one may realize that this goes beyond Literally Who and Grayson. They're just one more point in a line of cases of conflicts of interest and sketchiness that stretches behind them and beyond them. <br><br>It bears mentioning, as well, that the people who have made this about their brand of 'social justice' are generally the same people involved in the sketchiness.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>rawma</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 10:04:56 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;794167</cite>you're not going to get anyone to (openly) disagree with "women should be treated equally to men"</blockquote><br>I guess I'd like to see everyone openly agree with this, without slipping a "but..." in after it.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 10:18:24 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794163</cite>On the other hand, here and elsewhere, when people say 'it's not about feminism' they then proceed to say a bunch of stuff about how feminism is involved. It's happened many many many times in just this thread.</blockquote><br>Gee, i wonder which faction has generally tried to paint the whole movement as misogynist from the beginning-- what with accusations of slut shaming, woman hating and comparisons to Sarkeesian.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 10:22:11 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;794167</cite>So pick a definition and make an argument.<br></blockquote>His argument amounts to: "Because The Rock said so."
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>apparition13</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 11:14:49 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794171</cite>His argument amounts to: "Because The Rock said so."</blockquote><br>It's not a rhetorical question. Will said feminism includes a bunch of things, you listed a bunch, I'd like to see his bunch. I'm curious to see how much overlap there is; I anticipate it will be significant.<br><br>One of the problems I have here is that <i>as it is used</i> "feminist (and feminism)" is presented as an undifferentiated whole, ie. something one is or is not, rather than as a differentiated melange, ie. something one can be to more or less extent. <br><br>Some elements of GG are more in agreement, some less; anti-GG stereotypes them all as "not" rather than treating them as individuals. E.g. GG are harassers, rather than GG Jo(e) Blow is a harasser because he/she said X, while GG Chris Blow is pretty decent because he/she said not-X.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>October 25, 2014, 11:45:18 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
A lot of gamergate people are for equality, right to choose, hate abuse, and generally hate harassment. Well actual harassment and none of that made up bullshit that social justice warriors made up. Some youtubers who support gamergate are condoning trolls that make gamergate look bad. Many gamergate people support some feminists too so it isn't a anti-feminists thing. If it is anti-anything it is anti-social justice warrior because they constantly prove they do not support justice of any kind.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 12:44:28 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794171</cite>His argument amounts to: "Because The Rock said so."</blockquote><br>No, that's "because Stone Cold said so." The Rock is "IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!"<br><br>jg
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 02:23:49 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Saying all ideologies are political is not the same as saying all ideologies are political ideologies.<br><br>There's a difference between a religion being embroiled in and having a political dimension and Republican ideology.<br><br>And, again, it does not fill me with boundless optimism in the ROI on working at this argument if I have to double back and tack down basic stuff like this.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 03:22:37 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794124</cite>What fucking sense does that make?<br><br>GG: 'It's not about anti-feminism!'<br>SJW: 'Yes it is!'<br>GG: 'I'm going to prove it with a lot of chatter about how feminism and SJWs are horrible!'<br><br><br>Acting as a mirror of SJW just proves their point, so if you are trying to show them up, you're... sucking at it.</blockquote><br>No idea what you're talking about. You said:<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>If journalistic integrity was the core focus of GG, we'd be seeing a range of views unrelated to Social Justice, liberalism, and so forth. We'd be seeing liberals raging against GOP pro-business, we'd be seeing all sorts of stuff.</blockquote><br>And I merely pointed out that you can't critisize one side for something you could equally say about the other side. We've already established this is a war between two groups of slactivists. SJWs don't have any highground as far as that goes. We're not seeing wider views of social equality being expressed, just complaints over "Gamer" as a stereotype and the portrayal of women in videogames.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 03:26:14 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794127</cite>There is no evidence that would convince you, so, yeah, not playing your game.</blockquote><br>I'm with Hutchinson on this one: "A claim without evidence may be dismissed without evidence". I'm not on either side of the GG thing so evidence WOULD convince me, I have no stake in videogames, I havent seriously played any since Zelda was a cereal. But what I'm seeing is tons of accusations, and nothing damning to back them up. <br>\<br>You're not obligated to provide any, of course. But that also means that the default assumption is going to be that you're wrong.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 03:29:43 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794136</cite>Evidence for something which is a high level judgement of trends of a largescale movement? How exactly am I supposed to provide that?<br><br>Any singular examples can be shot down as anecdotal/outliers, whether by me or you. </blockquote><br>Sure, but it was you who made the claim that GG was largely about antifeminism or misogyny. That means that supposedly youve encouuntered those sentiments from the majority of posters using the GG hashtag. Otherwise what you're describing is not " high level judgement" but <b>pre</b>judgment.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 03:30:43 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Warboss Squee;794147</cite>High level judgement? The fuck does that even mean?</blockquote><br>Level 15 or above. :)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Iosue</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 03:38:48 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Werekoala;794085</cite>Presented for your consideration:<br><br>http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/10/25/While-the-Media-Slanders-Gamers-as-Terrorists-GamerGate-Is-Hunting-Trolls-and-Abusers</blockquote><br>On one hand, ugh! Breitbart again!<br><br>On the other hand, thanks for the link. It's exactly the kind of thing I was hoping GamerGate would do.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>apparition13</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 03:58:19 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794190</cite>Saying all ideologies are political is not the same as saying all ideologies are political ideologies.<br><br>There's a difference between a religion being embroiled in and having a political dimension and Republican ideology.<br><br>And, again, it does not fill me with boundless optimism in the ROI on working at this argument if I have to double back and tack down basic stuff like this.</blockquote>Will, ideological conflict, like what is happening in the Catholic Church right now, is political conflict. The council of Nicaea was a political conflict. Martin Luther was a politician as well as a preacher. The textbook definitions (as in the ones you read in 100 level PoliSci textbooks) are "who gets what, when and why" and "the authoritative allocation of value". Feminism is bound up in "who gets what, when and why", and it certainly has standpoints on what values should be authoritatively allocated. This is me tacking down basic, as in 100 level, political science stuff. <br><br>That said, how political scientists think about and study ideology isn't the issue in our discussion, it's feminism. If you want to have a discussion, then you need to tack down your basic stuff so you and I (or whoever) are on the same page. ArrozConLeche said "all I know is that I'm pro choice, pro equal pay, Pro equal opportunity, against domestic violence, sexual harrassment (depending on how it's defined, so no 'male gaze' bullshit), etc. Does supporting everything in that list, but not buying into "male gaze" disqualify ArrozConLeche from claiming to support feminism? What other components do you think are missing? Do you view it as an all in or nothing situation, where you're either with feminism or against it depending on whether you agree to every single possible anyone has ever suggested is integral to feminism? If not, what would you say are the core issues? Do you ever disagree with what a particular feminist says about a particular issue? If yes, what would be an example? <br><br>I don't need you to nail down everything, just provide a starting point.<br><br>Or don't. Keep up the unsupported assertions, don't engage, don't discuss, don't investigate, don't bother. After all, that has always been how the successful agents for social change have operated. Oh hang on, no, it's exactly the opposite.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 05:22:00 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;794115</cite>More broadly, how many pro-GamerGaters here identify as feminist? <br><br>As for the hashtag, I think it's a tricky to identify with a hashtag unless it has some sort of defined set of values or definitional statement. I consider the tag name itself stupid, like most "Gate" tags such as D&D5's ConsultancyGate. Nathan Grayson's supposed corruption in covering Depression Quest is in no way comparable to Watergate, especially since his positive mentions predate his relationship with the author. I'm willing to believe that there are some well-meaning people posting under the tag, but that's not going to get me to sign up to it.</blockquote>I'm more like Pro-feminist than feminist, as I do not define myself as a feminist, but see it as a good thing that is needed as a leverage to get equality.<br>I do not think it truly stand for equality in itself.<br>That is what ... some other word ... stands for.<br><br>I saw myself as pro-GamerGate, but arguments has pointed out that it may not be very important.<br>I may still defend it because others seem to think it is important, and I find it wrong when people call others misogynist by false association.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 10:33:41 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;794205</cite>Or don't. Keep up the unsupported assertions, don't engage, don't discuss, don't investigate, don't bother. After all, that has always been how the successful agents for social change have operated. Oh hang on, no, it's exactly the opposite.</blockquote><br>I attempted, but when people can't or won't even understand basic stuff that I'm saying, what's the point?<br><br>And I'm not an agent of social change, I'm a random guy chatting about news of the day on an online forum about gaming.<br><br>By 'anti-feminist,' by the way, what I'm saying is that GamerGate is about decrying some type of feminism. This ranges from the misogynist fucktards who think women should shut up and get out of gaming to people who disagree with certain movements in Feminism.<br><br>The range of people involved is _precisely because_ 'being against feminism' can be taken in so many ways, and the movement is verminous _precisely because_ the topic and loose structure is a beacon for people taking it the worst way possible.<br><br>Addendum:<br>I think it's totally possible to be a feminist who is concerned about Sarkeesian and so on and considers themself a GamerGater.<br>I think it's _fucking stupid_ to associate with GamerGate as a feminist, but it's possible.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Warboss Squee</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 11:37:01 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794239</cite>I attempted, but when people can't or won't even understand basic stuff that I'm saying, what's the point?<br><br>And I'm not an agent of social change, I'm a random guy chatting about news of the day on an online forum about gaming.<br><br>By 'anti-feminist,' by the way, what I'm saying is that GamerGate is about decrying some type of feminism. This ranges from the misogynist fucktards who think women should shut up and get out of gaming <b>to people who disagree with certain movements in Feminism</b>.<br><br>The range of people involved is _precisely because_ 'being against feminism' can be taken in so many ways, and the movement is verminous _precisely because_ the topic and loose structure is a beacon for people taking it the worst way possible.<br><br>Addendum:<br>I think it's totally possible to be a feminist who is concerned about Sarkeesian and so on and considers themself a GamerGater.<br>I think it's _fucking stupid_ to associate with GamerGate as a feminist, but it's possible.</blockquote><br>Yeah, you can go fuck off now, thanks.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 11:49:11 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794239</cite>I attempted, but when people can't or won't even understand basic stuff that I'm saying, what's the point?<br><br>And I'm not an agent of social change, I'm a random guy chatting about news of the day on an online forum about gaming.<br><br>By 'anti-feminist,' by the way, what I'm saying is that GamerGate is about decrying some type of feminism. This ranges from the misogynist fucktards who think women should shut up and get out of gaming to people who disagree with certain movements in Feminism.<br><br>The range of people involved is _precisely because_ 'being against feminism' can be taken in so many ways, and the movement is verminous _precisely because_ the topic and loose structure is a beacon for people taking it the worst way possible.<br><br>Addendum:<br>I think it's totally possible to be a feminist who is concerned about Sarkeesian and so on and considers themself a GamerGater.<br>I think it's _fucking stupid_ to associate with GamerGate as a feminist, but it's possible.</blockquote>I think you have a point, but probably not as big as you think it is.<br><br>Anyway, in an attempt to help solve this mess, i'll try to translate some of what you are saying, as I understand it, if I understand it correctly:<br><br>Feminism covers a spectrum of related opinions and facts.<br>If I get it right, you claim that those that post as GG-ers includes everything from massive misogynists who is against even moderate feminists or might even be against me for being pro-feminist and/or woman, to GG-ers that only hate the worst kind of freedom-of-speech-limiting extreme feminist.<br>Am I correct in this assumption?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 11:53:43 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Catelf;794253</cite>If I get it right, you claim that those that post as GG-ers includes everything from massive misogynists who is against even moderate feminists or might even be against me for being pro-feminist and/or woman, to GG-ers that only hate the worst kind of freedom-of-speech-limiting extreme feminist.<br>Am I correct in this assumption?</blockquote><br>Yes. And the point of saying so is that the topic isn't 'ethics in gaming journalism' but the role of feminism, which, in this case, is seen as a problem in gaming journalism.<br><br>And the point of THAT distinction is that saying 'it's just about ethics in gaming journalism' doesn't really map to the discussion. The range of discussion about gaming journalism ethics would cover a lot of topics that aren't discussed much. The range of discussion about 'bad feminism' maps better to the range of what GGers are saying.<br><br>In other words, ethics in gaming journalism is a 'case' of something GGers see as a core problem, it isn't the core problem they are railing against.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 12:05:05 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794257</cite>Yes. And the point of saying so is that the topic isn't 'ethics in gaming journalism' but the role of feminism, which, in this case, is seen as a problem in gaming journalism.<br><br>And the point of THAT distinction is that saying 'it's just about ethics in gaming journalism' doesn't really map to the discussion. The range of discussion about gaming journalism ethics would cover a lot of topics that aren't discussed much. The range of discussion about 'bad feminism' maps better to the range of what GGers are saying.<br><br>In other words, ethics in gaming journalism is a 'case' of something GGers see as a core problem, it isn't the core problem they are railing against.</blockquote>Ah.<br>You describe how it looks like.<br>Others here are trying to describe how it IS.<br><br>The big problem is the hashtag GamerGate that ANYONE can use.<br>There is no official source.<br>That is a strength, and the weakness both.<br>It is an issue of trust, and GamerGate has none or very little at the moment, as misogynists keep using it.<br>This is sadly a harsh reality.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 12:11:35 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
If you are part of a movement that anyone can join, and is structured in such a way that it can (and is) overrun with vile shitheads, then you share culpability by not going somewhere else and being part of a more organized group that doesn't tolerate shitheads.<br><br>And it's revealing here:<br>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/24/how-some-gamergate-supporters-say-the-controversy-could-stop-in-one-week/<br><br>'We don't want to change banners because otherwise the discussion might disappear or not have people's attention/interest.'<br><br>So in other words, it's useful to have misogynist fuckheads stir up a lot of heat and the 'true' GGers can ride that?<br>That makes you complicit.<br><br>(https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/safe_image.php?d=AQDOa-ZANbJ2JrOs&w=487&h=326&url=http%3A%2F%2F38.media.tumblr.com%2Ff2012987a5943da605f4f713792387f6%2Ftumblr_ndi3ovZiTR1reegn2o1_1280.png)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Haffrung</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 12:18:05 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794262</cite>If you are part of a movement that anyone can join, and is structured in such a way that it can (and is) overrun with vile shitheads, then you share culpability by not going somewhere else and being part of a more organized group that doesn't tolerate shitheads.<br><br>And it's revealing here:<br>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/24/how-some-gamergate-supporters-say-the-controversy-could-stop-in-one-week/<br><br>'We don't want to change banners because otherwise the discussion might disappear or not have people's attention/interest.'<br><br>So in other words, it's useful to have misogynist fuckheads stir up a lot of heat and the 'true' GGers can ride that?<br>That makes you complicit.<br><br>(https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/safe_image.php?d=AQDOa-ZANbJ2JrOs&w=487&h=326&url=http%3A%2F%2F38.media.tumblr.com%2Ff2012987a5943da605f4f713792387f6%2Ftumblr_ndi3ovZiTR1reegn2o1_1280.png)</blockquote><br>You realize that's the reason a lot of progressive and independent women don't self-identify as feminists right - because so many kooks and radicals fly that banner?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Warboss Squee</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 12:23:25 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Haffrung;794264</cite>You realize that's the reason a lot of progressive and independent women don't self-identify as feminists right - because so many kooks and radicals fly that banner?</blockquote><br>And that not all feminist agree with all the different movements in feminism. Guess that makes them anti-feminist.<br><br>Regardless, he's just a trollish asshole, so let's not waste any more time debating the willfully ignorant.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 12:30:50 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794239</cite>... to people who disagree with certain movements in Feminism.</blockquote><br>Hey, I LOVE the feminist movement, especially when walking behind it.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 12:55:59 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Yeah, you guys go on winning hearts and minds.<br><br>http://www.themarysue.com/joss-whedon-reddit-gamergate/
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 01:11:44 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I wonder if this is how the Occupy Wall Street guys felt, when they started off with one clear message that was misrepresented by the media, and when the movement gradually attracted a relative handful of nutcases, and the media only reported on the nutcases, it eventually died...<br><br>Wonder how many of the people now decrying GG as nothing but a bunch of misogynist basement dwellers were screaming at the top of their lungs that those nutcases didn't represent their views or the real point of OWS, but that because of them they couldn't get their actual views/message represented in the media...<br><br>Hm.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 01:13:37 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Not me, I thought OWS ALSO suffered from a stupid lack of builder phase of making an actual organization rather than a mob that antisemitic douchebags and general anarchists could just faff about in.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 01:28:00 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Maybe, but we live in an age of 24 hour news cycles and instant social media response. We don't have the luxury of building a grass-roots movement over the course of weeks/months/years - without being called astroturf, of course. <br><br>Like it or not, this is the future - insta-movements with insta-supporters/detractors and tons of hyperbole and vitriol on all fronts. The old way of changing things is just that, the old way. Which is why things will likely never change, or if they do it will be very slowly with tons of butt-hurt to go around. And since leftists have control of our education system at basically all levels, they will eventually win, which was part of the plan all along I suspect. Get 'em while they're young and all that. <br><br>This is why direct Democracy is, was, and always will be a Bad Idea, at least on a national/societal level. <br><br>Ah, Internet, you truly are the great Social Pacifier.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 02:03:25 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
That's why various conservative backlashes don't depress me, because it's pretty much a reaction to liberalism winning.<br><br>Gay marriage, pot legalization, trans issues, it's amazing what has happened in just my lifetime.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 02:07:14 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794262</cite>If you are part of a movement that anyone can join, and is structured in such a way that it can (and is) overrun with vile shitheads, then you share culpability by not going somewhere else and being part of a more organized group that doesn't tolerate shitheads.<br></blockquote><br>...and the conversation has gone circular, without Will providing any evidence for his claims.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 02:11:05 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
What evidence would you consider 'proper'?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 02:16:34 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
In other news, Daddy Cam Banks is warning you not to tie tabletop games to #gamergate or you will never work again in this town.*<br><br>Poser from the Outrage Brigade shows authoritarian streak. News at 11.<br><br>https://m.google.com/app/basic/stream/z124w52gfzqwyvrdb23rtp5xyxadyhfae04<br><br>Do not dare use #tabletopgate or risk the selfrighteous wrath of Daddy Cam Banks.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 02:19:26 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794283</cite>What evidence would you consider 'proper'?</blockquote><br>Something other than just repeating the same claim over and over would be a start.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 02:20:23 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Oh hey, Arroz, you yet again mischaracterize what someone said! At least it's extra obvious since the link and your 'summation' are right there.<br><br>'No publisher is going to want to deal with this crap from you' isn't authoritarian. It's, at worst, venting and hystrionic.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794289</cite>Something other than just repeating the same claim over and over would be a start.</blockquote><br>Uh huh. BS games again.<br><br>'I'm not going to say what constitutes evidence so I and others can nitpick everything about it, shift the goalposts constantly until we can get you to give up.'<br><br>Nope, not playing that game.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>apparition13</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 02:25:15 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794239</cite>I attempted, but when people can't or won't even understand basic stuff that I'm saying, what's the point?</blockquote>So talk to me, don't talk to them.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>By 'anti-feminist,' by the way, what I'm saying is that GamerGate is about decrying some type of feminism. This ranges from the misogynist fucktards who think women should shut up and get out of gaming <b>to people who disagree with certain movements in Feminism.</b></blockquote>Re. bold: this implies that anyone who disagrees with "certain movements" in feminism is anti-feminist. Is this what you mean?<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>I think it's totally possible to be a feminist who is concerned about Sarkeesian and so on and considers themself a GamerGater.<br>I think it's _fucking stupid_ to associate with GamerGate as a feminist, but it's possible.</blockquote>Fair enough. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794262</cite>If you are part of a movement that anyone can join, and is structured in such a way that it can (and is) overrun with vile shitheads, then you share culpability by not going somewhere else and being part of a more organized group that doesn't tolerate shitheads.<br><br>And it's revealing here:<br>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/24/how-some-gamergate-supporters-say-the-controversy-could-stop-in-one-week/<br><br>'We don't want to change banners because otherwise the discussion might disappear or not have people's attention/interest.'<br><br>So in other words, it's useful to have misogynist fuckheads stir up a lot of heat and the 'true' GGers can ride that?<br>That makes you complicit.</blockquote>They are making a pragmatic decision that getting the message out and dealing with the fuckheads is less bad an option than not getting the message out (because no one is listening to other channels) and not dealing with the fuckheads. From their standpoint it's a reasonable tradeoff, from yours, since you would rather not deal with their message in the first place, having reasonable GGers disappear from sight isn't a concern. In other words, because you don't give a shit about whether or not they can get their message out, the decision for you is between being associated with fuckheads or not, for them it also includes getting their message out. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794276</cite>Not me, I thought OWS ALSO suffered from a stupid lack of builder phase of making an actual organization rather than a mob that antisemitic douchebags and general anarchists could just faff about in.</blockquote>You have the same attitude about the Arab Spring?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 02:33:57 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
3 months ago I would totally have listened to an argument why Sarkeesian and other SJWs are going too far, how, and why. Particularly since I got banned from SJW haven, TBP.<br><br>Right now? It's VERY hard to take those arguments seriously when they are surrounded by women getting death threats and doxxing. It's easy to read it as 'we're trying to rationalize our hatred of women.'<br><br>I think it's not a pragmatic decision at all (with shades of lazy slacktivism), because yes, GamerGate is getting way more airtime. But to the vast populace unfamiliar with (and generally disinterested in) gaming journalism, what is most visible and easy to understand is a bunch of women talking about how gaming is hostile to women and then getting victimized over it.<br><br>I wish GamerGate would change not because I agree with almost anyone in it, but because while I think feminism will ultimately 'win,' this is going to be the nastiest and most damaging way to win.<br>Also, I think there are legitimate criticisms of some forms of feminism that are now pretty much fucked for a generation.<br><br><br>As for Arab Spring... I honestly don't have an opinion and haven't paid much attention to it. It's somewhat different when you have governments and militaries quite willing to shoot lots of people.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 02:53:24 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
It is an authoritarian streak, typical of the illiberal left. Too bad for Daddy Cam Banks, though, that he can't do jack shit to stop people from using #tabletopgate.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 02:57:19 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794290</cite>Oh hey, Arroz, you yet again mischaracterize what someone said! At least it's extra obvious since the link and your 'summation' are right there.<br><br>'No publisher is going to want to deal with this crap from you' isn't authoritarian. It's, at worst, venting and hystrionic.<br><br><br><br>Uh huh. BS games again.<br><br>'I'm not going to say what constitutes evidence so I and others can nitpick everything about it, shift the goalposts constantly until we can get you to give up.'<br><br>Nope, not playing that game.</blockquote><br>You either feel you have evidence and you present it, or you don't. I don't have to define it for you. Now you go ahead and prove that gamer gate is predominantly about misogyny
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 03:02:57 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794295</cite>I think it's not a pragmatic decision at all (with shades of lazy slacktivism), because yes, GamerGate is getting way more airtime. But to the vast populace unfamiliar with (and generally disinterested in) gaming journalism, what is most visible and easy to understand is a bunch of women talking about how gaming is hostile to women and then getting victimized over it.<br></blockquote><br>Hm, yeah, funny that. Wonder how many pro-GG folks have been interviewed on MSNBC, NPR, HuffPost, or how many pro-GG articles (or even neutral/balanced articles) have been written in Forbes, Newsweek, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. <br><br>It's easy to see why the vast, unfamiliar populace is getting that negative impression with GG because that's all they're being shown. <br><br>Imagine that.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 03:23:10 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
The death/rape threats are awful things and they muddy the issue. But I haven't seen a compelling reason to hold Gamergate responsible for them. Or, frankly, to take them seriously. Whenever I hear about those sorts of things over the internet, my default assumption is its some dumbass teenager.<br><br>Whats most interesting to me is that the most proof that GG is about journalistic ethics is from the media in response by displaying absolutely no journalistic integrity while reporting on this case.<br><br>And yes, being against SJWs in media can be the same thing as fighting for journalistic ethics. To use a topical example, being against the SJWs at RPGnet is the same thing as being about ethics in site moderation.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 03:29:14 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794299</cite>You either feel you have evidence and you present it, or you don't. I don't have to define it for you. Now you go ahead and prove that gamer gate is predominantly about misogyny</blockquote><br>You are asking the impossible of him, and you both know it.<br><br>You both know (is my impression) that GamerGate isn't about misogyny, but that it gives the impression of being all about misogyny.<br><br>Why do I talk for Will?<br>Because he obviously expresses himself clumsy, and i'm tired of people constantly getting annoyed or even misunderstanding him over it.<br><br>....I'll try to keep it to a minimum, though.<br><br>Sorry if i'm patronizing you Will ....
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 03:42:31 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Werekoala;794300</cite>Hm, yeah, funny that. Wonder how many pro-GG folks have been interviewed on MSNBC, NPR, HuffPost, or how many pro-GG articles (or even neutral/balanced articles) have been written in Forbes, Newsweek, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. <br><br>It's easy to see why the vast, unfamiliar populace is getting that negative impression with GG because that's all they're being shown. <br><br>Imagine that.</blockquote><br>And why do you think they do not get any spokesperson for GamerGate?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>crkrueger</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 03:55:00 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;794292</cite>They are making a pragmatic decision that getting the message out and dealing with the fuckheads is less bad an option than not getting the message out (because no one is listening to other channels) and not dealing with the fuckheads. From their standpoint it's a reasonable tradeoff</blockquote><br>In other words, like every Political Party and political movement ever, including any that Will supports.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 04:13:08 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794285</cite>In other news, Daddy Cam Banks is warning you not to tie tabletop games to #gamergate or you will never work again in this town.*<br><br>Poser from the Outrage Brigade shows authoritarian streak. News at 11.<br><br>https://m.google.com/app/basic/stream/z124w52gfzqwyvrdb23rtp5xyxadyhfae04<br><br>Do not dare use #tabletopgate or risk the selfrighteous wrath of Daddy Cam Banks.</blockquote><br>"I have a degree in ethics, so don't even start with me."<br><br>LOL. I have no idea who this man is, but he certainly sounds like a complete prat.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 04:13:33 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Catelf;794303</cite>Why do I talk for Will?<br>Because he obviously expresses himself clumsy, and i'm tired of people constantly getting annoyed or even misunderstanding him over it.<br><br>....I'll try to keep it to a minimum, though.<br><br>Sorry if i'm patronizing you Will ....</blockquote><br>Nah, I didn't think I was being that mysterious, and there's only so much time I can be here.<br><br>I'll let you know if I disagree with your assessment. ;)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 04:22:02 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;794302</cite>Whats most interesting to me is that the most proof that GG is about journalistic ethics is from the media in response by displaying absolutely no journalistic integrity while reporting on this case.<br><br>And yes, being against SJWs in media can be the same thing as fighting for journalistic ethics. To use a topical example, being against the SJWs at RPGnet is the same thing as being about ethics in site moderation.</blockquote><br>Two good points. I agree about your second point - SJW ideology by its nature is corrupting of the classical-Liberal concept of journalistic ethics, so that's not surprising at all, but is an important point for non-SJW left-liberals to understand: SJW is bad <u>even if you agree with its stated aims</u>. <br><br>On the first point, yes, though I'd the proviso that a fair few games sites have shown integrity. Much of the worst coverage has come from the mainstream media, as usual, from journalists who have supposedly had ethics training. <br><br>OT: I have a friend who's an ethics lecturer. I don't get the impression that this gives her any particular insight into actual issues.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 04:27:19 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
For what it's worth, I found Cam Banks stuff vaguely 'old man yelling on his porch' more than anything else.<br>Paternalistic, maybe, I just find calling it 'authoritarian' over-dramatic.<br><br>I mean, I vaguely agree with him. But ... enh. If people can't see that their behavior is bad, let them hang. Ranting about it is juvenile. 'You watch out! You'll see!'
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 04:50:38 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794271</cite>Yeah, you guys go on winning hearts and minds.<br><br>http://www.themarysue.com/joss-whedon-reddit-gamergate/</blockquote><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>(Important side note: A lot of the people calling for "journalistic ethics" quite transparently don't know anything about journalism — to say that sites should clearly label what is and isn't opinion, for example, is just plain weird, because a) that distinction is less and less relevant and is mostly a relic of newspaper days; and b) it's a basic reading-comprehension thing; anyone who reads on a daily basis can tell, pretty simply from various cues in the narrative, whether they're reading a work of "straight" journalism [outdated, troublesome term], "pure" opinion [again, bleh], or some combination of the two [which is what a lot of games coverage is].) </blockquote><br>In other words, there's no point in referring to "journalistic ethics" because it's one of those oxymoronic terms like "military intelligence."<br><br>Still, I think the author is more than a bit disingenuous in saying that the reader is automatically supposed to tell the difference between "straight" journalism, which they say is an outdated and troublesome term, or a mix of fact and opinion.<br>I'm not sure if they'd be so blase' and approving if we were discussing Fox News. For one thing that would undermine the overall Left narrative that the only reason the population as a whole doesn't endorse the objectively pure, good and true policies of the Democrats is because propaganda masquerading as fact is the only thing keeping the Republican Party in operation. ;)<br><br>JG
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 05:22:29 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Actually, I think the overall Leftist narrative is that conservatives are anti-science, misogynist, religious stupid hicks who refuse to see the truth out of spite, and Faux N3w$ feeds into their vivid fantasy life.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 05:42:42 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794322</cite>Actually, I think the overall Leftist narrative is that conservatives are anti-science, misogynist, religious stupid hicks who refuse to see the truth out of spite, and Faux N3w$ feeds into their vivid fantasy life.</blockquote><br>Thats just the general view of Americans this side of the border. :P
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jeff37923</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 05:44:34 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;794310</cite>"I have a degree in ethics, so don't even start with me."<br><br>LOL. I have no idea who this man is, but he certainly sounds like a complete prat.</blockquote><br>Yeah, that quote caused me to dismiss him as well.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 05:55:56 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;794324</cite>Thats just the general view of Americans this side of the border. :P</blockquote><br>It's a fair cop.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jeff37923</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 06:14:12 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794257</cite>Yes. And the point of saying so is that the topic isn't 'ethics in gaming journalism' but the role of feminism, which, in this case, is seen as a problem in gaming journalism.<br></blockquote><br>You do understand that even feminists do not condone Zoe Quinn's trading of sex for good reviews of her "Depression Quest" game, don't you? That it is unethical?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 06:17:10 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
You mean the thing that never happened?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 06:20:28 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Holy shit check this out. Go between minute 10 to minute 12 to see what I mean.<br><br>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHoc4M2l8jE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHoc4M2l8jE)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jeff37923</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 06:38:57 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794332</cite>You mean the thing that never happened?</blockquote><br>EDIT: I was wrong.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 06:39:37 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<i>Important side note: A lot of the people calling for “journalistic ethics” quite transparently don’t know anything about journalism — to say that sites should clearly label what is and isn’t opinion, for example, is just plain weird, because a) that distinction is less and less relevant and is mostly a relic of newspaper days; and b) it’s a basic reading-comprehension thing; anyone who reads on a daily basis can tell, pretty simply from various cues in the narrative, whether they’re reading a work of “straight” journalism [outdated, troublesome term], “pure” opinion [again, bleh], or some combination of the two [which is what a lot of games coverage is].) </i><br><br>Oh, I SEE - the trouble isn't objectivity in journalism, it's just that we've moved beyond such quaint notions. If you keep moving the goalposts motherfucker, you'll have to move the whole team half-way across the country to keep up (pithy NFL reference there). <br><br>A FUCKING RELIC OF THE NEWSPAPER DAYS?! You fucking agenda-driven MORON. <br><br>Fuck the author and fuck their new-age bullshit. OBJECTIVITY IS WHAT JOURNALISM WAS ALL ABOUT - who what where when why - and not "what I fucking think about it and what you should, too". That's called an Editorial, or an Opinion Piece. <br><br>Again - degree in journalism here, so I do know quite a fucking lot about what "journalism" is, or what it's supposed to be.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Justin Alexander</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 06:39:59 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794271</cite>Yeah, you guys go on winning hearts and minds.<br><br>http://www.themarysue.com/joss-whedon-reddit-gamergate/</blockquote><br>The mental gymnastics of "GamerGaters are talking about the people who are attacking them, so they must be misogynists" is literally painful for me to read.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 07:38:57 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jeff37923;794331</cite>You do understand that even feminists do not condone Zoe Quinn's trading of sex for good reviews of her "Depression Quest" game, don't you? That it is unethical?</blockquote><br>As far as I understand, that never happened. Zoe Quinn overall is a red herring; her ex posted a whiny rant after they broke up talking about a bunch of guys she slept with. One happened to be a reviewer, but he never did a review of her game. Quinn may have kicked off proto-GG, but by the time the GG hashtag was established it had nothing to do with her. Thats one thing I think is really hurting GG's credibility: they need to collectively never bring up Quinn again.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 07:48:08 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Trying to claim you aren't motivated by misogyny when you slam a woman for whoring herself out for game reviews weeks after it's been shown to be completely false is... a really tough argument.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Simlasa</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 07:49:39 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
A friend asked me where I stood on Gamergate but I'd only seen references go by on Facebook without caring enough to read closer. <br>So I did a Google and got this article (http://reason.com/archives/2014/10/12/gamergate-part-i-sex-lies-and-gender-gam) on Reason.com... which seems to be trying to be reasonable (hah!).<br><br>It suggests the Quinn woman did get up to some questionable shenanigans... but nothing to do with trading sex for favors (and certainly nothing that condones any crazed attacks on her). Something to do with a contest that she got pissed about and started glutting up with Twitter outrage... which in turn got a number of folks, including other female game designers, angry at her.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 08:02:55 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794339</cite>Trying to claim you aren't motivated by misogyny when you slam a woman for whoring herself out for game reviews weeks after it's been shown to be completely false is... a really tough argument.</blockquote><br>Thats a fair enough point, though in the majority Im only seeing Quinn mentioned by the mass media and people who are just now catching up.<br><br><br>Of course, since this whole mess started Quinn's been engaging in some questionable stuff herself in her anti-GG activities. Not to mention that the threats against her that she blamed on Gamergate actually happened weeks before GG started.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 08:12:55 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Tristram: I had assumed GGers had moved on except for some radicals who are immune to reason.<br><br>Seeing GGers here keep trotting it out is... a bit surprising.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jeff37923</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 11:16:37 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;794337</cite>As far as I understand, that never happened. Zoe Quinn overall is a red herring; her ex posted a whiny rant after they broke up talking about a bunch of guys she slept with. One happened to be a reviewer, but he never did a review of her game. Quinn may have kicked off proto-GG, but by the time the GG hashtag was established it had nothing to do with her. Thats one thing I think is really hurting GG's credibility: they need to collectively never bring up Quinn again.</blockquote><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794339</cite>Trying to claim you aren't motivated by misogyny when you slam a woman for whoring herself out for game reviews weeks after it's been shown to be completely false is... a really tough argument.</blockquote><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794344</cite>Tristram: I had assumed GGers had moved on except for some radicals who are immune to reason.<br><br>Seeing GGers here keep trotting it out is... a bit surprising.</blockquote><br>I was wrong, then. I must admit that I have not been keeping up with events as they happen. <i>Mea culpa</i>.<br><br>However, slamming <u>anyone</u> for whoring themselves out for good reviews is natural because it is unethical behavior. When I came in to the story, ZQ had suppossedly done this, which is unethical behavior. The fact that she is a woman was the only reason why it attracted the attention of the SJW/Cultural Marxists so that they could scream "misogyny!", because you cannot say that the behavior is acceptable by either the creator of what is being reviewed or the reviewer.<br><br>ZQ has wholeheartedly been taking advantage of this situation, though, especially by aligning herself with Anita Sarkeesian and her Patricia Pulling message.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ratman_tf</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 11:57:59 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;794337</cite>As far as I understand, that never happened. Zoe Quinn overall is a red herring; her ex posted a whiny rant after they broke up talking about a bunch of guys she slept with. One happened to be a reviewer, but he never did a review of her game. Quinn may have kicked off proto-GG, but by the time the GG hashtag was established it had nothing to do with her. Thats one thing I think is really hurting GG's credibility: they need to collectively never bring up Quinn again.</blockquote><br>ZQ factors in with how the SJW clique rallied around her. She might have wound up a bit of internet gossip, like seeing a Brittany Spears crotch shot on Gawker, but the internet muscle flexed in her behalf caused a lot of people to sit up and take notice.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 26, 2014, 11:59:19 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
There we go again with the canard that literally Who's sex life is what gg is concerned with. Let's review the beginning of this thread:<br><br>Most of the talk at the start of this thread has been about the illiberal left, which is just as bad and hypocritical as the extreme right.*<br><br>The first mention of feminism was by dragoner to identify as a feminist.<br><br>First mention of Literally Who by Novastar is in relation to Cracked letting HER define gamergate in a supposedly neutral article, written by her no less. And banning counter arguments (there's that illiberal streak again). Nothing about her sex life, but I guess Jeff's opinion overrides what Novastar actually wrote.<br><br>Snowman is the first one to explicitly tie with a weariness caused by "SJW journalists" who not only *generalize their audience as sexist, woman hating *pigs, but who are themselves corrupt and hypocritical in their double standards.<br><br>Novastar links to article about Sarkeesian's cancellation of talk. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=792127&postcount=50 I'll let Novastar explain the comment after it.<br><br>Sacrosanct mentions not being that worked up by the journalistic integrity but bothered by the double standard coming from anti gg. Why aren't they highlighting the abuse coming from their side? only mentions Anita and literally who to say that the critics of gg don't really care about them. Nothing about their sex lives, but I guess Jeff's post is enough to condemn this poster too. <br><br>The Will Factor finally drops in to say, with a straight face, that gamergate is a hate group. Thread could have ended here by invoking Godwin's Law.*http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=792233&postcount=54<br><br>Jon Wake points out that Feminism, Civil Rights and Gay Rights group all have or have had very hateful and problematic members, yet no one is calling those movements *hate groups. This is the first time Feminism has been mentioned in thread. Took 57 posts. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=792245&postcount=57<br><br>Woodsmoke outs himself as anti feminist.*I guess that defines every pRo gg participant here, somehow, according to the resident anti gg<br><br>The Will Factor links being concerned about overreaching SJW posers to being part of a hate group. Yeah, because SJWs never have ridiculous notions of what is acceptable. For the Will Factor, you're either with the Outrage Brigade or you are a Nazi*<br><br>by the way, whoever posted this is now on notice:*http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=791789&postcount=36*you can't be a hatemonger and also be for social justice, so you better get your hate on pronto or I'll revoke your Nazi membership.<br><br>With that out of the way, I thereby retroactively invoke the Godwin Law on this thread and declare it as having jumped the shark on post #54. Please ban me for thread capping in lieu of Will O'Reilly cutting my mike off.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 12:45:21 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I am unsure that is a good, or bad thing you posted about me so I have to ask for clarification. Though while my attitude had been shitty in this thread I am just sick of the double standards that the anti-gg have. I mean it is one thing if they actually practice what they preach, but the sad fact is they don't.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jeff37923</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 12:51:00 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794360</cite>Bunch of incoherant rambling.</blockquote><br>If you have a point, you can get around to making it at any time.<br><br>But you don't have a point, do you?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 12:54:48 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Also, one problem with 'both sides' and culpability--<br>GGers chose to associate with a brand/hashtag/identity.<br><br>There's not another 'side,' just a slew of people who disagree with GamerGate or find it objectionable.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 01:47:10 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;793925</cite>But what I haven't seen is an actual effort by pro gamergate people to denounce this behavior whenever they see it.</blockquote>Last I saw, people were re-tweeting to "FBI" and "DHSgov" on Twitter, whenever it crops up. I'm told there's also "GamerGate Harassment Patrol", and they'll dogpile the Report function to get them banned.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794010</cite>The vast bulk of GG is essentially anti-feminism. Ethics in gaming journalism is a symptom of this perceived problem.</blockquote>Well, the problem there, is that Radical Feminism is the "special protected class", that games journalism has gone to lengths for. I mean, you don't collude and slander for no reason; it's meant to be for <i>someone's </i>benefit.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will</cite>The number of people who are GG and not anti-feminist is vanishingly small (I assume there are some, but I haven't actually seen any yet)</blockquote>Geez, Will, I love you too! :p<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794054</cite>Anti-feminist: Don't agree with or like Feminism and is working against it.<br><br>This ranges from flat-out misogynist privileged dillholes to more nuanced 'equality is great but the Feminist movement has become isolated and reactionary and stupid.'<br><br>The common factor, though, is being opposed to Feminism.</blockquote>That definition is broad enough, the Panama Canal couldn't let it through! :p<br>Literally you've just moved nearly everyone, even people who honestly believe themselves Feminists, to the "anti-" side, unless their willing to brook no criticism whatsoever with the movement.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794360</cite>Novastar links to article about Sarkeesian's cancellation of talk. http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=792127&postcount=50 I'll let Novastar explain the comment after it.</blockquote>My comment is that Sarkeesian canceled the appearance, because the University staff & police were unwilling to do an illegal search and seizure for her, to confiscate weapons from all lawful citizens engaging in concealed carry.<br><br>In Utah, if you have a CCL, you are lawfully in possession of your firearms (2nd Amendment); you have a right to not be unlawfully detained, and more importantly, your property <i>seized</i>, if stopped by Law Enforcement (4th Amendment). Anita has...<i>vigorously</i>...pursued pulling criticism of her on the internet, often by shady means of content reporting (or outright accusing critics of harassment). I do not think she is a friend of the 1st Amendment.<br><br>Hence my comment:<br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar</cite>My first thought is decidely unkind: <br>"I trample over your 1st Amendment Rights all the time! Who would have thought you'd be so protective of your Second and Fourth, amiright?</blockquote>
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 02:35:44 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794373</cite>Also, one problem with 'both sides' and culpability--<br>GGers chose to associate with a brand/hashtag/identity.<br><br>There's not another 'side,' just a slew of people who disagree with GamerGate or find it objectionable.</blockquote><br>I believe that the journalists who colluded on"Death of the Gamer" represent a side, with Anita as thier very vocal spokesperson.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 07:24:11 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jeff37923;794372</cite>If you have a point, you can get around to making it at any time.<br><br>But you don't have a point, do you?</blockquote><br>The point being that no one had ever mentioned Literally Who's sex life or implied a belief that she exchanged sexual favors for positive reviews. So Will's initial charge that GG and it's sympathizers are a hate group is clearly bunk. So is his attempt at pretending that what you posted is somehow representative of everyone else here or in the GG side generally.<br><br>And let me be clear that what you posted does not automatically mean you are a mysogynist; it means you were misinformed. I was also a misinformed anti-gg'er until I heard about #notyourshield and saw the nastiness of self proclaimed moral crusaders.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 07:29:09 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;794384</cite>I believe that the journalists who colluded on"Death of the Gamer" represent a side, with Anita as thier very vocal spokesperson.</blockquote><br> I think that by definition, if one takes a stance for or against something, one has picked a side, so that includes the vocal crowd too.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 07:33:41 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;794368</cite>I am unsure that is a good, or bad thing you posted about me so I have to ask for clarification. Though while my attitude had been shitty in this thread I am just sick of the double standards that the anti-gg have. I mean it is one thing if they actually practice what they preach, but the sad fact is they don't.</blockquote><br>I don't think it was a bad thing. The Outrage Brigade is not beyond criticism. Supposedly being for justice does not mean they get to use it as a shield against criticism. And they're not the arbiters of decency or morality.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Warboss Squee</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 07:38:35 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794401</cite>I don't think it was a bad thing. The Outrage Brigade is not beyond criticism. Supposedly being for justice does not mean they get to use it as a shield against criticism. And they're not the arbiters of decency or morality.</blockquote><br>They certainly would disagree with you. And since they tend to be louder than most folks, and in several cases in control of the media sites where this sort of thing happens, its hard to make shit stick to them.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 08:57:42 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794399</cite>The point being that no one had ever mentioned Literally Who's sex life or implied a belief that she exchanged sexual favors for positive reviews. So Will's initial charge that GG and it's sympathizers are a hate group is clearly bunk. So is his attempt at pretending that what you posted is somehow representative of everyone else here or in the GG side generally.</blockquote>Actually, in post #218 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=793118&postcount=218), S'mon posted, <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;793118</cite><blockquote class="bbc_alternate_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim</cite>Not everyone is going to like a short story about a character with depression, which is fine. Tastes differ. That doesn't mean that someone who likes a short story about someone with depression is part of a conspiracy, or is a danger to the latest action movie or fantasy novel.</blockquote>I think the conspiracy was among the game journalists who pushed her 'game', although I suppose maybe having sex with her caused them to genuinely like her 'game'.<br><br>What I'm seeing with GamerGate is a grass-roots rebellion against the journalist-media class, who seek to serve as arbiters of opinion. In a way I'm not sure the particular values of that class matter so much, except in influencing who rallies to them/is willing to accept their message. But even a lot of people who share their political values seem to be against their attempt to control the information-flow. Obviously this rebellion makes the journalist-media class angry.</blockquote><br>Novastar then followed up on this in Post #222 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=793200&postcount=222), where he cited Grayson's positive coverage of Depression Quest in reply to me, and added, <br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar</cite>they're ok with enabling an emotionally abusive woman, who allegedly sleeps with multiple partners without benefit of protection</blockquote>
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jeff37923</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 09:06:05 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794399</cite>The point being that no one had ever mentioned Literally Who's sex life or implied a belief that she exchanged sexual favors for positive reviews. So Will's initial charge that GG and it's sympathizers are a hate group is clearly bunk. So is his attempt at pretending that what you posted is somehow representative of everyone else here or in the GG side generally.<br><br>And let me be clear that what you posted does not automatically mean you are a mysogynist; it means you were misinformed. I was also a misinformed anti-gg'er until I heard about #notyourshield and saw the nastiness of self proclaimed moral crusaders.</blockquote><br>A couple of things....<br><br>I'm pro-GG because they are against the pseudo-activists who want to push their SJW/Cultural Marxist agenda on everyone. I'm also tired as fuck of the meme that white males are the origin of everything bad in life. I'm also tired of these stupid shits hijacking legit causes and running them into the ground with their partisanship.<br><br>Will has been kicked out of tBP, but he sure did drink their kool-aid.<br><br>As far as anything automatically meaning that I'm a mysogynist, I appreciate the vote of confidence, but if I ever get really worried about that I'll ask someone who knows me.<br><br>(For the curious, I did ask and was told repeatedly that it wasn't that I disrespected women, but its that I have little respect for anyone of any gender.)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 09:23:18 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jeff37923;794409</cite>A couple of things....<br><br><br>As far as anything automatically meaning that I'm a mysogynist, I appreciate the vote of confidence, but if I ever get really worried about that I'll ask someone who knows me.<br><br></blockquote><br>Just pre-empting any spat about me accusing you of anything. The main reason for my post was pointing out that your expressions are yours and not necessarily anyone else's.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 09:53:50 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;794407</cite>Actually, in post #218 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=793118&postcount=218), S'mon posted, <br><br></blockquote><br>I'll set aside the fact that I mentioned no one had said anything of the sort prior to Will jumping in with wild accusations. <br><br>So you got me there, you found 3 out of [delete]51[/delete] 49 posters who've mentioned LW's sex life in the negative. And it took approximately 164 posts to get the first one. <br><br>Do you think that supports Will's apparent point about the supposedly widespread slut shaming of LW at present?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 09:57:15 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jeff37923;794409</cite>Will has been kicked out of tBP, but he sure did drink their kool-aid.<br><br>As far as anything automatically meaning that I'm a mysogynist, I appreciate the vote of confidence, but if I ever get really worried about that I'll ask someone who knows me.</blockquote><br>Speaking of judgements of people who don't know someone...<br><br>Slam me all you want, but my views of feminism aren't based on TBP.<br><br>Novastar:<br>Yes, it's broad. People are slamming me for saying all members of GGers are one narrow definition. I'm not saying that. (I DO still maintain it's a hate group)<br>I'm saying the topic of GGers is anti-feminism, however members decide to take that.<br><br>I mean, if you are looking at a rally about taxes, I'm sure there are a lot of folks who take feminism to task there, too. But it's not what the rally is _about_ (probably).<br><br>It's not about ethics in gaming journalism by itself. GGers are only (generally) concerned about journalistic ethics except as a tool or symptom of the efforts of some feminists.<br>Which is one reason why the GGer thing is spreading to other, similar stuff (tabletop gaming, culture in general). Because it's not about the journalism, it's about the feminism.<br><br><br>And, again, I think the notion that 'I don't like/disagree with X' is a coherent 'side' is really fucking stupid, guys.<br><br>There's a difference between positively selecting a banner to march under and being a critic.<br><br>You can certainly identify groups of people who have an ideology and disagree with GG. But lumping 'Doug's grannie who thinks it's awful what those boys did to Felicia Day' in with radical feminists quoting theory about gender dynamics as one 'side' is goofy.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 09:58:50 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794418</cite>I'll set aside the fact that I mentioned no one had said anything of the sort prior to Will jumping in with wild accusations. <br><br>So you got me there, you found 3 out of 51 posters who've mentioned LW's sex life in the negative. And it took approximately 164 posts to get the first one. <br><br>Do you think that supports Will's apparent point about the supposedly widespread slut shaming of LW at present?</blockquote><br>Like I said, no point bothering with evidence with a dishonest conversant.<br><br>Oh, those don't COUNT. Oh, that's not representative. Oh, they meant something else. etc. etc.<br><br>Part of the standard bullshit internet argument toolchest.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 10:05:21 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794420</cite>Like I said, no point bothering with evidence with a dishonest conversant.<br><br>Oh, those don't COUNT. Oh, that's not representative. Oh, they meant something else. etc. etc.<br><br>Part of the standard bullshit internet argument toolchest.</blockquote><br>So that means that you see radfem's transphobia as representative of all feminism. And you also see the black panthers as representative of civil rights struggles. Terrorism as representative of Islam.<br><br>Or you're admitting to measuring all these with a different standard. Understood.<br><br>I got a hashtag movement for you: #doublestandard.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 10:14:00 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794421</cite>So that means that you see radfem's transphobia as representative of all feminism. And you also see the black panthers as representative of civil rights struggles. Terrorism as representative of Islam.<br><br>Or you're admitting to measuring all these with a different standard. Understood.<br><br>I got a hashtag movement for you: #doublestandard.</blockquote><br>Different standard:<br>Radfems didn't invent feminism, black panthers didn't invent civil rights, terrorism didn't invent Islam.<br><br>GGers started as misogynist slut-shaming and rolled on from there.<br><br>But do continue 'proving' your points.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>crkrueger</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 10:19:09 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794423</cite>Different standard:<br>Radfems didn't invent feminism, black panthers didn't invent civil rights, terrorism didn't invent Islam.<br><br>GGers started as misogynist slut-shaming and rolled on from there.<br><br>But do continue 'proving' your points.</blockquote><br>So, now give us the history of how #notyourshield started.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>crkrueger</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 10:21:11 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794419</cite>Which is one reason why the GGer thing is spreading to other, similar stuff (tabletop gaming, culture in general). Because it's not about the journalism, it's about the feminism.</blockquote>By "feminism" of course, you really mean "coordinated attempts at social engineering to remove "problematic" elements from games and media", right?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 10:30:43 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
That is either some weak reasoning or some excellent weaseling. <br><br>Let's disband the Democratic party, because it was founded by pro-slavery racists. For that matter, le'ts disband the united states whose origin is genocide. <br><br>#doublestandard
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 10:32:23 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: CRKrueger;794425</cite>By "feminism" of course, you really mean "coordinated attempts at social engineering to remove "problematic" elements from games and media", right?</blockquote><br>It's anti-feminism, you know, because GG'ers are reacting to organized libel by guess who...feminists.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>JRT</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 11:01:53 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I think this thread kind of shows what problems I have with the whole GamerGate thing. People are getting way too angry over this and it sort of spins over to a point where you can't have a dialog with others over any of the good points. And for something that is supposed to be about what is supposed to be the primary complaint (ethics is journalism), it's become more about the whole SJW controversy--considering this is the key area people are arguing about here.<br><br>Honestly, I think even some of the hardcore gamers are getting sick of it. Talking to a group of people where we all play the same game, most people just want both sides to be quiet and go back to normal. I doubt this will seriously do anything long term--I doubt the gaming media will disappear, for instance, though I hope it might increase some better dialog and an increase in the media's self-policing.<br><br>Here's a link to what I feel is the best essay on the whole situation:<br><br>http://www.popehat.com/2014/10/26/ten-short-rants-about-gamergate/
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 11:04:53 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
That's a great article, JRT, thanks!
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Sacrosanct</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 11:15:57 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Well, one thing is certain about all this GG drama. The internet has no shortage of douchebags.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Haffrung</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 11:52:26 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Werekoala;794335</cite><i>Important side note: A lot of the people calling for “journalistic ethics” quite transparently don’t know anything about journalism — to say that sites should clearly label what is and isn’t opinion, for example, is just plain weird, because a) that distinction is less and less relevant and is mostly a relic of newspaper days; and b) it’s a basic reading-comprehension thing; anyone who reads on a daily basis can tell, pretty simply from various cues in the narrative, whether they’re reading a work of “straight” journalism [outdated, troublesome term], “pure” opinion [again, bleh], or some combination of the two [which is what a lot of games coverage is].) </i><br><br>Oh, I SEE - the trouble isn't objectivity in journalism, it's just that we've moved beyond such quaint notions. If you keep moving the goalposts motherfucker, you'll have to move the whole team half-way across the country to keep up (pithy NFL reference there). <br><br>A FUCKING RELIC OF THE NEWSPAPER DAYS?! You fucking agenda-driven MORON. <br><br>Fuck the author and fuck their new-age bullshit. OBJECTIVITY IS WHAT JOURNALISM WAS ALL ABOUT - who what where when why - and not "what I fucking think about it and what you should, too". That's called an Editorial, or an Opinion Piece. <br><br>Again - degree in journalism here, so I do know quite a fucking lot about what "journalism" is, or what it's supposed to be.</blockquote><br><br>I have a degree in journalism too, and have worked in the field. Objectivity is what <i>some kinds</i> of journalism are about. Namely, hard news. Entertainment journalism has never been about objectively reporting facts. How could it be? Was Roger Ebert an objective reviewer?<br><br>Video game journalism is pretty much previews and reviews. Previews, by their nature, are fluff PR pieces. Reviews are opinions. So I would no more expect objectivity on the part of gaming journalists than I would expect to see it on Entertainment Tonight.<br><br>However, if reviewers are receiving some kind of compensation from publishers for favourable reviews, then that is an ethical issues (though it's an issue of transparency, not objectivity). Getting an early release or a free copy of a game (which I assume is pretty standard practice) should probably be disclosed as well. The closest parallel in traditional journalism is travel pieces, where the trips are almost always provided gratis by a tourism board.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 12:01:40 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Yes, Haff, I understand and that's why I pointed out that opinion IS allowed in Journalism as an Editorial or Opinion Piece. The person whom I quoted, however, said that stating up front that there's a difference is "just weird", and a relic of newspaper days, and really you guys just get with the times! <br><br>Not enough eyeroll smilies in the world for these morons... (not you, him/them)...
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 12:04:33 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794418</cite>I'll set aside the fact that I mentioned no one had said anything of the sort prior to Will jumping in with wild accusations. <br><br>So you got me there, you found 3 out of [delete]51[/delete] 49 posters who've mentioned LW's sex life in the negative. And it took approximately 164 posts to get the first one. <br><br>Do you think that supports Will's apparent point about the supposedly widespread slut shaming of LW at present?</blockquote><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794426</cite>Let's disband the Democratic party, because it was founded by pro-slavery racists. For that matter, le'ts disband the united states whose origin is genocide.</blockquote><br>Fair enough. Going back over what people said earlier is not very productive. I think the important thing is what people stand for now. For example, Democrats have for a long time renounced slavery and believe it was wrong. <br><br>I guess my question for you is, are you opposed to what S'mon and Novastar said about Zoe Quinn within this thread? In general, are pro-GamerGaters now opposed to the initial attacks on her that were the origin of the hashtag, in particular bringing in her sex life and the accusations of trading sexual favors for positive coverage of her game? <br><br>I am opposed to dragging in people's personal lives into debate in general - and this part was particularly vicious and personal. For example, I will argue with RPGPundit, but I oppose spreading his real name.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ratman_tf</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 12:04:42 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Haffrung;794449</cite>I have a degree in journalism too, and have worked in the field. Objectivity is what <i>some kinds</i> of journalism are about. Namely, hard news. Entertainment journalism has never been about objectively reporting facts. How could it be? Was Roger Ebert an objective reviewer?</blockquote><br>Objective enough to be aware of possible issues of reviewing and giving a rating to a movie based on a script he wrote.<br><br>http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/beyond-the-valley-of-the-dolls-1980
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>JamesV</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 12:08:48 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: JRT;794440</cite>Here's a link to what I feel is the best essay on the whole situation:<br><br>http://www.popehat.com/2014/10/26/ten-short-rants-about-gamergate/</blockquote><br>I appreciate this new article for pointing out an important fact (read point 4):<br><br>The worst element of internet discussion, the hyperbole and venom of trolling, is starting to eat itself. While the article doesn't go all the way, it follows a pet theory of mine:<br><br>Note: This is based on an axiom that "trolling" is that category of hyperbolic speech and acts (e.g. doxxing) online, that is a bad act committed by assholes that is less about debate or persuasion, but more about winding a target up and rhetorically beating them about the ears.<br><br>- Generally, internet trolling was perpetuated by people who are generally conservative white guy assholes; "Reds". While they surely targeted each other, you get bonus points when you trolled people who were <u>not</u> generally conservative white guy assholes: Liberals, women, minorities, etc; "Blues".<br><br>- After being targeted by such trolling, the assholes among the liberals/women/minorities/etc. decided to steal the trolling playbook and give it back. They're the SJWs, or as El Pundiño puts it "pseudo-activists".<br><br>Gamer-gate is now the great Thunderdome duel for both sides.<br>- Red trolls kickstart things by taking Zoe Quinn's private life and using it as the powder keg to hoist banners against the corrupt relationship between gaming journalism and game developers.<br> - Sorry folks, but it's true. Right before Gamer-Gate was the whole "Five-Guys" meme, and that meme was as much about calling Quinn a whore as her actions in the closely knit gaming community<br><br>- Blue trolls see the shady origins of Gamergate as a strategic overreach by the Reds. Blue trolls join in with the intent of tarring all gamers as assholes to permanently discredit them in the internet gaming sphere.'<br><br>With any luck, everyone will start to notice how ridiculous the trolls on both sides are, and start realizing that they are not worth listening to.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 12:28:23 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;794460</cite>Fair enough. Going back over what people said earlier is not very productive. I think the important thing is what people stand for now. For example, Democrats have for a long time renounced slavery and believe it was wrong. <br><br>I guess my question for you is, are you opposed to what S'mon and Novastar said about Zoe Quinn within this thread? In general, are pro-GamerGaters now opposed to the initial attacks on her that were the origin of the hashtag, in particular bringing in her sex life and the accusations of trading sexual favors for positive coverage of her game? <br><br>I am opposed to dragging in people's personal lives into debate in general - and this part was particularly vicious and personal. For example, I will argue with RPGPundit, but I oppose spreading his real name.</blockquote><br><br>I disagree with them. Who you sleep with is no one's business. I thought it was true for Clinton, and I think it's true in this case. That's for her and her conscience to sort out. End of story. <br><br>Still, this brings to mind debates with people who think that, for example, John Edwards' cheating disqualified him from being president because his dishonesty would somehow carry over into that office. I disagree that is the case necessarily, but do people have a point that it might show a pattern of dishonesty? I don't usually have a good answer to that other than some people have more integrity in some areas than others.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Sacrosanct</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 12:36:03 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794469</cite>I disagree with them. Who you sleep with is no one's business. I thought it was true for Clinton, and I think it's true in this case. That's for her and her conscience to sort out. End of story. <br>.</blockquote><br>No it's not. I'm not speaking specific to this case, but fraternization is a very real, very concerning thing. You can't just make a sweeping generalization that who someone sleeps with is nobody's business, <i>ever</i>. In most cases, sure. But if your boss is sleeping with one of your coworkers and they keep getting preferential treatment, there's an issue there.<br><br>And if someone is sleeping with someone who reviews their products that influences consumer's decisions to buy said product (again, in general terms here, no ZQ specifically), then that's important too.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 12:48:17 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;794470</cite>No it's not. I'm not speaking specific to this case, but fraternization is a very real, very concerning thing. You can't just make a sweeping generalization that who someone sleeps with is nobody's business, <i>ever</i>. In most cases, sure. But if your boss is sleeping with one of your coworkers and they keep getting preferential treatment, there's an issue there.<br><br>And if someone is sleeping with someone who reviews their products that influences consumer's decisions to buy said product (again, in general terms here, no ZQ specifically), then that's important too.</blockquote><br>That's not how I meant it, but you got me.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 01:13:19 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ratman_tf;794461</cite>Objective enough to be aware of possible issues of reviewing and giving a rating to a movie based on a script he wrote.<br><br>http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/beyond-the-valley-of-the-dolls-1980</blockquote><br><br>But not objective enough to get over his hard-on for the actress when he reviewed The Graduate. Seriously, read that review, he managed to completely twist around the whole film to support his crush. Its wierd and sad and made me just a bit uncomfortable.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 01:36:39 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Man, his old man ranting about art in video games. <br><br>Mmph.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 01:43:15 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: JamesV;794464</cite>- Sorry folks, but it's true. Right before Gamer-Gate was the whole "Five-Guys" meme, and that meme was as much about calling Quinn a whore as her actions in the closely knit gaming community</blockquote>True, and that wasn't just incidental. The "Five-Guys" meme was directly used in Internet Aristocrat's "Quinnspiracy" videos - which Adam Baldwin linked to in coining the "GamerGate" hashtag. (The videos went beyond Eron Gjoni's post to track down *more* of her personal life.) <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794469</cite>I disagree with them. Who you sleep with is no one's business. I thought it was true for Clinton, and I think it's true in this case. That's for her and her conscience to sort out. End of story. <br><br>Still, this brings to mind debates with people who think that, for example, John Edwards' cheating disqualified him from being president because his dishonesty would somehow carry over into that office. I disagree that is the case necessarily, but do people have a point that it might show a pattern of dishonesty? I don't usually have a good answer to that other than some people have more integrity in some areas than others.</blockquote>Good to know. <br><br>I was arguing earlier with S'mon and Novastar about this, and no one from the pro-GamerGate side spoke out against what they were saying. So yes, I did get the impression that pro-GamerGaters here generally agreed with them. <br><br>While objectively, I think that one can certainly learn about someone's character by cracking open their personal life and looking at how they interact with their children, their spouse, their family, and so forth. However, I don't think that this is an ethical thing to do, and not something to be done for politicians - much less for frickin game developers. <br><br>Are other pro-GamerGaters here on board with rejecting this?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 01:56:58 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I didn't like Clinton because he was riding the power of position (and it's hard to get much more powerful than POTUS) to pick up chicks. That's horrible.<br>And he's using the power the US people gave him.<br><br><br>Even if 'collusion to get good reviews through sex' were _true_, women typically have less power to do that and we're talking about some minor indie game in an industry dwarfed by almost everything.<br>It's like a huge movement triggered by a waitress sleeping her way into a better shift at the local Stuckey's. Which turns out to be a lie spread by an ex-boyfriend.<br><br>I mean, ok, fine, come back to me if you have evidence that the CEO of EA was demanding sexual favors to allow reviewers to be permitted to review EA games.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jeff37923</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 02:35:31 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794419</cite>I'm saying the topic of GGers is anti-feminism, however members decide to take that.</blockquote><br>No, I think it is closer to the truth to call it anti-radfem. (http://porlawright.wordpress.com/2014/10/23/gamergate-the-players-and-the-played/)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ratman_tf</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 02:48:24 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;794491</cite>But not objective enough to get over his hard-on for the actress when he reviewed The Graduate. Seriously, read that review, he managed to completely twist around the whole film to support his crush. Its wierd and sad and made me just a bit uncomfortable.</blockquote><br>Nobody is 100% objective, but having about a dozen gaming sites all come out with "Gamers are dead" articles within the same day was downright bizarre and troubling. It's not just one guy putting up for an indie dev here. It's a community of people with the same narrative.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 02:49:10 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;794494</cite>True, and that wasn't just incidental. The "Five-Guys" meme was directly used in Internet Aristocrat's "Quinnspiracy" videos - which Adam Baldwin linked to in coining the "GamerGate" hashtag. (The videos went beyond Eron Gjoni's post to track down *more* of her personal life.) <br><br><br>Good to know. <br><br>I was arguing earlier with S'mon and Novastar about this, and no one from the pro-GamerGate side spoke out against what they were saying. So yes, I did get the impression that pro-GamerGaters here generally agreed with them. <br><br>While objectively, I think that one can certainly learn about someone's character by cracking open their personal life and looking at how they interact with their children, their spouse, their family, and so forth. However, I don't think that this is an ethical thing to do, and not something to be done for politicians - much less for frickin game developers. <br><br></blockquote><br>I've been mulling it in my head, and I think it's a really murky area. I think you would want to know if your candidate or a person whose product you might buy beats his wife or kids (or vice versa). Sacrosanct is right about the area of sex too in the contexts he mentioned. <br><br>In other contexts, such as this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DontDateHimGirl.com), I don't like it so much, but some people do claim to have a "right" to be "protected" from getting involved with people who cheat. That's the rationale that EG gave for posting about LW. <br><br>I disagree with that logic, though, honestly, I used to enjoy seeing cheaters get caught on the TV show by the same name. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBjuxjsCeV0 You tend to feel righteous anger for the cheated on if you have any empathy. At the same time, in a sense, no matter how much you emphatize, their pain is being used to entertain the audience.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 02:49:42 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;794407</cite>Actually, in post #218 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=793118&postcount=218), S'mon posted, <br></blockquote><br>Yeah, the allegation made against Quinn and the journos who allegedly had sex with her was certainly a spark that lit the fire.<br>From what I can tell now (and I still don't know a huge amount about this whole thing), it wasn't a particularly accurate allegation. If she did anything bad it was apparently being mean to the Fine Young Capitalists women. She clearly has issues but she doesn't seem to be a particularly bad person or worthy target of ire - I get the impression that Anita Sarkeesian by contrast is a rogue, the kind of predatory personality that flocks to the SJW movement because they know it's a rich hunting ground.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 03:04:34 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jeff37923;794500</cite>No, I think it is closer to the truth to call it anti-radfem. (http://porlawright.wordpress.com/2014/10/23/gamergate-the-players-and-the-played/)</blockquote><br>I think calling Sarkeesian a 'radical feminist' is inaccurate and arguably unfair to radfems. Actual radical feminists strongly dislike men and generally want nothing to do with men and their activities. They want exclusion, not inclusion - a safe space for them to get away from men. Sarkeesian and allied SJWs want the opposite, to be included in what they perceive as a previously male-dominated space, on terms determined by them. <br><br>Personally I tend to think radfems are generally a lot easier to accommodate, in a Rodney King 'can't we all just get along' sort of way. As long as you don't accidentally (or deliberately) trespass into their 'safe space', they'll generally leave you alone.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>crkrueger</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 03:19:10 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ratman_tf;794501</cite>Nobody is 100% objective, but having about a dozen gaming sites all come out with "Gamers are dead" articles within the same day was downright bizarre and troubling. It's not just one guy putting up for an indie dev here. It's a community of people with the same narrative.</blockquote><br>That more than anything else points to the fact that these supposed competitors who work for different companies are in collusion to spread a coherent and unified narrative and have an agenda. Giving good reviews to games that promote social ideas they agree with is one thing. Giving good reviews to games they like enough to back with their own money, and treating DepressionQuest as a 1. Game (which it is not) and 2. A Good Game (which it REALLY is not) simply because it meets the criteria of female designer takes us back to the days of quotas.<br><br>(Personally, before I knew about any of this, I took a look at Depression Quest, and frankly, I didn't find it useful or enjoyable as a game, therapy, or anything else. I don't read gaming mags, but seeing attention given to the game would have been very surprising.)<br><br>I hate hashtag campaigns and I think Twitter may very well herald the end of civilization, but any internet movement is filled with assholes, and it's a shame because the #gg movement did demonstrably prove collusion among the gaming journalists through their unified response if by nothing else. It shined a light on something that needed shining light on. The fact that it also sent a bunch of cockroaches scuttling is immaterial, and claiming that's all it did (ie, it's only about misogyny) is a deliberate and outright dishonest obfuscation from people like Will, who want the rest of the story (Social Engineering) to go unexamined.<br><br>There's a good way and a bad way to go about addressing social problems in media. <br>Calling for a boycott on Paizo because you don't like how Golarion covers pseudo-Africans = Bad Way.<br>Writing Spears of Dawn = Good Way.<br><br>In other words, be the change you want to see rather then ban everything else.<br>We know which way the Outrage Brigade works, and it's time for us to say "Stop trying to alter our hobbies to fit your political views."<br><br>That's NOT anti-feminist.<br>That's anti-trying to alter our hobbies to fit your political views.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 03:33:33 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: CRKrueger;794508</cite>Giving good reviews to games they like enough to back with their own money, and treating DepressionQuest as a 1. Game (which it is not) and 2. A Good Game (which it REALLY is not) simply because it meets the criteria of female designer takes us back to the days of quotas.<br></blockquote><br>For what it's worth, we don't know if the people who gave good reviews did it for that reason. They may well have loved the game. <br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>There's a good way and a bad way to go about addressing social problems in media. <br>Calling for a boycott on Paizo because you don't like how Golarion covers pseudo-Africans = Bad Way.<br>Writing Spears of Dawn = Good Way.<br></blockquote><br>I'm not sure. It's up to the people to decide how they want to effect change. It's like someone I know who disagrees with how detractors approached the issue of offensive native american caricatures in sports. He approved of this way of fighting it, but not of the boycotts: <br><br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_Whites<br><br>I still think boycotting is valid. If their ideas (meaning Outrage Brigade posers) are wrong, they will eventually lose, because people will eventually backlash, and with good reason: https://www.facebook.com/salon/posts/10152442731106519
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>crkrueger</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 03:46:43 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794513</cite>because people will eventually backlash</blockquote>ie. the support for #gamergate.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Sacrosanct</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 04:10:40 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I think it's important when talking about how bad Anita is or isn't, to keep it into context. Maybe there is plenty of legitimate stuff out there to question her motives. I don't know, I don't follow her. But I'd be hesitant in lumping her in with the more extreme radicals unless she has engaged in similar behavior as them. You know stuff like this:<br><br>(http://antimisandry.com/attachments/feminist-misandry/2067d1343615218-feminist-promoting-prison-rape-538984_262852097164264_1777684048_n.jpg)<br><br>So if she hasn't, I personally wouldn't lump her into the same as this person.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 04:23:08 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Finally. An even handed report by someone in the mainstream media:<br><br>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/24/how-some-gamergate-supporters-say-the-controversy-could-stop-in-one-week/
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>crkrueger</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 04:24:23 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;794519</cite>So if she hasn't, I personally wouldn't lump her into the same as this person.</blockquote>There's an absolute zero-percent chance that pervyrasslincaps is that person in the picture.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 04:53:30 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794522</cite>Finally. An even handed report by someone in the mainstream media:<br><br>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/24/how-some-gamergate-supporters-say-the-controversy-could-stop-in-one-week/</blockquote><br>Yeah, I've linked that article twice in this thread so far.<br><br>Mind you, I find the last paragraph highly damning of the 'reasonable' GGer.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 04:54:41 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794522</cite>Finally. An even handed report by someone in the mainstream media:<br><br>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/24/how-some-gamergate-supporters-say-the-controversy-could-stop-in-one-week/</blockquote>I'm confused at the main thrust of the article. The key point referred to in the title was this: <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>He strongly believes that the fuel behind the fire would go out if gaming sites adopted and publicized some ethics policies requiring the disclosure of relationships -- similar to actions that some gaming sites, notably the Escapist, have already taken. Fix that, they said, and the whole conversation could stop.</blockquote><br>However, my understanding was that websites like Kotaku and Polygon already did that months ago.* (http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Polygon-Kotaku-Revise-Their-Policies-Amidst-Controversy-66962.html)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 05:36:28 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
You would have thought so, but then you know those sites doubled down:<br><br>http://gamergate.giz.moe/operation-disrespectful-nod/<br><br>I can understand why they're being targeted, even though for me those particular articles are like whatever. I would not miss Gawker, though or Sam Biddle. <br><br>What I'd like to see happen, and the reason I'm a sympathizer, is that these types of things, as far as I know, have not even been touched by the mainstream media in their narrative:<br><br>http://www.gamezone.com/originals/here-s-what-we-know-allistair-pinsof-destructoid-yanier-niero-gonzalez-game-journo-pros-and-more<br><br>https://imgur.com/a/HHpnv<br><br>I'm not prone to wearing a tin foil hat, but when wikileaks weighs in like this, you do have to wonder if it hits too close to home:<br><br>http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/20/7015849/wikileaks-finds-common-cause-with-gamergate
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 05:38:15 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: CRKrueger;794517</cite>ie. the support for #gamergate.</blockquote><br>I can understand that, but then I think those who believe this need to stop saying it's just about ethics in journalism only, because the gaming rags are not the same as news reporting, as someone said upthread.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Haffrung</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 05:54:30 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;794505</cite>I think calling Sarkeesian a 'radical feminist' is inaccurate and arguably unfair to radfems. Actual radical feminists strongly dislike men and generally want nothing to do with men and their activities. They want exclusion, not inclusion - a safe space for them to get away from men. Sarkeesian and allied SJWs want the opposite, to be included in what they perceive as a previously male-dominated space, on terms determined by them. <br></blockquote><br>Most certainly. And it's the <i>want to be included in what they perceive as a previously male-dominated space</i> that I have an issue with. <br><br>It seems to me that the real sore-spot for a lot of gamers is the sneering contempt the gaming journalists and their SJW friends have for rank and file gamers. It's the same stance the indie tabletop RPG elite have towards D&D. They regard the great bulk of the market as immature, mouth-breathing buffoons. In their desperation to be considered legitimate cultural mavens like their counterparts in literature and music, these opinion-makers are deeply embarrassed by most of the audience for their chosen medium. <br><br>So when SJW crusaders descended on the gaming hobby, the cultural mavens welcomed them with open arms as agents of reform. And of course, SJWs have never come across a community they didn't want to purge of wrong-thought and preach the Word of Inclusivity to. It's a marriage made in heaven. <br><br>But nobody thought to ask the millions of people happily playing video games (or the hundreds of thousands happily playing D&D) if they were ashamed of their hobby and thought it needed to be reformed root-and-branch. And more importantly, nobody with a prominent voice seemed to have the stones to ask a blindingly obvious question: if there really is a big audience of people out there who hate current videogame culture and want to see an alternative to it, what's stopping people from presenting those alternatives, and letting the market decide what they want to support? Why reform an existing market, rather than create a new one?<br><br>I suppose nobody asked that question before because the answer is that SJW warriors are all about shaming, labeling, and signalling. People motivated by such deeply unpleasant wellsprings of tribal identity and resentment are not disposed to simply produce a positive option to something they dislike and let the audience make their own choices.<br><br>Everything sold has a market. Unless we're talking about water, that market is not everybody. And assertions that producers should always want to broaden their market only betrays the misapprehension of markets by SJW crusaders. Sometimes, by making your product more appealing to X you make it less appealing to Y. My parents watch 40+ movies a year, which is quite unusual for people their age. However, they never watch superhero movies. Not their thing. Should Marvel try to make superhero movies more appealing to people like my parents? Probably not. Because changes that would make those movies more suitable to my parents (substantially cutting down on the things whizzing around the screen) would make those movies less appealing to the core audience.<br><br>That's the issue I have inclusivity in entertainment. It fails to recognize that different things appeal to different people and the tradeoffs creators face in choosing who to aim their product at. Twilight would have been much more appealing to males if it had less romance and more fighting. But I don't recall anyone chastizing Stephanie Meyers for not being inclusive enough. And I see no reason to believe she would have had a more popular series on her hands if she made it more appealing to males, because any changes with that aim would probably have alienated a portion of the female audience.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Bradford C. Walker</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 06:26:04 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Haffrung;794535</cite>Most certainly. And it's the <i>want to be included in what they perceive as a previously male-dominated space</i> that I have an issue with.</blockquote>This, folks, is why I call this entire thing an insurgency- because here is the act of imperialist invasion that started this whole mess (and, if remedied, would end it just as fast): trespassing into space already owned and occupied, and then barking orders as if they owned the place, when they are not wanted and don't have a right to be there.<br><br>And the rest of that post? Spot-fucking-on.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 06:50:12 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
As someone who's been irritated at the revisionist juvenile machismo posturing of the last generation of gaming, I just laaaaugh. Fight your 'wars,' the populace will shrug and move on.<br><br>Gaming wasn't always hostile like this. 'Casuals' predate you.<br><br>And the more you lash out, the more you end it.<br><br>I mean, if I -was- a scheming SJW strategist I'd pretend to be a GGer and egg it on.<br><br>But I think the tide is turning regardless and I don't think people getting terrorized is worth it. (And I'm nervous what'll happen if some SERIOUS nutcase gets attracted to all this)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ladybird</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 06:54:48 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;793728</cite>Dude, I don't know if you noticed (I only noticed on Aug. 28th), the gaming mags are <i>already</i> pretty much in lockstep</blockquote><br>Years of outlets all giving major hyped releases consistent 9.x scores (and, coincidentally, being draped in adverts for these same games), followed by playing them and realising they weren't all that good anyway... but this is supposedly what opened your eyes?<br><br><b>You're a fucking idiot.</b> Gaming mags have been openly corrupt for decades. Their entire existence depends on it, depends on keeping the same small bunch of advertisers happy with providing consistent numbers.<br><br>Want to solve that? Okay, fund an independent review outlet and raise it's profile high enough that publishers have to take it seriously, and have the guts to stand up to publishers who try and buy you off (YouTubers, take note). Now, this is possible - RockPaperShotgun, frex - but it takes time, and money, and effort... not just whining on twitter.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 06:59:31 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Well, this is nice.<br><br>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RVlCvBd21w<br><br>Looking forward to the SJWs and White Knights continuing their assault on Based Mom.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Haffrung</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 07:18:52 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794542</cite>As someone who's been irritated at the revisionist juvenile machismo posturing of the last generation of gaming, I just laaaaugh. Fight your 'wars,' the populace will shrug and move on.<br><br>Gaming wasn't always hostile like this. 'Casuals' predate you.<br><br>And the more you lash out, the more you end it.<br><br>I mean, if I -was- a scheming SJW strategist I'd pretend to be a GGer and egg it on.<br></blockquote><br>Hey, I'm not a 'gamer'. I don't play FPSs. I don't game online. I'm not into the ultra-violent stuff. I have issues with things like Grand Theft Auto. <br><br>But people who like that stuff have every right to enjoy their entertainment. If people want to publish alternatives, then go ahead. If the traditional gamer really is a dying breed, the content will change. But I have a feeling that the traditional gamer still makes up a big proportion of the market. And I really doubt the efforts of SJWs to make that part of the market more sensitive and inclusive will amount to much. Money talks.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 09:26:48 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;794380</cite>My comment is that Sarkeesian canceled the appearance, because the University staff & police were unwilling to do an illegal search and seizure for her, to confiscate weapons from all lawful citizens engaging in concealed carry.<br><br>In Utah, if you have a CCL, you are lawfully in possession of your firearms (2nd Amendment); you have a right to not be unlawfully detained, and more importantly, your property <i>seized</i>, if stopped by Law Enforcement (4th Amendment). Anita has...<i>vigorously</i>...pursued pulling criticism of her on the internet, often by shady means of content reporting (or outright accusing critics of harassment). I do not think she is a friend of the 1st Amendment.</blockquote><br>It's often been said that those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable. What's ironic is that the side that ISN'T a friend of the First Amendment doesn't avail itself of the rights that anyone else in Utah has under the Second Amendment.<br><br>That is, if thugs really are giving you death threats (and you can never blow them off, these days) you can either knuckle under (as Sarkeesian apparently did), you can confront weapons with weight of numbers (as the passengers on Flight 93 did on 9/11) OR you can confront weapons with your own weapons.<br><br>"An armed society is a polite society," as we say. And the implications of that phrase touch on something that's been true long before Gamergate: Some people, especially men, are assholes on the Internet, and that's because they think they can get away with it. The guy who looked up Felicia Day's personal info and posted it for everybody to see did so because he was under no fear that Felicia Day would do the same thing to HIM, look up his address on MapQuest, drive to his house and kick his ass Jay & Silent Bob-style. :D<br><br>JG
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 09:28:23 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
The liberal argument is that the deck is mightily stacked and most of the people making decisions are making those decisions more on gut assumptions about what the market is than reality.<br><br>I mean, look at the growth of the 'casual' market and then the backlash of gamers saying that kind of gaming 'doesn't count,' is beneath them, is stupid, is only for girls, and so on. <br><br>If 'SJW-backed' companies start putting out a wave of games that cater to their interests and they all fail spectacularly, what's going to happen? Game companies will shrug and go back to making Call of War XI: The Bloodening featuring Exotica the War-nun.<br><br><br>I mean, heck, look at that bastion of liberal hippy dippy Democrats, Hollywood. It's so sad that the waves of social liberation and ideals have lead to nothing but feelgood romantic comedies over the last 20 years OH WAIT
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Herr Arnulfe</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 09:37:55 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Werekoala;794548</cite>Well, this is nice.<br><br>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RVlCvBd21w<br><br>Looking forward to the SJWs and White Knights continuing their assault on Based Mom.</blockquote>Huh. I haven't been following very closely, but why is the American Enterprise Institute involved in Gamergate?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 09:42:46 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Starts with 'f,' ends with 'eminism.'<br><br>(They are US conservatives with ties to Bush and concerned with Obama, you do the math)<br><br><br>But I'm probably overlooking their previous commitment to ethics in gaming journalism.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 09:45:03 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Haffrung;794535</cite>That's the issue I have inclusivity in entertainment. It fails to recognize that different things appeal to different people and the tradeoffs creators face in choosing who to aim their product at. Twilight would have been much more appealing to males if it had less romance and more fighting. But I don't recall anyone chastising Stephanie Meyers for not being inclusive enough. And I see no reason to believe she would have had a more popular series on her hands if she made it more appealing to males, because any changes with that aim would probably have alienated a portion of the female audience.</blockquote><br>An excellent point that some may not have considered.<br><br>jg
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Herr Arnulfe</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 09:47:34 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794576</cite>Starts with 'f,' ends with 'eminism.'<br><br>(They are US conservatives with ties to Bush and concerned with Obama, you do the math)<br><br><br>But I'm probably overlooking their previous commitment to ethics in gaming journalism.</blockquote>I have trouble accepting...I don't want to believe...that neocons have such a vested interest in beating down feminist media critics. I think I'd much rather believe that videogame companies are paying AEI to handle their PR campaign for them.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Warboss Squee</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 10:10:36 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794570</cite>The liberal argument is that the deck is mightily stacked and most of the people making decisions are making those decisions more on gut assumptions about what the market is than reality.<br><br>I mean, look at the growth of the 'casual' market and then the backlash of gamers saying that kind of gaming 'doesn't count,' is beneath them, is stupid, is only for girls, and so on. <br><b><br>If 'SJW-backed' companies start putting out a wave of games that cater to their interests and they all fail spectacularly, what's going to happen? Game companies will shrug and go back to making Call of War XI: The Bloodening featuring Exotica the War-nun.</b><br><br><br>I mean, heck, look at that bastion of liberal hippy dippy Democrats, Hollywood. It's so sad that the waves of social liberation and ideals have lead to nothing but feelgood romantic comedies over the last 20 years OH WAIT</blockquote><br>Since I haven't seen any games dealing with social justice, with Gone Home a possible exception, what exactly are all these socially concious indie devs doing? Trying to change opinions and trends by making games that endorse their pov?<br><br>Or are they and their friends in game media spending all their time trying to fuck with a community to make a quick buck?<br><br>Answer me this Will. You claim gg is all about sexism and anti-feminism. What is your side about? Seems to be an awful lot of attack pieces written about gamers, calls for bullying, and utterly horrible actions on the anti-gg side.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Haffrung</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 10:28:16 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794570</cite>The liberal argument is that the deck is mightily stacked and most of the people making decisions are making those decisions more on gut assumptions about what the market is than reality.<br></blockquote><br>Many people believe that the market is functioning properly when it delivers the sorts of products they like, and it's distorted or manipulated when it delivers products they dislike.<br><br>But if the 'liberal' gaming pundits are right, then there's an enormous market opportunity for the sorts of games they think have broad appeal. All they need is the acumen and drive to get them released, and their fortunes are made.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794570</cite>I mean, look at the growth of the 'casual' market and then the backlash of gamers saying that kind of gaming 'doesn't count,' is beneath them, is stupid, is only for girls, and so on. </blockquote><br>It is childish to make those criticisms of casual games. However, it seems pretty clear that casual games (mostly mobile) have opened up a new market, not supplanted the traditional core market. So both camps are wrong in that respect - casual games aren't a threat to hardcore games, and they aren't a sign that hardcore games are in decline. 'Gamers are dead' is nothing more than wishful thinking.<br><br>It comes back to the same mentality that fuels D&D edition wars. Why do people care that other people enjoy things they dislike?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 11:05:22 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794576</cite>Starts with 'f,' ends with 'eminism.'<br><br>(They are US conservatives with ties to Bush and concerned with Obama, you do the math)<br><br><br>But I'm probably overlooking their previous commitment to ethics in gaming journalism.</blockquote><br>Oh you could, you know, watch the video. <br><br>Nah - her evhul Conservative voodoo mind-ray magic might damage your brain somehow. I understand.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 11:08:08 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;794575</cite>Huh. I haven't been following very closely, but why is the American Enterprise Institute involved in Gamergate?</blockquote><br>Its more about the "f" word as Will said - watch it and her previous video on the subject, if nothing else it's a nice change of pace from all the screaming on Twitter and whatnot.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Herr Arnulfe</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 11:20:38 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Werekoala;794590</cite>Oh you could, you know, watch the video. <br><br>Nah - her evhul Conservative voodoo mind-ray magic might damage your brain somehow. I understand.</blockquote>I watched most of the video and found her counter-arguments weak. Having watched several of Sarkeesian's videos I'm struggling to see why people are so outraged. Sarkeesian's videos are pretty standard feminist media critique compared to what's studied in film schools etc. - she defines tropes, provides examples and doesn't level any accusations of misogyny against the players themselves. One of the AEI woman's counter-arguments in particular ("by far the most violence in games occurs against men") demonstrates a complete failure to comprehend what feminist media critique is actually about.<br><br>But really, I was just curious about why AEI was even involved in this geeky shit-slinging contest in the first place.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 11:26:07 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Don't know for sure, you'd have to ask her. I'm sure it's some counter-psy-op-black-DARPA-uber-projekt to enable Bush to suspend the elections and declare himself Dictator for Life.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 11:29:43 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Warboss Squee;794580</cite>Since I haven't seen any games dealing with social justice, with Gone Home a possible exception, what exactly are all these socially concious indie devs doing? Trying to change opinions and trends by making games that endorse their pov?</blockquote><br>Trying to be less obnoxious, I guess? Put out more inclusive stuff? I'm more familiar with tabletop gaming devs, and the movement there has been to, basically, including mild comments like 'hey, you don't have to be a straight white guy' and getting everyone wailing and rending their garments over it.<br><br>But here's the thing... if they aren't actually changing the game market, why the fuck do any of you people care? What observable impact is it having on your gaming?<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Warboss Squee;794580</cite>Or are they and their friends in game media spending all their time trying to fuck with a community to make a quick buck?<br><br>Answer me this Will. You claim gg is all about sexism and anti-feminism. What is your side about? Seems to be an awful lot of attack pieces written about gamers, calls for bullying, and utterly horrible actions on the anti-gg side.</blockquote><br>Why do you see everything as sides? I'm not on a side. I'm not part of a 'movement.'<br><br>There's no hashtag that some other group of people are flocking to. What ideology is Wil Wheaton, Phil Brucato, and Anita Sarkeesian sharing?<br><br>As for the comments about 'attack pieces,' stuff like 'the Death of Gaming' is ... really? You guys are taking that as an attack?<br><br>When I first heard the title, before I was much aware of the rest of GG stuff, I just rolled my eyes.<br><br>Media is FILLED with dramatic doomsaying about everything. The death of social media. The death of Microsoft (or Xbox). The death of the middle class. DOOOOM.<br><br>It's, like, the most common trope of dramatic fluff journalism. Do you guys READ news?<br><br>I don't read a lot of literary/intellectual critique, but as others have mentioned, Sarkeesian's commentary and similar sounds typical to me. I honestly haven't seen much of it, because I have pretty much 0 interest in really high level theory blather.<br><br>Werekoala: So I'm right about it being about feminism, but I don't know what I'm talking about and should watch it? ... um, what?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 11:34:51 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794594</cite>Werekoala: So I'm right about it being about feminism, but I don't know what I'm talking about and should watch it? ... um, what?</blockquote><br>I didn't say you didn't know what you were talking about it, in fact I SPECIFICALLY SAID it was about the "f" word as YOU said. But you should watch it anyway instead of just hearing other people talk about it. You know, educate yourself instead of just accepting second- or third-hand information about things. <br><br>Just sayin'.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 11:41:00 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I'll attempt it when I have time and stamina.<br><br>First, I _loath_ video blogs* (of anyone, and I've had to be very tactful in telling friends why I'm not going to watch 10 minutes of material fluffed into 2 hours of them blathering on about Pokemon or whatever).<br><br>Second, keeping focused enough to catch when someone is using weasel argumentation through an entire long speech requires particular attention and energy, particularly in video format.<br><br>Third, people have repeatedly assured me 'oh, you HAVE to see THIS' and in nearly every case my first guess as to how productive it'd be is right, so hey, I'm getting old and less enthused about watching 'the wonderful world of defectation' in Technicolor because someone thinks I might find it edifying.<br><br><br>* Addendum: This hatred is starting to see competition with the growing trend of Answer.com style 'hugely annoying busy page of clickbait with a thiiiiin schmear of actual material dribbled out OH YOU PICKED THE WRONG ARROW THAT'S FOR OUR SPONSOR'
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Herr Arnulfe</strong> on <strong>October 27, 2014, 11:42:22 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I think what's happened here is that thousands of geeks without any media education received their first exposure to feminist critique through YouTube and they didn't know how to interpret it. So critiques of their favourite games were interpreted as attacks against them personally. If anything, that was Sarkeesian's big mistake; she overestimated the YouTube audience base.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 12:05:05 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Well, it was only 6 minutes, so what the heck.<br><br>(watches)<br><br>Yep, waste of time.<br><br>For what it's worth, I don't think the hardcore gamer culture leads to men being more misogynist/homophobic. I think an acceptance of misogynistic/homophobic game culture shuts out and oppresses women and others.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 12:33:18 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ratman_tf;794501</cite>Nobody is 100% objective, but having about a dozen gaming sites all come out with "Gamers are dead" articles within the same day was downright bizarre and troubling. It's not just one guy putting up for an indie dev here. It's a community of people with the same narrative.</blockquote><br>More than that, those essays were hate-filled narratives against a specific stereotype. To the point that some of them sounded very similiarto racist tracts from the 50s. Both sides in this mess have really just done some head-shaking behaviour. And maybe its because of personal experience, but I tend to empathize more with those battling against the radfems than those that use the guise of feminism to hide behind while hatemongering. Doesn't make the Zoey Quinn stuff any more acceptable, but it does remove, IMO, any moral high ground on the part of the anti-GG crowd. A little research into Anita also turned up a lot of unpleasantness. <br><br>Oh well, its a clusterf***. What else do we expect from the internet these days?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 12:35:00 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;794597</cite>I think what's happened here is that thousands of geeks without any media education received their first exposure to feminist critique through YouTube and they didn't know how to interpret it. So critiques of their favourite games were interpreted as attacks against them personally. If anything, that was Sarkeesian's big mistake; she overestimated the YouTube audience base.</blockquote><br>I'd say her big mistake was being mainly full of crap, personally.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 01:00:29 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;794592</cite>I watched most of the video and found her counter-arguments weak. Having watched several of Sarkeesian's videos I'm struggling to see why people are so outraged. Sarkeesian's videos are pretty standard feminist media critique compared to what's studied in film schools etc. - she defines tropes, provides examples and doesn't level any accusations of misogyny against the players themselves.</blockquote><br>When I watched someof Sarkeesian's videos I thought the same thing (in fact youu can see my comment to that effect earlier in this thread). Mainly harmless, if a bit ignorant, cultural criticism. I experienced no outrage. Then I saw her appearances on news shows. then I came across soem of her more blatant lies. Then I came across evidence of her deliberate manipulation of commentaries on her videos to create a false narrative. Then....well, at that point she'd lost any sympathy. Yes, I still think those videos are mostly harmless. I also now think that she's a lying misandrist who is using the GG controversy for no reason other than to bolster her own status. The truth is she's a nobody. She has no academic credentials, she's contributed nothing positive to society, she's basically the Paris Hilton of pseudointellectualism.<br><br>The best thing to be done in regards to her, like any troll, is to ignore her.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 01:05:11 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794598</cite>For what it's worth, I don't think the hardcore gamer culture leads to men being more misogynist/homophobic. I think an acceptance of misogynistic/homophobic game culture shuts out and oppresses women and others.</blockquote><br>And thats the ideology I don't share (and neither does any credible scientific research). Which is ostensibly fine, I don't mind other ideologies...Christianity, Social Conservatism, hell, I can even see the optimistic side of Communism... except when people with those ideologies think they have the right or duty or whatever to impose them on others.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ratman_tf</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 01:09:58 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;794609</cite>The best thing to be done in regards to her, like any troll, is to ignore her.</blockquote><br>Ideally, yes. The problem, as you noted, is the narrative that she's wielding. By othering gamers, she creates an atmosphere of fear. Like Felicia Day's recent blog post about how she crossed the street to avoid [strike]black men[/strike] gamers.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>crkrueger</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 01:42:27 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ratman_tf;794611</cite>Ideally, yes. The problem, as you noted, is the narrative that she's wielding. By othering gamers, she creates an atmosphere of fear. Like Felicia Day's recent blog post about how she crossed the street to avoid [strike]black men[/strike] gamers.</blockquote><br>I have one piece of advice for Felicia Day - if what she's experienced from nutty fans has bothered her so far, she should get out of acting, NOW. She hasn't even brushed the surface of crazy fans.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 02:02:16 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;794597</cite>I think what's happened here is that thousands of geeks without any media education received their first exposure to feminist critique through YouTube and they didn't know how to interpret it. So critiques of their favourite games were interpreted as attacks against them personally. If anything, that was Sarkeesian's big mistake; she overestimated the YouTube audience base.</blockquote><br>My experience with feminist critique in gaming media has been more along these lines:<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience_Gamers_are_over.php</cite>These obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers -- they are not my audience. They don't have to be yours. There is no 'side' to be on, there is no 'debate' to be had. </blockquote><br>This was just one spittle-spraying collection of epithets out of many published on August 28th, when gamejournos colluded to shotgun a bunch of smear pieces at gamers.. in the gaming and tech media. I didn't appreciate this crap on TBP, but that battle was over before I knew it was on. This time around, instead of wasting time on discourse with grand narrative assholes, a lot of gamers are showing some sense and abandoning the media outlets that use that narrative crap to make money. We're also letting the advertisers know why we're leaving, and where they can find us (not at Vox, Gawker Media, or Conde Nast sites, that's for sure!).<br><br>When the gamejournos dissed me there was a fight; when they tried to front and say it's all about the soggy knees, that's when the trenches started getting dug. There's a lot more to it than that, there's so many people involved with so many different interests or sets of interests, but as a participant, for me this is a consumer revolt against having crap shoved down my throat in my hobby.<br><br>One seemingly-good source for GG info is gamergate.me, I don't know who runs it but seems more or less legit. Reasonable collection of posts on the events, some good perspectives not all of them happy.<br><br>Another source for GG related information is http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/wiki/index<br><br>It's a big infodump of links to substantiations of the claims of blacklisting, undisclosed relationships, collusion to censor discourse across multiple supposedly-independent media outlets, etc etc etc. There's also a lot of opinion pieces about the course of events from the GG side.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>crkrueger</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 02:13:15 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
If you've followed Will's posts in this thread, you'll notice the last few pages he's been deliberately evading and overlooking the fact that a dozen different competing gaming news outlets issued nearly the exact same article and were shown to have discussed GG amongst themselves and how "they" should respond to it.<br><br>Was their response to address the journalism aspect honestly, showing the falsehood of any improper attacks against them and agreeing to be more open in biases? Nope. Instead they first attempted to stealth ban dissenting opinions on Reddit and 4chan and when that was outed as well decided to wage full war under the Misogyny flag by declaring gamers dead. If anyone thinks Sarkeesian is upset by GG, they are a fool. This is exactly what she and others wanted, a media spectacle with a narrative they can control to shift the Overton Window so that Gaming=Misogyny enters on the fringe of mainstream thought instead of tinfoil hat talk from the Feminist Left. The rabid maniacs will do what they always do on the internet; nice, popular people like Felicia Day and Wil Wheaton will be offended and believe the worst, and overall the image of Gaming will be tarnished. <br><br>Mission Accomplished.<br><br>As this a good thing Will can get behind, he'll do anything here to obfuscate that point and ignore the collusion aspect of the story.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 03:44:42 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: James Gillen;794577</cite>An excellent point that some may not have considered.<br><br>jg</blockquote><br>Twilight has been much criticised for its passive heroine, the (D&D) gamer women I know really hate it. Obviously gamer women like butt-kicking action heroines or else they wouldn't be playing D&D. I told them that Twilight was 'fantasy for women who don't like fantasy' - my view is that those 'normal' women have as much a right to enjoyable entertainment as anyone else.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 03:58:35 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: CRKrueger;794616</cite>If anyone thinks Sarkeesian is upset by GG, they are a fool. This is exactly what she and others wanted, a media spectacle with a narrative they can control to shift the Overton Window so that Gaming=Misogyny enters on the fringe of mainstream thought instead of tinfoil hat talk from the Feminist Left. The rabid maniacs will do what they always do on the internet; nice, popular people like Felicia Day and Wil Wheaton will be offended and believe the worst, and overall the image of Gaming will be tarnished. <br></blockquote><br>Good analysis, although I think the SJW-dominated media were/are genuinely angered by the pushback, which they are not used to seeing. I definitely agree that the SJW counter attack is primarily aimed at the "nice, popular people like Felicia Day and Wil Wheaton" (and Joss Whedon) - people with left-liberal views who can easily be manipulated by the SJW just as the SJW & their forebears have been doing at least since the 1960s. Cultural Marxism is all about 'controlling the narrative' through 'liberating tolerance' - which means suppression of counter-narratives. They have a problem with the Internet because it allows counter-narratives to spring up and spread outside of their control. But "nice, popular people" still rely on the 'commanding heights' of the trusted mainstream media for their opinions. As long as you control the mainstream media you can control their views, within the acceptable range of opinion - the Overton window - and the window can be moved over time in your preferred direction.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Bradford C. Walker</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 04:09:10 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;794618</cite>Good analysis, although I think the SJW-dominated media were/are genuinely angered by the pushback, which they are not used to seeing. I definitely agree that the SJW counter attack is primarily aimed at the "nice, popular people like Felicia Day and Wil Wheaton" (and Joss Whedon) - people with left-liberal views who can easily be manipulated by the SJW just as the SJW & their forebears have been doing at least since the 1960s. Cultural Marxism is all about 'controlling the narrative' through 'liberating tolerance' - which means suppression of counter-narratives. They have a problem with the Internet because it allows counter-narratives to spring up and spread outside of their control. But "nice, popular people" still rely on the 'commanding heights' of the trusted mainstream media for their opinions. As long as you control the mainstream media you can control their views, within the acceptable range of opinion - the Overton window - and the window can be moved over time in your preferred direction.</blockquote>I am making this exact point to the regulars at the GamersGate YT channel, the women at Honey Badger Radio, and in the comments for Sargon of Akkad (so far) as they are good for pro-GG discussion and commentary.<br><br>Let's see if they notice in the weeks to come.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 06:28:21 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: CRKrueger;794616</cite>As this a good thing Will can get behind, he'll do anything here to obfuscate that point and ignore the collusion aspect of the story.</blockquote><br>I must admit that, although I've tried to avoid it, the last couple of days his posts have started to sound a lot like Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons in my head...
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Warboss Squee</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 06:29:53 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Werekoala;794627</cite>I must admit that, although I've tried to avoid it, the last couple of days his posts have started to sound a lot like Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons in my head...</blockquote><br>I'm half convinced he's Movie Bob. Never seen them in the same room, after all.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 07:43:03 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Haffrung;794535</cite>That's the issue I have inclusivity in entertainment. It fails to recognize that different things appeal to different people and the tradeoffs creators face in choosing who to aim their product at. Twilight would have been much more appealing to males if it had less romance and more fighting. But I don't recall anyone chastizing Stephanie Meyers for not being inclusive enough. And I see no reason to believe she would have had a more popular series on her hands if she made it more appealing to males, because any changes with that aim would probably have alienated a portion of the female audience.</blockquote><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;794536</cite>This, folks, is why I call this entire thing an insurgency- because here is the act of imperialist invasion that started this whole mess (and, if remedied, would end it just as fast): trespassing into space already owned and occupied, and then barking orders as if they owned the place, when they are not wanted and don't have a right to be there.<br><br>And the rest of that post? Spot-fucking-on.</blockquote><br>*I can understand anger at hypocritical, holier than thou, moralistic posers, but I think the inclusiveness demonstrated in the new D&D core books is a good thing. I don't want to assume anything, but your comment could easily be seized on by the turds to say: "see? They ALL don't want women, LGBT and minorities in their hobby!"<br><br>I'm not pointing fingers, but asking you to clarify if you're for or against making these spaces more diverse.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 07:55:13 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;794592</cite>. One of the AEI woman's counter-arguments in particular ("by far the most violence in games occurs against men") demonstrates a complete failure to comprehend what feminist media critique is actually about..</blockquote><br>Are people meant to interpret this critique of her counter arguments as a version of the dismissive phrase "What about the menz???"<br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;794597</cite>I think what's happened here is that thousands of geeks without any media education received their first exposure to feminist critique through YouTube and they didn't know how to interpret it. So critiques of their favourite games were interpreted as attacks against them personally. If anything, that was Sarkeesian's big mistake; she overestimated the YouTube audience base.</blockquote><br>My problem, and the problem others have mentioned, is that Sarkeesian has taken a number of things out of their proper context to present as evidence of woman hating. If feminist critique requires it to ignore a context because it involves men being subject to the same things being criticized, then I think it's very flawed as an analytical tool.*
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Herr Arnulfe</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 09:09:33 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794631</cite>Are people meant to interpret this critique of her counter arguments as a version of the dismissive phrase "What about the menz???"</blockquote>I watched Sarkeesian's video on violence vs. women in games, and IIRC her two main points were:<br><br>- violence vs. women is more often sexualized than violence vs. men<br>- <i>proportionate to their depiction as strong characters</i>, women are more often helpless victims of violence than men are<br><br>I'm not a huge videogamer, but I've played enough that these claims seemed reasonable and didn't trigger my BS-meter. I don't recall Sarkeesian claiming that violence vs. women was more widespread than violence vs. men, quantitatively-speaking. The AEI woman's counter-argument is akin to protesting the "male gaze" concept in feminist film theory by pointing out that many films have female protagonists (i.e. total failure to grasp the point).<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794631</cite>My problem, and the problem others have mentioned, is that Sarkeesian has taken a number of things out of their proper context to present as evidence of woman hating. If feminist critique requires it to ignore a context because it involves men being subject to the same things being criticized, then I think it's very flawed as an analytical tool.*</blockquote>As I said before, I haven't followed the fallout. I don't do Twitter. I did watch a few of the (very angry) rebuttals to Sarkeesian's videos because they appear in the "related videos" sidebar on YouTube. Those, plus the 4chan connection, convinced me that following Gamergate would be a waste of time and would probably make me stupider.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Herr Arnulfe</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 09:17:33 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;794609</cite>The truth is she's a nobody. She has no academic credentials, she's contributed nothing positive to society, she's basically the Paris Hilton of pseudointellectualism.</blockquote>To be fair, feminist game theory is a fledgling field in 2014, just like feminist film theory was in the 1970's. Laura Mulvey was also a nobody before she published her famous article in 1975.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 10:03:33 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: CRKrueger;794616</cite>As this a good thing Will can get behind, he'll do anything here to obfuscate that point and ignore the collusion aspect of the story.</blockquote><br>Your conspiracy theory is pathetic.<br><br>I DON'T CARE.<br><br>It's gaming journalism. This is like saying 'hey, North Korea stories of the Glorious Leader is inaccurate!'<br><br>No shit. Gaming journalism has been next to useless for... well, since it began. At least nowadays you can find random small bloggers that aren't suckling at big company teats.<br><br>The ONLY reason you guys are upset about it NOW is because feminists are involved.<br><br>That's the point.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArtemisAlpha</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 10:15:07 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794647</cite>It's gaming journalism. This is like saying 'hey, North Korea stories of the Glorious Leader is inaccurate!'<br><br>No shit. Gaming journalism has been next to useless for... well, since it began. At least nowadays you can find random small bloggers that aren't suckling at big company teats.<br><br>The ONLY reason you guys are upset about it NOW is because feminists are involved.<br><br>That's the point.</blockquote><br>Actually, no. <br><br>As somebody who's come to side with #gamergate fairly late in the process, I will certainly agree that gaming journalism has been terrible for years. However, the reason that I've spoken up now, and sided with #gamergate, is because this is the first time there's been a consumer uprising that is *doing* anything about the sad state of ethics in game journalism. And, make no mistake, things are getting done. Some sites have made changes to their ethics policies, and I'll happily keep pushing until gaming journalists are using something approaching the SPJ standards of ethics. Gaming is a billion dollar industry. It deserves better.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>crkrueger</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 10:40:32 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794647</cite>Your conspiracy theory is pathetic.<br><br>I DON'T CARE.</blockquote>As obviously evidenced by you having more posts in this thread then anyone else.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794647</cite>It's gaming journalism. This is like saying 'hey, North Korea stories of the Glorious Leader is inaccurate!'<br><br>No shit. Gaming journalism has been next to useless for... well, since it began. At least nowadays you can find random small bloggers that aren't suckling at big company teats.</blockquote>That's the narrative, yes, good job.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794647</cite>The ONLY reason you guys are upset about it NOW is because feminists are involved.<br><br>That's the point.</blockquote>So basically your argument is that people are upset because instead of gaming journalism being taken over by gaming companies (which we accepted in the past), now people are up in arms over gaming journalism being taken over by feminists, and because we're anti-feminists, we're speaking up.<br><br>So anyone reasonably sympathetic to GG is an anti-feminist. Yeah, you've said that about a hundred times now, keep to the narrative, that's the point right? <br><br>Or...people are getting sick of social engineering in their media and hobbies.<br>Or...people got a wake up call when a dozen or so gaming mags finally PROVED their editors speak with one voice.(it's one thing to suspect corruption, it's nearly assumed in american life at this point, it's another to have to boldly proven).<br><br>Keep to the playbook of "Silence all dissent with accusations of "isms"" all you want, people aren't buying it.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 10:48:59 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I don't care about 'collusion in gaming journalism.'<br><br>I also don't care about silencing dissent. That's more characteristic GG paranoia and tinfoil hattery.<br><br>I DO care about people terrorizing other people, and then slacktivists wringing their hands about how they are NOT WITH THOSE GUYS but happily riding on the shit-bags' coat-tails because actually going out and trying to drum up support under a different flag would be, like, hard and junk.<br><br>I also find tellingly stupid how much people like Krueger are eager to try to see conspiracy and vast motives in people rather than accepting 'hey, a bunch of people think you guys are assholes' because a bunch of people under your brand are assholes.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>apparition13</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 11:00:17 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: JRT;794440</cite>Here's a link to what I feel is the best essay on the whole situation:<br><br>http://www.popehat.com/2014/10/26/ten-short-rants-about-gamergate/</blockquote>Yup, best analysis I've seen yet. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;794640</cite>To be fair, feminist game theory is a fledgling field in 2014, just like feminist film theory was in the 1970's. Laura Mulvey was also a nobody before she published her famous article in 1975.</blockquote><br>'Theory' is way too strong a word. At best it's conjecture (theorizing) <i>without</i> refutation (testing). Essay/critical/editorial/etc. -viewpoint is an accurate descriptor; 'theory' implies the imprimatur of scientific authority, which they definitely don't have.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Haffrung</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 11:05:26 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794630</cite>*I can understand anger at hypocritical, holier than thou, moralistic posers, but I think the inclusiveness demonstrated in the new D&D core books is a good thing. I don't want to assume anything, but your comment could easily be seized on by the turds to say: "see? They ALL don't want women, LGBT and minorities in their hobby!"<br><br>I'm not pointing fingers, but asking you to clarify if you're for or against making these spaces more diverse.</blockquote><br>I don't care if WotC include more artwork showing women and variety in ethnicity. If it's good art, it's good art.<br><br>What gets up my nose is the people who count these things looking for some kind of real-world ratios, or they're going to start smearing WotC as misogynist, racist, backwards, etc. As I've said before, I don't see SJWs complaining that RPG books don't represent seniors in anything close to their real-world numbers. Or obese people. Or that PCs are better-looking, on average, than real people.<br><br>And it's fine if the player-base of RPGs is becoming more diverse. But I don't for a minute think that the 'natural' makeup of the D&D market is anything close to 50/50 male/female. And I don't believe that makeup can be explained by misogyny. On average, men and women tend to find different things appealing. There's entertainment and cultural content that appeals largely (though not exclusively) to men, and content that appeals largely (though not exclusively) to women. Scrap-booking as a hobby is considerably bigger than tabletop RPGs, and it's something like 98 per cent female. Book club participants are 95 per cent female. I went into Michael's (a big-box craft store) the other night to pick up some stuff and I was the only male in the store. And that's not the first time that happened. <br><br>So the issue I have is that anything that is largely male-oriented these days is being targeted for reform and inclusiveness (and explained as the result of misogyny), while nobody says a word about all the female-oriented hobbies and entertainment options. The radical academic left are wrong when they assert that these sort of gender-aligned preferences are all social constructs. And they're hypocritical for only condemning the male-oriented preferences.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>apparition13</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 11:07:10 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794650</cite>I don't care about 'collusion in gaming journalism.'<br><br>I also don't care about silencing dissent. That's more characteristic GG paranoia and tinfoil hattery.<br><br>I DO care about people terrorizing other people, and then slacktivists wringing their hands about how they are NOT WITH THOSE GUYS but happily riding on the shit-bags' coat-tails because actually going out and trying to drum up support under a different flag would be, like, hard and junk.<br><br>I also find tellingly stupid how much people like Krueger are eager to try to see conspiracy and vast motives in people rather than accepting 'hey, a bunch of people think you guys are assholes' because a bunch of people under your brand are assholes.</blockquote><br>Will you did see this in the popehat article I just relinked to, right? Hint, he isn't talking about #gamergate, click on the links in the original and it's all about SJW.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: popehat</cite>4. Live by the Sword, Die By The Sword.<br><br>If you encourage a cultural trend involving calling out behavior, you may not like the way it is used by others. This seems obvious, but apparently it's not.<br><br>If you encourage the overuse of the term "bully" until it means nothing, you can expect the term to be co-opted and aimed at you sooner or later.<br><br>If you cultivate a culture in which people react disproportionately to stupid or offensive jokes, sooner or later someone else is going to be freaking out — sincerely or cynically — over someone "on your side" telling a stupid joke.<br><br>If you cultivate a culture in which the internet lands on someone like a ton of bricks for being an asshole, sooner or later some segment of the internet is going to decide that you are the asshole, and pile on you.<br><br>If you cultivate a culture that likes to boycott media or its advertisers for content you don't like, sooner or later somebody's gonna boycott media over something you agree with.<br><br>Stretching words like "bullying" for political purposes, calling out people for stupid jokes, participating in gleeful pile-ons, and organizing boycotts are all classic free speech. They are a more-speech response to speech you don't like, a good alternative to government censorship, and an example of social consequences for speech. I'm not telling you to stop. I'm not saying all speech we decide to condemn is morally equivalent. I'm not telling you that such techniques are morally wrong. I can't, credibly, because I have participated in all of them. I'm reminding you that all speech has consequences, and all modes of speech have consequences. The consequence of gleefully piling onto some douchebag is that you normalize and model gleefully piling on someone you find offensive. The consequence of abandoning proportionality is that someday some segment of the internet may wig out and lose all proportionality about you or someone you care about. Recognize cultural cause and effect.<br><br>You're going to say "but the people I was piling on/freaking out about/boycotting are totally distinguishable from the people being victimized now by piling on/freaking out/boycotting." How nice for you. Explain that distinction to them and let me know how it works out.<br><br>(Clark has been making this point for quite some time.)<br><br>5. Your Insult-Parsing Is Bullshit.<br><br>Critics of gaming culture assert that demeaning people based on attributes like gender, ethnicity, race, and sexuality is wrong. I agree.5<br><br>But too many critics of #GamerGate seem to view it as a fine opportunity to demean both groups and individuals based on attributes like weight, appearance, social isolation, and non-neurotypical status. People (including, occasionally, me) employ "fat, smelly, basement-dwelling Aspie neckbeard" rhetoric to talk about misogyny or harassment in gaming.<br><br>If you engage in that rhetoric, many people will think that your objections to demeaning language about women is contrived and tribal rather than sincere.<br><br>I'm sure you can construct an excellent argument about how demeaning language against women occurs in a historical context and in connection with a power structure and patriarchal vertices and thus-and-such, and that it is simply different than making fun of people for being fat or unattractive or autistic. That's swell. It would get you a solid A- in your sophomore seminar at Brown. But most of the real world thinks it is an unconvincing rationalization.<br><br>Insulting people can be fun. A well-crafted insult is a pleasure. A stinging mockery can be very expressive. It's unflattering, but it's true. But speech has consequences. The consequence of indulging yourself by mocking people for being fat/unattractive/socially awkward/non-neurotypical/etc. is that people aren't going to take your indignation about gendered or racial insults particularly seriously. You may think that's unfair, but it's how people are. Govern yourself accordingly.</blockquote><br>Handwringing because someone is turning the tools you've helped normalize against you? C'mon.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 11:15:33 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794650</cite>I DO care about people terrorizing other people, and then slacktivists wringing their hands about how they are NOT WITH THOSE GUYS but happily riding on the shit-bags' coat-tails because actually going out and trying to drum up support under a different flag would be, like, hard and junk.</blockquote><br>OH MY GOD YOU FUCKING NO WIT! I literally shown you evidence in the past of this very thread of a man who supports gamergate and is willing to give out a three thousand dollar reward to anyone that can get the mass shooting threat messenger to be lock up behind bars. That is not the only time gamergate had told trolls to go fuck themselves, or try to bring down trolls. In fact the vast majority of gamergate are doing every thing they can to get rid of the fuck up trolls of their side.<br><br>You know what fuck it. I just block you since you cannot get your head out of your ass. Just know this while gamergate is fixing its wrongful members the anti-gamergate people are not doing a damn thing to fix their wrongful members. No one on their side does any thing when they say white men should all die, or tell minorities that they don't know what is good for them. THE REAL BIGOTS ARE ON YOUR SIDE WILL.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Herr Arnulfe</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 11:16:34 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;794652</cite>'Theory' is way too strong a word. At best it's conjecture (theorizing) <i>without</i> refutation (testing). Essay/critical/editorial/etc. -viewpoint is an accurate descriptor; 'theory' implies the imprimatur of scientific authority, which they definitely don't have.</blockquote>Agreed, if Sarkeesian wants to be taken seriously as a theorist she'll have to publish. Her videos are just qualitative media analysis and editorial journalism. Granted, a lot of film theory is also based in purely qualitative analysis. Sarkeesian might have the seeds of a publishable theory if she can manage to pull in some psychology and/or sociology.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 11:24:13 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Then go peer review. Seriously more work from anyone should go through peer review. Hell there was a college student that found out that the austerity is good was actually missing data thus was not fit to be evidence. The people that made that lost their work within a mere day.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 11:25:57 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: CRKrueger;794649</cite>As obviously evidenced by you having more posts in this thread then anyone else.<br><br>Keep to the playbook of "Silence all dissent with accusations of "isms"" all you want, people aren't buying it.</blockquote><br>Best thing I've done this morning is add the troll to my ignore list. Quality of the conversation just improved about 90%. I don't believe in hiding one's head from opposing views, but I also don't like broken records. Repeating something over and over without evidence doesn't make it true and it's just noise.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Herr Arnulfe</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 11:32:37 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;794658</cite>Then go peer review. Seriously more work from anyone should go through peer review. Hell there was a college student that found out that the austerity is good was actually missing data thus was not fit to be evidence. The people that made that lost their work within a mere day.</blockquote>Right, by "publish" I meant an academic, peer-reviewed journal. No reason why she shouldn't also make videos while working on her thesis (if indeed that's what she's doing) - she just has to accept that her videos will be "peer-reviewed" in the Comments section of YouTube by people who've never encountered feminist media criticism before.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 11:34:46 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Haffrung;794653</cite>So the issue I have is that anything that is largely male-oriented these days is being targeted for reform and inclusiveness (and explained as the result of misogyny), while nobody says a word about all the female-oriented hobbies and entertainment options. The radical academic left are wrong when they assert that these sort of gender-aligned preferences are all social constructs. And they're hypocritical for only condemning the male-oriented preferences.</blockquote><br>I agree with you on the condemnation. I don't think that male preferences need to disappear. Things that appeal to a wide variety of people should be able to coexist. <br><br>I think it would be good to see some companies at least experiment with their product lines, even if it's just a few sourcebooks at first, to adapt them to the exact guidelines these critics want. Then let's see the market react. <br><br>If it's successful, then maybe they do have a point in that the hobby needs to move in a certain direction. Why not, and there's no reason we can't have, within the same hobby, things that appeal to guys and things that appeal to women if it's sustainable.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 11:44:15 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Given what I've seen happen to women in countless ways and fields and areas, I think assuming things are the way they are due to natural preference and tendencies is a lot of self-serving privileged crap.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>crkrueger</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 11:46:17 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794650</cite>I don't care about 'collusion in gaming journalism.'</blockquote>Of course not, because the collusion is by people sharing the team jersey, right?<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794650</cite>I also don't care about silencing dissent. That's more characteristic GG paranoia and tinfoil hattery.</blockquote>Only when it happens to you, like on purple, eh?<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794650</cite>I DO care about people terrorizing other people, and then slacktivists wringing their hands about how they are NOT WITH THOSE GUYS but happily riding on the shit-bags' coat-tails because actually going out and trying to drum up support under a different flag would be, like, hard and junk.</blockquote>Of course the doxxing, death-threating and other crap is only done by the #GG side, right? Wrong. Of course you ignore the GGers who are actively denouncing the negative attacks even though no one on the other side is even admitting that such things are possible from their members.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794650</cite>I also find tellingly stupid how much people like Krueger are eager to try to see conspiracy and vast motives in people rather than accepting 'hey, a bunch of people think you guys are assholes' because a bunch of people under your brand are assholes.</blockquote>Assholes would be an acceptable complaint for some of the more egregious examples, misogyny as a tag for the entire thing (as you keep claiming) is you keeping up the narrative. As far as conspiracy, the dozen supposed competitors speaking with one voice simultaneously and shown to be colluding through corresponding documents proved the "conspiracy", which of course you label as such because everyone wearing misogynist tinfoil hats fits the narrative, right?<br><br>The only thing pathetic is your total lack of intellectual honesty.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 11:48:56 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Sorry, confusing word choice. When I said 'I don't care about silencing dissent' I meant that that's not my personal goal or anything I'm trying to do, but given it appears after the same phrase in a different meaning just before, my bad.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Simlasa</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 11:52:03 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Haffrung;794653</cite>There's entertainment and cultural content that appeals largely (though not exclusively) to men, and content that appeals largely (though not exclusively) to women. Scrap-booking as a hobby is considerably bigger than tabletop RPGs, and it's something like 98 per cent female.</blockquote>For whatever reason I know a lot of scrapbookers (all women)... I spend time on scrapbooking/crafting sites and watch scrapbooking videos. They have their own sorts of drama sometimes but one thing I've NEVER heard/seen discussed is how to get more men into the hobby.<br>None of the hand-wringing insecurity over their hobby that I associate with RPGs either.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Haffrung</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 11:55:21 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794647</cite>Your conspiracy theory is pathetic.<br><br>I DON'T CARE.<br><br>It's gaming journalism. This is like saying 'hey, North Korea stories of the Glorious Leader is inaccurate!'<br><br>No shit. Gaming journalism has been next to useless for... well, since it began. At least nowadays you can find random small bloggers that aren't suckling at big company teats.<br><br>The ONLY reason you guys are upset about it NOW is because feminists are involved.<br><br></blockquote><br>The point is that, for the first time that I'm aware of, the journalists basically called out most of the people in their beat/industry as a bunch of pathetic losers. And they did it in a concerted manner. <br><br>If you can recall any time this has happened before, I'd like to hear about. A half-dozen prominent sports reporters calling out sports fans as a bunch of moronic slobs. A half-dozen prominent movie reviewers denouncing film audiences as unsophisticated rubes. A half-dozen prominent music reviewers slamming music fans for their taste in hit songs. <br><br>It takes a special kind of myopic hubris to do what the Gamers are Dead authors did.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Haffrung</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 12:23:27 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794664</cite>Given what I've seen happen to women in countless ways and fields and areas, I think assuming things are the way they are due to natural preference and tendencies is a lot of self-serving privileged crap.</blockquote><br>'The way they are' covers a lot. I didn't say every disparity between participation of men and women comes from innate differences, did I? We were talking about entertainment. And even there, I think there is some cultural bias at work. But it's a huge leap from 'there is some cultural bias at work' to 'the natural state is 50/50 participation and the only thing preventing that is misogyny.' <br><br>Adult women read fiction at about a 2:1 ratio to men. That's huge. Why isn't that on the media radar? Why aren't there movements dedicated to addressing the problem? Where are the calls to root out the misandry that <i>surely</i> must be at the root of such a stark disparity.<br><br>An even bigger elephant in the room is the rapidly diverging educational attainment between women and men in the West. The dramatically higher school drop-out rate of young men versus women. The dominance of young women in the high school honor rolls. The widening spread in post-secondary enrollment between men and women. It's remarkable how little attention has been paid to the achievement of clear majorities of women entering the professions of law, medicine, and even accounting.<br><br>Crickets chirping. No, instead we're witnessing an uproar over the gender inclusiveness of fucking <i>video games</i>.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Simlasa;794669</cite>For whatever reason I know a lot of scrapbookers (all women)... I spend time on scrapbooking/crafting sites and watch scrapbooking videos. They have their own sorts of drama sometimes but one thing I've NEVER heard/seen discussed is how to get more men into the hobby.<br>None of the hand-wringing insecurity over their hobby that I associate with RPGs either.</blockquote><br>Scrap-booking is suffering due to the move to digital photography, the cloud, and all that stuff. But I don't think I've ever heard that the solution to declining participation is making the hobby more appealing to men.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 12:52:30 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/opinion/anita-sarkeesian-on-video-games-great-future.html?_r=0<br><br>'Death of the gamer' isn't a negative thing. It's a positive thing. When everyone is a gamer, the term loses it's significance.<br><br>My kids really like computer games. I am steeling myself for the inevitable crap my daughter is going to face, assuming gaming culture doesn't change. When I was a kid, gaming seemed more inclusive, if anything, because companies experimented more, and it was such a novel and smaller thing. Then things regressed as huge companies went for big titles and more people got in and started feeling entitled, start seeing gaming as an identity.<br><br>The 'boy's club' started it. There used to be Ms. PacMan.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 01:15:33 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Simlasa;794669</cite>For whatever reason I know a lot of scrapbookers (all women)... I spend time on scrapbooking/crafting sites and watch scrapbooking videos. They have their own sorts of drama sometimes but one thing I've NEVER heard/seen discussed is how to get more men into the hobby.<br>None of the hand-wringing insecurity over their hobby that I associate with RPGs either.</blockquote><br>That's because there are no men clamoring to join it. I'm just guessing. I have no hard numbers. <br><br>I know a fair amount of girl gamers, though. Some of which regularly kick guys asses at Call of Duty, incidentally. I have not heard these concerns out of them, ever, regarding sexualized violence, for example, or not feeling included. I don't think they'd oppose having more female representation, though.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 01:39:13 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
//www.theonion.com/articles/i-dont-support-feminism-if-it-means-murdering-all,37301/<br><br>snerk
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 02:14:26 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
This man is a strong supporter of #gamergate and #notyourshield.<br><br>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2KePdPrKss&list=UUU64AfivgQUOPuIJ8N5YaCA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2KePdPrKss&list=UUU64AfivgQUOPuIJ8N5YaCA)<br><br>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5ZoYSILbQ8&list=UUU64AfivgQUOPuIJ8N5YaCA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5ZoYSILbQ8&list=UUU64AfivgQUOPuIJ8N5YaCA)<br><br>The second video really paints the anti-gamergate people for who they really are.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ratman_tf</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 02:44:05 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794664</cite>Given what I've seen happen to women in countless ways and fields and areas, I think assuming things are the way they are due to natural preference and tendencies is a lot of self-serving privileged crap.</blockquote><br>I've worked in game testing for 12+ years, I've worked at Nintento and Microsoft, and a few smaller companies. I've worked at HER Interactive and in the casual game field, testing those casual games that soccer moms play. I've never seen women get anything but fair treatment. I've worked for female bosses and supervisors. <br><br>Both these posts are anecdotes.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Warboss Squee</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 02:46:51 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794679</cite>http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/opinion/anita-sarkeesian-on-video-games-great-future.html?_r=0<br><br>'Death of the gamer' isn't a negative thing. It's a positive thing. When everyone is a gamer, the term loses it's significance.<br><br>My kids really like computer games. I am steeling myself for the inevitable crap my daughter is going to face, assuming gaming culture doesn't change. When I was a kid, gaming seemed more inclusive, if anything, because companies experimented more, and it was such a novel and smaller thing. Then things regressed as huge companies went for big titles and more people got in and started feeling entitled, start seeing gaming as an identity.<br><br>The 'boy's club' started it. There used to be Ms. PacMan.</blockquote><br>If everyone is special, than no one is? What a load of crap.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ThatChrisGuy</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 02:50:42 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ratman_tf;794611</cite>Ideally, yes. The problem, as you noted, is the narrative that she's wielding. By othering gamers, she creates an atmosphere of fear. Like Felicia Day's recent blog post about how she crossed the street to avoid [strike]black men[/strike] gamers.</blockquote><br>"Othering?" Who gives a shit about that? I've been a geek my entire life. I'm always the "other."
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 02:56:29 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794679</cite>http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/opinion/anita-sarkeesian-on-video-games-great-future.html?_r=0<br><br>'Death of the gamer' isn't a negative thing. It's a positive thing. When everyone is a gamer, the term loses it's significance.<br><br>My kids really like computer games. I am steeling myself for the inevitable crap my daughter is going to face, assuming gaming culture doesn't change. When I was a kid, gaming seemed more inclusive, if anything, because companies experimented more, and it was such a novel and smaller thing. Then things regressed as huge companies went for big titles and more people got in and started feeling entitled, start seeing gaming as an identity.<br><br>The 'boy's club' started it. There used to be Ms. PacMan.</blockquote>Ok...<br>Name three other games (especially one that isn't a clone of another game), with a female protagonist in 1981/1982.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 02:59:51 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;794690</cite>This man is a strong supporter of #gamergate and #notyourshield.<br></blockquote><br>AAAAHHHH!H!!H!!H!H!1111!!11 SCARY BLACK GUY!!!!1!! What, are you trying to trigger me?!?!<br><br>Good stuff, thanks for the links. <br><br>Of course, he's just a self hating misogynist, and also a race traitor, clearly. Probably a gang-banger who robs liquor stores and beats women too. <br><br>(There, saved some folks the trouble of having to actually type their feelings - you're welcome!)<br><br>I also love the examples of thoughtful, clearly reasoned Tweets from anti-GG folks he uses in the second video. Man, Will, you're right - GG has the monopoly on violence and threats - sorry I ever doubted you.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Warboss Squee</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 03:25:00 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
It's never been that #GG has had the majority of hate and vitriol that's been spewed into this nonsense, it's that it's only wrong <b><i>when they do it!</i></b> That's the message we should take by them only focusing on one side of things. The people against #GG, are only doing what's right when they do things that they condemn others for, right?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 03:50:18 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Warboss Squee;794692</cite>If everyone is special, than no one is? What a load of crap.</blockquote><br>As I said before Will really needs to get his head out of his own ass. Seriously he drank the kool-aid and is part of the social justice cult.<br><br><b>Edit:</b> I also love how Will completely fucking ignores that the gaming community at large is still inclusive and welcoming to those that want to join. The reason it feels like it is exclusive these days is because well we have a entire media of social justice assholes to thank for that. The old games that feature strong powerful women are still being made. Newer strong powerful women are being made. Those women who used to be just damsels are becoming more powerful strong women long before the social justice movement even step into gaming. You just never hear it from the media because they are too busy shoving a political agenda down peoples' throats and making money off on click bait.<br><br>Then again I can't blame Will entirely because at one time I used to be the same fool who bought into the lies of the gaming media. Hell I could had been a social justice warrior if it was not for the fact Anita attacked LEGOs. That made me question things and so I went to other side to get their view points. I look at both sides of the story and give it a fair valuation. Well lets just say I became skeptical about the true goals of Anita so I tried to warn David A. Hill because you know that is how people should react. If there is a scam artist you want to inform people so they don't get scam. Fucker threw me under the bus and let the social justice warrior mob dog pile me.<br><br>From there my journey to a actual thinking human being began.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 04:02:57 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Warboss Squee;794692</cite>If everyone is special, than no one is? What a load of crap.</blockquote><br>Uh, that would be the stance of folks rejecting the inclusion of others into 'their' culture.<br><br>That 'gamer' should be some super sekrit club.<br><br>I'm one of the folks saying hey, EVERYONE should get rocket packs and let's not be jerks about it, if we're going to extend the metaphor.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Premier</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 04:10:39 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794650</cite>I DO care about people terrorizing other people, and then slacktivists wringing their hands about how they are NOT WITH THOSE GUYS but happily riding on the shit-bags' coat-tails because actually going out and trying to drum up support under a different flag would be, like, hard and junk.</blockquote><br>Tell me, do you extend the same care to those cases when it was anti-GG people who have threatened pro-GG individuals, harassed them, sent them knives in the mail, and publically posted their addresses? Or do they get a free pass from you, because hey, the Good Guys don't have to play by the rules of common decency? And what about the anti-GG people who <i>weren't even wringing their hands about how they are not with those guys</i>, but simply cheered on when it happened?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Warboss Squee</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 04:19:23 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Premier;794708</cite>Tell me, do you extend the same care to those cases when it was anti-GG people who have threatened pro-GG individuals, harassed them, sent them knives in the mail, and publically posted their addresses? Or do they get a free pass from you, because hey, the Good Guys don't have to play by the rules of common decency? And what about the anti-GG people who <i>weren't even wringing their hands about how they are not with those guys</i>, but simply cheered on when it happened?</blockquote><br>He's been avoiding that.<br><br>He does a fantastic impression of an ostrich, I have to give him that.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 04:57:47 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
KingOfPol (pro-GG) got doxxed yesterday, threats were sent, had a suicide threat called in, and had the fire dept respond to his home to a 9/11 call. Yes, somebody sent police and firefighter units to his house, when there was no emergency; which means they were not available to respond to other calls, literally putting people's <i>actual</i> lives in jeopardy, over an internet slap-fight.<br><br>http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/000/855/516/fa3.png (http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/000/855/516/fa3.png)<br><br>I'll wait here patiently to hear anyone anti-GG denounce these attacks, and for the NYT, WP, and MSNBC to run a story. Any time now...any time?<br><br>EDIT: Also, an info-graphic, showing "all the negative tweets to the three women (& Leigh Alexander) at the center of the GamerGate controversy!"<br>(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/855/723/ebb.png)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Haffrung</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 05:05:08 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794707</cite>Uh, that would be the stance of folks rejecting the inclusion of others into 'their' culture.<br><br></blockquote><br>There is no gaming culture. There are several gaming sub-cultures, some of which have more assholes than others. And dwarfing all those sub-cultures put together are people who just play games. Like my wife playing Angry Birds. And my kids playing Minecraft. And by buddy playing Skyrim. They are no more part of a 'gaming culture' than they are part of 'eating pizza culture' or 'riding bicycles' culture. They have never read a video game review, never played a game online, and have no clue what gamergate is. And there are tens of millions of people just like them who buy and play videogames.<br><br>What in the fuck is it about self-professed gamers - tabletop RPG, boardgamers, videogamers - that makes some of them so obsessed about communities and culture? They're just games. Play games you like. Let other people play games they like. Stop fighting over virtual turf like the last generation on Easter Island.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 05:24:40 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;794636</cite>I watched Sarkeesian's video on violence vs. women in games, and IIRC her two main points were:<br><br>- violence vs. women is more often sexualized than violence vs. men<br>- <i>proportionate to their depiction as strong characters</i>, women are more often helpless victims of violence than men are<br><br>I'm not a huge videogamer, but I've played enough that these claims seemed reasonable and didn't trigger my BS-meter. I don't recall Sarkeesian claiming that violence vs. women was more widespread than violence vs. men, quantitatively-speaking. The AEI woman's counter-argument is akin to protesting the "male gaze" concept in feminist film theory by pointing out that many films have female protagonists (i.e. total failure to grasp the point).<br><br><br>As I said before, I haven't followed the fallout. I don't do Twitter. I did watch a few of the (very angry) rebuttals to Sarkeesian's videos because they appear in the "related videos" sidebar on YouTube. Those, plus the 4chan connection, convinced me that following Gamergate would be a waste of time and would probably make me stupider.</blockquote><br>I get her point regarding the sexualization and helpless victim tropes. I don't necessarily think these tropes need to disappear; IMO, they make for good devices and there's no reason we can't see men used in these tropes too, and why we can't see more diverse tropes. <br><br>However, I've been reading her transcripts, and while you're correct that she speaks of violence in the context of sexualization and/or helplessness, she also stretches the connection between sexualization and violence in order to make her point regarding player driven violence against women in sandbox game situations. Most of the mentions I've seen of "cherry picking" have been in regards to these games. <br><br>Take this portion of her transcript from this link: http://www.feministfrequency.com/2014/06/women-as-background-decoration-tropes-vs-women/<br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>This is especially sad because interactive media has the potential to be a perfect medium to genuinely explore sex and sexuality. But that’s not what’s happening here. These interactions set up a transactional relationship in which women are reduced to a base sexual function. It frames female sexuality as something that belongs to others, rather than as something women enjoy for themselves. I’d argue that none of this is really about sex at all, certainly nothing resembling authentic consensual intimacy; publishers and developers are instead selling a particular fantasy about male power centered on the control of women.<br><br>Of course, we can’t really talk about sexual objectification without also addressing the issue of violence against women, since the two are intimately connected. Once a person is reduced to the status of objecthood, violence against that object becomes intrinsically permitted.<br><br>In many open world or sandbox style games, developers construct their virtual worlds in such a way as to enable players to directly abuse non-playable sex objects.<br><br>This ability to violate the bodily integrity of eroticized women for fun highlights two other insidious aspects of objectification, those being violability and disposability.<br><br>Violability occurs when, as Nussbaum points out, “The objectifier treats the object as lacking in boundary-integrity, as something that it is permissible to break up, smash, break into.”<br><br>Players are often permitted to knock out, pick up, carry and throw around inert female bodies. And depending on the game series, the programmed options for interaction can include assault, mutilation, murder…</blockquote><br>In particular, this line is telling for me: "Once a person is reduced to the status of objecthood, violence against that object becomes intrinsically permitted." Is she trying to demonstrate causation when linking sexualization to violence? That's certainly how the whole paragraph comes accross to me, so the natural counter argument is indeed to point out that male characters are disproportionately the recipients of violence, so there's probably not any causation link between the sexualization and the violence against the female characters [edit: since the male characters are not being sexualized]. The more likely case is that sexualization is incidental to the violence and vice versa-- at least in these sandbox games she is referencing. <br><br>I hope I didn't miss any of your actual points.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 05:41:33 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
(http://i.imgur.com/9m2cPMf.jpg)<br><br>(http://pixcdn.posterrevolution.com/pr/4/646073f.jpg)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Premier</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 05:46:16 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Re. image below: Interesting, but is there an actual reliable source to that? Like, a link to the study with the numbers. Just to prove that the image isn't bullshit.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;794716</cite>EDIT: Also, an info-graphic, showing "all the negative tweets to the three women (& Leigh Alexander) at the center of the GamerGate controversy!"<br>(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/855/723/ebb.png)</blockquote>
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 05:48:47 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Haffrung;794718</cite>What in the fuck is it about self-professed gamers - tabletop RPG, boardgamers, videogamers - that makes some of them so obsessed about communities and culture? They're just games. Play games you like. Let other people play games they like. Stop fighting over virtual turf like the last generation on Easter Island.</blockquote><br>Well, for what it's worth, I agree. I mean, that's part of why Death of a Gamer is true (though perhaps in a different way than the authors intended).<br><br>But there are folks who INSIST on territorial battles. That some gaming isn't 'real' gaming.<br><br>I disagree with Sarkeesian (and radical feminists in general) over the causation of sexism and violence in videogames -- I don't think videogames are that important a prime cause, and if anything is reflective of culture and attitudes WAY more than drives any.<br><br>I live very close to the latest US school shooting. I don't blame sexism, gun culture, conservative culture, I blame someone being a crazy shithead (and some parents with way too little sense).<br>Violence and crime in this country have been going down for 20 years, even counting in 'mass shootings,' and mass shootings are rare and don't map well to anything in particular.<br>I don't LIKE guns and gun culture, and I wouldn't mind seeing more gun control... but I'm not going to ignore the facts (however some of you might typecast me out of your reflexive stupid tribalism HOOT HOOT (chest beat))<br><br>My problems with trends in gaming (and, more importantly to _me_, tabletop gaming) is the effect it has on folks who aren't straight white guys, and the feedback which causes some gamers to close ranks and act like tribal shitheads to folks not in the right tribe.<br><br>I loathe tribalism.<br><br>Novastar: If it matters (since I don't see myself in a Anti-GG Club, and I don't run a major media agency), I condemn people doxxing and calling police and otherwise terrorizing one another as 'vigilantes' or culture warriors or whatever stupid fucking stuff is going on in their head.<br><br>With the sole exception, maybe, of someone getting information on a harasser and forwarding that information to police.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 05:54:46 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;794690</cite>This man is a strong supporter of #gamergate and #notyourshield.<br><br>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2KePdPrKss&list=UUU64AfivgQUOPuIJ8N5YaCA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2KePdPrKss&list=UUU64AfivgQUOPuIJ8N5YaCA)<br><br>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5ZoYSILbQ8&list=UUU64AfivgQUOPuIJ8N5YaCA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5ZoYSILbQ8&list=UUU64AfivgQUOPuIJ8N5YaCA)<br><br>The second video really paints the anti-gamergate people for who they really are.</blockquote><br>Some comments on his first video:<br><br><br>He really needs to stop repeating that LW got ahead from sleeping around...there's no evidence for that. Sigh. <br><br>Also, the Kotaku article on the Hong Kong protests and Resident Evil seems inane enough, if vapid. <br><br>http://kotaku.com/hong-kong-protests-draw-resident-evil-comparisons-1641123086<br><br>I don't get his whole "women and minorities" thing in response to that woman saying that "plenty of women and minorities are stupid enough to join". Seems to me like it's nothing more a personal attack. <br><br>Now, He's right about the nerd shaming. And all he said of Leigh Alexander is ON POINT and that asshole needs to go:<br><br>http://i.imgur.com/eNvSPhE.png<br>http://theralphretort.com/wp-content/uploads/RkVO0kO1.jpg<br>https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bx_1TS_IMAAkHxe.jpg<br><br>Here's Leigh again, this hero of anti-gg, women gamers and feminism, engaging in doxxing:<br><br>http://theralphretort.com/wp-content/uploads/EVIDENCEFIX.jpg<br><br>Oh, and she's classist too:<br><br>http://theralphretort.com/wp-content/uploads/EVIDENCE11.jpg<br><br>And just generally a bitter, hateful person:<br><br>http://i.imgur.com/reJQEqF.png<br><br>Of course, this is really what the Outrage Brigade posing is about. "Punch up, not down" bullshit:<br><br>https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bypbd3ZCMAEOesI.png<br><br>This kind of shit is what will set back real social justice. <br><br>Someone here better withdraw his support for anti-gg. <br><br><br>By the way, the petition the youtuber mentions has to be a troll or satire, though. Doesn't deserve a mention in the vid, IMO:<br><br>https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/ban-video-games-and-gamergate-and-their-hate-campaign/7cZ1V44R<br><br>But, it did lead me to this petition below. If I was a member of the Outrage Brigade, though, I'd sign this one in a heartbeat:<br><br>https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/replace-sensible-logic-feelings/fLjzhcbs
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 06:41:18 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Premier;794726</cite>Re. image below: Interesting, but is there an actual reliable source to that? Like, a link to the study with the numbers. Just to prove that the image isn't bullshit.</blockquote>An analysis based upon Newsweek's article, IIRC (there's a number now making the rounds, because it was incredibly shoddy):<br>https://medium.com/@cainejw/an-actual-statistical-analysis-of-gamergate-dfd809858f68 (https://medium.com/@cainejw/an-actual-statistical-analysis-of-gamergate-dfd809858f68)<br>https://medium.com/@mousetick/lies-damn-lies-and-gamergate-statistics-ed322dfc992f (https://medium.com/@mousetick/lies-damn-lies-and-gamergate-statistics-ed322dfc992f)<br><br>EDIT: having to put up two other articles, cause I cannot find the original, at the moment.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>JRT</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 06:59:59 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Actually, there was a recently analysis of 72 hours of tweets here that was pretty insightful.<br><br>https://medium.com/message/72-hours-of-gamergate-e00513f7cf5d
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 07:05:05 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794721</cite>I get her point regarding the sexualization and helpless victim tropes. I don't necessarily think these tropes need to disappear; IMO, they make for good devices and there's no reason we can't see men used in these tropes too.</blockquote><br>Men in these roles - well men can certainly be in sexualised roles, and often are in female-oriented fiction, eg <i>Twilight</i>. But the helpless victim trope doesn't work the same way psychologically. Basically, the male (esp the adolescent male) wants to rescue the helpless damsel and have sex with her, but the female brain doesn't work that way. But what I found did work running a d20 Conan game for female players was youthful male sidekicks to their butt-kicking heroines; male Gabrielles to their Xenas, or Robins to their female Batmans. The plucky sidekicks were brave, and reasonably competent - but not as competent as the PCs. The players absolutely loved this, loved eg rescuing them from the pirates, whereas completely ineffectual male characters would not have worked at all.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 08:31:24 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: JRT;794740</cite>Actually, there was a recently analysis of 72 hours of tweets here that was pretty insightful.<br><br>https://medium.com/message/72-hours-of-gamergate-e00513f7cf5d</blockquote>Ok, never heard of "sea lioning" before.<br>And having just read the comic: the sea lion may be annoying, but it could be an honest participant in discourse. The two people? The two people are just <b>dicks</b>.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Out of 316,669 total tweets, 217,384 of them (about 69%) were retweets. The remaining 99,285 (31%) were original tweets— 46,826 weren’t directed to anyone, 39,622 replied directly to another user, and 12,837 publicly mentioned one or more users. In total, 38,630 user accounts posted to the two hashtags in those three days. Excluding retweets, that number drops down to 17,410 users.</blockquote>Ok, how does that breakdown compared to normal Twitter usage? ...doesn't say.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Roughly 25% of all Gamergate activity is coming from accounts created in the last two months. To be clear, I’m not suggesting these accounts are bots or sockpuppets — one person controlling multiple accounts — but simply that these accounts are new to Twitter.</blockquote>Dude, own your insinuations. I'll say it: both sides have a suspicious number of sockpuppet and bots on Twitter. "StopGamerGate2014" was trending off the ISIS page, for a day. There are services that will "sell" you a Twitter account, with followers already attached. This isn't new. It's just happening a lot in GamerGate (and not all are malicious; some people got pushed into Twitter when the Gaming Forums wouldn't allow discussion on their Boards without censoring/deleting/banning threads/users; some people have made accounts just for talking about GamerGate, worried about getting doxxed on their normal account.)<br><br>Wait...you're comparing GamerGate to KashmirFloods? Why?<br>KashmirFloods has received nearly 100,000 tweets over 4.5 <b>years</b>; GamerGate has gotten 2,800,000 tweets over 2 <b>months</b>.<br><br>Maybe I should point out that Kashimir Floods jumped from @500 tweets to nearly 2,800 tweets after the floods? I don't think it surprises anyone, that events tends to generate interest (and yes, Streisand Effect does create bubbles).<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Gamergate supporters use the #gamergate hashtag more often.</blockquote>Really. Supporters use the hashtag that symbolizes their cause, more than the people they criticize. Amazing. I'm glad you're here to tell me these things. :rolleyes:<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Newsweek interpreted this to mean the tweets were neither positive or negative, but I’m fairly sure Brandwatch simply meant they couldn’t make an automated determination for 90% of tweets — sentiment analysis using less than 140 characters can be challenging.</blockquote>Oh, good, he acknowledges there may be difficulties in analyzing a large and diverse group of tweets into a meaningful data set...<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Digging into the actual text by hand, it’s clear that these tweets are anything but neutral.</blockquote>...or not.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>In my three-day sample, there were 1,171 tweets that mentioned Anita Sarkeesian’s Twitter username, 485 for Brianna Wu, and 338 for Zoe Quinn. I put the text of all of those tweets, without user information, in this spreadsheet so you can see for yourself. Roughly 90–95% take a clear side either in favor or against Gamergate. A quick manual classification of a sample shows the numbers to be closer to 75% negative, 15% positive, and 10% neutral or undetermined, very far from Newsweek’s automated attempt.</blockquote>Ok, out of 316,669 tweets over three days, you cherry-picked out the 1,994 tweets about these three controversial individuals. You then reclassified them positive/negative/undetermined based upon, what exactly?<br><br>Info-graphic on "sides of GamerGate" (https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/2000/1*V-pJ0zdxNKAwpJE2Yed37g.png)<br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>While there are hundreds of small communities represented by this visualization, it’s clear they group into two major groups: on the left, pro-Gamergate. On the right, anti-Gamergate. In the middle, a handful of controversial people engaging both sides.</blockquote>Yes, amazing. Just like any other debate, really. At least the picture is pretty. And highlights something else:<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>And on the margins, a constellation of isolated people unrelated and disengaged.</blockquote>That would be the bots, and the sockpuppets, actually.<br><br>Reproducitivity?<br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Originally, I was hosting complete downloads of the data here for anyone to play with, make their own visualizations, or simply fact-check my work.<br><br>Unfortunately, as it turns out, distributing the contents and metadata surrounding tweets is a violation of section 6b of Twitter’s Developer Policy. Twitter politely asked me to remove the downloads without sending lawyers, and I very much appreciate that approach.<br><br>My guess? This policy exists to protect the privacy of their users. Any downloadable dataset could include information that was subsequently deleted or made private by its owners, or removed by Twitter.<br><br>Pursuant to their guidelines, I’ve replaced the original dataset with a much more limited one, containing only the tweet ID and user ID. You can download it here (9 MB CSV).<br><br>I know this is far from ideal, but you can use this information to reconstruct the original dataset by using Twitter’s statuses/lookup API method, 100 tweets at a time. With their API rate limits, you should be able to grab up to 10,800 tweets an hour. Reconstructing the entire dataset would take around 29 hours.<br><br>Sorry, everyone.</blockquote>So, unless you've got 29 hours of spare time to refute me, take my word on it.<br><br>EDIT: I also forgot an important point: a "negative tweet", does not in any way mean that the tweet is engaged in misogynistic or harassing behavior. "I don't like your shoes." is a negative statement, but not a misogynistic or harassing one.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 08:33:44 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;794618</cite>Good analysis, although I think the SJW-dominated media were/are genuinely angered by the pushback, which they are not used to seeing. I definitely agree that the SJW counter attack is primarily aimed at the "nice, popular people like Felicia Day and Wil Wheaton" (and Joss Whedon) - people with left-liberal views who can easily be manipulated by the SJW just as the SJW & their forebears have been doing at least since the 1960s. Cultural Marxism is all about 'controlling the narrative' through 'liberating tolerance' - which means suppression of counter-narratives. They have a problem with the Internet because it allows counter-narratives to spring up and spread outside of their control. But "nice, popular people" still rely on the 'commanding heights' of the trusted mainstream media for their opinions. As long as you control the mainstream media you can control their views, within the acceptable range of opinion - the Overton window - and the window can be moved over time in your preferred direction.</blockquote><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;794620</cite>I am making this exact point to the regulars at the GamersGate YT channel, the women at Honey Badger Radio, and in the comments for Sargon of Akkad (so far) as they are good for pro-GG discussion and commentary.<br><br>Let's see if they notice in the weeks to come.</blockquote><br>Which again is why they were so flummoxed by the death threats in Utah; this side is used to a debate in which everyone is reading off of their script. It doesn't occur to them that other people either can't be reasoned with (in the case of the trolls) or that they know their reasoning and disagree with it (in the case of the serious pro-GG people).<br><br>But that's another problem with the Left in general, being that their opponents often know their methodology better than they do. Why do you think your average right-wing talk show host knows more about <i>Rules for Radicals</i> than the average Occupy protestor?<br><br>JG
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Herr Arnulfe</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 11:14:27 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794721</cite>In particular, this line is telling for me: "Once a person is reduced to the status of objecthood, violence against that object becomes intrinsically permitted." Is she trying to demonstrate causation when linking sexualization to violence? That's certainly how the whole paragraph comes accross to me, so the natural counter argument is indeed to point out that male characters are disproportionately the recipients of violence, so there's probably not any causation link between the sexualization and the violence against the female characters [edit: since the male characters are not being sexualized]. The more likely case is that sexualization is incidental to the violence and vice versa-- at least in these sandbox games she is referencing. <br><br>I hope I didn't miss any of your actual points.</blockquote>The part about "inert female objects" presumably refers to things like e.g. taking your NPC follower's clothes away in Skyrim, or arranging corpses in sexual positions (both of which I've done admittedly for novelty value after discovering the game allowed it). In that context, I suppose gender is irrelevant assuming both male and female NPC bodies can be manipulated equally, but the majority of Sarkeesian's arguments around violence vs. women are in relation to actual gameplay. The AEI video didn't seem to be talking about inert object manipulation either. I agree that Sarkeesian fixates on inert female objects with the assumption that they receive the majority of abuse, when that might not actually be the case in reality - you'd have to conduct gameplay observation studies with large numbers of subjects to determine what sorts of side activities are most popular.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 28, 2014, 11:51:09 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794679</cite>http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/opinion/anita-sarkeesian-on-video-games-great-future.html?_r=0<br><br>'Death of the gamer' isn't a negative thing. It's a positive thing. When everyone is a gamer, the term loses it's significance. </blockquote><br>The fact you cant recognize that article as hate speech directed at a stereotypical generalization that has nothing to do with reality bothers me. That was kind of what NYS was all about: showing that the "gamers" in question are nothing to do with the stereotype being put forth. Youu misewell be saying "when everyone is a N*****, the term loses its signifigance". No , the term stops being derrogatory when people stop assuming that the media portrait of what a gamer is is shown for the prejudiced BS that it is. <br><br>If you think this is "straight white males" vs "feminists" then you've grossly misread the situation.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 12:22:00 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Wow first fucking paragraph of that link that Will gave out is a fucking lie. Anita in the video she got caught in flat out stated she never played games nor cared much for them. I cannot believe she is still holding onto that lie when she knows people are not buying it.<br><br>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 01:28:44 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794707</cite>Uh, that would be the stance of folks rejecting the inclusion of others into 'their' culture.<br><br>That 'gamer' should be some super sekrit club.</blockquote><br>I've literally never heard or seen that view expressed by anyone who identifies as a gamer. No idea where you get some of this stuff from.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Warboss Squee</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 03:07:17 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;794789</cite>Wow first fucking paragraph of that link that Will gave out is a fucking lie. Anita in the video she got caught in flat out stated she never played games nor cared much for them. I cannot believe she is still holding onto that lie when she knows people are not buying it.<br><br>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw)</blockquote><br>Tell a lie enough, and people will treat it as gospel. That's the entire basis of those on the antiGG side.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 06:20:40 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: James Gillen;794756</cite>But that's another problem with the Left in general, being that their opponents often know their methodology better than they do. </blockquote><br>I think that is a recent phenomenon, post-2000. Partly it is because cultural Marxism, the SJW ideology, has been hegemonic for so long, it has tended to ossify, many of its adherents are a lot lazier now than when they were a genuine insurgency in the 1950s through early 1960s. Partly its opponents have had time to read and understand its literature. <br><br>The most useful book I read to understand the tactics was "Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate" (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dont-Think-Elephant-Values-Debate/dp/1931498717), which is a simply written book aimed at the US Left, instructing them on how to control The Narrative. There is a lot of hilarious stuff about how cunning Republicans are doing this stuff, so we simple good-hearted Democrats need to learn how to do it too... :D<br><br>It's very good at explaining 'Framing' where you get the other side to react on your terms. In GamerGate the SJW posit a Misogyny frame. The expectation is that the other side accept the Frame, putting the debate on your terms, where you are bound to win. This usually works, since most opposition don't understand Framing, apply classical-Liberal thinking, and think that they are engaging in a good-faith debate where the aim is to persuade the other side of the rightness of your position and correct any errors - "No, we Republicans aren't racist..." - Lakoff explains that once the Republican accepts the posited Frame, the Democrats have already won.<br><br>But the pro-GamerGaters have refused to accept the posited Frame (and have stuck to their own Frame re journalistic corruption), hence the frothing rage from the SJW-media.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Observations on #gamergate</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>BenTheFerg</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 06:53:58 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Have been reading about #gamergate for sometime now trying to get a handle on it, work out what on earth is going on, where did it start... what is it truly about? Etc<br><br>Here are 2 initial observations (as an outsider/ newb to this debate) - from reading through approx. 50% of the material on this thread, as well as other threads and sources......<br><br><br><ul class="bbc_list" style="list-style-type: decimal;"><li type="disc"><b>For many gamers who post on the matter, they claim that the main issue is the lack of ethics in gaming journalism.</b><br></li><li type="disc"><b>That these unethical journalists are also 'social justice warriors' who are trying to force their extreme left wing ideology down gamers' throats and try and ruin the hobby.</b><br></li></ul>I would like to deconstruct this if I may<br><br><b>1) Lack of ethics in journalism</b>.<br>The claim is that the Quinn case illustrates a deeper malaise within gaming reviewing/ critiquing – that gaming journos are too close to the hand that feeds them<br><br>This is a contentious point. The Quinn case aside (her 'unethical' relationship happened after her reviews), firstly it is often bandied around as a fact – with anecdotal examples given. To my knowledge it is tough being a journalist today and getting a 'gig' in our 24/7 news culture, with 'citizen journalists', bloggers.....finding work and paying work in this field is increasingly problematic. The money in journalism is in writing about the money markets not gaming! Surely this is a job which attracts people who love games and are prepared to work long hours.<br>Obviously journalists will interact with publishers – this is the nature of their job – getting exclusives/ early access....which can muddy the waters.....but the skill in the job lies in the ability of the journalist to critically appraise the game – whilst also loving their job since they love games..... Thus there is always going to be a certain level of subjectivity in this.<br><br>All of these issues are non-exclusive to gaming reviewers – you get the same issues say in film reviewers as well. I am sure like me you prefer some reviewers over others. Their style of writing, their prejudices chime with yours, you know they will always rate a fantasy film/ game lower than horror so you factor that in to their review....<br><br><b>2) That these unethical journalists are also 'social justice warriors' who are trying to force their extreme left wing ideology down gamers' throats and try and ruin the hobby</b><br><br>Even let's assume that game reviewers are extremely left wing and are also out to ruin your games...... let us not forget that the gaming industry is a global, multi-billion dollar behemoth, fuelled by profiting and cash, not by ideological dogma. There has been no social justice revolution. Just as feminist film criticism failed to radically change Hollywood, so too will feminist gaming theory fail to revolutionise the gaming industry. Folks don't seem to have a perspective on this!<br><br>Which brings me to some other observations:<br><br><b>3. There is so much hate and anger online – against everyone – but especially against women.</b><br><br>It seems so normal that most posters on forums who have the temerity to post ignore it/ are used to it. I am not saying everyone who posts is angry or abusive – but there plenty who do. Kudos to Will on this forum in particular for giving this his best shot for what must have been hours of his life! Here is my contribution - for what it is worth!<br><br>Feminist theories of cinema emerge in the mid-70s with ideas such as L. Mulvey's 'the male gaze' in 1975. That is nearly 40 years ago people. 40 years. What I find shocking is that such ideas have not seemingly made the migration to analysis of gaming until recently. Yes, there have been discussions about sexism in gaming waaaaay back in the 1980s in White Dwarf magazine's heyday (when it was an rpg magazine) about the ethics of women exclusively clad in titillating costumes, eg chain-mail bikinis.<br><br>Thus when Sarkeesian produces her videos (for which she raised money for legitimately online via a KS) she is derided and subjected to hate, verbal abuse, death and rape threats – by libertarians/ those posing as such.... (always find this curious – surely libertarians like freedom of speech?). She was criticised for not producing enough evidence (I guess her critics wanted to watch a longer video (since I am sure they watched each in their entirety)), not producing a video up to the standards used in academia (as if this was the purpose of the video!).....One guy produced an online game in which you beat up Sarkeesian. Rape art was circulated online as well. She and others have been 'doxxed' having their personal identities, address etc posted online leading to threats for their safety in general and having to leave their homes......Moreover other so-called hacktivists DDOSed her KS account, to crash it and try and stop her gaining success from her Tropes v Women videos.<br>What is interesting – from an outsider's viewpoint – is that these acts hardly caused a pause/ a rethink from those gamers who claimed to be worried about ethics in journalism. Some posters claimed her death threats weren't real and she was using the situation to get more air-time and sympathy for her cause. (Maybe in the US death threats are so normal, such a daily occurrence that it is like water off a duck's back....thus Sarkeesian is simply a wimp and needs to 'man up'? ;) <br><br>Other female gamers / celebrities have been loath to speak out in case they too are doxxed. Felicia Day's public details were put online after she described her #gamergate fears. She hadn't talked about #gamergate due to fears of being doxxed – and indeed she was, shortly after she spoke out. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/23/felicia-days-public-details-online-gamergate. <br><br>Which brings me to observation 4:<br><br><b>4. #gamergate is seemingly – for many - a Trojan Horse for angry men to vent their spleens.</b><br><br>Yeah. I said it.<br><br>J. Valenti says this better: <i>"Gamergate is loud, dangerous and a last grasp at cultural dominance by angry white men. The outrage isn't about 'ethics' or even really gaming. It's about harassing women to protest the movement for female equality" </i>http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/21/gamergate-angry-men-harassing-women<br><br>Sarkeesian is hardly saying radical stuff. These ideas, that historically societies have been male dominated (patriarchal to use the lingo) is surely an accepted fact. That in the context of living in a patriarchal society, women were encouraged via socialisation and social control (through rewards for good feminine behaviour and punishments for bad) to accept their place. We see this all around the world. It is easier to see this in developing countries: dowry beatings/ murder; stoning raped women to death for 'adultery'; the ancient Indian custom of suttee (women were encouraged to place themselves on their dead husband's funeral pyre, bringing country and western lyrics more poignancy when singing 'stand (or is that lie?) by your man' ;)....... Female genital mutilation (circumcision).<br><br>But in my country (UK), gender inequalities are alive and well alas. It was not until 1991 that rape in marriage was criminalised. Until then this was lawful. Operation Sapphire, the specialist sex-crimes unit in the Metropolitan Police has come under severe criticism for its at best incompetence on dealing with sexual assault/ rape, and at worst, some of its officers seemingly colluding with rapists to enable them to continue raping.<br> <br><b>On gender inequalities in cultural production.</b><br>On a lighter tone, gender inequalities in the film industry, despite 40 years of criticism from so called 'social justice warriors' has failed. A recent report http://stephenfollows.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Gender_Within_Film_Crews-PRERELEASE_COPY1.pdf shows how over 75% of block-bluster film crews are male. Even in creative areas men were found to dominate. In the 2,000 films surveyed revealed that women accounted for only 13% of the editors, 10% of the writers and just 5% of the directors.<br><br><b>Gender representation in gaming</b><br>Zak S did a good piece on this within Warhammer – found here http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/gender-and-representation-in-warhammers.html?zx=6dbb8ddcd3b72544 <br>I don't really see how Sarkeesian's analysis differs from Zak's. Are women used as objectified 'decorations' in video games? Too often yes – and far more so than men. Feminists are not saying that naked/ chainmail bikini women depicted in gaming per se is wrong. It is rather that this is all we tend to get. That the range of representations of women is very limited. Tuchman developed a concept for analysing the media back in the late 70s: symbolic annihilation. I would argue the concept is alive and well. Women (and for that matter, ethnic minorities, the LGBT community, those with disabilities) in film, TV, graphic novels, art...... and gaming are subject to a process termed symbolic annihilation: they are under-represented in narratives and when they are present they are stereotyped. These are broad brush strokes. This is the general context of how women are depicted. Different producers/ writers will vary. You even got this in the recent Paizo product Wrath of the Righteous: the male incubi was downplayed whilst his oversexed female counterpart the succubus was over-represented later on in the adventure.<br><br><b>Why representation matters on a selfish level for all gamers.</b>Representations do matter. They define the typicality of the social group. They can reinforce stereotypes. They can put off stereotyped groups from gaming......which surely on purely a marketing angle is madness: to have more money thrown at game development, to have better quality art and music, to get the best script writers into gaming, the gaming industry needs more women for example to buy and play games. But to do this, we need more games which offer positive roles for women to play (as in the option to play a female pc like in Mass Effect, and not as in GTA) and narratives to be more complex, and offer female centred story-lines as well – or at least, as a starter, have these as options, as well as cutting out the lazy background sexism: women npcs are only there for a sex angle/ to be looked at etc etc. In reality, I don't see the very sexist games disappearing – far from it. Sexism (sadly) sells and once the world economy picks up, I expect more sexist products to sell since sexism is alive and well around the globe (alas). <br>But I do expect there to be a continued improvement in representation in roleplaying and video games. Thanks to the rise of the new media and digitization, new markets for female gamers are being opened up, and new female game writers are emerging. Likewise, industry heavy weights such as writers like Zak S, as well as powerful female movers and shakers such as Lisa Stevens at Paizo are pushing their creative talents and money in the right direction. Today, nearly half of the UK's video game players are women, and now they are designing and writing them too, including top sellers. Smart phones have enabled new indie companies to spring up to meet demand, such as Mitu Khandaker who runs her own indie development studio, Tiniest Shark.<br><br><b>To Conclude</b><br>I would certainly accept some online feminist writers will write clumsily, will be rude, will flame people.....will misunderstand feminism, misrepresent its ideas.....But this does not mean the central goal of feminism: for women to be treated as human beings and to be given the same opportunities in life as men – and not be judged on their gender, that this goal is therefore wrong. Moreover, if feminists get angry and seemingly 'lecture' people, this is hardly surprising given the CONTEXT of the issue: women face far more barriers to employment etc than men. #gamergate illustrates this clearly – with most of the hate and threats aimed at a small number of women.<br><br>Thus I have to conclude, in #gamergate<br><ul class="bbc_list"><li type="disc">There has been a lack of empathy for the women receiving death and rape threats</li><li type="disc">There has been a crude dismissal of feminist discourse and ideas as 'social justice warriors'</li><li type="disc">The focus is on attacking women/ SJWs in #gamergate and not on journalist ethics.</li></ul><br>Thus #gamergate is seemingly – for many - a Trojan Horse for angry men to vent their spleen<br><br>Which is a shame - since there is so much more to be gained by dialogue and listening IMHO. Sexism in gaming is so so obvious I don't see why this is still a debating point.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>BenTheFerg</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 07:54:05 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;794618</cite>Good analysis, although I think the SJW-dominated media were/are genuinely angered by the pushback, which they are not used to seeing. I definitely agree that the SJW counter attack is primarily aimed at the "nice, popular people like Felicia Day and Wil Wheaton" (and Joss Whedon) - people with left-liberal views who can easily be manipulated by the SJW just as the SJW & their forebears have been doing at least since the 1960s. Cultural Marxism is all about 'controlling the narrative' through 'liberating tolerance' - which means suppression of counter-narratives. They have a problem with the Internet because it allows counter-narratives to spring up and spread outside of their control. But "nice, popular people" still rely on the 'commanding heights' of the trusted mainstream media for their opinions. As long as you control the mainstream media you can control their views, within the acceptable range of opinion - the Overton window - and the window can be moved over time in your preferred direction.</blockquote><br>Hi S'mon<br><br>New to this board but have read a lot of your posts..... and since this is a public forum.... I will respond......<br><br>What I find extraordinary is how you have constructed a fantasy that 'Cultural Marxism' (whatever you mean by this) has been influential on Western Societies. That Joss Whedon et al are a sock-puppets of the aforesaid Cultural Marxism. Fascinating conspiracy theory material straight out from the McCarthy era of the mid-1950s.<br><br>For sure, Gramscian influenced analysis is alive and well at any decent university studying cultural studies and cultural production. I was not aware that it was so dangerous and that we had to be worried about its pernicious influence!<br><br>Moreover, also fascinating, it that you think mainstream/ what goes for 'normal' benefits all parties. That society is based on shared values and that by in large it works well for everyone. Everyone seems to be a winner. Those who challenge this 'fact' are to be seemingly smacked down' by you/ your allies on this site and accused of being a sock-puppet to Cultural Marxism (especially feminists!). For McCarthy, behind every uber-nationalist was a Communist. He was right on so many levels I imagine.<br><br>Can you not at least agree that there is a genuine debate to be had here, and that there is plenty of evidence that women are generally poorly represented in game narratives in video games? Why do you think Marxism is behind feminism? Why do you think Joss Whedon doesn't think – using his intellect and emotional intelligence – that it is more interesting to have new narratives in which, for example, women are empowered? What is wrong with female empowerment in games or film/ TV? Why on earth are you so angry about it?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>apparition13</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 07:55:42 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;794755</cite>Ok, out of 316,669 tweets over three days, you cherry-picked out the 1,994 tweets about these three controversial individuals. You then reclassified them positive/negative/undetermined based upon, what exactly?<br><br><br><br>See for yourself, he placed all 1994 of them in full on a googledocs spreadsheet here: [URL="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1O2KtuAOJycLvu_jT7gRr09tX4rBfn9UVnRVjU3VCftE/edit?pli=1#gid=792578227]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1O2KtuAOJycLvu_jT7gRr09tX4rBfn9UVnRVjU3VCftE/edit?pli=1#gid=792578227 (https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudf[/QUOTE)<br><br>From what I can see the Newsweek/Brandwatch analysis classified 90% of the tweets as undetermined in terms of sentiment analysis. Baio puts it at 75% negative, 15% positive, 10% negative, but they aren't measuring the same thing. Newsweek was looking for negative tweets directed at individual, i.e. harassment; Baio classified anything pro-GG as negative, <blockquote class="bbc_alternate_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Roughly 90–95% take a clear side either in favor or against Gamergate.</blockquote><br>You really should click through and judge for yourself. Looking at the actual data is always useful. Personally I think he's way off base classifying by partisanship; "yay GG" isn't the same as "you suck", and certainly not the same as a threat.</blockquote>
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>BenTheFerg</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 07:57:46 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;794824</cite>I think that is a recent phenomenon, post-2000. Partly it is because cultural Marxism, the SJW ideology, has been hegemonic for so long......But the pro-GamerGaters have refused to accept the posited Frame (and have stuck to their own Frame re journalistic corruption), hence the frothing rage from the SJW-media.</blockquote><br>Never knew Cultural Marxism was so influential over games and the cultural industries! Wow... can you name any games influenced by it?<br><br>& disagreement from feminists - to use your term' SJW' is 'frothing'! Fascinating!<br><br>Better get back to work!
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>apparition13</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 08:34:21 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: BenTheFerg;794837</cite>Hi S'mon</blockquote>Not S'mon, but hi, interesting choice for a first post.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>What I find extraordinary is how you have constructed a fantasy that ‘Cultural Marxism’ (whatever you mean by this) has been influential on Western Societies. That Joss Whedon et al are a sock-puppets of the aforesaid Cultural Marxism. Fascinating conspiracy theory material straight out from the McCarthy era of the mid-1950s.</blockquote>Translation: you're an idiot S'mon, and gosh, don't I sound sophisticated.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>For sure, Gramscian influenced analysis is alive and well at any decent university studying cultural studies and cultural production. I was not aware that it was so dangerous and that we had to be worried about its pernicious influence!</blockquote>Translation: You're <i>really </i>an idiot S'mon, and I'm not actually sophisticated, just really condescending. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Moreover, also fascinating, it that you think mainstream/ what goes for ‘normal’ benefits all parties. That society is based on shared values and that by in large it works well for everyone. Everyone seems to be a winner. Those who challenge this ‘fact’ are to be seemingly smacked down’ by you/ your allies on this site and accused of being a sock-puppet to Cultural Marxism (especially feminists!). For McCarthy, behind every uber-nationalist was a Communist. He was right on so many levels I imagine.</blockquote>Translation: you're also a paranoid, conspiracy nut, McCarthyite, S'mon. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Can you not at least agree that there is a genuine debate to be had here, and that there is plenty of evidence that women are generally poorly represented in game narratives in video games? Why do you think Marxism is behind feminism? Why do you think Joss Whedon doesn’t think – using his intellect and emotional intelligence – that it is more interesting to have new narratives in which, for example, women are empowered? What is wrong with female empowerment in games or film/ TV? Why on earth are you so angry about it?</blockquote>Translation: reasonable <i>sounding </i> questions, but of the "when did you stop beating your wife" trap variety. With a nice little souson of belittling PA at the end.<br><br>Verdict: Troll. Self-satisfied, self-aggrandizing, condescending, troll. Nicely designed bit of trolling though; mean-spirited but passive aggressive, reasonable sounding but vacuous of anything but intent to rile, aimed at everyone but straight from the bully's handbook only picking on only one person. I'd give it a B, but it isn't well enough disguised, so F.<br><br>Enjoy your time on the board BenTheFerg. I've certainly enjoyed 'deconstructing' your post. It was a nice way to spend the time while having a little bout of insomnia, though worthless beyond that. Let's see if I can get back to sleep, eh? I suspect I'll add more value to the planet asleep than you will at work.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 09:02:21 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: BenTheFerg;794830</cite>(Maybe in the US death threats are so normal, such a daily occurrence that it is like water off a duck's back....thus Sarkeesian is simply a wimp and needs to 'man up'? ;) </blockquote><br>Anonymous threats seem to be very common; credible threats are much rarer. Pro-GamerGaters and Anti-GamerGaters seem to both get them. While it's possible that Sarkeesian was lying, it seems far more likely that she got the same sort of non-credible threat that pro-GamerGaters also routinely get. The SJW narrative is that all threats against them are credible and should be investigated while threats against their enemies are non-existent, non-credible, or their enemies deserve it anyway. <br><br>I do think women on both pro and anti side may be more likely to receive rape threats than men; though some of these threats come from other women.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 09:07:00 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: BenTheFerg;794837</cite>Hi S'mon<br><br>New to this board but have read a lot of your posts..... and since this is a public forum.... I will respond......<br><br>What I find extraordinary is how you have constructed a fantasy that 'Cultural Marxism' (whatever you mean by this) has been influential on Western Societies. That Joss Whedon et al are a sock-puppets of the aforesaid Cultural Marxism. Fascinating conspiracy theory material straight out from the McCarthy era of the mid-1950s.<br><br>For sure, Gramscian influenced analysis is alive and well at any decent university studying cultural studies and cultural production. I was not aware that it was so dangerous and that we had to be worried about its pernicious influence!<br><br>Moreover, also fascinating, it that you think mainstream/ what goes for 'normal' benefits all parties. That society is based on shared values and that by in large it works well for everyone. Everyone seems to be a winner. Those who challenge this 'fact' are to be seemingly smacked down' by you/ your allies on this site and accused of being a sock-puppet to Cultural Marxism (especially feminists!). For McCarthy, behind every uber-nationalist was a Communist. He was right on so many levels I imagine.<br><br>Can you not at least agree that there is a genuine debate to be had here, and that there is plenty of evidence that women are generally poorly represented in game narratives in video games? Why do you think Marxism is behind feminism? Why do you think Joss Whedon doesn't think – using his intellect and emotional intelligence – that it is more interesting to have new narratives in which, for example, women are empowered? What is wrong with female empowerment in games or film/ TV? Why on earth are you so angry about it?</blockquote><br>You may have slightly misread my post. I think Joss Whedon is a "nice left-liberal", not a cultural Marxist or cultural Marxist sock puppet. FWIW I enjoy Joss Whedon's work as much as the next nerd. I particularly enjoyed some of his dialogue in the Avengers movie recently, although the female character didn't get much of it; Iron Man & Captain America got the best lines.<br><br>BTW you do a good job 'Framing the Debate', kudos. :D
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>BenTheFerg</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 09:07:59 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;794846</cite>Not S'mon, but hi, interesting choice for a first post.<br><br>.......Enjoy your time on the board BenTheFerg. I've certainly enjoyed 'deconstructing' your post. It was a nice way to spend the time while having a little bout of insomnia, though worthless beyond that. Let's see if I can get back to sleep, eh? I suspect I'll add more value to the planet asleep than you will at work.</blockquote><br>good to have a debate where there is genuine attempt at argument. The only troll seems to be you. Not surprised by this.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 09:12:19 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: BenTheFerg;794837</cite>Moreover, also fascinating, it that you think mainstream/ what goes for 'normal' benefits all parties. </blockquote><br>I'm not sure how you could genuinely take that from anything I've written. My personal viewpoint is close to Benthamite Utilitarianism - Greatest Good of the Greatest Number, with 'Good' being 'human flourishing' or similar. I used to see things more in classical-Liberal individualist terms, but I have come round to thinking that social conservatives have a point that human flourishing is best accomplished in a well ordered society; something close to what Margaret Thatcher called 'ordered liberty'. Not tyranny of the majority, but not tyranny of the minority either. Minorities should be tolerated as far as possible but should not impose on the majority where that would lower net sum total wellbeing.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>One Horse Town</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 09:12:36 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Welcome BenTheFerg.<br><br>Please feel free to use the roleplaying section of the board.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>BenTheFerg</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 09:12:47 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;794855</cite>You may have slightly misread my post. I think Joss Whedon is a "nice left-liberal", not a cultural Marxist or cultural Marxist sock puppet. FWIW I enjoy Joss Whedon's work as much as the next nerd. I particularly enjoyed some of his dialogue in the Avengers movie recently, although the female character didn't get much of it; Iron Man & Captain America got the best lines.<br><br>BTW you do a good job 'Framing the Debate', kudos. :D</blockquote><br>Glad to hear it! It did read that way - but glad - despite us being polls apart on what constitutes anything going for 'reality' in the media - glad at least we can agree that Whedon's work is enjoyable and of value. & agreed on the Avengers! :D
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>BenTheFerg</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 09:17:21 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;794857</cite>I'm not sure how you could genuinely take that from anything I've written. My personal viewpoint is close to Benthamite Utilitarianism - Greatest Good of the Greatest Number, with 'Good' being 'human flourishing' or similar. I used to see things more in classical-Liberal individualist terms, but I have come round to thinking that social conservatives have a point that human flourishing is best accomplished in a well ordered society; something close to what Margaret Thatcher called 'ordered liberty'. Not tyranny of the majority, but not tyranny of the minority either. Minorities should be tolerated as far as possible but should not impose on the majority where that would lower net sum total wellbeing.</blockquote><br>The problem with utilitarian ethics is that is does not protect minorities well. The greatest happiness for the greatest number..... ideas of natural rights doesn't sit well in that philosophy. How does one live out the principles of the UN's Charter for Human Rights? How do societies deal with entrenched power groups who deny minorities access to resources/ justice etc etc? If we were all equal, and all rational, then I think Bentham's ideas would have greater credence. IMHO :D
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>BenTheFerg</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 09:18:43 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: One Horse Town;794858</cite>Welcome BenTheFerg.<br><br>Please feel free to use the roleplaying section of the board.</blockquote><br>Thanks. Time poor most of the time...... but will contribute/ etc where I can rather than simply lurking.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 09:35:35 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: BenTheFerg;794837</cite>Why do you think Marxism is behind feminism? </blockquote><br>First Wave Feminism predates cultural Marxism (which is a heresy of classical Marxism since it sees cultural as more important than economic relations), but first-wave Feminism was largely Fabian Socialist in origin. The Fabians themselves were also heavily influenced by Marx. The still-ongoing Fabian effort to reconstruct society is long merged with the Cultural Marxist effort in most respects, though there are some differences in emphasis they are pretty well compatible. In general c-M is more influential in the USA, Fabianism in the UK. Post-1960s Feminism has been more c-M than Fabian, and certainly the kind of dialectic used by Sarkeesian & co is c-M. There are still some other strands of Feminism which are not primarily c-M.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Warboss Squee</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 09:37:44 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Is this a troll or a really well programed bot?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>BenTheFerg</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 09:45:20 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Warboss Squee;794864</cite>Is this a troll or a really well programed bot?</blockquote><br>I assume you mean me since I am new. Sigh. I am a gamer. Of the old school variety. Been gaming since the early 1980s. Mainly rpgs but where time allows, video games and board games. Nice being dehumanised. Hope you feel better now.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 10:13:54 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: BenTheFerg;794866</cite>I assume you mean me since I am new. Sigh. I am a gamer. Of the old school variety. Been gaming since the early 1980s. Mainly rpgs but where time allows, video games and board games. Nice being dehumanised. Hope you feel better now.</blockquote><br>(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/55751244.jpg)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>BenTheFerg</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 10:19:12 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;794853</cite>Anonymous threats seem to be very common; credible threats are much rarer. Pro-GamerGaters and Anti-GamerGaters seem to both get them. While it's possible that Sarkeesian was lying, it seems far more likely that she got the same sort of non-credible threat that pro-GamerGaters also routinely get. The SJW narrative is that all threats against them are credible and should be investigated while threats against their enemies are non-existent, non-credible, or their enemies deserve it anyway.</blockquote><br>As far as I can see - from my reading of the media and examination of the material - and I admit I am not a police officer/ forensic data analyst - but as far as I can see, the threats to Sarkeesian have been very unpleasant. Not just the hate and misogynistic abuse and rape threats that male gamers just don't get....but add to that her doxxing, the hacking and DDOSing of her KS, the rape art about her, the online game in which you hit her.... within this context - something you guys ignore - death threats must feel even more scary and unpleasant. Using your language, FRAMING this ;) within a wider theoretical understanding of power inequalities and how power works, aides in understanding since this can't be seen in isolation. <br><br>What so called SJW/ liberal journalists have tried to point out is that such online bullying of those with a liberal view/ their dehumanisation (as I have just predictably experienced) makes the internet an unpleasant environment in which to communicate and share thoughts and ideas.<br><br>On a personal front, I want rpg/ gaming discussion forums to be troll free and a genuine place where people feel safe and able to share ideas. RPGNet after its banning of Zak S etc made me not want to post there.....but I was also aware that this forum <i>may </i>have a lot of anti-liberal 'libertarians'....who would troll any dissenting views. I guess I will see how this goes... but certainly I have not been impressed by the lack of empathy about online violence against women.<br><br>and I am not aware of any decent journalist/ cultural critic who thinks that threats of rape are a good thing. If there are people out there trying to justify it, no matter what their position on #gamergate or any other matter, they are a total asshole. I think anyone who does that should be shot down. It does concern me that this is not a big issue here on this forum. But what do I know? Being a bot.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>BenTheFerg</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 10:20:16 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794871</cite>(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/55751244.jpg)</blockquote><br>Thanks for the welcome!
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>BenTheFerg</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 10:27:30 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;794863</cite>First Wave Feminism predates cultural Marxism (which is a heresy of classical Marxism since it sees cultural as more important than economic relations), but first-wave Feminism was largely Fabian Socialist in origin. The Fabians themselves were also heavily influenced by Marx. The still-ongoing Fabian effort to reconstruct society is long merged with the Cultural Marxist effort in most respects, though there are some differences in emphasis they are pretty well compatible. In general c-M is more influential in the USA, Fabianism in the UK. Post-1960s Feminism has been more c-M than Fabian, and certainly the kind of dialectic used by Sarkeesian & co is c-M. There are still some other strands of Feminism which are not primarily c-M.</blockquote><br>I understand my ideologies. <br><br>But you claim that Cultural Marxism has some kind of hegemonic control .... in the US? Over whom? Games designers? Journalists? I really can't see any evidence for your argument!<br><br>Moreover, I can't agree with you that feminism = cultural Marxism. some feminism is clearly influenced (Marxist Feminism of the 1960s) but hell.... time has moved on..... we are now into 4th Wave Feminism. 3rd wave was sooooooo 1990s ;)<br><br>Primarily though - abstract discussions of is/ isn't feminism Marxism aside, I can't see any truth/ evidence to suggest feminists or Marxists are in any way influential in the US or UK! They are fighting (at best) a losing battle!
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 10:54:04 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: BenTheFerg;794874</cite>As far as I can see - from my reading of the media and examination of the material - and I admit I am not a police officer/ forensic data analyst - but as far as I can see, the threats to Sarkeesian have been very unpleasant. Not just the hate and misogynistic abuse and rape threats that male gamers just don't get....but add to that her doxxing, the hacking and DDOSing of her KS, the rape art about her, the online game in which you hit her.... within this context - something you guys ignore - death threats must feel even more scary and unpleasant. Using your language, FRAMING this ;) within a wider theoretical understanding of power inequalities and how power works, aides in understanding since this can't be seen in isolation. <br><br>What so called SJW/ liberal journalists have tried to point out is that such online bullying of those with a liberal view/ their dehumanisation (as I have just predictably experienced) makes the internet an unpleasant environment in which to communicate and share thoughts and ideas.<br><br>On a personal front, I want rpg/ gaming discussion forums to be troll free and a genuine place where people feel safe and able to share ideas. RPGNet after its banning of Zak S etc made me not want to post there.....but I was also aware that this forum <i>may </i>have a lot of anti-liberal 'libertarians'....who would troll any dissenting views. I guess I will see how this goes... but certainly I have not been impressed by the lack of empathy about online violence against women.<br><br>and I am not aware of any decent journalist/ cultural critic who thinks that threats of rape are a good thing. If there are people out there trying to justify it, no matter what their position on #gamergate or any other matter, they are a total asshole. I think anyone who does that should be shot down. It does concern me that this is not a big issue here on this forum. But what do I know? Being a bot.</blockquote><br>Hello.<br>....<br>I'll go directly to it:<br>Of course you won't really find anyone admitting to thinking internetbullying is a good thing, and that includes of course rape- and death-threats.<br>Those would be shot down digitally and massively discredited in reality.<br><br>This site has a few shitheads(most have gotten run off, though), but the rest is far better informed than you currently seem to think.<br>Some has problems getting their real points across, and it is possible you think they are worse than they are.<br>Some is also short to retaliate when they think they have been slighted, but are really sensible once you grasp what they are really pissed at.<br><br>...Why the fuck am I writing this ....<br>Perhaps you remind me of me.<br>Perhaps I just is about to see too much phrasings from rpgnet or so, that you haven't really thought through, and that some here recognize all too well, so they might ignore that phrase or even get irritated or angered by it.<br><br>Essentially, think through what you say, and be prepared for perhaps being wrong where you think you are not.<br>Also be prepared for admitting that you don't know enough.<br><br>By the way, I tried reading your first post.<br>I gave up after 2/3 and read your summary.<br>According to your summary, you have clearly gotten a bad and incorrect impression of GamerGate.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 11:10:23 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
(http://i.imgur.com/z6U2Muh.jpg)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Rincewind1</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 11:19:37 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Why'd he be screaming at others, calling them nerds? He's the one playing the game with a mic on, for crying out loud. Even then, it's not particularly strong insult. Neither is none, nobody or neither.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 11:28:23 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I’m going to address each point in separate posts. <br><br><b>1) Lack of ethics in journalism.</b><br><br>First off, when the allegations first started, people did not know they were not true. They believed there was a conflict of interest. That turned out to be false, and most people have moved on from that specific accusation.<br><br>I was actually anti-gg, as a knee jerk reaction to that. That is, until I became aware of the shady crap that LW has been accused of in regards to the FYC game jam. That is not right, and the fact that the crusading media did not even mention this is a problem too. <br><br>This also goes beyond ZQ:<br><br>https://imgur.com/a/HHpnv<br><br>http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2ejs7v/gaming_journalists_patricia_hernandez_of_kotaku/<br><br>These, in particular, are most troubling to me:<br><br>http://www.gamezone.com/originals/here-s-what-we-know-allistair-pinsof-destructoid-yanier-niero-gonzalez-game-journo-pros-and-more<br>http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/17/Exposed-the-secret-mailing-list-of-the-gaming-journalism-elite<br><br>The mainstream media coverage has also been very troubling, specially in light of this doozy from the past:<br><br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList<br><br>Something a biased Boston Globe journalist actually tries to downplay:<br><br>https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2jrmwj/boston_globes_jesse_singal_implicated_in_vote<br><br>I used to think the calls of bias and censorship were poppycock, but wikileaks has made me reconsider: <br><br>https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/511727048931282944<br><br>I’m actually wishing that they move on from videogames and start questioning the MSM as a whole.<br><br>Do you think that the above are a problem? If so, do you agree that they should be examined?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 11:34:56 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1H-qNiCEAAAQ8h.jpg)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 12:19:24 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Arroz, couldn't keep me on the block list, eh?<br><br>Like my 'I'm leaving this thread forever!' I suppose.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 12:22:24 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794895</cite><b>1) Lack of ethics in journalism.</b><br><br>First off, when the allegations first started, people did not know they were not true. They believed there was a conflict of interest. That turned out to be false, and most people have moved on from that specific accusation.</blockquote>First of all, there was no hidden information revealed to show that the accusation was false. The fact that the accusation was false was clear from Gjoni's post and the dates of Nathan Grayson's coverage. It is an embarrassment that no one bothered to check the dates in jumping on the bandwagon. The accusation consisted of nothing but blatant lies and doxxing. <br><br>Maybe it is true that by now the majority of GamerGaters have moved on from that specific accusation, but I've had that accusation argued with me in this specific thread (by S'mon and Novastar) - and none of the pro-GamerGate posters here contradicted them. <br><br>As I've said earlier, I am completely willing to believe that some accusations of lack of ethics in game journalism are true. I'm absolutely willing to make statements in favor of ethics in game journalism, but I'm not going support the GamerGate tag. Mind you, if someone were to start up a tag like "bustGamerGate" or "DeathOfGamers" with a false and maliciously personal accusation against Pinsof, say, then I wouldn't support that either. <br><br>A few further: <br><br>1) The thing that I am most against is lies, false accusations, doxxing, harassment, and threats - which I agree is present from both some pro-GamerGaters and some anti-GamerGaters. This is fucking ridiculous to get into over games. <br><br>2) Opinion pieces like Leigh's "'Gamers' are Over" and/or subjective analyses like Sarkeesian's videos are not unethical. You might disagree with them, but they are in a wholly different category from unethical behavior like payola reviews or blacklisting blacklisting - let alone the behavior in #1. <br><br>3) In general, I am opposed to lies and personal attacks, but outside of these, accusations of "collusion" and "bias" are bullshit. No one is unbiased, and everyone is entitled to talk privately to each other. Collusion to lie is unethical. Collusion to write opinion pieces is fine.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 12:34:56 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
JHKIM: People have said repeatedly 'maybe try a hashtag more on-topic without the poison of starting with lies and attracting assholes.'<br><br>And the general reaction is essentially 'but people might not pay attention then!'<br><br>Which basically means 'we're riding on the heat of liars and assholes, but we're TOTALLY NOT WITH THEM.'
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 12:46:48 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;794903</cite>First of all, there was no hidden information revealed to show that the accusation was false. The fact that the accusation was false was clear from Gjoni's post and the dates of Nathan Grayson's coverage.<br><br>It is an embarrassment that no one bothered to check the dates in jumping on the bandwagon. The accusation consisted of nothing but blatant lies and doxxing. <br></blockquote><br>Embarrassing, sure. Most people don't check their sources. And most took sides before even looking at them. I took Zoe's side just based on what other people said about #gamergate being nothing but misogyny, until I decided to take a closer look. Sexual behavior aside, she doesn't exactly have clean hands (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/the-fine-young-capitalists-game-jam). <br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Maybe it is true that by now the majority of GamerGaters have moved on from that specific accusation, but I've had that accusation argued with me in this specific thread (by S'mon and Novastar) - and none of the pro-GamerGate posters here contradicted them. </blockquote><br>If I'd seen it, or noticed it, I would have said something. I don't keep track of what everyone is saying in this thread, nor is it my job to contradict every piece of misinformation someone might repeat. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>2) Opinion pieces like Leigh's "'Gamers' are Over" and/or subjective analyses like Sarkeesian's videos are not unethical. You might disagree with them, but they are in a wholly different category from unethical behavior like payola reviews or blacklisting blacklisting - let alone the behavior in #1. <br></blockquote><br>I don't recall saying anything about Leigh's opinion piece or its ethics, but I did link to her tweets about 'hood men' and 'hood rats'. Can you imagine the outrage had someone from the wrong crowd had tweeted something of the sort? <br><br>It's wrong from whomever it comes and it's appalling that the so called guardians of justice as a whole have apparently not said a thing. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>3) In general, I am opposed to lies and personal attacks, but outside of these, accusations of "collusion" and "bias" are bullshit. No one is unbiased, and everyone is entitled to talk privately to each other. Collusion to lie is unethical. Collusion to write opinion pieces is fine.</blockquote><br>They collided to ignore the accusations of the ethically problematic conflicts of interests, that were undisclosed, for example. That's lying by omission, or at the very least it's very convenient.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 12:50:56 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;794903</cite>As I've said earlier, I am completely willing to believe that some accusations of lack of ethics in game journalism are true. I'm absolutely willing to make statements in favor of ethics in game journalism, but I'm not going support the GamerGate tag. Mind you, if someone were to start up a tag like "bustGamerGate" or "DeathOfGamers" with a false and maliciously personal accusation against Pinsof, say, then I wouldn't support that either. <br><br></blockquote><br>By the way, this is called the fallacy of origin (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic). And as I have pointed out, it's as ridiculous as demanding that people stop using #feminism because that movement includes transphobic and racist members.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 12:54:20 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794896</cite>(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1H-qNiCEAAAQ8h.jpg)</blockquote>Since what I disapprove of is the <b>actual origin of the GamerGate hashtag</b> - i.e. Adam Baldwin's tweet and Internet Aristocrat's Quinnspiracy video - I don't think that this applies to me. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794908</cite>JHKIM: People have said repeatedly 'maybe try a hashtag more on-topic without the poison of starting with lies and attracting assholes.'<br><br>And the general reaction is essentially 'but people might not pay attention then!'<br><br>Which basically means 'we're riding on the heat of liars and assholes, but we're TOTALLY NOT WITH THEM.'</blockquote>If someone here actually makes the argument "but people might not pay attention then", then I'd argue with that.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 01:01:08 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I THINK people have made the argument here, but ... I'm not super motivated to dig through 590 posts to verify.<br><br>The argument has been made by some, anyway:<br>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/24/how-some-gamergate-supporters-say-the-controversy-could-stop-in-one-week/<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>As to the question of why Gamergate supporters couldn't just rally under a different banner that's not tainted by the association with misogyny, FinnyLawliet said the answer is simple: Change the name, and the conversation dies.<br><br>"Gamergate actually owes a lot of its success to the controversy. It's less that it has to be a conversation about misogyny specifically, and more that it's a fairly basic Streisand effect," he said."The more the media tells people not to look, to just go away, the more people get curious." Plus, he added, it's not easy to get another hashtag started, and there are no guarantees that it could produce a conversation any more coherent than the current one.</blockquote><br>Of course, 'doesn't speak for everyone/media is biased/etc'
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 01:04:29 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: BenTheFerg;794859</cite>Glad to hear it! It did read that way - but glad - despite us being polls apart on what constitutes anything going for 'reality' in the media - glad at least we can agree that Whedon's work is enjoyable and of value. & agreed on the Avengers! :D</blockquote><br>I think my favourite lines went something like this, particularly cool considering that Whedon, like me, is atheist:<br><br>Female Avenger:<br>"They (the Asgardians) are unstoppable... <br>They're basically gods!"<br><br>Captain America:<br>"There's only one God, ma'am. <br>And they ain't it."
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 01:09:16 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: BenTheFerg;794861</cite>The problem with utilitarian ethics is that is does not protect minorities well. The greatest happiness for the greatest number..... ideas of natural rights doesn't sit well in that philosophy. How does one live out the principles of the UN's Charter for Human Rights? How do societies deal with entrenched power groups who deny minorities access to resources/ justice etc etc? If we were all equal, and all rational, then I think Bentham's ideas would have greater credence. IMHO :D</blockquote><br>Yes, obviously I agree with Bentham that Human Rights are 'nonsense on stilts'. Utilitarianism allows 'the needs of the many to outweigh the needs of the few' - as a practical matter that is how any society has to operate: criminals are punished, and soldiers are sent to die on behalf of the 'greater good'. Those young Kurdish women holding Kobane against ridiculous odds are facing almost certain death so that their people might have a chance to survive. Likewise the IS scum attacking them are doing it for their conception of the 'greater good'.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 01:21:33 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: BenTheFerg;794878</cite>I understand my ideologies. <br><br>But you claim that Cultural Marxism has some kind of hegemonic control .... in the US? Over whom? Games designers? Journalists? </blockquote><br>Journalists, certainly. Most of the US news media, although Fox News was created as a reaction against that so it has different biases. It's most deeply entrenched in the media, the legal profession, teacher training colleges, US Universities (which are much more stifling than UK Universities - we often still adhere more to classical Marxism here) and most especially the bureaucracies. It only recently became hegemonic in the US military and in London's Metropolitan Police, I think Ian Blair was the first c-M adherent Commissioner of the Met, and the current Commissioner doesn't seem to be. The upper echelons of the US military have gone heavily C-M though. I remember after the large-scale Fort Hood massacre by the jihadi traitor Major Nidal Hassan, when General Casey said that although the massacre was a tragedy, the greater tragedy would be if Diversity suffered! Nothing about improving screening & security to stop it happening again.<br>I don't think it's hegemonic over videogame designers, which is a large part of what the recent cafuffle is about, and obviously not over the 'gamer' subculture. It is hegemonic in the Seattle tabletop rpg industry, notably Paizo are very strong adherents - not that that stops the rpgnet SJWs from calling Golarion racist.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 01:54:34 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Well, I guess this is expected from TBP:<br><br>http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?739609&p=18395417#post18395417<br><br>What a contrast to this site. Thanks Pundit! And I mean that.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 01:59:36 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I second that.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 02:05:48 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794926</cite>Well, I guess this is expected from TBP:<br><br>http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?739609&p=18395417#post18395417<br><br>What a contrast to this site. Thanks Pundit! And I mean that.</blockquote><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794928</cite>I second that.</blockquote><br>I Third that.<br>Talking about trying to control the information.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 02:11:55 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
"If you advocate for #gamergate on this site, <u>we're going to ban you</u>" - http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?739609-gamergate-on-RPGnet-READ-THIS&p=18395417#post18395417<br><br>"But I do want to thank the mods and admins for their collective decisions which go a long way to make this the kind of <u>welcoming and inclusive </u>site described in the OP." - http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?739609-gamergate-on-RPGnet-READ-THIS&p=18395607#post18395607 (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?739609-gamergate-on-RPGnet-READ-THIS&p=18395607#post18395607)<br><br>:D :D :D
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Warboss Squee</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 02:41:09 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;794932</cite>"If you advocate for #gamergate on this site, <u>we're going to ban you</u>" - http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?739609-gamergate-on-RPGnet-READ-THIS&p=18395417#post18395417<br><br>"But I do want to thank the mods and admins for their collective decisions which go a long way to make this the kind of <u>welcoming and inclusive </u>site described in the OP." - http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?739609-gamergate-on-RPGnet-READ-THIS&p=18395607#post18395607 (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?739609-gamergate-on-RPGnet-READ-THIS&p=18395607#post18395607)<br><br>:D :D :D</blockquote><br>I said it years ago, I'll say it again now, they have no fucking clue what the term inclusive means.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Nexus</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 03:13:47 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;794742</cite>Men in these roles - well men can certainly be in sexualised roles, and often are in female-oriented fiction, eg <i>Twilight</i>. But the helpless victim trope doesn't work the same way psychologically. Basically, the male (esp the adolescent male) wants to rescue the helpless damsel and have sex with her, but the female brain doesn't work that way. But what I found did work running a d20 Conan game for female players was youthful male sidekicks to their butt-kicking heroines; male Gabrielles to their Xenas, or Robins to their female Batmans. The plucky sidekicks were brave, and reasonably competent - but not as competent as the PCs. The players absolutely loved this, loved eg rescuing them from the pirates, whereas completely ineffectual male characters would not have worked at all.</blockquote><br><br>I've noticed that in most of my male players too. Most of them don't want swooning damsels but characters that are active and capable but maybe not as much as or in the same way as the hero(es). A good comparison would be the modern depictions of Lois and Superman. Lois is smart and active, in many arguably most situations she can take care of herself but she needs Supes when the aliens and world beaters show up.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>BenTheFerg</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 03:21:55 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;794918</cite>Journalists, certainly. Most of the US news media, although Fox News was created as a reaction against that so it has different biases. It's most deeply entrenched in the media, the legal profession, teacher training colleges, US Universities (which are much more stifling than UK Universities - we often still adhere more to classical Marxism here) and most especially the bureaucracies. It only recently became hegemonic in the US military and in London's Metropolitan Police, I think Ian Blair was the first c-M adherent Commissioner of the Met, and the current Commissioner doesn't seem to be. The upper echelons of the US military have gone heavily C-M though. I remember after the large-scale Fort Hood massacre by the jihadi traitor Major Nidal Hassan, when General Casey said that although the massacre was a tragedy, the greater tragedy would be if Diversity suffered! Nothing about improving screening & security to stop it happening again.<br>I don't think it's hegemonic over videogame designers, which is a large part of what the recent cafuffle is about, and obviously not over the 'gamer' subculture. It is hegemonic in the Seattle tabletop rpg industry, notably Paizo are very strong adherents - not that that stops the rpgnet SJWs from calling Golarion racist.</blockquote><br>Are you defining Cultural Marxism as what many folks on this forum refer to as SJW? <br><br>I.e. For you CM is some form of extreme Political Correctness 'gone mad'?<br><br>Am trying to understand you but admit I am struggling. <br><br>I have taught A level social and political studies for over 20 years and do not recognise the society you describe!<br><br>I can see plenty of evidence of a small elite gaining more wealth and privilege. More evidence of reduced social mobility. Plenty of evidence of racism and sexism in society.<br>But to be honest, Marxism died as an influential ideology here in the UK in 1995 when Tony Blair changed Clause IV in the Labour Party to embrace the free market. I see no evidence of Marxism or even PC -ness in the police.<br><br>As for Paizo being influenced by Cultural Marxism. ...!!! Please if you have time enlighten me. I assume you mean Paizo aiming to have greater diversity in terms of gender, sexuality, ethnicity etc in their narratives in their Adventure Paths and scenarios? And that this is bad IYHO?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>BenTheFerg</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 03:49:03 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794895</cite>I'm going to address each point in separate posts. <br><br><b>1) Lack of ethics in journalism.</b><br><br>First off, when the allegations first started, people did not know they were not true. They believed there was a conflict of interest. That turned out to be false, and most people have moved on from that specific accusation.<br><br>I was actually anti-gg, as a knee jerk reaction to that. That is, until I became aware of the shady crap that LW has been accused of in regards to the FYC game jam. That is not right, and the fact that the crusading media did not even mention this is a problem too. <br><br>This also goes beyond ZQ:<br><br>https://imgur.com/a/HHpnv<br><br>http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2ejs7v/gaming_journalists_patricia_hernandez_of_kotaku/<br><br>These, in particular, are most troubling to me:<br><br>http://www.gamezone.com/originals/here-s-what-we-know-allistair-pinsof-destructoid-yanier-niero-gonzalez-game-journo-pros-and-more<br>http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/17/Exposed-the-secret-mailing-list-of-the-gaming-journalism-elite<br><br>The mainstream media coverage has also been very troubling, specially in light of this doozy from the past:<br><br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList<br><br>Something a biased Boston Globe journalist actually tries to downplay:<br><br>https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2jrmwj/boston_globes_jesse_singal_implicated_in_vote<br><br>I used to think the calls of bias and censorship were poppycock, but wikileaks has made me reconsider: <br><br>https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/511727048931282944<br><br>I'm actually wishing that they move on from videogames and start questioning the MSM as a whole.<br><br>Do you think that the above are a problem? If so, do you agree that they should be examined?</blockquote><br>I do think there should be analysis of ethics in journalism. This needs to be sensitivity and thoroughly done. It is a massive topic. <br><br>I don't think GamerGate has done this well <br><br>Rather than go for the big issues, the wider context, etc it has focused on minnows who mainly seem to be women and who have been subjected to a terrible ordeal.<br><br>Some may themselves not acted wisely. However what they have been through. ...!!<br><br>The media are a powerful industry. The Phone hacking debacle here in the UK illustrated the power of the tabloid media. But as I have said, in relation to gamer journos, people seem to be missing the point.<br><br>I would argue the issue with ethical problems is not that Journalists are liberals but that, with our new 24-7 news culture, citizen journalists, the reduction in staffing in magazines due to free online blogs etc have created challenging times to find work. Putting journalists in a tight spot in this industry. They have to walk a tightrope:<br>Keep their boss happy<br>Keep their industry contacts happy<br>Keep their audience happy<br>Keep their family fed<br>Nurture their conscience. <br><br>That new film with Jake Gyllenhaal 'Nightcrawler' looks like an interesting take on some of the new challenges in the current tabloid media age.<br><br>Many folks seem upset with liberal minded gaming critics. I can't understand their problem. It was liberal journalists in the Washington Post who discovered Watergate and coined the term Gate for future major controversies. Liberals seeking the truth. Liberals who believe we are all born equal.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 04:01:28 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon</cite>Men in these roles - well men can certainly be in sexualised roles, and often are in female-oriented fiction, eg Twilight. But the helpless victim trope doesn't work the same way psychologically. Basically, the male (esp the adolescent male) wants to rescue the helpless damsel and have sex with her, but the female brain doesn't work that way. But what I found did work running a d20 Conan game for female players was youthful male sidekicks to their butt-kicking heroines; male Gabrielles to their Xenas, or Robins to their female Batmans. The plucky sidekicks were brave, and reasonably competent - but not as competent as the PCs. The players absolutely loved this, loved eg rescuing them from the pirates, whereas completely ineffectual male characters would not have worked at all.</blockquote><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Nexus;794948</cite>I've noticed that in most of my male players too. Most of them don't want swooning damsels but characters that are active and capable but maybe not as much as or in the same way as the hero(es). A good comparison would be the modern depictions of Lois and Superman. Lois is smart and active, in many arguably most situations she can take care of herself but she needs Supes when the aliens and world beaters show up.</blockquote><br>Yeah, I also don't buy S'mon's characterization of the male and the female brain as if it was an inborn universal. I don't claim to know what the pure genetic sexual behavior of humans without culture. Liberals tend to suggest it is more like bonobos, while conservatives tend to suggest it is more like chimpanzees - but we have major differences from either, and culture is a huge influence on sexual behavior. <br><br>In my experience, adolescent male gamers (like my son) don't have any notable tendency to want helpless damsels to rescue and screw. I think this tends to be a fantasy of people who feel less powerful than they rightfully should be, while people who are more fulfilled tend to fantasize more about being dominated (like dominators/dominatrixes). I associate power fantasies more with adults getting worn down by the job market. If anything, I think today's teens feel a little too powerful. <br><br>A little off-topic - I thought it was interesting to see the trope of rescuing the helpless love interest (i.e. wounded Peeta) feature so prominently in The Hunger Games.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>crkrueger</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 04:04:46 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Get permabanned from awfulpurple and threatened to never work in the industry according to Cam Banks. Yeah, I'd say someone is scared of the flashlight getting turned thisaway. :D
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 04:27:09 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Nexus;794948</cite>I've noticed that in most of my male players too. Most of them don't want swooning damsels but characters that are active and capable but maybe not as much as or in the same way as the hero(es). A good comparison would be the modern depictions of Lois and Superman. Lois is smart and active, in many arguably most situations she can take care of herself but she needs Supes when the aliens and world beaters show up.</blockquote><br>Yes, that is mostly true (about male players) in RPGs, partly because we can generally only draw NPCs in very broad strokes, and "brave & competent" is an easy way to make an NPC attractive. I did make a 'damsel' type NPC in one AD&D PBP game, Tabitha Kallent, who a PC (Garrick) fell totally in love with, and I'd say Garrick's player really likes too. Tabitha is '0 level' and has no combat skills, but she is psychologically very brave, and utterly devoted to Garrick. And she hasn't needed rescuing (after their first meeting when Garrick was one of the PCs who fought off the bandits threatening her coach). That 'Yggsburgh' campaign drew a lot from 18th/early 19th century fiction though (Daniel Defoe, Jane Austen etc) so I had more to work with than usual. <br><br>I don't think I could have made the male equivalent of Tabitha Kallent a successful love interest, but I guess I could be wrong.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 04:30:37 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;794959</cite>Yeah, I also don't buy S'mon's characterization of the male and the female brain as if it was an inborn universal. </blockquote><br>Well, compare romance novel covers' depiction of men with Conan & suchlike pulp novel covers' depiction of women. This is why you (occasionally) get damsels in video games.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>BenTheFerg</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 04:31:23 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794914</cite>I THINK people have made the argument here, but ... I'm not super motivated to dig through 590 posts to verify.<br><br>The argument has been made by some, anyway:<br>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/24/how-some-gamergate-supporters-say-the-controversy-could-stop-in-one-week/<br><br>Of course, 'doesn't speak for everyone/media is biased/etc'</blockquote><br>Good article. Thanks for flagging it up. :)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 04:34:52 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;794968</cite>Well, compare romance novel covers' depiction of men with Conan & suchlike pulp novel covers' depiction of women. This is why you (occasionally) get damsels in video games.</blockquote><br>Can you expand on what you mean by this?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Warboss Squee</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 05:02:36 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: BenTheFerg;794866</cite>I assume you mean me since I am new. Sigh. I am a gamer. Of the old school variety. Been gaming since the early 1980s. Mainly rpgs but where time allows, video games and board games. Nice being dehumanised. Hope you feel better now.</blockquote><br>It is nice being dehumanised isn't it. Just as it's a warm fuzzy being demonized, which is the feeling that many gamers, myself included, get when multiple gaming sites decided to declare gamers as a culture represent the white male oppressor, being white is playing games on easy mode, and that killing a toon in Call of Duty that happens to be controlled by a woman is like rape.<br><br>This kind of crap has been going on for years, and a large part of the push back that's going on.<br><br>So welcome. <br><br>And yes, I feel much better now. :cool:
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 06:22:38 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794970</cite>Can you expand on what you mean by this?</blockquote><br>Just cut my wrist on a glass, not much typing for a few days. :(<br><br>Typical Conan cover, passive sexy damsel:<br>(http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_large/12/128795/2577594-savage_sword_of_conan_022_01.jpg)<br><br>Having trouble finding non-parody romance novel cover. This looks pretty typical - (http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01378/boon220_1378240f.jpg) The men are focused on the female protagonist character, but still look strong & commanding.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Spinachcat</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 06:51:02 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I agree its utterly laughable how much handwringing there has been about how to get more women into male dominated hobbies, but silence about how female dominated hobbies need to attract males. <br><br>RPGs don't need more women or minorities. RPGs need more RPG players, regardless of their skin color or their crotch junk. I am not sold on belief that the "cult of inclusivity" is the holy grail for any hobby.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Warboss Squee;794978</cite>It is nice being dehumanised isn't it. Just as it's a warm fuzzy being demonized, which is the feeling that many gamers, myself included, get when multiple gaming sites decided to declare gamers as a culture represent the white male oppressor, being white is playing games on easy mode, and that killing a toon in Call of Duty that happens to be controlled by a woman is like rape.</blockquote><br>Let's all must take a breath and realize we live in an age where clickbait = profit and the more sensational the clickbait, the higher the clicks and thus higher the profit. There isn't much profit in reasonable discourse, especially when the dictates of infotainment has distorted journalism at every level. <br><br>I can only imagine how much fun 2016 is going to be. <br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: BenTheFerg;794874</cite>What so called SJW/ liberal journalists have tried to point out is that such online bullying of those with a liberal view/ their dehumanisation (as I have just predictably experienced) makes the internet an unpleasant environment in which to communicate and share thoughts and ideas.</blockquote><br>Anyone (on any "side") who thinks the Internet is a useful tool for communication is being naive in 2014. The Internet is a tool of commerce, potentially a tool of education, but its crap at fostering effective human communication between parties of differing viewpoints. It's success at communication is the creation of isolated echo chambers, for better or worse, which allow niche interests to flourish. <br><br>Twitter, the main battleground of Gamergate, is truly terrible medium for actual communication. It's 140 characters of shouting slogans, soundbite propaganda and "me too-ism" that does nothing to build bridges or articulate complex concepts. <br><br>Forums are self-selecting and thus generally become echo chambers. But more importantly, neither "side" is interested in communication. It's Red vs. Blue and only the ideals of "your side" can be allowed to be left standing when the melee is done. <br><br>RPG.net (and many other forums) create "victory" but eliminating discussion of the "other side", and the "victors" can congratulate themselves within their echo chamber. <br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: BenTheFerg;794874</cite>On a personal front, I want rpg/ gaming discussion forums to be troll free and a genuine place where people feel safe and able to share ideas.</blockquote><br>Would you also like a magic pony? <br><br>The world isn't safe. It's full of assholes and living in the real world requires us to navigate through a sea of shitbags. Why would the Internet be different? <br><br>BTW, welcome to theRPGsite. If you want open sharing of ideas, you have come to the right place of scum and villainy. Please start up a RPG thread about your favorite game or aspect of gaming. <br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: BenTheFerg;794874</cite>but certainly I have not been impressed by the lack of empathy about online violence against women.</blockquote><br>How much lack of empathy would you need to be impressed? <br><br>In an early post in this thread, I suggested the concept of "Anita as martyr" and wondered whether she was worth more to her "side" dead or alive. WTF more can I do to impress you??? :)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 07:04:05 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Spinachcat;794993</cite>RPGs don't need more women or minorities. RPGs need more RPG players, regardless of their skin color or their crotch junk. I am not sold on belief that the "cult of inclusivity" is the holy grail for any hobby.</blockquote><br>It needs to be less hostile and unwelcoming to some groups. Inclusivity should (IMO) be about being simply aware that, you know, people come in different types and enjoying that. Again, look at how people lost their fucking shit over 5e saying, very briefly, 'hey, people come in a lot of types and so can your characters.'<br>OMFG THE HORRORS!<br><br>Where do you think that comes from?<br><br>The only reason it's a grail is because it's an attempt to level ground that's gotten heavily slanted over the past generation or so.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Spinachcat;794993</cite>Twitter, the main battleground of Gamergate, is truly terrible medium for actual communication. It's 140 characters of shouting slogans, soundbite propaganda and "me too-ism" that does nothing to build bridges or articulate complex concepts. </blockquote><br>We may vehemently disagree about a lot of things, but I've grown to seriously despise Twitter. It encourages the absolute worst mindsets and behavior of social media.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Spinachcat;794993</cite>RPG.net (and many other forums) create "victory" but eliminating discussion of the "other side", and the "victors" can congratulate themselves within their echo chamber.</blockquote><br>I'm sure people disagree with me, but I don't think rpg.net was always this bad.<br>It's possible to look toward minimizing threadcrapping, 'attack ideas not people,' and trying to make a welcoming/inclusive environment without hiring Equilibrium Grammaton clerics as moderators.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 07:54:51 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;794824</cite>The expectation is that the other side accept the Frame, putting the debate on your terms, where you are bound to win. This usually works, since most opposition don't understand Framing, apply classical-Liberal thinking, and think that they are engaging in a good-faith debate where the aim is to persuade the other side of the rightness of your position and correct any errors - "No, we Republicans aren't racist..." - Lakoff explains that once the Republican accepts the posited Frame, the Democrats have already won.<br><br>But the pro-GamerGaters have refused to accept the posited Frame (and have stuck to their own Frame re journalistic corruption), hence the frothing rage from the SJW-media.</blockquote><br>Well, over 5 years on RPG.net taught me that this side isn't interested in a good-faith debate. :p<br><br>JG
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 08:04:08 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794908</cite>JHKIM: People have said repeatedly 'maybe try a hashtag more on-topic without the poison of starting with lies and attracting assholes.'<br><br>And the general reaction is essentially 'but people might not pay attention then!'<br><br>Which basically means 'we're riding on the heat of liars and assholes, but we're TOTALLY NOT WITH THEM.'</blockquote><br>To those who (frequently) say "why don't you guys organize under another hashtag if this one is so tainted?" my response would be that's probably going to happen regardless. Because just as toxic misogyny is an issue far beyond the scope of the gaming scene and obviously far predates it, the issue of compromised journalism is far beyond the scope of gaming and is independent of the fact that some people who knee-jerk insult women for being women are jumping on this because the two most prominent examples are women. Again, Andrew Sullivan in particular has been talking about advertising masquerading as journalism for quite some time. It only seems like a NON-issue to anti-GGs because gaming journalism never had what used to be called journalistic ethics (as that MarySue article inadvertently pointed out) and it only seems like an issue particular to videogames because some people DID recently point this out.<br><br>JG
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Spinachcat</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 08:29:20 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;794853</cite>The SJW narrative is that all threats against them are credible and should be investigated while threats against their enemies are non-existent, non-credible, or their enemies deserve it anyway.</blockquote><br>This is the narrative of all "sides", regardless of the debate. Any empathy with Team Red by Team Blue lessens the resolve of Team Blue and Team Red knows to leap upon any empathy as a sign of weakness.<br><br>However, I believe the "wild west" aspect of the Internet is coming to a close and "anonymous threats" will become rare as it will become easier and easier to report and track individuals. <br><br>I am unsure if that's a good or bad thing. <br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: BenTheFerg;794874</cite>let us not forget that the gaming industry is a global, multi-billion dollar behemoth, fuelled by profiting and cash, not by ideological dogma.</blockquote><br>There is cash in "diversity" in an age where you can target and appeal to niche markets. Sprinkling "diversity" in a mainstream product is often a PR tactic to gain mindspace in a crowded marketplace. AKA, modifying the boobage (up/down/whatever) in the next Tomb Raider to be released is guaranteed free advertising. Free advertising = more sales. <br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: BenTheFerg;794874</cite>(Maybe in the US death threats are so normal, such a daily occurrence that it is like water off a duck's back....thus Sarkeesian is simply a wimp and needs to 'man up'? ;)</blockquote><br>In 2014, online death threats should be expected by any activist on any "side" where they are championing ideas from Team Red that will conflict with the ideas of Team Blue. Until online monitoring software reaches the next level of privacy destruction, online death threats are our New Normal. <br><br>Feminism wants women to compete equally against men in what was previously "a man's world" and that's a fine concept as long as you acknowledge that "a man's world", at least in the US is a vicious capitalistic competition. Most men were crushed, broken, demoralized and brutalized by "man's world" in the past. Why should it be any different for a woman? <br><br>You want in the mosh pit? Wanna throw elbows? Then get ready to take an elbow. Successful people (male or female) know this. <br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: BenTheFerg;794874</cite>4. #gamergate is seemingly – for many - a Trojan Horse for angry men to vent their spleens.</blockquote><br>Human males are animals prone to anger and violence. You think some 1960s folk songs and placards erased a million years of genetics? Everyone should be grateful that "angry men" are neutered by video games and Twitter instead of committing actual rape and actual violence. <br><br>Doxxing and nasty posts isn't nice behavior, but let's not forget that many Suffragettes suffered fist to face beat downs for demanding the right to vote.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ladybird</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 08:51:24 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Spinachcat;795018</cite>In 2014, online death threats should be expected by any activist on any "side" where they are championing ideas from Team Red that will conflict with the ideas of Team Blue. Until online monitoring software reaches the next level of privacy destruction, online death threats are our New Normal. </blockquote><br>...<i>and that isn't okay</i>. There's no place for violence or threats thereof in civilised conversation. The people who think that there is, that they should be able to post these crude attacks in an effort to silence their critics, and all under the banner of "free speech!!1!1!", are just giving more and more examples to governments that want to silence actual, real, valuable, free speech.<br><br>When tighter internet monitoring comes in - and it will - it's these people who should be hanging their heads in shame, because they're the ones who will have really killed the notion of free speech.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>BenTheFerg</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 08:59:02 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Warboss Squee;794978</cite>It is nice being dehumanised isn't it. Just as it's a warm fuzzy being demonized, which is the feeling that many gamers, myself included, get when multiple gaming sites decided to declare gamers as a culture represent the white male oppressor, being white is playing games on easy mode, and that killing a toon in Call of Duty that happens to be controlled by a woman is like rape.<br><br>This kind of crap has been going on for years, and a large part of the push back that's going on.<br><br>So welcome. <br><br>And yes, I feel much better now. :cool:</blockquote><br>What can I say? That such trolling behaviour exemplifies some of problems with these forums? Slow hand clap to the big man! <br><br>I don't believe I have supported in writing anything you have in effect accused me of. <br><br>Moreover I categorise myself as a gamer. Been rpging since I was 12. A while in other words. And I am fed up with trolls giving gamers a bad name. <br><br>But in the spirit of peace I can understand retrospectively that my original post probably got some backs up. Thus my slam dunking. Mea culpa on that one I guess. <br><br>Nevertheless, I still am perplexed by why folks have focused their ire on a few indie game developers &/critics rather than focus on the industry as a whole. But I will stop there. Probably best I move on to more productive discussions!
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 09:02:40 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
If you want to look at death threats look no further than Marilyn Manson after the Columbine shooting. It was bad enough he got death threats because people hated his music and considered him to be the spawn of satan. So when Marilyn Manson decided to have a concert at Columbine after a year of the shooting you can see the death threats flowing. So what did Marilyn Manson do?<br><br>He just did his concert. The man went to Columbine and did his show. His fans showed up and had fun in which many of those fans were from the school itself. Nothing happen other than a fun night of rock & roll.<br><br>You know what would had happen if Anita did her speech at that college. Nothing would happen. Her fans would enjoy the speech and that is it. Why? If that son of a bitch actually wanted to kill her he wouldn't tell her any thing. Instead he would just kill her.<br><br>Am I saying Anita is a coward? No. I suspect she knew what she was doing when the police refuse to break their own state law. When she gave up that speech and put the blame on the death threat it just made her victimhood even bigger. In the social justice warrior world a bigger victimhood means more cash flow going into your coffers. So of course she is going to manipulate the system and emotional people that don't even bother to think. She gets more money that way.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Spinachcat</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 09:10:56 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794996</cite>It needs to be less hostile and unwelcoming to some groups. Inclusivity should (IMO) be about being simply aware that, you know, people come in different types and enjoying that.</blockquote><br>Why aren't the makers of peanut butter trying to sell to people who don't like peanuts or peanut butter?<br><br>If images of sexy women drives off female customers, how does the fashion industry stay in business? Or the perfume industry? Or the Lifetime network?<br><br>If Hulk is gay in Avengers 2, what will be the net profit increase for the box office from all the people who avoided Avengers 1 due to a lack of LGBT role models in that IP? Maybe Spiderman can be Hulk's favorite twink? <br><br>If a TV show has a black lead character and an Asian lead character, is that inclusivity or tokenism? <br><br>Also, what metric do we have that proves that hiring "Person of Color X" or "Person with Crotch Junk Y" is a better choice for maximizing box office receipts than hiring the best talent for the role? <br><br>This is why I don't buy into the cult of inclusivity. <br><br>I suspect many of those whining about "hostile and unwelcoming" in RPGs are the fucktards nobody wants at their table but the anonymous internet allows them to become Martyrs For The Cause. The SJW crusade absolutely reeks of catpissmen and lawncrappers looking for acceptance. <br><br>The Inclusivity Police will not be happy until the rest of us somehow are forced to accept the Fucktard Brigade at the table, but hey its a better fight than their other battle trying to convince sober people that fuglies are beautiful. <br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794996</cite>Again, look at how people lost their fucking shit over 5e saying, very briefly, 'hey, people come in a lot of types and so can your characters.'</blockquote><br>Barely anyone? A handful of posters? <br><br>Have you noticed the complete lack of Paragraph Panic since the PHB came out in stores? The complete lack of articles about the Paragraph by any Defender of Morality in the actual press? Where are the preachers telling us we're going to hell for playing that homo game? <br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794996</cite>I'm sure people disagree with me, but I don't think rpg.net was always this bad.</blockquote><br>I fully agree with you. I was on RPG.net in the "wild west years" and even in the mid-2000s when the SJW bullshit was starting, but somewhere along the line the worst of Tangency took over the site. <br><br>I know that sounds impossible to many on this site, but yes Virginia, there was a time when Tangency wasn't a (total) freak show. <br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794996</cite>It's possible to look toward minimizing threadcrapping, 'attack ideas not people,' and trying to make a welcoming/inclusive environment without hiring Equilibrium Grammaton clerics as moderators.</blockquote><br>Did you just fucking insult the Grammaton clerics by comparing them to the human shit of RPGnet mods! Repent Will repent!! :)<br><br>RPGPundit nailed it with theRPGsite. If you promote Freedom of Speech with minimal moderation, you get better discussions. <br><br>Let's look at this thread. You've taken some heat for being the "anti-GG" voice, but I doubt any of that heat compares to what occurs on other boards and certainly won't carry on to other threads where you are posting. <br><br>Why? While we are free to type "FUCK YOU AND DIE WILL YOU BASTARD!!!", its that freedom that actually encourages people opposed to your views to engage in something close to an almost discussion. <br><br>And that's why I will always razz Pundy, but never forget to thank him and respect him for creating a forum where freedom of speech is a real thing.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 09:25:56 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Spinachcat;795018</cite>This is the narrative of all "sides", regardless of the debate. Any empathy with Team Red by Team Blue lessens the resolve of Team Blue and Team Red knows to leap upon any empathy as a sign of weakness.</blockquote><br>Well I don't see a lot of "and they deserve it anyway" from pro-GG vs anti-GG. I have seen mainstream anti-GG journos call for bullying. I do think there is asymmetry if you compare eg Breitbart - sympathetic to any possible bullying Quinn & Sarkeesian might have faced - to Gawker's call for bullying, or Boston Globe journalist Robert Caruso to Syrian Girl "I will enjoy your beloved Syria being torn apart by violence and Assad in exile even more" - http://mangans.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/journalist-wants-blood.html - because she's pro-GamerGate.<br><br>Individual Gamergaters and individual SJWs may both behave badly, but when it comes to the actual media - the people drawing paycheques - the vileness seems to be heavily one-sided.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 09:38:09 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Well, yeah. There's a reason why, as much as it took the fuckheads on TBP to kick me out to LEAVE, I came here and stuck around.<br><br>(To my faint credit, I was starting to get more and more unhappy with moderation on TBP for a few years there)<br><br>As for Grammaton Clerics... being banned would have been more entertaining with swirling black trenchcoats, admittedly.<br><br>As for the peanut butter metaphor... I realize you don't believe me, but at least some people see the situation more as 'oh, you have redhair. Peanut butter isn't FOR you, you wimpy shit.'<br><br>Or people acting like peanut butter is macho and only for real men.<br><br>Women (and minorities) like RPGs fine. Love it. But groups of guys telling them it's not for them has an effect. Presentation of most material that suggests they have no place in the hobby has an effect.<br><br>That said, I think the internet has had a hugely useful effect on breaking down a lot of these barriers. Game stores aren't the primary way people are getting into the hobby.<br><br>So among other things, I actually think we've seen a swing back from 'boy's club' of 90s and 2000s. Fantasy, paranormal romance (ugh) has broadened the market, and there are loads of roleplay and gaming available online for all sorts of tastes.<br><br><br>Now, personally, I welcome the ability to shut down anonymity online.<br>If you want to say something, stand up and say it. (Barring anonymous polls and voting)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>BenTheFerg</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 09:39:07 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;795027</cite>....<br>You know what would had happen if Anita did her speech at that college. Nothing would happen. Her fans would enjoy the speech and that is it. Why? If that son of a bitch actually wanted to kill her he wouldn't tell her any thing. Instead he would just kill her.<br><br>Am I saying Anita is a coward? No. I suspect she knew what she was doing when the police refuse to break their own state law. When she gave up that speech and put the blame on the death threat it just made her victimhood even bigger. In the social justice warrior world a bigger victimhood means more cash flow going into your coffers. So of course she is going to manipulate the system and emotional people that don't even bother to think. She gets more money that way.</blockquote><br>It is this kind of callous indifference about the rape threats, vile abuse, doxxing and finally death threats that really sticks in my craw and those of others. <br><br>Can't you simply accept that being subjected to that level of hate for having views which oppose yours is truly terrifying? <br><br>I realise we will never agree on the idea that feminism has a valid case on gender representation in gaming but. .... can you at least treat your intellectual opponents with some humanity?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 09:47:43 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Yeah, it's easy to be blasé when you aren't in the sights.<br><br>And given it's been less than 5 months since a guy murdered a bunch of women and men over ranty MRA misogyny and spewing hatred about bitches, it's a little fresh in folks' minds.<br><br>Before that shitbag started his murders, he uploaded a bunch of rants about it. He wasn't quiet, he didn't commit his crimes covertly.<br><br>Crazy killers often want to show off.<br><br><br>So, yeah, this was _probably_ just some obnoxious fuckhead trying to get his rocks off terrorizing a public feminist.<br><br>Or maybe he wasn't.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>BenTheFerg</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 09:52:29 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;795041</cite>Yeah, it's easy to be blasé when you aren't in the sights.<br><br>And given it's been less than 5 months since a guy murdered a bunch of women and men over ranty MRA misogyny and spewing hatred about bitches, it's a little fresh in folks' minds.<br><br>Before that shitbag started his murders, he uploaded a bunch of rants about it. He wasn't quiet, he didn't commit his crimes covertly.<br><br>Crazy killers often want to show off.<br><br><br>So, yeah, this was _probably_ just some obnoxious fuckhead trying to get his rocks off terrorizing a public feminist.<br><br>Or maybe he wasn't.</blockquote><br>This is sadly the issue. Especially in the USA where access to guns is so much easier than here in the UK/EU.<br><br>But I am aware this is another can of worms! Same language. Very different views on so many things!
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 10:59:20 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: BenTheFerg;795039</cite>It is this kind of callous indifference about the rape threats, vile abuse, doxxing and finally death threats that really sticks in my craw and those of others. <br><br>Can't you simply accept that being subjected to that level of hate for having views which oppose yours is truly terrifying? <br><br>I realise we will never agree on the idea that feminism has a valid case on gender representation in gaming but. .... can you at least treat your intellectual opponents with some humanity?</blockquote><br>Co signed. Much has been made on the fact that she was advised by law enforcement not to keep publicizing the threats, but the fact remains that no one should be making death threats in order to silence an opposing view, or any other reason; specially if one purports to believe in free speech.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 10:59:54 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Spinachcat;795029</cite>Why aren't the makers of peanut butter trying to sell to people who don't like peanuts or peanut butter?<br><br>If images of sexy women drives off female customers, how does the fashion industry stay in business? Or the perfume industry? Or the Lifetime network?<br></blockquote><br>This is one of the instances in which the narrative from some crusaders doesn't seem inclusive. I totally understand wanting other representations instead of just one, but I don't get the desire of some to blanket generalize "cheesecake" as sexist or misogynist.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>If Hulk is gay in Avengers 2, what will be the net profit increase for the box office from all the people who avoided Avengers 1 due to a lack of LGBT role models in that IP? Maybe Spiderman can be Hulk's favorite twink?*<br><br>If a TV show has a black lead character and an Asian lead character, is that inclusivity or tokenism?*<br><br>Also, what metric do we have that proves that hiring "Person of Color X" or "Person with Crotch Junk Y" is a better choice for maximizing box office receipts than hiring the best talent for the role?*<br><br>This is why I don't buy into the cult of inclusivity.*<br><br></blockquote>*<br>The way I think about this is imagining how fucking awesome the series Kung Fu would have been had they cast Bruce Lee as the lead instead of David Carradine (no matter how cheesy good he was).*<br><br>Bruce was arguably the best possible choice for that show, But white America wasn't ready for an Asian male lead...not even in a Kung Fu show. And apparently they still aren't, let alone in something less stereotypical. so, no, the best person doesn't regularly get the job.<br><br>It's no coincidence, in my view, that pretty much every Asian, international mega hit *has been 'whitewashed' by replacing the lead with a white actor...Ju On, Old Boy (fuck.. Why??), and even The Last Air Bender. *You have to wonder why. There's no lack of *talented Asian or asian american actors<br><br>And saying that whites are the majority in the market, as is often the argument, isn't a particularly strong argument, because pretty much every non white person is able to enjoy and emphatize with a lead when the lead happens to be white. Why Hollywood appears to think that a white movie audience won't be able to enjoy and empathize with a lead that isn't Caucasian, to the point of replacing nonwhite *characters with white ones, is baffling.<br><br>You can make a similar argument for gender. There could be more roles like Ripley or Meg Ryan's on The Interpreter or uma on Kill Bill, and they would still bank tons of money. House of Sand and Fog also comes to mind.*
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>October 29, 2014, 11:57:31 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Your right no one should get death threats. I am just pointing out if Anita gave a shit about her cause she would had braved against the threat and gave her speech. Instead she played victim again and manipulated fools to feel sorry for her. <br><br>Don't believe me? Look at Teddy Roosevelt who got shot during his successful attempt to become president. Shot by a assassin and what did he do? He went over to his speech, told everyone he got shot by a assassin, and then to spite the assassination attempt he gave his speech. Why? As crazy as it is the man CARES about his cause that he would risk his life to support it.<br><br>Not to mention how many times Rosa Parks was given death threats when she was fighting for her right to sit in front of the bus? How many more death threats do you think she had gotten when Martin Luther King Jr. step in to help Rosa Parks? Did she back down? No! She cared about her cause and so did Martin Luther King Jr.<br><br>These people risk their lives and some of them got assassinated for those causes. They did this knowing they put a target on their backs for the rest of their lives. The sacrifices they make will help out future generations.<br><br>So if Anita believes in her cause so much why did she leave? Why not call out the death threat giver as hateful loser and gave the speech anyway? If she was serving a cause she would do that. The fact she step down and played victim tells me she really doesn't believe in her cause. Maybe because she is a coward, or maybe because there is not enough profit in the speech itself compared to playing as the victim?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>crkrueger</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 12:02:30 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;795064</cite>So if Anita believes in her cause so much why did she leave? Why not call out the death threat giver as hateful loser and gave the speech anyway? If she was serving a cause she would do that. The fact she step down and played victim tells me she really doesn't believe in her cause. Maybe because she is a coward, or maybe because there is not enough profit in the speech itself compared to playing as the victim?</blockquote><br>Because if she gave the speech and nothing happened, then it wouldn't fit the narrative that her detractors are dangerous, when in reality they're as much slacktivists as the Outrage Brigade, possibly even more since many of them can't drive yet.<br><br>A canceled speech due to death threats gets covered as if the death threats were real, so she keeps the narrative going.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 12:04:04 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794996</cite>It needs to be less hostile and unwelcoming to some groups. </blockquote><br>(http://independentaustralia.net/wordpress-opt/wp-content/2012/11/Strawman.png)<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>I'm sure people disagree with me, but I don't think rpg.net was always this bad.<br></blockquote><br>From about 99 to around 2003 it was AWESOME! The best place on the net. My home away from home. And I'm sure others felt that way too, hence the continual hatred towards what that place has become from ex-pats. I still miss rpgnet. The place that wont ever exist again. I'm here because its the closest.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ratman_tf</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 12:30:58 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: BenTheFerg;795039</cite>It is this kind of callous indifference about the rape threats, vile abuse, doxxing and finally death threats that really sticks in my craw and those of others. <br><br>Can't you simply accept that being subjected to that level of hate for having views which oppose yours is truly terrifying? <br><br>I realise we will never agree on the idea that feminism has a valid case on gender representation in gaming but. .... can you at least treat your intellectual opponents with some humanity?</blockquote><br>Gamergate has, with their threat patrol who are responding to threatened social media accounts and reporting harassment.<br><br>Callous bastards.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 12:41:23 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: BenTheFerg;795039</cite>It is this kind of callous indifference about the rape threats, vile abuse, doxxing and finally death threats that really sticks in my craw and those of others. <br><br>Can't you simply accept that being subjected to that level of hate for having views which oppose yours is truly terrifying? <br><br>I realise we will never agree on the idea that feminism has a valid case on gender representation in gaming but. .... can you at least treat your intellectual opponents with some humanity?</blockquote><br>Here is why most gamers may seem "callous" on that front to you.<br><br>For one, rape/death threats have been common online for years now. Its one aspect of trolling online that will continue until the government imposes Orwellian-style regulation of online activity, or 14 year old boys stop being 14 year old boys. And trolling of that sort didnt begin with the internet. Any kind of celebrity ever has dealt with it, from Stephen King to Mr. Rogers. Most of us don't take such trolling seriously. Some people do, but that reaction seems incredibly naive to the rest of us. <br><br>On that note, the special reason no is sympathetic towards the trolling of, say, Anita Sarkeesian is that evidence has since shown that many of these threats pre-date Gamergate, and that Anita has been dishonest about those in a clear attempt to create a false narrative. There is, truuthfully, nothing to connect Gamergate to the majority of trolling Anita was subjected to, but she chose to do so. That choice does not imply the actions of someone who is afraid, rather the actions of someone who is using those threats to further her own agenda. Now, granted thats a much healthier response, but it still is one of many things that calls her honesty into question. <br><br>Moreover, to continue with Anita, she drew alot of attention to a rather horrific flash game that simulated causing injuries on her face. And it was awful, just in really bad taste. However, any sympathy for Anita on that matter gets thrown out the window when you read her fanfiction about ruthlessly killing the male designers of videogames she doesn't like (true story). That's where sympathy becomes replaced with a sense of hipocracy for me and others. <br><br>Secondly, its been strongly implied again and again that the threats/doxxing/what-have-you is only happening to women who speak out against Gamergate. Thats an utter construct far from the truth. Its been going on everywhere to everyone involved on both sides. GG supporters routinely face the same trolling daily. This logically sggests to me that blaming one side or the other is ridiculous. So when someone does that, they in effect forfiet what sympathy they may have been afforded. They are seen (fairly or unfairly) in the same light as Sarkeesian-opportunists). This may indeed be very unfair to a few people who are genuinely ignorant. But I personally believe people are responsible for thier own ignorance. Even when it comes to people I really like, like Felicia Day. I do feel bad for her, but I think her reaction was wrong. Ethically she mis-stepped. And I think as someone who ostensibly has been a gamer ( I won't say "part of gaming culture" because I think gaming culture is a fantasy created by psuedo-activists and egocentrics), she should know better to buuy into the stereotypes the media is trying to push. <br><br>Thirdly, gamers are geeks. Geeks know ALL ABOUT being hated for having views, interests, ways, what-have-you that are unpopular. Geeks have been ostracised and demonized since the anti-intellectual mainstream evolved in the Western World. So yet another person who is coming along and spewing hate at them but wants sympathy because a few anonymous people online hate them back, well, kinda sticks in the craw of many geeks. It's like an Italian guy trying to play the Race Card in Harlem, for lack of a better metaphor.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 01:40:47 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Strawman? If anything it's you lot who are stuffing it full of hay.<br><br>'Feminists interested in inclusivity' doesn't solely mean 'OH NO A KNEELING WOMAN MEN WILL GO RAPE NAU'<br><br>It, in fact, often means folks feeling like the hobby is more open and includes them. Whomever 'them' is.<br><br>I mean, if the point wasn't 'including' it'd be called something else, like MenFeelBadity.<br><br>That's why people celebrate things like 5e's 'paragraph,' Paizo having a range of characters, and so on.<br><br>Yeah, it runs the risk of tokenism. But, you know, why not sometimes someone is Indian and nobody makes a big deal of it? Just cause?<br><br>(Witness some comic book guy losing his shit over the fact that Sanjay and Craig cartoon happens to have an Indian kid.)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 02:05:35 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;795082</cite>Strawman? If anything it's you lot who are stuffing it full of hay.<br><br>'Feminists interested in inclusivity' doesn't solely mean 'OH NO A KNEELING WOMAN MEN WILL GO RAPE NAU'<br>It, in fact, often means folks feeling like the hobby is more open and includes them. Whomever 'them' is.<br><br>I mean, if the point wasn't 'including' it'd be called something else, like MenFeelBadity.<br><br>That's why people celebrate things like 5e's 'paragraph,' Paizo having a range of characters, and so on.<br><br>Yeah, it runs the risk of tokenism. But, you know, why not sometimes someone is Indian and nobody makes a big deal of it? Just cause?<br><br>(Witness some comic book guy losing his shit over the fact that Sanjay and Craig cartoon happens to have an Indian kid.)</blockquote><br>(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_crhrcLnqk40/TK8PJPG8ASI/AAAAAAAAAkQ/DJz1Ek_sArY/s1600/Red+Herring.png)<br><br><b>IGNORATIO ELENCHI (http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignoratio.html)</b>
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 02:33:21 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
It's dishonest to challenge gamers to do something about anonymous internet threats; gamers are not the NSA, nor are they an omniscient deity, there is no credible circumstance in which gamers could ever actually regulate internet threats. That is the job of government agencies. It's dishonest to suggest (or more often, imply) that gamers need to do more about anonymous internet threats, which brings me to why this narrative is run. It is a bargaining position, a drama bomb that anti-GG types will drop to put gamers on the defensive, to try to coerce them into some other concession.<br><br>These other concessions are things like "stop using your name, make up a new name" or "parrot our words on this topic". Parroting their words, becoming part of their gang on the surface, is what they want most. Bullying doesn't work without at least a successful threat display, and getting a bunch of people to say the same thing in a threatening tone is one of the simplest. Once a bully has at least the appearance of a mob backing them up, not giving in to their coercion starts to look risky. In contrast, it looks cheap to acquiesce and speak the words the bullies have demanded. Once the words are spoken, the speaker appears from the outside to be part of the gang, and appearance is all the gang leader really needs to operate.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Warboss Squee</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 05:06:17 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Alathon;795087</cite>It's dishonest to challenge gamers to do something about anonymous internet threats; gamers are not the NSA, nor are they an omniscient deity, there is no credible circumstance in which gamers could ever actually regulate internet threats. That is the job of government agencies. It's dishonest to suggest (or more often, imply) that gamers need to do more about anonymous internet threats, which brings me to why this narrative is run. It is a bargaining position, a drama bomb that anti-GG types will drop to put gamers on the defensive, to try to coerce them into some other concession.<br><br>These other concessions are things like "stop using your name, make up a new name" or "parrot our words on this topic". Parroting their words, becoming part of their gang on the surface, is what they want most. Bullying doesn't work without at least a successful threat display, and getting a bunch of people to say the same thing in a threatening tone is one of the simplest. Once a bully has at least the appearance of a mob backing them up, not giving in to their coercion starts to look risky. In contrast, it looks cheap to acquiesce and speak the words the bullies have demanded. Once the words are spoken, the speaker appears from the outside to be part of the gang, and appearance is all the gang leader really needs to operate.</blockquote><br>Funny thing is, there is a twitter set up just to flag abusive tweets from the GG side of the fence. It was set up by GG supporters.<br><br>I don't see the other side doing anything to police the idiots on their side, but GG is actually trying.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>One Horse Town</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 07:32:04 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I personally don't give much of a toss about this, not my scene, but as this turned up on the BBC news site and interrupted my usual reading habits, i though i'd post it here for you lot to argue endlessly about.<br><br>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29821050
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 08:13:18 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: One Horse Town;795101</cite>I personally don't give much of a toss about this, not my scene, but as this turned up on the BBC news site and interrupted my usual reading habits, i though i'd post it here for you lot to argue endlessly about.<br><br>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29821050</blockquote><br>Wow, I see she's gotten some profession style tips and makeup work now. <br><br>Seriously though - this is an example of why the ANTI-GG people don't want it to go away either, because if it ever did, they wouldn't get to be on the Beeb and MSNBC and write articles or give interviews... they'd lose THEIR celebrity status. So in a way, we're doing them a favor I guess.<br><br>Would be nice if they'd interview some pro-GG folks occasionally though. You know, fair and balanced and all that good stuff.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 08:15:53 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Well, here's an anti-GG article calling out anti-GG:<br><br>http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/10/how_to_end_gamergate_a_divide_and_conquer_plan.2.html
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 08:55:42 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;795104</cite>Well, here's an anti-GG article calling out anti-GG:<br><br>http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/10/how_to_end_gamergate_a_divide_and_conquer_plan.2.html</blockquote><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>From the beginning, no one has really contested the idea that much of the gaming press is crap. The notion that Gamergate is really about "ethics in journalism" is laughed off in light of the harassment and misogyny that's been witnessed over the last two months—not because those ethics concerns are invalid, but because the movement has no credibility to be arguing over those things. Still, the ironic fact remains that moderates remain in the movement because of those concerns, not because of their misogynist tendencies. This wouldn't mean a thing, of course, except that addressing those ethics concerns will get those moderates to leave Gamergate. That is why journalistic ethics are important.</blockquote><br>As a means to an end and not as an end in itself?<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>So would it hurt to do something about all this? One site, the Escapist, did issue new ethics policies and allowed civil discussion of Gamergate early after the start of the controversy, and Gamergate members, shockingly, seemed satisfied, as the Escapist did not make the Gamergate community's boycott list, even after the Escapist subsequently ran 10 interviews with anonymous female game developers, many of whom were sharply critical of Gamergate.</blockquote><br>It's almost as if the author wasn't expecting the GGs to be reasonable....<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>It would behoove the press and other observers of Gamergate to recognize that the movement's flaws are, for the most part, flaws of the Internet, of online discourse, and in a larger sense, of humanity, and that the miasma that floats around Gamergate deserves to be attached to society at large. ... When I wrote about online anonymous culture, I found that verbal abuse, racial epithets, doxxing, and death threats were ubiquitous. The media's discovery of this abuse does not exempt them from doing the real work of researching it, reporting on it, and most significantly, <i>not making it worse</i>, especially when they are part of the story.</blockquote><br>I think we can all agree on that.<br><br>JG
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Nexus</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 09:43:15 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;794959</cite>Yeah, I also don't buy S'mon's characterization of the male and the female brain as if it was an inborn universal. I don't claim to know what the pure genetic sexual behavior of humans without culture. Liberals tend to suggest it is more like bonobos, while conservatives tend to suggest it is more like chimpanzees - but we have major differences from either, and culture is a huge influence on sexual behavior. <br><br>In my experience, adolescent male gamers (like my son) don't have any notable tendency to want helpless damsels to rescue and screw. I think this tends to be a fantasy of people who feel less powerful than they rightfully should be, while people who are more fulfilled tend to fantasize more about being dominated (like dominators/dominatrixes). I associate power fantasies more with adults getting worn down by the job market. If anything, I think today's teens feel a little too powerful. <br><br>A little off-topic - I thought it was interesting to see the trope of rescuing the helpless love interest (i.e. wounded Peeta) feature so prominently in The Hunger Games.</blockquote><br>Honestly I think the helpless damsel/dependent trope has fallen out of popularity over all, at least to some degree except in more comedic fiction. The hero and his opposition might outclass the dependent completely but that's different from being unskilled, helpless and <br>there only to be rescued. <br><br>But I'm getting off on tangent. sorry.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 10:24:02 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
People can interpret this in a bunch of ways consistent with their platforms, but it's interesting:<br><br>http://www.pcgamer.com/researchers-find-that-female-pc-gamers-outnumber-males/<br><br>Overall, SLIGHTLY more women are gamers than men (very slightly, which might reflect population).<br>FPS/MMO are 33% female.<br><br>So ways you can take this:<br>Feminists have 'won'<br>Feminists are stupid because clearly the barriers are minimal or ineffective<br>Women naturally play some games more than others, but '1/3' market is pretty high.<br>Maybe women play everything about equally and FPS/MMOs have a less inclusive environment so they are least present there.<br><br>But hey, data.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 11:01:49 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Anita Sarkeesian appears on Colbert Show:<br>http://jezebel.com/anita-sarkeesian-on-colbert-gamergate-is-terrorizing-w-1652705621?utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_facebook&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow<br><br>(Good job, GG, fighting her insidious influence by vaulting her onto the national stage!)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 12:19:35 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10417650_1501118966823431_5573532028068385891_n.jpg?oh=26b28704a172c1ce4033fd6956d15eac&oe=54E82B6F&__gda__=1424726847_3f5cc612061a7ba639c4d15deb0860bd)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Haffrung</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 01:10:23 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Spinachcat;794993</cite>I agree its utterly laughable how much handwringing there has been about how to get more women into male dominated hobbies, but silence about how female dominated hobbies need to attract males. <br><br>RPGs don't need more women or minorities. RPGs need more RPG players, regardless of their skin color or their crotch junk. I am not sold on belief that the "cult of inclusivity" is the holy grail for any hobby.<br></blockquote><br>What irks me is how the need for greater inclusivity is an unchallenged (and unchallengeable) assumption. Why are some men so much more anxious that more women enjoy their hobby than women are about female-dominated hobbies? And why are we culturally disposed to be suspicious or critical of activities pursued largely by men - presume they are misogynist and need to be reformed, while ignoring female dominated hobbies and genres. If we can accept that perhaps misandry isn't the explanation for historical romance novels, why can't we accept that misogyny isn't the reason for the largely male hobbies like tabletop RPGs?<br><br>Boardgamegeek has seen the same kind of handwringing about 'not enough' female participation in boardgames. When I pointed out that a lot of guys like to get together with only guys to have some beers and blow off steam over a boardgame, out came the accusations of misogyny and immaturity. And yet when my wife goes for a girls night out for dinner and drinks with friends it's a perfectly acceptable - even empowering - activity. Why the double standard?<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Spinachcat;794993</cite>Anyone (on any "side") who thinks the Internet is a useful tool for communication is being naive in 2014. The Internet is a tool of commerce, potentially a tool of education, but its crap at fostering effective human communication between parties of differing viewpoints. It's success at communication is the creation of isolated echo chambers, for better or worse, which allow niche interests to flourish. <br><br>Twitter, the main battleground of Gamergate, is truly terrible medium for actual communication. It's 140 characters of shouting slogans, soundbite propaganda and "me too-ism" that does nothing to build bridges or articulate complex concepts. <br><br>Forums are self-selecting and thus generally become echo chambers. But more importantly, neither "side" is interested in communication. It's Red vs. Blue and only the ideals of "your side" can be allowed to be left standing when the melee is done. <br><br>RPG.net (and many other forums) create "victory" but eliminating discussion of the "other side", and the "victors" can congratulate themselves within their echo chamber. <br><br></blockquote><br>Sad, but true. Binary thinking is deeply ingrained in human nature, and when any contentious issue comes up the first thing people do is determine whose side everyone is on. And then the people on your side are given a free pass, and people on the other side are challenged and attacked relentlessly. Most people have little use for empiricism, trade-offs, or degrees of severity. It's just too much effort to process the world that way.<br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794996</cite>It needs to be less hostile and unwelcoming to some groups. <br></blockquote><br>RPGs and video-games are played largely by young male geeks. Gee, who would have thought young male geeks would tend to be socially awkward people who don't understand social clues and are prone to anxiety and inappropriate behavior? Just because nerd culture has become more mainstream doesn't mean socially marginalized 15-year-olds are going to start becoming confident and diplomatic ambassadors for their hobbies. And maybe sticking together with other socially-awkward young men is perfectly natural behaviour.<br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;794996</cite>The only reason it's a grail is because it's an attempt to level ground that's gotten heavily slanted over the past generation or so.<br></blockquote><br>I attended a D&D convention in 1980. There were about 200 participants. Two of them were women. There are way, way more female gamers today than there were a generation ago.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Spinachcat;795018</cite>Feminism wants women to compete equally against men in what was previously "a man's world" and that's a fine concept as long as you acknowledge that "a man's world", at least in the US is a vicious capitalistic competition. Most men were crushed, broken, demoralized and brutalized by "man's world" in the past. Why should it be any different for a woman? <br><br>You want in the mosh pit? Wanna throw elbows? Then get ready to take an elbow. Successful people (male or female) know this. <br></blockquote><br>Yep. Competitive cultures are not nice cultures. The closer you get to the top, the more you'll find yourself among ruthless, competitive types. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Spinachcat;795018</cite>Human males are animals prone to anger and violence. You think some 1960s folk songs and placards erased a million years of genetics? Everyone should be grateful that "angry men" are neutered by video games and Twitter instead of committing actual rape and actual violence. <br><br>Doxxing and nasty posts isn't nice behavior, but let's not forget that many Suffragettes suffered fist to face beat downs for demanding the right to vote.</blockquote><br>Again, the people driving the social agenda tend to be largely ignorant of history. And most also subscribe to the myth of the blank slate, where it's all simply a matter of culturation and we can foster any behaviour we like with education and social sanctions. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;795059</cite>And saying that whites are the majority in the market, as is often the argument, isn't a particularly strong argument, because pretty much every non white person is able to enjoy and emphatize with a lead when the lead happens to be white. Why Hollywood appears to think that a white movie audience won't be able to enjoy and empathize with a lead that isn't Caucasian, to the point of replacing nonwhite *characters with white ones, is baffling.<br></blockquote><br>Is that why Oprah said she couldn't watch Friends because there were no black characters? And why Friends is now regarded as a non-inclusive show that appealed only to self-congratulatory white people? Is tokenism really any better?<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;795059</cite>There could be more roles like Ripley or Meg Ryan's on The Interpreter or uma on Kill Bill, and they would still bank tons of money. House of Sand and Fog also comes to mind.*</blockquote><br>That presumes people who make Hollywood movies don't want to make money or they don't understand their audience. <br><br>Again, this notion that when the market provides what we like it's working properly, but when it doesn't provide what we like it's distorted or flawed. Whatever other flaws the market has, it's the best tool we have for figuring out what lots of people like.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 01:23:28 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Haffrung;795159</cite>What irks me is how the need for greater inclusivity is an unchallenged (and unchallengeable) assumption. Why are some men so much more anxious that more women enjoy their hobby than women are about female-dominated hobbies? And why are we culturally disposed to be suspicious or critical of activities pursued largely by men - presume they are misogynist and need to be reformed, while ignoring female dominated hobbies and genres. If we can accept that perhaps misandry isn't the explanation for historical romance novels, why can't we accept that misogyny isn't the reason for the largely male hobbies like tabletop RPGs?</blockquote><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Haffrung;795159</cite>RPGs and video-games are played largely by young male geeks. Gee, who would have thought young male geeks would tend to be socially awkward people who don't understand social clues and are prone to anxiety and inappropriate behavior? Just because nerd culture has become more mainstream doesn't mean socially marginalized 15-year-olds are going to start becoming confident and diplomatic ambassadors for their hobbies. And maybe sticking together with other socially-awkward young men is perfectly natural behaviour.</blockquote><br>... So on the one hand, you are saying that the way things are is totally just what men and women want different things, and on the other hand young men are socially awkward and stick together in exclusive groups?<br><br>And the idea that male gamers might have a negative impact on women getting into gaming is utter nonsense?<br><br>You don't see any contradiction in what you've said?<br><br>As for 'women's hobbies,' I have not heard of women being dismissive of men in knitting clubs. I've witnessed women made unwelcome in gaming venues.<br><br>(Mind you, I've also witnessed women made welcome in gaming venues, but the point is that it happens.)<br><br>And hey, I've felt excluded from women's spaces (as a stay-at-home parent with little toddlers) and been unhappy about it, actually. It's BS whichever way it happens.<br><br>Just one way is a lot more common.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Haffrung;795159</cite>I attended a D&D convention in 1980. There were about 200 participants. Two of them were women. There are way, way more female gamers today than there were a generation ago.</blockquote><br>I'm not entirely sure gaming conventions are representative. And I think at least part of the problem now is the perception of some (young socially awkward) males that their hobby is being 'taken over' by women.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Nexus</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 01:29:42 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
How many Knitting clubs have you observed vs gaming events?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 01:30:43 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Not many, but from what I understand they have just as many bullshit flamewars over stupid shit.<br><br>"YOU ACRYLIC-USING DOUCHEBAG!"
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 01:34:26 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Warboss Squee;795094</cite>Funny thing is, there is a twitter set up just to flag abusive tweets from the GG side of the fence. It was set up by GG supporters.<br><br>I don't see the other side doing anything to police the idiots on their side, but GG is actually trying.</blockquote><br>True that, the anti-GG side really doesn't seem to care about online harassment unless they're doing it. It is not a bad thing that there are gamers who are reaching out, trying to give proof that they don't want this shit happening, that they'll stop it as best they can. The 'but' is that random people on the internet can't stop the threats from being seen (which is what the threateners want), and can't stop more threats from being made. Only engagement with law enforcement can do that.<br><br>The down side is that attention frenzies like this egg trolls on, energize them to do more. So I really don't know what the net effect will be. I'm hopeful it will be a net positive.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Nexus</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 02:54:43 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Haffrung;795159</cite>What irks me is how the need for greater inclusivity is an unchallenged (and unchallengeable) assumption. Why are some men so much more anxious that more women enjoy their hobby than women are about female-dominated hobbies? And why are we culturally disposed to be suspicious or critical of activities pursued largely by men - presume they are misogynist and need to be reformed, while ignoring female dominated hobbies and genres. If we can accept that perhaps misandry isn't the explanation for historical romance novels, why can't we accept that misogyny isn't the reason for the largely male hobbies like tabletop RPGs?<br><br>Boardgamegeek has seen the same kind of handwringing about 'not enough' female participation in boardgames. When I pointed out that a lot of guys like to get together with only guys to have some beers and blow off steam over a boardgame, out came the accusations of misogyny and immaturity. And yet when my wife goes for a girls night out for dinner and drinks with friends it's a perfectly acceptable - even empowering - activity. Why the double standard?<br></blockquote><br>Women, for good and ill, are often seen as the oppressed in Western society, the victims. As such they receive some special consideration. A "Weaker" group intruding into the perceived domain of a stronger one is empowering, a victory, generally we cheer for the underdog. The reverse is (or can be seen as) an invasion and violation of a "safe space" that the weaker needs. Several years ago, for example, an all woman's college decided to admit men for the first time and there was a flood of outrage, even despair from the students with organized protests, sit in, etc. It was treated with understanding even sympathy while the reverse would have been seen as rank sexism.<br><br>There's allot of guilt behind it too. White males have been told how bad they've been in a general sense and some take it to heart, personally. They see double standards as their due punishment for it. Besides, there's always been double standards just that in the today's social and political atmosphere calling out the ones that benefit women (or the "weaker" side) is frowned on. <br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>RPGs and video-games are played largely by young male geeks. Gee, who would have thought young male geeks would tend to be socially awkward people who don't understand social clues and are prone to anxiety and inappropriate behavior? Just because nerd culture has become more mainstream doesn't mean socially marginalized 15-year-olds are going to start becoming confident and diplomatic ambassadors for their hobbies. And maybe sticking together with other socially-awkward young men is perfectly natural behaviour.<br></blockquote><br>I think there is a tendency among the socially awkward to see their hobby group as their social group as well. Combine that with a lack of other social outlets and some fear/distrust and yes, dislike, of women due to their social awkwardness and its a recipe for bad behavior. I've seen similar treatment directed at those perceived as one of the popular types of people: athletic, good looking, etc. Though it doesn't seem to be a common, perhaps because they're usually not a target of longing too?<br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>I attended a D&D convention in 1980. There were about 200 participants. Two of them were women. There are way, way more female gamers today than there were a generation ago.<br></blockquote><br>Yeah, in high school we couldn't find girls that wanted to play even "geeky" girls from the AP classes we were from. Now, slightly under half out group are women, I know of several all women groups and constantly bump into women gamers, Two our local FLGS/comic stores are owned and operated by women.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Thornhammer</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 03:18:34 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;795161</cite>And I think at least part of the problem now is the perception of some (young socially awkward) males that their hobby is being 'taken over' by women.</blockquote><br>The current rhetoric of "Mere tolerance of our cause is unacceptable, if you aren't sufficiently enthusiastic in your support, you're part of the problem and will be banned from *insert forum name* forever and/or need to die" doesn't help them solve that problem.<br><br>-Thornhammer
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 03:33:25 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;795132</cite>Anita Sarkeesian appears on Colbert Show:<br>http://jezebel.com/anita-sarkeesian-on-colbert-gamergate-is-terrorizing-w-1652705621?utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_facebook&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow<br><br>(Good job, GG, fighting her insidious influence by vaulting her onto the national stage!)</blockquote>Apparently, the segment got HEAVILY editted. (https://archive.today/08OxE)<br>(http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2014/303/e/8/jaja_by_requiemsvoid-d84okp9.jpg)<br>(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/856/672/f08.png)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Haffrung</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 03:43:12 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;795161</cite>... So on the one hand, you are saying that the way things are is totally just what men and women want different things, and on the other hand young men are socially awkward and stick together in exclusive groups?<br><br>And the idea that male gamers might have a negative impact on women getting into gaming is utter nonsense?<br><br></blockquote><br>I'm sure socially-awkward dorks do have a negative impact on women - and other people - getting into gaming. But gamers who are such dorks that people feel uncomfortable around them have already shown that they have difficulty with social norms. Shaming is unlikely to change their behaviour.<br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;795161</cite>As for 'women's hobbies,' I have not heard of women being dismissive of men in knitting clubs. I've witnessed women made unwelcome in gaming venues.<br></blockquote><br>Frankly, my impression is that the people who play in public gaming venues tend to be among the most socially maladjusted or marginal participants in the hobby. They're often very young, or living in conditions where they cannot have people in their homes. Heck, my 74-year-old dad would probably be uncomfortable around a lot the folks I've seen hanging out at my FLGs. <br><br>Again, if these people don't understand the social cues that they should bathe once in a while, make eye contact, or consume less than 3,000 calories a day in junk food, what's the likelihood a campaign to make them more welcoming and tolerant of girls will gain any traction?<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;795161</cite>And hey, I've felt excluded from women's spaces (as a stay-at-home parent with little toddlers) and been unhappy about it, actually. It's BS whichever way it happens.<br><br>Just one way is a lot more common.<br><br></blockquote><br>If it's a lot more common, it's because there are a lot more women who want to do traditionally male activities than there are men who want to do traditionally female activities. And women also tend to be more diplomatic. A guy who shows up to a book club expecting detailed textual analysis rather than wide-ranging chat over excellent appetizers and red wine will be let down gently that he's barking up the wrong tree. But most of the women will be more relieved than disappointed when he stops showing up. Because being around only women is the whole point of things like book clubs.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 03:51:35 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Well, I'll agree with you about public gaming.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 06:07:57 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;795143</cite>(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10417650_1501118966823431_5573532028068385891_n.jpg?oh=26b28704a172c1ce4033fd6956d15eac&oe=54E82B6F&__gda__=1424726847_3f5cc612061a7ba639c4d15deb0860bd)</blockquote><br>(http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/cf/66/d1/cf66d1a477e7829b278da914468c6c8e.jpg)<br><br><b>Kettle Logic</b> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettle_logic)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 07:15:00 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
See this is why I put Will, Ladybird, and Ben into my ignore list. Massive amount of evidence had given out that supports gamergate and they have their heads buried in the sand. You can't reason with them because they refuse to be reasonable. Instead they preach their bullshit narrative expecting people to see their way. What do you call when people keep on doing the same thing and yet expect different results? We call that insanity.<br><br>Now is gamergate perfect? FUCK NO. We got trolls, but you know what the reasonable people in gamergate and notyourshield are at least doing something to cull those trolls out of the group. Problem is that gamergate is the only one limiting the number of trolls they have. You do not see the other side doing that shit other than say one person that I believe had been mention in this thread. That is still only one person compared to gamergate which has thousands of people doing just that.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Nexus</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 07:28:43 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Haffrung;795198</cite>I'm sure socially-awkward dorks do have a negative impact on women - and other people - getting into gaming. But gamers who are such dorks that people feel uncomfortable around them have already shown that they have difficulty with social norms. Shaming is unlikely to change their behaviour.<br><br><br><br><br>Frankly, my impression is that the people who play in public gaming venues tend to be among the most socially maladjusted or marginal participants in the hobby. They're often very young, or living in conditions where they cannot have people in their homes. Heck, my 74-year-old dad would probably be uncomfortable around a lot the folks I've seen hanging out at my FLGs. <br><br>Again, if these people don't understand the social cues that they should bathe once in a while, make eye contact, or consume less than 3,000 calories a day in junk food, what's the likelihood a campaign to make them more welcoming and tolerant of girls will gain any traction?<br><br><br><br>If it's a lot more common, it's because there are a lot more women who want to do traditionally male activities than there are men who want to do traditionally female activities. And women also tend to be more diplomatic. A guy who shows up to a book club expecting detailed textual analysis rather than wide-ranging chat over excellent appetizers and red wine will be let down gently that he's barking up the wrong tree. But most of the women will be more relieved than disappointed when he stops showing up. Because being around only women is the whole point of things like book clubs.</blockquote><br><br>Another reason is that there's more social consequences to men entering many traditionally female dominated hobbies. A man that wants to join a knitting circle or a scrapbooking club is going to be seen as odd and not masculine by many. Some will suspect it of being a ploy to make advances on the other members without much competition. Though to be fair, sometimes women entering male dominated activities and spaces get the same accusation but more they're trying to acquire a captive audience. <br><br>Woman and girls that want to enter gaming as often, well, considered out in the first place, types to ignore social pressure and cues or don't even think of it as a a "guy" thing anymore. Or do and that's part of the reason. Breaking into a guys only activity is seen as empowering and a positive in our current culture not a loss of femininity.At least not as often and that barrier is shrinking all the time due in part to feminist movements. <br><br>The example with the book club calls back to something I mentioned earlier. Its not uncommon to conflate a hobby gathering with a social gathering, something you do to get together with friends and acquaintances for an enjoyable time and allot of people, men and women, prefer these times, to be single gender, at least some of the time and not for misogynistic or misandry driven reasons but from the outside it could very well look that way particularly if all this was unspoken or largely so.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 08:08:18 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;795234</cite>See this is why I put Will, Ladybird, and Ben into my ignore list. Massive amount of evidence had given out that supports gamergate and they have their heads buried in the sand. You can't reason with them because they refuse to be reasonable. Instead they preach their bullshit narrative expecting people to see their way. What do you call when people keep on doing the same thing and yet expect different results? We call that insanity. </blockquote><br>Well, then everyone who learns to ride a bike must be crazy ;) I dunno, its not often I use an ignore list, but yeah there is a point where a poster is obviously not willing or able to make a reasoned response and broaches that line to just trolling. Maybe I give people the benefit of the doubt too much, or maybe I just enjoy arguing too much. I think its human nature though to entrench oneself further into a position rather than take whatever slight to the ego that comes with even admitting they might be wrong about something. Since thats not my position I may not recognize lost causes as fast as I should. Ah well, c'est laVie. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Now is gamergate perfect? FUCK NO. We got trolls, but you know what the reasonable people in gamergate and notyourshield are at least doing something to cull those trolls out of the group. Problem is that gamergate is the only one limiting the number of trolls they have. You do not see the other side doing that shit other than say one person that I believe had been mention in this thread. That is still only one person compared to gamergate which has thousands of people doing just that.</blockquote><br>From this whole situation Ive seen two good things come out of it, and both of those come from the GG side. While I'm still not going to join in GG, which I still see as a futile enterprise, the anti-GG crowd has proven themselves to be nothing more than hatemongerers, so I will say I most definitely am anti-anti-GG. If that means Im labeled "anti-feminist", well, thats ok, because being antifeminist doesnt mean being anti-women or anti-equal rights. Geeks have had to deal with pernicious stereotypes and social ostracization since long before I was born, and this is no different IMO. Sarkeesian misewell be Professor Wertham testifying that comics cause juvenile delinquency.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 09:45:40 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;795244</cite>From this whole situation Ive seen two good things come out of it, and both of those come from the GG side. While I'm still not going to join in GG, which I still see as a futile enterprise, the anti-GG crowd has proven themselves to be nothing more than hatemongerers, so I will say I most definitely am anti-anti-GG. If that means Im labeled "anti-feminist", well, thats ok, because being antifeminist doesnt mean being anti-women or anti-equal rights. Geeks have had to deal with pernicious stereotypes and social ostracization since long before I was born, and this is no different IMO. Sarkeesian misewell be Professor Wertham testifying that comics cause juvenile delinquency.</blockquote><br>I consider this lot to be worse than the Jack Thompsons of the world in that they have media pull, a network of allies to call on across 2nd tier media, and to some degree in regular media. I still think they can be beat, and moreover that a crushing victory is possible (if improbable in the next couple months) because they're so thoroughly dishonest and in particular abusive to their own followers. Continued scrutiny serves gamers far better than it does the anti-GG lobby. But, futile in that it's not a winnable fight, or futile that we're tilting with the wrong windmill, or what?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 09:48:48 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Yes, it's not that we interpret evidence, distrust certain sources, or simply see things differently, it's that we are willfully blind to the truth.<br><br>Considering people might just... disagree is scary, I realize.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 09:56:31 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Okay you nailed me there on the bike training. I just believe there is a difference between riding a bike and denying the truth after seeing evidence that supports that truth.<br><br>I just refuse to talk to people that will not believe the evidence that is laid before them. They are a waste of time and I might as well save myself from the head aches to come in trying to reason with them. They don't want to be reason with. They want you to drink their damn kool-aid and be a follower. To them it is listen and believe. Frankly that shit will not fly with me.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 10:01:39 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Alathon we will win. History had shown we will win because there reasonable people using their critical thinking skills to fight this. These reasonable people will defeat the corrupt social justice media in the same manner how they defeated the Salem Witch trails and McArthyism. With facts, evidence, and reason.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 10:03:03 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Salem Witch Trials and McCarthyism?<br><br>... oooo kay.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Machinegun Blue</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 10:34:56 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;795260</cite>Alathon we will win. History had shown we will win because there reasonable people using their critical thinking skills to fight this. These reasonable people will defeat the corrupt social justice media in the same manner how they defeated the Salem Witch trails and McArthyism. With facts, evidence, and reason.</blockquote><br>Dude, when was the last time you stepped outside and got a deep breath of fresh air? Or kissed a girl?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>October 30, 2014, 10:49:16 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Okay the scale is way off, but the point still stands that reasonable people will eventually win over the nutters.<br><br>Also to answer your question Machinegun Blue I would say earlier today so shut the fuck up. Seriously you try to insult me instead of debating my points shows a lot more about you than it does me.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Iosue</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 01:08:12 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;795261</cite>Salem Witch Trials and McCarthyism?<br><br>... oooo kay.</blockquote><br>Dude, The Purple just instituted a mass ban policy for anyone openly declaring support for GamerGate. People have been calling it a "Hate Group", and making comparisons to ISIS, the KKK, and Neo-nazis.<br><br>Let us agree to disagree as to the exact ratio of trolls to non-trolls who use the GamerGate banner. Heck, let us even, for the sake of argument, stipulate that there is a core of deeply cynical, deeply subversive, misogynistic assholes, surrounded by many who aren't misogynistic, but care about the state of gaming journalism and/or excessive political correctness (what Scalzi called "useful idiots").<br><br>Why should those people get banned from Purple or other places? Why must they be called idiots? Why must they be insulted online, and lumped in with the misogynistic assholes, even after repudiating the words and actions of the misogynistic assholes?<br><br>At what point does the diversity of GamerGate get recognized? At what point does a majority of people saying its about gaming journalism get recognized for having shifted the message? Because it's not hard to find pro-GG media that is not at all misogynistic, nor even really concerned with Anna Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn. It's not hard to find pro-GG material created by women, people of color, and LGBT people.<br><br>And if the answer is, "It doesn't matter who they are or what they say; if they are supporting GG they are supporting misogyny and harassment," well, congratulations. That's McCarthyism. That's where people are judged not by their words or their actions, but by a label they've identified with, and the people they associate with. Or even, the people other people associate them with.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ratman_tf</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 01:08:17 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
(http://i.imgur.com/WsZqDbF.jpg)<br><br>On a more serious note, David Pakman has done some interviewing of pro and neutral GG people.<br><br>TotalBiscuit<br>http://youtu.be/WaMccosnRMc?list=UUvixJtaXuNdMPUGdOPcY8Ag<br><br>Milo<br>http://youtu.be/ljIMMCQyexA?list=UUvixJtaXuNdMPUGdOPcY8Ag<br><br>Jennie<br>http://youtu.be/kqwLyjcQ6SU?list=UUvixJtaXuNdMPUGdOPcY8Ag
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ratman_tf</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 01:23:38 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
And CH Sommers is threatened via twitter for supporting GG.<br><br>https://twitter.com/chsommers/status/527985254192398337<br><br>By the SJW Rules of Engagement, I hereby and forthwith declare anyone critical of #GamerGate to be a misogynist, neo-nazi who supports violence against women, and they're probably jaywalkers too. I call for the eradication of this toxic movement of dangerous people.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 01:27:27 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;795260</cite>Alathon we will win. History had shown we will win because there reasonable people using their critical thinking skills to fight this. These reasonable people will defeat the corrupt social justice media in the same manner how they defeated the Salem Witch trails and McArthyism. With facts, evidence, and reason.</blockquote>Reason is a great tool for ethics but is surely not bounded by ethics. Corruption is engaged in because it's often hugely advantageous and the potential costs may never be imposed. I think we have the means at hand to achieve substantial victories (and already have with gawker), but should not count our chickens before they hatch.<br><br>Though it's not a bad thing to keep inevitable victory in mind when the anti-GGers are razzing us. It makes it easier to smile and discuss while they spit and snarl, to focus on constructive activism while they smear us on twitter. We can score a minor victory for ourselves and a minor defeat for them every time we stay cool when they want us to get hurt. We're practicing being chill while they're practicing being angry, again and again.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;795261</cite>Salem Witch Trials and McCarthyism?</blockquote>Merely a difference of scope. It's remembered as McCarthyism because a United States Senator decided to do it. If someone like Dianne Feinstein decided to cash her chips to throw in with the anti-GGers, then it'd be exactly like McCarthyism.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 01:29:43 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Alathon;795252</cite>But, futile in that it's not a winnable fight, or futile that we're tilting with the wrong windmill, or what?</blockquote><br>I guess wrong windmill. I don't think "ethics in gaming journalism" is the right rallying cry.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Warboss Squee</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 01:46:27 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Iosue;795277</cite>Dude, The Purple just instituted a mass ban policy for anyone openly declaring support for GamerGate. People have been calling it a "Hate Group", and making comparisons to ISIS, the KKK, and Neo-nazis.<br><br>Let us agree to disagree as to the exact ratio of trolls to non-trolls who use the GamerGate banner. Heck, let us even, for the sake of argument, stipulate that there is a core of deeply cynical, deeply subversive, misogynistic assholes, surrounded by many who aren't misogynistic, but care about the state of gaming journalism and/or excessive political correctness (what Scalzi called "useful idiots").<br><br>Why should those people get banned from Purple or other places? Why must they be called idiots? Why must they be insulted online, and lumped in with the misogynistic assholes, even after repudiating the words and actions of the misogynistic assholes?<br><br>At what point does the diversity of GamerGate get recognized? At what point does a majority of people saying its about gaming journalism get recognized for having shifted the message? Because it's not hard to find pro-GG media that is not at all misogynistic, nor even really concerned with Anna Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn. It's not hard to find pro-GG material created by women, people of color, and LGBT people.<br><br>And if the answer is, "It doesn't matter who they are or what they say; if they are supporting GG they are supporting misogyny and harassment," well, congratulations. That's McCarthyism. That's where people are judged not by their words or their actions, but by a label they've identified with, and the people they associate with. Or even, the people other people associate them with.</blockquote><br>*Channels Darth Vader*<br><br>You are a member of Game Gate and a traitor. Take him away!
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 03:18:06 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;795281</cite>I guess wrong windmill. I don't think "ethics in gaming journalism" is the right rallying cry.</blockquote><br>I want things far beyond just ethics in gaming journalism, but I think it's an excellent short term goal for a few reasons. I want things like "ethics in journalism" and "the American public agrees that bigotry against men is not okay" and "the American school system looks after boys". These are huge things that I absolutely need, but which sadly are also huge asks which will require years of work by tens of millions of people.<br><br>By going for ethics in gaming journalism, I chip away at unethical conduct in journalism. If I tried to take on everyone I think is being unethical directly at the start, I'd lose hilariously. I focus on media outlets near to my interests and with limited ability to survive contact with serious opposition. Gawker and Vox are far less durable than the NYT or Washington Post. Once the theoretical consequences of corruption are being enacted for real, calculations change and positions adjust.<br><br>Gaming journalism is simpler than political or business journalism, I can do things like walk away from every single adverjournalism outlet and still get my info from youtubers, whose interests can be aligned with their viewers through micropatronage. Just the basic costs, and the risks associated with crossing up real interests, make it difficult for a TotalBiscuit or Boogie to deliver in that space the way they can in gaming journalism. Consequently I can get good results quickly in gaming journalism, accellerating progress towards more long term goals. <br><br>Given the choice, I'd much rather chunk out a few godawful tabloid media companies like gawker, than put someone like the New York Times or Washington Post out of business. If I can convince them to do less liberalizing and more reporting, that would be ideal. If I can get them to treat bigoted feminist activists like bigots rather than heroes, that would be a tremendous start.<br><br>Finally, the gender feminists are brittle, a defeat in a mainstream hobby like video gaming will wound them terribly. They need to look as undefeated as they can for their more coercive tactics to work, and they love them some coercion. I think I'll take that toy away.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ladybird</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 03:53:51 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Alathon;795288</cite>By going for ethics in gaming journalism, I chip away at unethical conduct in journalism. If I tried to take on everyone I think is being unethical directly at the start, I'd lose hilariously. I focus on media outlets near to my interests and with limited ability to survive contact with serious opposition. Gawker and Vox are far less durable than the NYT or Washington Post. Once the theoretical consequences of corruption are being enacted for real, calculations change and positions adjust.</blockquote><br>So, what's your solution to the fact that games media is funded by the major games publishers? How are you going to fix the fact it is "corrupt" by design, has been for decades, and the majority of the audience appear to like the gushing fanboy reviews and lengthy preview articles? Or does running ad content as editorial no longer count as corruption...<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Gaming journalism is simpler than political or business journalism, I can do things like walk away from every single adverjournalism outlet and still get my info from youtubers, whose interests can be aligned with their viewers through micropatronage.</blockquote><br>Yeah, about that... (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-07-16-blurred-lines-are-youtubers-breaking-the-law)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 04:18:24 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;795255</cite>I just refuse to talk to people that will not believe the evidence that is laid before them. They are a waste of time and I might as well save myself from the head aches to come in trying to reason with them. They don't want to be reason with. They want you to drink their damn kool-aid and be a follower. To them it is listen and believe. Frankly that shit will not fly with me.</blockquote><br>Arguing with the other side isn't going to persuade the other side. How you present yourself in addressing the other side may have an impact on 'floating voters', though. When I see one side of an argument make reasoned points supported by evidence while the other side spews filth and vitriol, I tend to think the reasoned-points side is on to something.<br><br>Even if someone seems utterly block-headed, it's best not to get angry at them, and certainly not to type while angry. <br>Also, even if someone is really annoying, it's best not to call them a troll if they appear to possibly be sincere in their (wrongheaded) views - a troll says stuff just to get a reaction, not because they believe in it.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Iosue</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 04:18:46 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ratman_tf;795278</cite>On a more serious note, David Pakman has done some interviewing of pro and neutral GG people.<br><br>TotalBiscuit<br>http://youtu.be/WaMccosnRMc?list=UUvixJtaXuNdMPUGdOPcY8Ag<br><br>Milo<br>http://youtu.be/ljIMMCQyexA?list=UUvixJtaXuNdMPUGdOPcY8Ag<br><br>Jennie<br>http://youtu.be/kqwLyjcQ6SU?list=UUvixJtaXuNdMPUGdOPcY8Ag</blockquote><br>Wow. The interview with Brianna Wu did her absolutely no favors.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 04:20:02 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;795260</cite>These reasonable people will defeat the corrupt social justice media in the same manner how they defeated the Salem Witch trails and McArthyism. With facts, evidence, and reason.</blockquote><br>There weren't any real witches in Salem. The US State Department actually was full of Communist sympathisers. :D
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 04:46:20 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ladybird;795289</cite>So, what's your solution to the fact that games media is funded by the major games publishers? How are you going to fix the fact it is "corrupt" by design, has been for decades, and the majority of the audience appear to like the gushing fanboy reviews and lengthy preview articles? Or does running ad content as editorial no longer count as corruption...</blockquote>I don't need to fix the current gaming media outlets. I walk away from them, and their corruption no longer screws with me personally. I make a case to others that they can get better gaming news elsewhere, and more than a few seem to be making that choice. I participate in boycotts and letter writing campaigns to advertisers, the results of which have been substantial as most do not want to support bigotry and bullying targeted at their customers. These steps wouldn't work against a 'Nintendo Power' that's directly funded by Nintendo, of course, but for most of the rest they contribute to defunding the target media outlets. If the money moves, industry moves or dies.<br><br>With youtubers, many of the same perverse incentives exist that have existed in gaming media, but they're in a different position. As independent contractors they can choose to be ethical and not be pressured by a boss. As their own masters, they can choose to engage in conflicts and not simply be removed from their speaking position by pressure from a game company. If the trend toward crowdfunding gaming journalists continues, they can choose to do things like forego advertisement entirely -- some of them will. Many, if gamers push for it and pay for it. It's easy for even just a thousand people to fund one journalist, and this is an industry measured in millions. There are many people willing to be ethical journalists if only they can be permitted to pay their damned bills doing it.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>One Horse Town</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 07:07:50 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Sorry folks, but the next person who posts an image without any other substance to the post gets the thread closed. Pundit has for a long time said that he doesn't like posted images in lieu of content.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Herr Arnulfe</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 10:24:31 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Alathon;795288</cite>Finally, the gender feminists are brittle, a defeat in a mainstream hobby like video gaming will wound them terribly. They need to look as undefeated as they can for their more coercive tactics to work, and they love them some coercion. I think I'll take that toy away.</blockquote>Just to clarify the terminology and motives here, "Equity feminists" lobby for equal rights and tend to be associated with labor unions etc. "Gender feminists" are predominantly academics who identify and attack the underlying causes of gender inequality. While equity feminists steer clear of hot-button topics like cultural misogyny, gender feminists zero in on precisely those issues for analysis. So, "gender feminists" in media criticism may sometimes seem coercive because they're seeking to annihilate the pleasure men derive from misogynistic or objectifying media, and all humans have a natural tendency to defend things we find pleasurable. But gender feminists' ultimate goal is gender equality, not women's supremacy.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 10:41:13 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Alathon;795288</cite>Finally, the gender feminists are brittle, a defeat in a mainstream hobby like video gaming will wound them terribly. They need to look as undefeated as they can for their more coercive tactics to work, and they love them some coercion. I think I'll take that toy away.</blockquote><br>And if they suffer a defeat you'll claim 'ha, they are making themselves look like a victim!'<br><br>Nice way to make ANY result look like their clever arch plan. (I don't give them, or anyone, that much credit)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 10:41:47 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ratman_tf;795279</cite>And CH Sommers is threatened via twitter for supporting GG.<br><br>https://twitter.com/chsommers/status/527985254192398337<br><br>By the SJW Rules of Engagement, I hereby and forthwith declare anyone critical of #GamerGate to be a misogynist, neo-nazi who supports violence against women, and they're probably jaywalkers too. I call for the eradication of this toxic movement of dangerous people.</blockquote><br>Do you have a link to the threat?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 12:19:36 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795330</cite>Just to clarify the terminology and motives here, "Equity feminists" lobby for equal rights and tend to be associated with labor unions etc. "Gender feminists" are predominantly academics who identify and attack the underlying causes of gender inequality. While equity feminists steer clear of hot-button topics like cultural misogyny, gender feminists zero in on precisely those issues for analysis. So, "gender feminists" in media criticism may sometimes seem coercive because they're seeking to annihilate the pleasure men derive from misogynistic or objectifying media, and all humans have a natural tendency to defend things we find pleasurable. But gender feminists' ultimate goal is gender equality, not women's supremacy.</blockquote>Savvy negotiators and honest people both will claim that their goals are just for all, that their methods are appropriate and really not that bad. It can be tricky to tell them apart at first, but track records are a good way to figure them out. When people have a track record of attacking people aggressively for minor faults, insinuating blame where no credible authority or responsibility exists, implying socially corrosive things in response to their position being challenged, and threatening consequences for lack of compliance, it's a pretty safe bet that they're abusive people using coercion to their advantage.<br><br>If you're a gender feminist, that's not something you should be proud of. Running a 24/7 rape scare to keep the followers energized and fearful of their designated enemies is Hearstian. It's no accident that in America, liberal media outlets are picking this up right before November fourth, while second tier conservative outlets support GG and the big ones keep mum. It's also no accident that the gamergate is dead (haha) narrative is being run; it's likely so when the liberal outlets change their coverage of it come December they have some plausible deniability. They can say it's over, or say that whatever is going on is clearly some new movement that emerged from the previous movement.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;795333</cite>And if they suffer a defeat you'll claim 'ha, they are making themselves look like a victim!'<br><br>Nice way to make ANY result look like their clever arch plan. (I don't give them, or anyone, that much credit)</blockquote>Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, and the rest, are shouting to all that will hear them that they've been driven from their homes by rape and death threats made anonymously on the internet. They surely do not need my assistance in messaging that they are damsels in distress.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 12:22:43 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Alathon;795345</cite>Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, and the rest, are shouting to all that will hear them that they've been driven from their homes by rape and death threats made anonymously on the internet. They surely do not need my assistance in messaging that they are damsels in distress.</blockquote><br>Then your comment that 'a defeat would wound them terribly' doesn't make much sense, does it?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Nexus</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 12:44:17 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795330</cite>But gender feminists' ultimate goal is gender equality, not women's supremacy.</blockquote><br>It can be very difficult to tell that sometimes.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ratman_tf</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 12:57:24 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;795334</cite>Do you have a link to the threat?</blockquote><br>A woman feels threatened on the internet, that's all I need to know.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 01:02:06 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795330</cite>Just to clarify the terminology and motives here, "Equity feminists" lobby for equal rights and tend to be associated with labor unions etc. "Gender feminists" are predominantly academics who identify and attack the underlying causes of gender inequality. While equity feminists steer clear of hot-button topics like cultural misogyny, gender feminists zero in on precisely those issues for analysis. So, "gender feminists" in media criticism may sometimes seem coercive because they're seeking to annihilate the pleasure men derive from misogynistic or objectifying media, and all humans have a natural tendency to defend things we find pleasurable. But gender feminists' ultimate goal is gender equality, not women's supremacy.</blockquote><br>Non-feminists don't necessarily accept gender feminists' claims re gender feminsts' goals... Especially as gender feminists don't accept that it is legitimate to scrutinise the motivations of gender feminists. They say this explicitly, eg I have a book of essays called Critical Legal Theory where one says "Feminists do not seek to make ourselves the Object of Study'" - warning off other academics from inquiring into (gender) feminist motivations.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ratman_tf</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 01:03:05 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Iosue;795294</cite>Wow. The interview with Brianna Wu did her absolutely no favors.</blockquote><br>Yeah. I'm on the fence about Pakman himself. Skimming his videos, he seems to be some kind of weird progressive shock jock, but his interviews with gamergate people have been decent. <br>Brianna retreated to twitter and bitched about the interview, calling it a 'hit piece'.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 01:18:07 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Alathon;795345</cite>It's no accident that in America, liberal media outlets are picking this up right before November fourth, while second tier conservative outlets support GG and the big ones keep mum. </blockquote><br>Dang, I hadn't spotted that! I knew the US left-media were keeping the Ferguson outrage going to try to increase black turnout in the midterms, but I hadn't thought about GamerGate and how the negative left-media coverage of GG could potentially increase liberal-female turnout. Even if not by a lot, every little helps in midterms where turnout of less motivated voters is traditionally low.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 02:00:37 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
It'd be really interesting, I think, to see how closely GG/anti-GG maps to conservative/liberal.<br><br>I'm guessing 'very closely.'
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ladybird</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 02:17:12 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Alathon;795298</cite>I don't need to fix the current gaming media outlets. I walk away from them, and their corruption no longer screws with me personally. I make a case to others that they can get better gaming news elsewhere, and more than a few seem to be making that choice. I participate in boycotts and letter writing campaigns to advertisers, the results of which have been substantial as most do not want to support bigotry and bullying targeted at their customers. These steps wouldn't work against a 'Nintendo Power' that's directly funded by Nintendo, of course, but for most of the rest they contribute to defunding the target media outlets. If the money moves, industry moves or dies.</blockquote><br>And where exactly do you suggest they go?<br><br>No, I'm honestly curious. This isn't restricted to the platform-exclusive sites; they're all dependent on the major publishers giving access, inviting them to preview and review days, sending out pre-release review code. And as I said earlier, it's going to stay this way until gamers fund the sites they want to be reading, but this leads neatly on to...<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>With youtubers, many of the same perverse incentives exist that have existed in gaming media, but they're in a different position. As independent contractors they can choose to be ethical and not be pressured by a boss. As their own masters, they can choose to engage in conflicts and not simply be removed from their speaking position by pressure from a game company. If the trend toward crowdfunding gaming journalists continues, they can choose to do things like forego advertisement entirely -- some of them will. Many, if gamers push for it and pay for it. It's easy for even just a thousand people to fund one journalist, and this is an industry measured in millions. There are many people willing to be ethical journalists if only they can be permitted to pay their damned bills doing it.</blockquote><br>...the fact that, even if you fund a journalist, they're still reliant on the same publishers for access, and it's "this year's game in yearly franchise gets 9/10, shockingly" articles that are the bread-and-butter of game sites.<br><br>I'm an RPS (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com) fan, I've been a subscriber for years, I love me some New Games Journalism (http://gillen.cream.org/wordpress_html/assorted-essays/the-new-games-journalism/), but that is a site by enthusiasts that writes content for enthusiasts, and isn't even trying to be populist.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Sacrosanct</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 03:19:13 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
This whole thing just needs to die in fire. Or rather a lot of the most vocal people on either side just need to die in fire. There are low life douchebags on both sides of this issue, and each one is trying outdo the other.<br><br>Anyone who's ever played an video game online knows there are immature idiots who sow misogyny and racism like wheat in a field. I fucking hate these people, and it's one reason why I don't play online games.<br><br>And we also know that women get harassed all the fucking time. That <i>Woman Walking in New York</i> recent video hits that point home.<br><br>And we know that ethics is something sorely lacking in the gaming journalism industry, and has been for a long time. Quid Pro Quo seems the norm. Why is this suddenly a shock now? That's how capitalism works in this country. In politics, it's called "lobbying" ;)<br><br>And we know Brianna Wu created sock puppet (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1H4l0MCUAQATwc.jpg:large) accounts to act like some sort of agent provocateur, so who really knows what threat was an actual threat and not something she (or others like her) made up to make themselves the victim? It's not like there's not a history of extreme activists making threats up (http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/womens-rights-activist-charged-with-rape-threat-hoax-on-face) to get attention.<br><br>About the only thing I know for sure is that yes, there are legitimate reasons to take on misogyny in gaming, and there are legitimate threats against these people. I also know that some of these threats are made up by them. How many? Which ones? Who knows.<br><br>That's why this whole thing just needs a giant reset button, and these attention whoring assholes (on both sides) can go die in fire.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 03:21:58 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Haffrung;795159</cite>Is that why Oprah said she couldn't watch Friends because there were no black characters? And why Friends is now regarded as a non-inclusive show that appealed only to self-congratulatory white people? Is tokenism really any better?<br></blockquote><br>Ophrah is hardly the spoke person for Black people, women or other minorities, but you got me there. I shouldn't have said "pretty much every non-white person". I'd still wager that the vast majority of non-whites who consume media fit into what I said. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>That presumes people who make Hollywood movies don't want to make money or they don't understand their audience. <br></blockquote><br>Well, either they do understand their audience, which is presumably majority white and they realize that they don't have the necessary empathy to identify with a non-white, non-male lead. Or, they don't really understand their audience and underestimate their capacity for such empathy. Take you pick. <br><br>To bring back the Bruce Lee example, they completely missed the boat on that one, given his explosive success later. They could have cashed in quite well had they given him a chance. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Again, this notion that when the market provides what we like it's working properly, but when it doesn't provide what we like it's distorted or flawed. Whatever other flaws the market has, it's the best tool we have for figuring out what lots of people like.</blockquote><br>Well, a couple of points:<br><br>1) New things enter the market and they either fail or succeed<br>2) Some markets have gatekeepers with disproportionate power over the market, and Hollywood is one of those areas. I assume you realize that. <br>3) These gatekeepers can be wrong.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 03:27:54 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;795377</cite>This whole thing just needs to die in fire. Or rather a lot of the most vocal people on either side just need to die in fire. There are low life douchebags on both sides of this issue, and each one is trying outdo the other.<br><br>Anyone who's ever played an video game online knows there are immature idiots who sow misogyny and racism like wheat in a field. I fucking hate these people, and it's one reason why I don't play online games.<br><br>And we also know that women get harassed all the fucking time. That <i>Woman Walking in New York</i> recent video hits that point home.<br><br>And we know that ethics is something sorely lacking in the gaming journalism industry, and has been for a long time. Quid Pro Quo seems the norm. Why is this suddenly a shock now? That's how capitalism works in this country. In politics, it's called "lobbying" ;)<br><br>And we know Brianna Wu created sock puppet (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1H4l0MCUAQATwc.jpg:large) accounts to act like some sort of agent provocateur, so who really knows what threat was an actual threat and not something she (or others like her) made up to make themselves the victim? It's not like there's not a history of extreme activists making threats up (http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/womens-rights-activist-charged-with-rape-threat-hoax-on-face) to get attention.<br><br>About the only thing I know for sure is that yes, there are legitimate reasons to take on misogyny in gaming, and there are legitimate threats against these people. I also know that some of these threats are made up by them. How many? Which ones? Who knows.<br><br>That's why this whole thing just needs a giant reset button, and these attention whoring assholes (on both sides) can go die in fire.</blockquote><br>Hear hear. Agreed.<br><br>However, this thing would *probably* be over if the gaming media did address the ethics problems it has, and issued an apology for prioritizing the covering of their own ass over taking care of that. They also should strongly call out the likes of Sam "Bring Back Bullying" Bidell, Mark "Neuroatypicals" Read and Leigh "Hood Men" Alexander instead of trying to pretend these were attempts at ironic "hipster humor". If they did that, the wind would go out of the GamerGate sails. <br><br>Though I wish it would just evolve and "level up" as wikileaks suggested. The GamerGate fiasco has just highlighted once more how the supposedly "objective" media tilts. Their coverage has been shamefully one sided.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 03:30:24 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;795377</cite>And we also know that women get harassed all the fucking time. That <i>Woman Walking in New York</i> recent video hits that point home.</blockquote><br>Interestingly, this video has come under fire:<br>http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/10/29/catcalling_video_hollaback_s_look_at_street_harassment_in_nyc_edited_out.html?wpsrc=fol_fb<br><br>Basically, one of the folks responsible for the video has a history of slanting stuff in a racially problematic way, and the 'woman walking in New York' JUST HAPPENS to have not managed to get clean video of any white men harassing. (They claimed 'oh, there was a siren or didn't get a good shot' of such things)<br><br>Obviously, women get harassed walking down the street, but just an interesting element of this particular story.<br><br><br><br>Also, I referenced this a while back but finally found the link. An interview that sours as a guy starts ranting about inclusivity...<br><br>http://flavorwire.com/480990/pete-pete-was-all-white-people-slimed-author-mathew-klickstein-on-why-ren-and-stimpy-was-better-than-clarissa-and-nickelodeons-diversity-problem/
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 03:50:30 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;795380</cite>Basically, one of the folks responsible for the video has a history of slanting stuff in a racially problematic way, and the 'woman walking in New York' JUST HAPPENS to have not managed to get clean video of any white men harassing. (They claimed 'oh, there was a siren or didn't get a good shot' of such things)</blockquote><br>New York doesn't have much of a white underclass, and arguably northern Europeans aren't so much for catcalls, anyway - though British building-site workers certainly had a reputation for it. I read that the streets they filmed were mostly black, that they would have got a different mix filming in New York's Puerto Rican areas, say.<br>If they wanted to get video of whites catcalling I would suggest Boston - I've heard it's the one city in the USA where whites routinely "act like they own the place" - or they could go to mostly-white British, Irish, or southern European cities. I get the impression that Scandinavians & Germans don't catcall much.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 04:11:52 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;795369</cite>It'd be really interesting, I think, to see how closely GG/anti-GG maps to conservative/liberal.<br><br>I'm guessing 'very closely.'</blockquote>http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/841/842/7e1.png (http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/841/842/7e1.png)<br>Actually, it seems to track more "Libertarian" versus "Authoritarian".<br><br>While both Milo and Adam Baldwin are fairly solidly Right, IIRC, Totalbiscuit and Christina H. Sommers were both moderate Left's.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 04:12:37 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
The accusation I've heard is that Rob Bliss has a history of making nonwhites look bad. I have no idea if it's TRUE, but it could guide decisions about where they went.<br><br>On the other hand, it could be convergent external racism, in which they went to some area with easily accessible loads of unemployed guys hanging out on the street, which means poor which selects towards minorities.<br><br>So it's racist but not because they are racist? Dunno.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 04:16:35 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;795387</cite>http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/841/842/7e1.png (http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/841/842/7e1.png)<br>Actually, it seems to track more "Libertarian" versus "Authoritarian".<br><br>While both Milo and Adam Baldwin are fairly solidly Right, IIRC, Totalbiscuit and Christina H. Sommers were both moderate Left's.</blockquote><br>Where does the graph come from/what is it based on?<br><br>I have no idea about Totalbiscuit, but Sommers... she might be registered Democrat, but reading up on her views, I'd be hard-pressed to call her even moderate Left, though I can't find anything on her fiscal thoughts (she's mostly focused on social issues).
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 04:31:18 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;795388</cite>So it's racist but not because they are racist? Dunno.</blockquote><br>If you believe that Disparate Impact is racist, yeah. They wouldn't have got video of black harrassers if they had gone to an area without blacks. Getting a lot of video of Anglo-white harrassers in the modern USA might have been trickier, though. In the past 15 years or so Mexican immigration has driven working-class US Anglos out of a lot of the on-street jobs where they'd be in a position to harrass female passers-by, and unemployed Anglos don't have much of a tradition of doing that. But my white American wife certainly used to get catcalled by the (working) white natives of Sheffield & Coventry; mostly white & working class English cities.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Bradford C. Walker</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 04:37:29 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Time to drop some video bombs:<br><br>Sargon of Akkad - The Art of #GamerGate (http://youtu.be/3F7Xze27wKE): A nearly half-hour video reviewing more recent GG developments, how they connect, spoken about over an original art piece by a GG supporter.<br><br>Sargon of Akkad - A Conversation with #GamerGate and #NotYourShield (28/10/2014) (http://youtu.be/2pDrIgkQ0lA) The record of a 4 hour livesteam over Google Hangout from a few days ago; yes, it's worth listening to all of it.<br><br>GamerGaters - GamerGaters - The nature of Identity handles and The GG Harassment Patrol (http://youtu.be/7E2xmRAwq5s)<br><br>GamerGaters - GamerGaters - 27th October Community Stream feat. Roguestar & The Ralph Retort (http://youtu.be/uGj6MUAHBeE)<br><br>Internet Aristocrat - #GamerGate Tonight Stream 10/24/14 (http://youtu.be/g30jXK7ACqY)<br><br>In addition, some YouTube channel links:<br><br>Honey Badger Radio (https://www.youtube.com/user/HoneyBadgerRadio) (frequently talks GamerGate and related issues)<br>GamerGaters (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5GUIvwH5XXlUVrAqmquh7Q)<br>Sargon of Akkad (https://www.youtube.com/user/SargonofAkkad100)<br>Internet Aristocrat (https://www.youtube.com/user/InternetAristocrat)<br><br>Takeaway: Fuck the SJWs and their establishment media presence. This is where the real evidence of GG and its ongoing transformative effect upon the gaming nation crops up- and it does not favor the SJWs.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Herr Arnulfe</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 04:40:28 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;795356</cite>Non-feminists don't necessarily accept gender feminists' claims re gender feminsts' goals... Especially as gender feminists don't accept that it is legitimate to scrutinise the motivations of gender feminists. They say this explicitly, eg I have a book of essays called Critical Legal Theory where one says "Feminists do not seek to make ourselves the Object of Study'" - warning off other academics from inquiring into (gender) feminist motivations.</blockquote>Alathon was using "gender feminists" way too broadly, that's all.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Haffrung</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 04:49:43 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;795378</cite>2) Some markets have gatekeepers with disproportionate power over the market, and Hollywood is one of those areas. I assume you realize that. <br>3) These gatekeepers can be wrong.</blockquote><br>The bottom line in Hollywood is the bottom line. Money. If you have three movie studios, and the heads of two of them are 'gatekeepers' that make assumptions that are wrong, and a third gatekeeper opens up a new market, the first two will change tack. Or else they'll get fired. It's a ferociously competitive industry.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Nexus</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 05:00:54 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;795380</cite>Interestingly, this video has come under fire:<br>http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/10/29/catcalling_video_hollaback_s_look_at_street_harassment_in_nyc_edited_out.html?wpsrc=fol_fb<br><br>Basically, one of the folks responsible for the video has a history of slanting stuff in a racially problematic way, and the 'woman walking in New York' JUST HAPPENS to have not managed to get clean video of any white men harassing. (They claimed 'oh, there was a siren or didn't get a good shot' of such things)<br><br>Obviously, women get harassed walking down the street, but just an interesting element of this particular story.<br><br><br><br>Also, I referenced this a while back but finally found the link. An interview that sours as a guy starts ranting about inclusivity...<br><br>http://flavorwire.com/480990/pete-pete-was-all-white-people-slimed-author-mathew-klickstein-on-why-ren-and-stimpy-was-better-than-clarissa-and-nickelodeons-diversity-problem/</blockquote><br><br>I'm very curious about that video and how much it was edited. Even the choices behind where it was filmed, when and other factors can effect the results and video has a powerful impact...
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>woodsmoke</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 06:05:40 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Hell, even taking the video at face value doesn't exactly prove anything. Out of 10 hours of shooting, they got just under 2 minutes of footage, during which time a grand total of two men did anything more than greet/call out to the woman in passing.<br><br>Because I was bored and curious, I crunched the numbers. 2 minutes of footage (which is more than they actually had, but I'm rounding up because I'm lazy) out of 600 minutes of shooting = .3 repeating percent of total shooting time. Expand that to the scale of a full day (and again ignoring the fact one would generally be asleep for ~1/3 of that time and thus not subject to catcalling because I'm lazy) and you're looking at ~4.5 minutes total. Accounting for the fact the two men were apparently walking along beside her for several minutes each I'll be generous and bump the total up to, say, 20 minutes.<br><br>I don't know about you, but I certainly consider dealing with people I don't know and may not want to (where "dealing with" here means "ignoring them and going about my day," naturally) for a cumulative total of 20 minutes each day incontrovertible proof of the horrible and omnipresent oppression I and everyone like me faces in our society.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 06:17:09 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Just an aside, Woodsmoke, to note that that's a great beer, particularly the Oaked.<br><br><br>And yeah. It's an interesting video in 'hey look at stuff that happens,' but for it to mean much more than that you need, like, studies and interviews. (Which people have done and 'talking to women in my life' is why I understand how anxious it can be living as a woman)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>rawma</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 06:50:49 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: One Horse Town;795305</cite>Sorry folks, but the next person who posts an image without any other substance to the post gets the thread closed. Pundit has for a long time said that he doesn't like posted images in lieu of content.</blockquote><br>I am a little surprised that nobody has posted an image of a briar patch with no text. Perhaps that speaks well of the community's self-control and restraint.<br><br>Back to RPG threads for me now.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 07:20:26 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;795377</cite>Anyone who's ever played an video game online knows there are immature idiots who sow misogyny and racism like wheat in a field. I fucking hate these people, and it's one reason why I don't play online games.<br><br>And we also know that women get harassed all the fucking time. That <i>Woman Walking in New York</i> recent video hits that point home.<br><br>And we know that ethics is something sorely lacking in the gaming journalism industry, and has been for a long time. Quid Pro Quo seems the norm. Why is this suddenly a shock now? That's how capitalism works in this country. In politics, it's called "lobbying" ;)<br><br>And we know Brianna Wu created sock puppet (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1H4l0MCUAQATwc.jpg:large) accounts ...</blockquote>I am in agreement with your first three paragraphs. <br><br>I have no idea at this point who Brianna Wu is, and have no interest in going into allegations about her. Earlier in the thread, I did actually look into the allegations against Zoe Quinn when S'mon and NovaStar argued them - especially since they were the origin of the GamerGate tag. I've also read a few others, but I am rapidly losing interest in a checking out laundy list of accusations against either side.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 08:44:42 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;795377</cite>This whole thing just needs to die in fire. Or rather a lot of the most vocal people on either side just need to die in fire. There are low life douchebags on both sides of this issue, and each one is trying outdo the other.<br><br>Anyone who's ever played an video game online knows there are immature idiots who sow misogyny and racism like wheat in a field. I fucking hate these people, and it's one reason why I don't play online games.<br><br>And we also know that women get harassed all the fucking time. That <i>Woman Walking in New York</i> recent video hits that point home.<br><br>And we know that ethics is something sorely lacking in the gaming journalism industry, and has been for a long time. Quid Pro Quo seems the norm. Why is this suddenly a shock now? That's how capitalism works in this country. In politics, it's called "lobbying" ;)<br><br>And we know Brianna Wu created sock puppet (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1H4l0MCUAQATwc.jpg:large) accounts to act like some sort of agent provocateur, so who really knows what threat was an actual threat and not something she (or others like her) made up to make themselves the victim? It's not like there's not a history of extreme activists making threats up (http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/womens-rights-activist-charged-with-rape-threat-hoax-on-face) to get attention.<br><br>About the only thing I know for sure is that yes, there are legitimate reasons to take on misogyny in gaming, and there are legitimate threats against these people. I also know that some of these threats are made up by them. How many? Which ones? Who knows.<br><br>That's why this whole thing just needs a giant reset button, and these attention whoring assholes (on both sides) can go die in fire.</blockquote><br>#DieInFire
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 09:59:17 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Ok, I'll admit I didn't see this coming...http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/857/658/cfc.jpg (http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/857/658/cfc.jpg)<br><br>Suey Park, the creator of #CancelColbert, calls out Anita Sarkeesian (who signal boosted #CC) for appearing on The Colbert Report.<br><br>Never thought I'd say this either, but I actually agree with Zoe Quinn:<br>http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/857/603/033.jpg (http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/857/603/033.jpg)<br><br><b>The OPPRESSION OLYMPICS have begun!!!</b>
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ratman_tf</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 10:10:11 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;795391</cite>Time to drop some video bombs:<br><br>Sargon of Akkad - The Art of #GamerGate (http://youtu.be/3F7Xze27wKE): A nearly half-hour video reviewing more recent GG developments, how they connect, spoken about over an original art piece by a GG supporter.<br><br>Sargon of Akkad - A Conversation with #GamerGate and #NotYourShield (28/10/2014) (http://youtu.be/2pDrIgkQ0lA) The record of a 4 hour livesteam over Google Hangout from a few days ago; yes, it's worth listening to all of it.<br><br>GamerGaters - GamerGaters - The nature of Identity handles and The GG Harassment Patrol (http://youtu.be/7E2xmRAwq5s)<br><br>GamerGaters - GamerGaters - 27th October Community Stream feat. Roguestar & The Ralph Retort (http://youtu.be/uGj6MUAHBeE)<br><br>Internet Aristocrat - #GamerGate Tonight Stream 10/24/14 (http://youtu.be/g30jXK7ACqY)<br><br>In addition, some YouTube channel links:<br><br>Honey Badger Radio (https://www.youtube.com/user/HoneyBadgerRadio) (frequently talks GamerGate and related issues)<br>GamerGaters (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5GUIvwH5XXlUVrAqmquh7Q)<br>Sargon of Akkad (https://www.youtube.com/user/SargonofAkkad100)<br>Internet Aristocrat (https://www.youtube.com/user/InternetAristocrat)<br><br>Takeaway: Fuck the SJWs and their establishment media presence. This is where the real evidence of GG and its ongoing transformative effect upon the gaming nation crops up- and it does not favor the SJWs.</blockquote><br>Sargon, CH Sommers and King of Pol talk about feminist academia.<br>http://www.hitbox.tv/video/302433<br><br>Sargon interview with the BBC. The interviewer tries to spin the threat narrative, and Sargon slaps him down.<br>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNrCieKUq4s
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>woodsmoke</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 10:20:58 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;795436</cite><b>The OPPRESSION OLYMPICS have begun!!!</b></blockquote><br>Holy shit. It's actually happening. Someone pass me some o' that popcorn. This is going to be <i>glorious.</i><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;795413</cite>Just an aside, Woodsmoke, to note that that's a great beer, particularly the Oaked.</blockquote><br>It's quite possibly my favorite beer, both because the branding brings joy to my pitted black heart and because it's just damn good. I dream of the day the state churchislature stops being stupid and I can actually buy some in Utah. Though it's far more likely I'll simply have to consign myself to occasional out-of-state trips to pick some up.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will</cite>And yeah. It's an interesting video in 'hey look at stuff that happens,' but for it to mean much more than that you need, like, studies and interviews. (Which people have done and 'talking to women in my life' is why I understand how anxious it can be living as a woman)</blockquote><br>Right. 'Course, it's partially by that same measure of speaking to women in my life that I was convinced a lot of people (a disproportionate amount of whom do seem to be women, but it's no means exclusive to them*) simply allow themselves to get way more worked up about things than a given situation usually calls for.<br><br>Anecdotes are funny like that.<br><br><span style="font-size: 0.7em;" class="bbc_size">*Hell, I'm one of 'em sometimes. I have moderate cynophobia in a (local) culture where most folks not only love dogs but generally distrust anyone who doesn't automatically express similar feelings. Thing is, I actually like mutts, I just don't react well to random encounters. :p</span>
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 10:30:58 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Actually, most of them have a sort of resigned 'what can you do?' vibe.<br><br>They even are mostly resigned to the fact that men look for excuses or try to minimize it, like 'oh it's surely not that bad...' "K, whatever."<br><br>One of the more amusing examples was a trans woman who I've known for a long time. When she presented as male, she ... pretty much thought like most men. It's bad, sure, but it's surely not something you'd have to deal with constantly.<br><br>Welp. Yeah.<br><br>She's pretty blase' about it, and has only volunteered it when the rest of us get talking about experiences or sexism or politics (ugh).<br><br>I have a conservative friend who mentioned how he's glad there's little/no sexism at Microsoft, and my wife, who also worked at Microsoft... well, it was on FB so she didn't literally laugh in his face, but in another venue she would have.<br><br><br>The bitch of it is that most women don't talk about this because it's such a daily element of their lives and men constantly get defensive and say it's not THAT bad.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 10:32:34 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ratman_tf;795439</cite>http://www.hitbox.tv/video/302433</blockquote><br>That first two minutes of that link. Just wow. I mean WOW! Telling a transwoman that you own her as property because you are a social justice warrior fighting for her "rights". That is not only bigotry, not just dehumanizing, but flat out trying to enslave another person. That is a whole new fucking low.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 11:12:34 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;795361</cite>Dang, I hadn't spotted that! I knew the US left-media were keeping the Ferguson outrage going to try to increase black turnout in the midterms, but I hadn't thought about GamerGate and how the negative left-media coverage of GG could potentially increase liberal-female turnout. Even if not by a lot, every little helps in midterms where turnout of less motivated voters is traditionally low.</blockquote>It'll be interesting to see what the conservatives do with it, they're getting a whole lot of young American eyes on Breitbart, and that's not the normal course of things. They probably don't want any more womens issues fuckups until 2017 though, so.. dunno.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ladybird;795373</cite>And where exactly do you suggest they go?<br><br>No, I'm honestly curious. This isn't restricted to the platform-exclusive sites; they're all dependent on the major publishers giving access, inviting them to preview and review days, sending out pre-release review code. And as I said earlier, it's going to stay this way until gamers fund the sites they want to be reading, but this leads neatly on to...<br><br><br>...the fact that, even if you fund a journalist, they're still reliant on the same publishers for access, and it's "this year's game in yearly franchise gets 9/10, shockingly" articles that are the bread-and-butter of game sites.<br><br>I'm an RPS (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com) fan, I've been a subscriber for years, I love me some New Games Journalism (http://gillen.cream.org/wordpress_html/assorted-essays/the-new-games-journalism/), but that is a site by enthusiasts that writes content for enthusiasts, and isn't even trying to be populist.</blockquote><br>To deal with the publishers control over reviewers, gamers can do a few things. The most straightforward way would be for many of us to stop pre-ordering, stop buying at release. This has never been a credible option before, but the organization GG is bringing could make this possible. If there were understood to be a two week window before many gamers would buy, that would give reviewers time to work. Game companies would hate hate <i>hate</i> this because it would fuck with their marketing, hopefully we could bargain them away from the practice of hardballing reviewers. Game companies really like having this influence, but they don't <i>need</i> it, so I figure bargaining is possible.<br><br>Until such substantial changes happen, I think the best we can do is spend our time exploring the many, many amateur game reviewers. Doing our due dilligence to find critics who do theirs. Amateurs, or niche outlets like the one you mentioned, seem to me to be the wave of the immediate future.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 11:14:01 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;795436</cite><b>The OPPRESSION OLYMPICS have begun!!!</b></blockquote><br>#shouldhavesentapoet
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>The Ent</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 11:25:53 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;795369</cite>It'd be really interesting, I think, to see how closely GG/anti-GG maps to conservative/liberal.<br><br>I'm guessing 'very closely.'</blockquote><br>I dunno.<br><br>I'm kinda a leftie and increasingly pro-GG.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 11:30:40 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;795442</cite>One of the more amusing examples was a trans woman who I've known for a long time. When she presented as male, she ... pretty much thought like most men. It's bad, sure, but it's surely not something you'd have to deal with constantly.<br><br>Welp. Yeah.</blockquote>Perhaps she had perspective that you don't.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 11:35:12 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Alathon;795446</cite>Until such substantial changes happen, I think the best we can do is spend our time exploring the many, many amateur game reviewers. Doing our due dilligence to find critics who do theirs. Amateurs, or niche outlets like the one you mentioned, seem to me to be the wave of the immediate future.</blockquote><br>Agreed. We should look at the people that are going to replace those gaming "journalist" sites. Total Biscut may not be everyone's cup of tea, but he doesn't accept bribes and doesn't back down when being threaten. This is why he is top dog in steam reviews.<br><br>In fact lets players will eventually replace gaming sites because the vast majority don't shove down their political agenda down peoples' throats. They actually love the games they are playing which builds up excitement. Most important is if one lets player begins to fuck up people will do what the free market does. Ditch him/her and go for a better lets player.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 11:47:19 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Alathon;795451</cite>Perhaps she had perspective that you don't.</blockquote><br>I guess I was unclear.<br><br>When she presented as woman she was constantly belittled, harassed, and found getting a job 10x as hard and realized how much privilege had blinded her to things.<br><br>She is, however, either fatalistic or resigned or has other things that occupy her. She only mentions this and transphobic stuff (like being physically assaulted) when people say these things don't happen. At which point she says 'uh, yes, they do, actually.'
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>October 31, 2014, 11:49:20 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Werekoala;795447</cite>#shouldhavesentapoet</blockquote>Hmmm, let me give this a try...<br><br>What's he that wishes so?<br>My cousin, Westkoalaland? No, my fair cousin;<br>If we are mark'd to die (yet again), we are enow<br>To do our conscience loss; and if to live,<br>The fewer men, the greater share of honour.<br>Jenova's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.<br>By Kratos, I am not covetous for gold,<br>Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;<br>It yearns me not if men my garments wear;<br>Such outward things dwell not in my desires.<br>But if it be a sin to covet honour,<br>I am the most offending soul alive.<br>No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from Gaming.<br>God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour<br>As one man more methinks would share from me<br>For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!<br>Rather proclaim it, Westkoalaland, through my host,<br>That he which hath no stomach to this fight,<br>Let him depart; his passport shall be made,<br>And crowns for convoy put into his purse;<br>We would not die in that man's company<br>That fears his fellowship to die with us.<br>This day is call'd the feast of Aeris.<br>He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,<br>Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,<br>And rouse him at the name of Aeris.<br>He that shall live this day, and see old age,<br>Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,<br>And say "To-morrow is Saint Aeris."<br>Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,<br>And say "These wounds I had on Aeris' day."<br>Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,<br>But he'll remember, with advantages,<br>What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,<br>Familiar in his mouth as household words-<br>Alucard, Drake and Dante,<br>Wedge and Biggs, Leon and Claire-<br>Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.<br>This story shall the good man teach his son;<br>And Aeris Gainsborough shall ne'er go by,<br>From this day to the ending of the world,<br>But we in it shall be remembered-<br>We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;<br>For he to-day that sheds his blood with me<br>Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,<br>This day shall gentle his condition;<br>And gentlemen in Gaming Journalism now-a-bed<br>Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,<br>And hold their Trophies cheap whiles any speaks<br>That fought with us upon Saint Aeris' day.<br><br>(Note: I actually tried to gender neutral all the gender pronouns, and gave up. The speech is fucking ruined trying to "he/she" it.)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 12:02:12 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;795453</cite>In fact lets players will eventually replace gaming sites because the vast majority don't shove down their political agenda down peoples' throats. They actually love the games they are playing which builds up excitement. Most important is if one lets player begins to fuck up people will do what the free market does. Ditch him/her and go for a better lets player.</blockquote>"Let's Play"-er's also have a huge advantage, IMO; they're honestly engaged and enthusiastic about what they're reviewing.<br><br>One of the things I was honestly surprised about, was the level of disgust and contempt that a lot of Gaming Journalism held their readership in. I can't imagine going to work, and holding the people your supposed to be representing in such utter contempt (and I've worked for the Federal Gov't!). Holding onto that much anger and vitriol, day to day, can't be good for your health.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 12:07:42 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795330</cite>But gender feminists' ultimate goal is gender equality, not women's supremacy.</blockquote><br>Thier ultimate goal is censorship.They can wrap it in any terms they like, make any ethical arguments for it they like, or obfuscate it by playing that there is some wonderful outcome to it they like, but it still comes down to censorship. "I have the moral right or duty to judge, control, and edit what other people are allowed to read, see, think, or say, for thier own good."
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 12:12:16 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;795379</cite>Mark "Neuroatypicals" Read </blockquote><br>Who is he? (my googlefu is failing on "mark read" + "gamergate") Links appreciated.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 12:12:56 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
"All animals are equal; but some animals are more equal than others.", if I'm paraphrasing Animal Farm correctly.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 12:14:12 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;795461</cite>Who is he? (my googlefu is failing on "mark read" + "gamergate") Links appreciated.</blockquote>Max Read, an editor at Gawker, IIRC. (EDIT: Editor-in-Chief)<br>The quote is from his Twitter, and he penned the "Intel is run by craven morons" piece, for Gawker.<br><br>EDIT: Neurotypical insult (http://i.imgur.com/Xc3NeKi.jpg)<br>EDIT 2: How we got rolled by the dishonest Facists of GamerGate (https://archive.today/dGjSA)<br><br>EDIT 4: Gawker is "re-assigning" Sam "Bring Back Bullying" Biddle, after "giving" him a month long paid sabbatical. Heh. (https://archive.today/2EnD4)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 12:21:14 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;795457</cite>(Note: I actually tried to gender neutral all the gender pronouns, and gave up. The speech is fucking ruined trying to "he/she" it.)</blockquote><br>I've recently gotten on board with using 'they,' after some grammarians point out that Shakespeare used they as a neutral singular and there is some canonical support for the idea.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Nexus</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 12:52:01 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;795442</cite>Actually, most of them have a sort of resigned 'what can you do?' vibe.<br><br>They even are mostly resigned to the fact that men look for excuses or try to minimize it, like 'oh it's surely not that bad...' "K, whatever."<br><br>One of the more amusing examples was a trans woman who I've known for a long time. When she presented as male, she ... pretty much thought like most men. It's bad, sure, but it's surely not something you'd have to deal with constantly.<br><br>Welp. Yeah.<br><br>She's pretty blase' about it, and has only volunteered it when the rest of us get talking about experiences or sexism or politics (ugh).<br><br>I have a conservative friend who mentioned how he's glad there's little/no sexism at Microsoft, and my wife, who also worked at Microsoft... well, it was on FB so she didn't literally laugh in his face, but in another venue she would have.<br><br><br>The bitch of it is that most women don't talk about this because it's such a daily element of their lives and men constantly get defensive and say it's not THAT bad.</blockquote><br><br>I love the "My anecdotal evidence obviously depicts the true state of affairs while yours is clearly biased or the product of poor misinformed individuals." response.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 12:55:04 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;795463</cite>EDIT: Neurotypical insult (http://i.imgur.com/Xc3NeKi.jpg)<br></blockquote><br><br>Weird, I'm not sure he understands what that term means.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Herr Arnulfe</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 12:55:13 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;795459</cite>Thier ultimate goal is censorship.They can wrap it in any terms they like, make any ethical arguments for it they like, or obfuscate it by playing that there is some wonderful outcome to it they like, but it still comes down to censorship. "I have the moral right or duty to judge, control, and edit what other people are allowed to read, see, think, or say, for thier own good."</blockquote>Here's a mission for you: post a recent feminist call for censorship in any media besides pornography. If censorship is their ultimate goal, they're being awfully quiet about it. The vast majority of gender feminists are content to make men contemplate (and feel bad about) their misogynistic impulses. Which is a good thing IMO because not enough misogynists feel bad on their own initiative. <br><br>Similarly, the vast majority of gender feminists would be content to achieve gender equality. Misandrists and female supremacists are by far in the minority. You won't find any published definition of the term "gender feminist" that includes censorship or female supremacy.<br><br>I'm sure many gender feminists have personal ambitions that are tied up with their ideology, just like we all do.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 01:06:58 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;795436</cite>Ok, I'll admit I didn't see this coming...http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/857/658/cfc.jpg (http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/857/658/cfc.jpg)<br><br>Suey Park, the creator of #CancelColbert, calls out Anita Sarkeesian (who signal boosted #CC) for appearing on The Colbert Report.<br><br>Never thought I'd say this either, but I actually agree with Zoe Quinn:<br>http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/857/603/033.jpg (http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/857/603/033.jpg)<br><br><b>The OPPRESSION OLYMPICS have begun!!!</b></blockquote><br>Khaleesi Of SJWs, huh?<br>At least she's modest. ;)<br><br>But yeah, that's why these movements don't have as much follow-through as they potentially could: The contemporary Left could teach Stalin some lessons on eating your own. :D<br><br>JG
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 01:21:40 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: woodsmoke;795441</cite>It's quite possibly my favorite beer, both because the branding brings joy to my pitted black heart and because it's just damn good. I dream of the day the state churchislature stops being stupid and I can actually buy some in Utah. Though it's far more likely I'll simply have to consign myself to occasional out-of-state trips to pick some up.<br></blockquote><br>"Churchislature" is my new favorite word. :D<br><br>JG
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 01:29:06 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795473</cite>Here's a mission for you: post a recent feminist call for censorship in any media besides pornography. If censorship is their ultimate goal, they're being awfully quiet about it. The vast majority of gender feminists are content to make men contemplate (and feel bad about) their misogynistic impulses. Which is a good thing IMO because not enough misogynists feel bad on their own initiative. </blockquote><br>One side is saying "You're a slut." The other side says "You're a REALLY, REALLY bad person for thinking that." And it's easy to see how the one side has been able to push more, because the kind of man who would tell complete strangers "You're a slut" is not the kind of man who would really care if the other person tells him "You're a really, really bad person for thinking that."<br><br>JG
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Nexus</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 01:51:04 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: James Gillen;795474</cite>Khaleesi Of SJWs, huh?<br>At least she's modest. ;)<br><br>But yeah, that's why these movements don't have as much follow-through as they potentially could: The contemporary Left could teach Stalin some lessons on eating your own. :D<br><br>JG</blockquote><br>Ha! But really doesn't claiming a title like Social Justice Warrior automatically disqualify someone from being "modest".
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Herr Arnulfe</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 01:52:11 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: James Gillen;795479</cite>One side is saying "You're a slut." The other side says "You're a REALLY, REALLY bad person for thinking that." And it's easy to see how the one side has been able to push more, because the kind of man who would tell complete strangers "You're a slut" is not the kind of man who would really care if the other person tells him "You're a really, really bad person for thinking that."</blockquote>Very true. I'd imagine some hardcore misogynists do feel bad (perhaps on a subconscious level) when they're called out, although most appear not to. But those types of hardcore misogynists wouldn't be interested in feminist media criticism anyway. Feminist media critics are generally aiming their work at "reasonable guys with some misogynistic streaks"; the kind of guy that genuinely wants to be a good person. Who feels a little dirty watching porn or getting freaky with pixelbabes, but does it anyway.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 01:54:40 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795473</cite>Here's a mission for you: post a recent feminist call for censorship in any media besides pornography.</blockquote>(Caveat: I'm going to assume you mean "SJW" brand of social justice, rather than garden variety equality feminism.)<br><br>ConsultantGate. (D&D 5e)<br><br>They made up false allegations about Pundit and Zak S., tried pushing it into the public sphere, and wanted people to not buy D&D 5th Edition for employing "sexist, racist, homophobes". (if we make up enough slurs, maybe one of them will stick!)<br><br>Dude, seriously, keep up. You're on the website of one of the guys they tried to libel.<br><br>EDIT: I'm also pretty sure that when people like Alex Lifschitz destroys a copy of GTA5, as a symbol of the oppression of AAA developers, he's not a fan of people buying the game. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51McaZrra7w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51McaZrra7w)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Herr Arnulfe</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 02:05:13 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;795484</cite>They made up false allegations about Pundit and Zak S., tried pushing it into the public sphere, and wanted people to not buy D&D 5th Edition for employing "sexist, racist, homophobes". (if we make up enough slurs, maybe one of them will stick!)</blockquote>That's not censorship, it's a boycott attempt. Difference.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Nexus</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 02:11:27 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795483</cite>Very true. I'd imagine some hardcore misogynists do feel bad (perhaps on a subconscious level) when they're called out, although most appear not to. But those types of hardcore misogynists wouldn't be interested in feminist media criticism anyway. Feminist media critics are generally aiming their work at "reasonable guys with some misogynistic streaks"; the kind of guy that genuinely wants to be a good person. Who feels a little dirty watching porn or getting freaky with pixelbabes, but does it anyway.</blockquote><br>This seems to imply the guys should feel bad for watching porn and getting freaky with pixelbabes or am I misreading you?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Nexus</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 02:13:38 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;795484</cite>(Caveat: I'm going to assume you mean "SJW" brand of social justice, rather than garden variety equality feminism.)<br><br>ConsultantGate. (D&D 5e)<br><br>They made up false allegations about Pundit and Zak S., tried pushing it into the public sphere, and wanted people to not buy D&D 5th Edition for employing "sexist, racist, homophobes". (if we make up enough slurs, maybe one of them will stick!)<br><br>Dude, seriously, keep up. You're on the website of one of the guys they tried to libel.<br><br>EDIT: I'm also pretty sure that when people like Alex Lifschitz destroys a copy of GTA5, as a symbol of the oppression of AAA developers, he's not a fan of people buying the game. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51McaZrra7w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51McaZrra7w)</blockquote><br>But don't forget its only censorship if the government does it. Calling for something to never been shown lest anyone that dare be shamed out of the business isn't censorship.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Herr Arnulfe</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 02:18:23 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Nexus;795486</cite>This seems to imply the guys should feel bad for watching porn and getting freaky with pixelbabes or am I misreading you?</blockquote>Only porn and pixel-bashing of the specific types that feminists are critiquing. e.g. Sarkeesian had stated IIRC that she's supportive of sex in videogames.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 02:44:12 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795485</cite>That's not censorship, it's a boycott attempt. Difference.</blockquote>It's made under false pretenses, so I'm not so sure, but I'll grant you the point nevertheless.<br><br>Zoe Quinn's DMCA takedown of MundaneMatt's YouTube video, for using pictures of Depression Quest that were publicly available, to silence conversation on the Zoe Post.<br><br>Anita Sarkeesian's Harassment complaint against thunderf00t's twitter account, for hosting link's to his YouTube channel that contains several criticisms of her series.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Herr Arnulfe</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 03:07:23 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;795489</cite>It's made under false pretenses, so I'm not so sure, but I'll grant you the point nevertheless.</blockquote>You can claim that <u>any</u> media critique or boycott attempt is made under false pretenses. I'm talking about actual feminist calls for censorship.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;795489</cite>Zoe Quinn's DMCA takedown of MundaneMatt's YouTube video, for using pictures of Depression Quest that were publicly available, to silence conversation on the Zoe Post.<br><br>Anita Sarkeesian's Harassment complaint against thunderf00t's twitter account, for hosting link's to his YouTube channel that contains several criticisms of her series.</blockquote>I haven't followed the nitty-gritty details of Gamergate drama, so I can't judge who is playing dirty pool etc. But whatever the case, exploiting IP law to silence one's critics isn't the same thing as calling for media censorship.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 03:09:06 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Ok, at this point I have to ask: what is your definition of media censorship?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Herr Arnulfe</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 03:19:36 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;795492</cite>Ok, at this point I have to ask: what is your definition of media censorship?</blockquote>The banning or restriction of certain types of media content, by legal authority, is what constitutes censorship. Canada has a legal ban on hate speech for instance. Restricting obscene content in movies, either through age restrictions (mild) or bans (major) is also censorship.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 03:40:58 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795473</cite>Here's a mission for you: post a recent feminist call for censorship in any media besides pornography.</blockquote><br>Im going to amend what I posted here previously based on what I've read in this thread since.<br><br>To start with, the definition of a censor is: "a person who examines books, movies, letters, etc., and removes things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc.", with censorship as the verbial form. <br><br>Right now, gender feminists media critics (lets specifically focus on those in regards to videogames, rpgs, and comicbooks, or "geek media") are not in a position to act as censors. You stated earlier that your definition of censorship is the restriction of content by legal authority. While I disagree that legal authority is necessary as part of the definition (many censorship bodies, such as those of film, or the almost-defunct-at-this-point CCA, are not government elected or appointed), it is true that at this point the gender feminist critics are incapable of censoring the media they are attacking. <br><br>But then we're not talking about that, we're talking about thier "ultimate goal". To understand that lets evaluate some of the basic premises of gender feminist critique:<br><br>1) we live in an inherently misogynistic society ("The Patriarchy") <br>2) that state of affairs is maintained through sexist depictions of women in media<br><br>Point #1 is arguable, but one I'm generally willing to concede, to a <i>degree</i>. Meaning that I do believe that modern Western culture does propogate some inherently sexist ideas, including "traditional" gender roles, disparities in social responsibility and accountability based on gender, and numerous double standards in regards to sexuality, to name just a few things. This situation has been steadily improving since the original feminist movements at the turn of the twentieth century, to the point that legal equality (if not social equality) is almost achieved, but it's still an ongoing problem. I do not believe in "The Patriarchy" per se, except as a descriptive that is rapidly losing validity. <br><br>Point #2 is both the basis for my statement about the ultimate goal of modern gender feminists (henceforth "radfem", both because its easier to type and to prevent confusion with other forms of feminism that I happen to agree with and support) and the premise behind everything from Anita Sarkeesians video critiques of videogame tropes to the various RPGnet threads on the sexism of art in RPGs. This premise requires an article of faith: namely, that art/entertainment influences behaviour. Most credible scientific research does not support this theory, nor does statistical analysis, but belief in it is necessary to accept radfem critiques as viable or, to thier mind, necessary as a means of dealing with Point #1. <br><br>So, right now, in regards to geek media, radfem critics are engaging en masse in <i><b>examining comicbooks, vieogames, RPGs, etc., to identify things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society</b> (i.e. influencing and engendering misogyny).</i> You'll notice this is the first half of the definition of a censor. At this time, radfem critics have no means of removing these things from a position of authority, legal or otherwise. <br><br>But beyond simple theorywanking, can we agree that the <i>point</i> of these activities is to effect social change in order to remove these "harmful elements" that support The Patriarchy? I'll await your answer to this before I continue (and provide examples), not because I couldn't simply fill the thread with links to this behaviour, but because any example I gave would be meaningless if we are operating on different base assumptions. (I've given up on Will as a troll, but I'm going to assume until proven otherwise that we are debating in good faith here).
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 03:50:35 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795485</cite>That's not censorship, it's a boycott attempt. Difference.</blockquote><br>I see, so the difference is that they are not in a position to actually censor it, they can only put public pressure on in attempt to force others to censor it? That's really nitpicking.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 04:36:48 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Nexus;795486</cite>This seems to imply the guys should feel bad for watching porn and getting freaky with pixelbabes or am I misreading you?</blockquote><br>Misogyny = hatred of women. So according to him, watching porn = hates women.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 04:39:59 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795493</cite>The banning or restriction of certain types of media content, by legal authority, is what constitutes censorship. Canada has a legal ban on hate speech for instance. Restricting obscene content in movies, either through age restrictions (mild) or bans (major) is also censorship.</blockquote><br>What word would you prefer for "control of media content, primarily through private channels"?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Warboss Squee</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 05:02:37 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;795500</cite>Misogyny = hatred of women. So according to him, watching porn = hates women.</blockquote><br>Funny, I watch porn for the exact opposite reason. But if it makes me a misogynist it makes me a misandrist as well.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 09:09:22 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Warboss Squee;795502</cite>Funny, I watch porn for the exact opposite reason. </blockquote><br>Gender feminists tend to have a remarkably poor understanding of male psychology. Like other cultural Marxists they would rather construct theoretical castles in the air than make any examination of how actual men actually think. When contradictions get too obvious they declare 'false consciousness', so their castles-in-the-air are unfalsifiable by evidence.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Haffrung</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 09:24:07 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;795494</cite>This premise requires an article of faith: namely, that art/entertainment influences behaviour. Most credible scientific research does not support this theory, nor does statistical analysis, but belief in it is necessary to accept radfem critiques as viable or, to thier mind, necessary as a means of dealing with Point #1. </blockquote><br>Certainly there's some debate about how much art and entertainment influences behaviour. But are you really suggesting it doesn't influence it at all? Have you never seen children imitate things they've seen in a movie or TV? So parents should start letting their young kids watch the Walking Dead and surfing the net for hardcore porn - what harm could it do?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Herr Arnulfe</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 09:38:39 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;795500</cite>Misogyny = hatred of women. So according to him, watching porn = hates women.</blockquote>No, I said that feminist media critics are targeting their critiques at men who watch "problematic" media, but who aren't hardcore misogynists and therefore beyond reason. That was obvious from my original post, you've just chosen the least charitable interpretation. I watch porn occasionally and have watched some abusive porn - I'm not a misogynist. As mentioned upthread, I have gotten freaky with NPCs in Skyrim (mostly female) and did feel somewhat dirty afterwards, but I'm not a misogynist. I suspect I'm part of the target audience for feminist critiques, because I'm interested in actively eliminating the misogynistic streaks in my media consumption.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Herr Arnulfe</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 09:45:40 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;795494</cite>So, right now, in regards to geek media, radfem critics are engaging en masse in <i><b>examining comicbooks, vieogames, RPGs, etc., to identify things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society</b> (i.e. influencing and engendering misogyny).</i> You'll notice this is the first half of the definition of a censor. At this time, radfem critics have no means of removing these things from a position of authority, legal or otherwise.<br><br>But beyond simple theorywanking, can we agree that the <i>point</i> of these activities is to effect social change in order to remove these "harmful elements" that support The Patriarchy?</blockquote>Not just "radfem" critics - your bolded sentence above is what feminist critics do, period. That's "feminist media criticism" in a nutshell. Would they like the problematic media removed? Sure, but their goal isn't to have them banned (except in the case of things like extremely abusive porn like Max Hardcore or Khan Tusion); it's to lower consumer demand until market forces cause the the offending content to disappear.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 10:00:14 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795515</cite>you've just chosen the least charitable interpretation</blockquote><br>Yes, I wanted to make clear what they are saying - that these acts (watching porn, having sex with female characters in Skyrim) are acts of misogyny, and misogyny means a hatred of women. Their strategy requires a certain degree of obfuscation to work, so it is necessary to state the meaning clearly - ie 'uncharitably'.<br><br>Edit: I bet you didn't feel any hatred - or even mild dislike - of women, even in the midst of watching porn or having Skyrim-sex. The gender feminist's language equates 'male gaze objectification' with 'hatred'. This is a highly skewed understanding of male psychology. But I don't think they have any real desire to understand; in cultural Marxism words are used as weapons, not to further understanding.<br><br>Edit 2: To be fair, they are building here on Kantian classical Liberalism - Kant's reasonable idea that people should be treated as ends not means was easily extended to a much less reasonable idea that any 'objectification' at all is immoral, which makes pornography immoral. Which gives a Liberal justification for traditional morality.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Herr Arnulfe</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 10:03:58 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;795517</cite>Yes, I wanted to make clear what they are saying - that these acts (watching porn, having sex with female characters in Skyrim) are acts of misogyny, and misogyny means a hatred of women. Their strategy requires a certain degree of obfuscation to work, so it is necessary to state the meaning clearly - ie 'uncharitably'.</blockquote>As I mentioned above, Sarkeesian stated emphatically that she supports sex in videogames, just not abusive sex. The vast majority of feminist porn critics target abusive porn, not all porn (although many argue the "norm" for porn is increasingly trending towards the abusive).
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Warboss Squee</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 10:49:43 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795518</cite>As I mentioned above, Sarkeesian stated emphatically that she supports sex in videogames, just not abusive sex. The vast majority of feminist porn critics target abusive porn, not all porn (although many argue the "norm" for porn is increasingly trending towards the abusive).</blockquote><br>Hahaha, someone get Zak's ass in here. I just threw butter on some popcorn.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 11:17:42 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795518</cite>As I mentioned above, Sarkeesian stated emphatically that she supports sex in videogames, just not abusive sex. The vast majority of feminist porn critics target abusive porn, not all porn (although many argue the "norm" for porn is increasingly trending towards the abusive).</blockquote><br>Well, I guess it depends what they mean by abusive. Plenty of feminists claim Page 3 is misogynistic, purely because it 'objectifies' the Page 3 girl through the 'male gaze'. Conversely videogame rape murder of prostitutes by the protagonist does sound misogynistic to me, by the actual dictionary definition. There probably are examples of actual misogyny - hatred of women - in video games. American culture does contain a fair bit of misogyny as well as misanthropy (hatred of men), and Britain too seems to have become more like America in recent years.<br> <br>But the SJWs cast their net far, far wider than actual misogyny - and obviously they don't care about misanthropy - often they themselves are among the worst offenders.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Rincewind1</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 11:21:05 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Going by Herr Arnulfe's logic, McCarthy was not a censor. He never after all outright censored anyone, just branded them as "problematic people" that shouldn't be published.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795518</cite>As I mentioned above, Sarkeesian stated emphatically that she supports sex in videogames, just not abusive sex. The vast majority of feminist porn critics target abusive porn, not all porn (although many argue the "norm" for porn is increasingly trending towards the abusive).</blockquote><br>Seeing the amount of handwriggling over Bayonetta, a Strong Independent Sexy Woman, yeah right.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Piestrio</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 12:40:13 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795518</cite>As I mentioned above, Sarkeesian stated emphatically that she supports sex in videogames, just not abusive sex. The vast majority of feminist porn critics target abusive porn, not all porn (although many argue the "norm" for porn is increasingly trending towards the abusive).</blockquote><br>Then she shouldn't be citing Dworkin and trotting out arguments from sex-negative 2nd wave feminists.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ratman_tf</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 12:52:20 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;795456</cite>I guess I was unclear.<br><br>When she presented as woman she was constantly belittled, harassed, and found getting a job 10x as hard and realized how much privilege had blinded her to things.<br><br>She is, however, either fatalistic or resigned or has other things that occupy her. She only mentions this and transphobic stuff (like being physically assaulted) when people say these things don't happen. At which point she says 'uh, yes, they do, actually.'</blockquote><br>Huh. Here's an anecdote. I was out on a smoke break, and I'm currently working a contract at (BIG TECH COMPANY X). I was talking to some of the smokers from (ANOTHER TECH COMPANY) in the next building, and one woman did mention that after a spat of unemployment, she finally got on contract with the other company and said, and I'm paraphrasing, "Luckily, I'm a woman."<br><br>I didn't press her to explain because 1. Smoke breaks are short convos, and 2. I think I understand the gist of her statement.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ratman_tf</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 01:03:10 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795473</cite>Here's a mission for you: post a recent feminist call for censorship in any media besides pornography. If censorship is their ultimate goal, they're being awfully quiet about it. The vast majority of gender feminists are content to make men contemplate (and feel bad about) their misogynistic impulses. Which is a good thing IMO because not enough misogynists feel bad on their own initiative. <br></blockquote><br>And that is the key to their censorship. They can't make laws to make looking at bewbies illegal, so they call everyone misogynist and make them feel bad about looking at bewbies.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 01:32:07 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ratman_tf;795538</cite>And that is the key to their censorship. They can't make laws to make looking at bewbies illegal, so they call everyone misogynist and make them feel bad about looking at bewbies.</blockquote><br>And here's my point of disagreement - "making people feel bad" is <b>not censorship</b> in any way, and comparisons to McCarthy and the Salem witch trials are stupid. <br><br>Likewise, to TristramEvans point, finding something offensive and/or harmful to society in a book does not make one "half a censor" or mean that one's ultimate goal is censorship.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 01:40:08 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ratman_tf;795537</cite>Huh. Here's an anecdote.</blockquote><br>Yeah, see, I'm relating anecdotes that fit into a large pattern and observation made over my entire lifetime. They are illustrative, not 'proof' in of themselves. I also find the trans woman example particularly interesting because... well, it's like that 'black like me' experiment -- walking on each 'side' of the line and see how experiences change (dramatically).<br><br>There is every evidence that women (and minorities) face, generally, a large number of stresses and barriers that straight white men, generally, do not.<br><br>The thing is, men are often unaware of this because when it's something you face constantly and when you get defensiveness or things getting worse if you bring it up, hey, guess what, people don't want to talk about their problems so much.<br><br>Thus things like that 'street harassment' video.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 01:40:11 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Haffrung;795511</cite>Certainly there's some debate about how much art and entertainment influences behaviour. But are you really suggesting it doesn't influence it at all? Have you never seen children imitate things they've seen in a movie or TV? So parents should start letting their young kids watch the Walking Dead and surfing the net for hardcore porn - what harm could it do?</blockquote><br>Studies show that a child primarily takes thier behavioural cues from thier parents, and its only in the lack or absence of parental guidance that they look for cues to behaviour in media. A child has not yet developed skills of discernment, so yes, they can be influenced by media portrayals. I was speaking of adults, as attacks on gamers are aimed at adults. A child should not be exposed to things on thier own and media exposure should always be accompanied by a parent to explain things and give the child a proper sense of context. A child "raised on TV" is, in effect, a neglected child. That's a whole other conversation though.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>apparition13</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 01:42:07 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;795369</cite>It'd be really interesting, I think, to see how closely GG/anti-GG maps to conservative/liberal.<br><br>I'm guessing 'very closely.'</blockquote>It depends on whether you consider libertarians conservative or not. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;795387</cite>http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/841/842/7e1.png (http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/841/842/7e1.png)<br>Actually, it seems to track more "Libertarian" versus "Authoritarian".<br><br>While both Milo and Adam Baldwin are fairly solidly Right, IIRC, Totalbiscuit and Christina H. Sommers were both moderate Left's.</blockquote><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;795389</cite>Where does the graph come from/what is it based on?<br><br>I have no idea about Totalbiscuit, but Sommers... she might be registered Democrat, but reading up on her views, I'd be hard-pressed to call her even moderate Left, though I can't find anything on her fiscal thoughts (she's mostly focused on social issues).</blockquote><br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass)<br>Note that this is based on UK left and right rather than US left and right. Note also that it is a website, not peer reviewed academic work, but it is based on peer reviewed political typologies.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795485</cite>That's not censorship, it's a boycott attempt. Difference.</blockquote>Denying someone access to media they want to consume is censorship. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Nexus;795487</cite>But don't forget its only censorship if the government does it. Calling for something to never been shown lest anyone that dare be shamed out of the business isn't censorship.</blockquote>Legalistic hair-splitting, i.e. rules lawyering, something people on this board should be familiar with. :)<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795493</cite>The banning or restriction of certain types of media content, by legal authority, is what constitutes censorship. Canada has a legal ban on hate speech for instance. Restricting obscene content in movies, either through age restrictions (mild) or bans (major) is also censorship.</blockquote><br>This is a common attitude I find profoundly anti-liberty; popehat does it all the time as well, but they are lawyers so they look at everything through a legal lens rather than from the standpoint of the ideals laws are meant to serve. <br><br>"Liberty" is an abstract ideal, not what they law allows. The first amendment is a legal codification of this ideal, it is a tool with which to achieve the goal of speech liberty, it is not the totality of speech liberty. It someone does not feel free to speak because of non-governmental institutions, they don't have speech liberty. Corporate speech codes may be legal, but they are anti-free speech because they place practical limits on ones ability to exercise free speech. They limit liberty, they do so through coercive threats, and that makes them oppression. <br><br>Likewise if private entities can force producers to stop producing media content they disapprove of, they are engaging in censorship because they are denying access to speech. They are abusing the ideal of speech liberty, whether on not they are acting illegally. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795516</cite>Not just "radfem" critics - your bolded sentence above is what feminist critics do, period. That's "feminist media criticism" in a nutshell. Would they like the problematic media removed? Sure, but their goal isn't to have them banned (except in the case of things like extremely abusive porn like Max Hardcore or Khan Tusion); it's to lower consumer demand until market forces cause the the offending content to disappear.</blockquote>Actually it seems to be to shame producers into stopping production in spite of market demand; i.e. preventing potential consumers from accessing material they are interested in, i.e. censorship.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 01:45:32 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;795543</cite>It depends on whether you consider libertarians conservative or not.</blockquote><br>Depends on the libertarian. There are conservative libertarians (particularly in the US) and socialist libertarians (particularly in Europe), and probably other stripes I'm unaware of.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;795543</cite>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass)<br>Note that this is based on UK left and right rather than US left and right. Note also that it is a website, not peer reviewed academic work, but it is based on peer reviewed political typologies.</blockquote><br>Oh, I didn't mean the squares, I meant the data points.<br><br>Edit: Oh, and duh, libertarian left/right is right there on your link. My bad.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 01:56:20 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795516</cite>Not just "radfem" critics - your bolded sentence above is what feminist critics do, period. That's "feminist media criticism" in a nutshell. </blockquote><br>I'm unaware of any feminist media critics besides radfems that focus on critiquing elements of geek entertainment. I'd go so far as to say the article of faith associated with Premise #2 is an aspect of radfem solely, not of equity feminism.<br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Would they like the problematic media removed? Sure, but their goal isn't to have them banned (except in the case of things like extremely abusive porn like Max Hardcore or Khan Tusion); it's to lower consumer demand until market forces cause the the offending content to disappear.</blockquote><br>I'm not seeing the distinction you're making there other than the method. The intent is the same, is it not? If they were in the position to ban it, do you not think that they would? It's only because they lack the authority that they are trying tactics such as exerting social pressure. If the ultimate goal has the same effect, I call it the same thing. "Calling for censorship" is the desire for censorship. <br><br>Wertham did not have the power to ban comicbooks, so he testified before the supreme court to present claims that comics caused juvenile delinquency. Patricia Pulling did not have the power to ban RPGs, so she started BADD to convince society that Dungeons & Dragons caused players to commit suicide. The Tangency clique didnt have the power to prevent James Desberough from publishing, so they started a campaign of harrasment to try to remove him from the industry. <br><br>Let me use an exaggerated and extreme analogy to attempt to drive my point home: A murderer is someone who violently ends another person's life. If someone is incapable or unwilling to murder another person, but they hire another person to murder them, even if they do not technically commit the muurder themselves is it not fair to say that that person's murder was thier ultimate goal?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 02:40:24 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;795543</cite>It depends on whether you consider libertarians conservative or not. </blockquote><br>I think of libertarianism as having a certain common ground with conservatism insofar as it holds certain things as pre-existing realities that cannot be politicized or socially engineered. Of course that doesn't stop conservatives from trying to socially engineer things they don't like, except that when liberals do it, it's "social engineering" and when conservatives do it, it's "legislating morality."<br><br>Basically the difference between liberalism and conservatism is the belief that there are no standards at all versus the belief that standards are more important than facts. ;)<br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Denying someone access to media they want to consume is censorship. ... <br><br>"Liberty" is an abstract ideal, not what they law allows. The first amendment is a legal codification of this ideal, it is a tool with which to achieve the goal of speech liberty, it is not the totality of speech liberty. It someone does not feel free to speak because of non-governmental institutions, they don't have speech liberty. Corporate speech codes may be legal, but they are anti-free speech because they place practical limits on ones ability to exercise free speech. They limit liberty, they do so through coercive threats, and that makes them oppression. <br><br>Likewise if private entities can force producers to stop producing media content they disapprove of, they are engaging in censorship because they are denying access to speech. They are abusing the ideal of speech liberty, whether on not they are acting illegally. </blockquote><br>Obviously that isn't the correct legal definition, as you know, but it's a good practical definition.<br><br>JG
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 04:11:53 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;795549</cite>I'm not seeing the distinction you're making there other than the method. The intent is the same, is it not? If they were in the position to ban it, do you not think that they would? It's only because they lack the authority that they are trying tactics such as exerting social pressure. If the ultimate goal has the same effect, I call it the same thing. "Calling for censorship" is the desire for censorship. <br><br>Wertham did not have the power to ban comicbooks, so he testified before the supreme court to present claims that comics caused juvenile delinquency. Patricia Pulling did not have the power to ban RPGs, so she started BADD to convince society that Dungeons & Dragons caused players to commit suicide. The Tangency clique didnt have the power to prevent James Desberough from publishing, so they started a campaign of harrasment to try to remove him from the industry. <br><br>Let me use an exaggerated and extreme analogy to attempt to drive my point home: A murderer is someone who violently ends another person's life. If someone is incapable or unwilling to murder another person, but they hire another person to murder them, even if they do not technically commit the muurder themselves is it not fair to say that that person's murder was thier ultimate goal?</blockquote>I completely disagree with Patricia Pulling, and I disapprove of her trying to use the courts to enforce her views. However, it seems bizarre to suggest that the suicide angle was just an excuse that she concocted in bad faith. While she was mistaken, I'm pretty sure that she genuinely did blame D&D for her son's suicide. <br><br>The problem with your murder analogy is that it presumes that besides a right to life, every consumer has a fundamental right to get exactly the kind of media they like made for them, and that creators have a fundamental right to get paid to produce the kind of media they like. That's fucking entitled bullshit, in my opinion. <br><br>If my favorite series gets cancelled because of what some critics publish (feminist or otherwise), those critics aren't murdering my right to the series. They're engaging in their own free speech. <br><br>My counter-analogy is this. Someone wants to get elected as their end goal. Does it matter if they convince people to willingly vote for them, or if they cheat and rig the election?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 04:32:09 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;795575</cite>I completely disagree with Patricia Pulling, and I disapprove of her trying to use the courts to enforce her views. However, it seems bizarre to suggest that the suicide angle was just an excuse that she concocted in bad faith. While she was mistaken, I'm pretty sure that she genuinely did blame D&D for her son's suicide. </blockquote><br>How she felt isn't relavent to the reality of the situation<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>The problem with your murder analogy is that it presumes that besides a right to life, every consumer has a fundamental right to get exactly the kind of media they like made for them, and that creators have a fundamental right to get paid to produce the kind of media they like. That's fucking entitled bullshit, in my opinion. </blockquote><br>I dont think creators have the fundamental right to "get paid", and never said anything of the sort, nor that anyone has the right to get media "made for them". Its entitlement bullshit because you just pulled those two statements wholesale out of your ass.<br><br>I do think they have the fuundamental right to create. I believe any human has the fundamental right to create/produce/do what they want as long as doing so does not directly involve the <i>physical</i> harm of another sentient being. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>If my favorite series gets cancelled because of what some critics publish (feminist or otherwise), those critics aren't murdering my right to the series. They're engaging in their own free speech. </blockquote><br>If your favouurite series gets cancelled because of what someone else publishes, then I'd lay the blame on the people who cancelled it, not the published criticism. <br><br>If the critic wrote "this series should get cancelled", then I'd say that its a safe to say that getting the series cancelled was thier ultimate goal.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>My counter-analogy is this. Someone wants to get elected as their end goal. Does it matter if they convince people to willingly vote for them, or if they cheat and rig the election?</blockquote><br>What does that analogy map to? Unpack it for me, because on the usrface it does not seem to be an analogy of what's being discussed in any way.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 07:41:30 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim</cite>My counter-analogy is this. Someone wants to get elected as their end goal. Does it matter if they convince people to willingly vote for them, or if they cheat and rig the election?</blockquote><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;795585</cite>What does that analogy map to? Unpack it for me, because on the usrface it does not seem to be an analogy of what's being discussed in any way.</blockquote>The point of the counter-analogy is that for murder, the <b>how</b> doesn't matter - but for an election, it does. My claim is that if I want to stop certain material from being published, it matters how I do it. If I do it through negative reviews, opinion pieces, protest, or boycott - then it's like winning an election fairly and legally. If I do it through lying, harassment, and/or intimidation, then it is like an invalid and illegal win. <br><br>I consider it far more apt to what we're talking about than your murder analogy. If a game doesn't get published, that isn't in any way equivalent to murder. Murder is wrong in itself - it is denying someone their right to life. If a game doesn't get published, that isn't inherently a crime.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Spinachcat</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 07:55:53 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ratman_tf;795538</cite>And that is the key to their censorship. They can't make laws to make looking at bewbies illegal, so they call everyone misogynist and make them feel bad about looking at bewbies.</blockquote><br>Fools! The power of bewbies is invincible and eternal! <br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;795509</cite>Gender feminists tend to have a remarkably poor understanding of male psychology.</blockquote><br>The vast majority of each gender has a remarkably poor understanding of the psychology of the other gender. <br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Alathon;795446</cite>Until such substantial changes happen, I think the best we can do is spend our time exploring the many, many amateur game reviewers. Doing our due dilligence to find critics who do theirs. Amateurs, or niche outlets like the one you mentioned, seem to me to be the wave of the immediate future.</blockquote><br>Amateurs who gain popularity will be courted with dollars from companies. Any amateur blogger who wants to quit his day job will be lured by those dollars, and I don't blame them. And influence can be more subtle - access to developers, invites to E3, even being thanked, etc. <br><br>For me, the rule has always been Play the Demo. If there is no demo, then I wait until the game is out for a month or two as see what the commentary looks like then. <br><br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;795436</cite><b>The OPPRESSION OLYMPICS have begun!!!</b></blockquote><br>Ya gotta say it like Yoda! Begun, the Oppression Olympics has!<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Haffrung;795393</cite>The bottom line in Hollywood is the bottom line. </blockquote><br>Amen. The Box Office is our one true god!<br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;795234</cite>See this is why I put Will, Ladybird, and Ben into my ignore list.</blockquote><br>Then you are missing out on three interesting voices. <br><br>I'd happily game with all three anytime, especially if Will will let me rub my D20 on his bald head for good luck! Look at his pic, there's dice tossing good luck just sitting on that noggin waiting to be enjoyed. <br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;795260</cite>History had shown we will win because there reasonable people using their critical thinking skills to fight this.</blockquote><br>This dance is destined for the dustbin of history because at the end of the day all of GG/anti-GG is a tempest in a teapot. If real social justice issues can't ignite the mainstream to take action, nonsense being farted about online will waft away soon enough.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 08:00:10 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;795628</cite>The point of the counter-analogy is that for murder, the <b>how</b> doesn't matter - but for an election, it does. My claim is that if I want to stop certain material from being published, it matters how I do it. If I do it through negative reviews, opinion pieces, protest, or boycott - then it's like winning an election fairly and legally. If I do it through lying, harassment, and/or intimidation, then it is like an invalid and illegal win.<br><br></blockquote><br>So, what? We're talking about the end result. It doesnt matter if its "legal" or "fair". I think you're caught up in the analogy and utterly missing the point. <br>The reason I made the analogy was to show that the means or ends or process used does not alter the final intended result. And your counter-analogy doesn't dispute that, it reinforces it.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 09:44:12 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Secret about my noggin:<br>Yes, those are obnoxiously hipster glasses, but they are necessary to minimize how much my head resembles a fat pink potato.<br><br>PO TA TO
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ratman_tf</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 11:48:54 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;795540</cite>And here's my point of disagreement - "making people feel bad" is <b>not censorship</b> in any way, and comparisons to McCarthy and the Salem witch trials are stupid. <br></blockquote><br>And I disagree. Laws are created and repealed because of how people think about a subject, and how people think about a subject is strongly influenced by how they feel about a subject.<br><br>(http://www.historytoday.com/sites/default/files/drink_crime.jpg)<br><br>Don't like something? Run a PR campaign to show how "evil" it is. <br><br>(http://media.chick.com/tractimages67491/0046/0046_05.gif)<br><br>Now, people are free to say all kinds of nutty things, what bothers me is when a narrative gets traction because of feelings and overrides our critical thinking.<br><br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>November 01, 2014, 11:53:07 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;795632</cite>So, what? We're talking about the end result. It doesnt matter if its "legal" or "fair". I think you're caught up in the analogy and utterly missing the point. <br>The reason I made the analogy was to show that the means or ends or process used does not alter the final intended result. And your counter-analogy doesn't dispute that, it reinforces it.</blockquote><br>So let's say there's a game product that I hate and I want to see off the market. However, there's a fan of that product who really likes it. I write some prominent posts attacking it, and write to the publisher asking them to drop it from their line. The publisher feels that the negative press isn't worth the potential profits for that single product, and they drop it. The end result is that the fan doesn't get the product he wanted. <br><br>The fan says that even if the means are legal and fair, the end result should be that the fan gets the product they wanted. If he don't get it, then it's censorship of the equivalent. <br><br>I don't agree with that. I haven't cheated the fan out of anything, because he isn't entitled to get exactly the product he wants. As long as I didn't lie or use violent means to persuade the publisher, it is part of the free marketplace of ideas.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 02, 2014, 12:05:27 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;795668</cite>So let's say there's a game product that I hate and I want to see off the market. However, there's a fan of that product who really likes it. I write some prominent posts attacking it, and write to the publisher asking them to drop it from their line. The publisher feels that the negative press isn't worth the potential profits for that single product, and they drop it. The end result is that the fan doesn't get the product he wanted. <br><br>The fan says that even if the means are legal and fair, the end result should be that the fan gets the product they wanted. If he don't get it, then it's censorship of the equivalent. <br><br>I don't agree with that. I haven't cheated the fan out of anything, because he isn't entitled to get exactly the product he wants. As long as I didn't lie or use violent means to persuade the publisher, it is part of the free marketplace of ideas.</blockquote><br>Sure, but that person is also free to hate you for being the type of person that if youu don't like something you don't want anyone else to like it either. And now, say you then set yourself up in a position as a "consultant", in an attempt to get in a position where you can dictate that nothing you don't want published is published. And you also begin a media campaign to explain that everyone whose published things you don't like are horrible people part of a conspiracy to corrupt our children. And if anyone disagrees with you or doesnt want your services as consultant, you use any means necessary , from doctoring facts to implying connections between radical extremists and groups that oppose your opinoins, to whip up a media frenzy to blacklist those people, all the while portraying them as a cliched stereotype that's no different than early twentieth century racial charicatures of "chinamen" or "negroes". You even stoop to twisting national tragedies to support your opinions...<br><br>Well, then you're Anita Sarkeesian. And regardless of whether any of that is legal or not, or a "part of the freemarket", I don't think I'd call it ethical behaviour by any standard. Accepting however that you don't share my ethical viewpoint, I'm still correct in my supposition that your ultimate goal is censorship. You're just saying that's okay. I'm saying, I don't think it is. Maybe thats simply the point where we have to agree to disagree.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 02, 2014, 12:07:07 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I never noticed before that the Satanic cultists in Dark Dungeons belonged to The Temple of Diana. Wonder if they were big Cheers fans?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>apparition13</strong> on <strong>November 02, 2014, 12:23:15 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;795628</cite>The point of the counter-analogy is that for murder, the <b>how</b> doesn't matter - but for an election, it does. My claim is that if I want to stop certain material from being published, it matters how I do it. If I do it through negative reviews, opinion pieces, protest, or boycott - then it's like winning an election fairly and legally. If I do it through lying, harassment, and/or intimidation, then it is like an invalid and illegal win. <br><br>I consider it far more apt to what we're talking about than your murder analogy. If a game doesn't get published, that isn't in any way equivalent to murder. Murder is wrong in itself - it is denying someone their right to life. If a game doesn't get published, that isn't inherently a crime.</blockquote>Boycotts are intimidation. The South African boycotts weren't just a feel good policy, they were meant to hurt South Africa until it gave in to pressure. Hell, one of the reasons given for Japan's attack on the U.S. in 1941 was because the U.S. oil embargo was causing so much trouble that they thought they had to go for the Indonesian oil fields, which meant they also thought they had to take the U.S. Navy out. <br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;795668</cite>So let's say there's a game product that I hate and I want to see off the market. However, there's a fan of that product who really likes it. I write some prominent posts attacking it, and write to the publisher asking them to drop it from their line. The publisher feels that the negative press isn't worth the potential profits for that single product, and they drop it. The end result is that the fan doesn't get the product he wanted. <br><br>The fan says that even if the means are legal and fair, the end result should be that the fan gets the product they wanted. If he don't get it, then it's censorship of the equivalent. <br><br>I don't agree with that. I haven't cheated the fan out of anything, because he isn't entitled to get exactly the product he wants. As long as I didn't lie or use violent means to persuade the publisher, it is part of the free marketplace of ideas.</blockquote>The free marketplace of ideas only works if everyone respects it and defends it. If you're attacking something in an attempt to get it off the market, in other words if you're trying to make speech <i>between two other people </i>impossible, you aren't acting like someone who respects free speech or the free marketplace of ideas, you're acting like a censor.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 02, 2014, 12:27:55 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I also feel the need to point out the difference in censoring a <i>product</i>, versus censoring a <i>person</i>. I can feel fairly comfortable saying "Don't buy this product.", and still harbor no ill will to the person who created it (indeed, I often like other products that person has to offer). I'd hate to be caught alone with some of these SJW's, just because I hold a contrary opinion on a matter.<br><br>And I guess that's part of the problem too, IMO. It's like deciding to totally write off anything a person says or could reason, just due to <i>one</i> opinion. It's the same as if someone writes off someone else because they're a Democrat, or a Republican. Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. That's a hard line to draw in the sand to say "Disagree with me on one thing? Bam! No discussion with you is ever going to be worth it, ever again!"
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ladybird</strong> on <strong>November 02, 2014, 08:29:07 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Alathon;795446</cite>To deal with the publishers control over reviewers, gamers can do a few things. The most straightforward way would be for many of us to stop pre-ordering, stop buying at release.</blockquote><br>Yeah, pre-ordering is, typically, a mug's game. Especially digital pre-orders; Steam is not going to sell out for a long time. But stores use pre-orders to estimate stock to order; I'll get back to this.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>This has never been a credible option before, but the organization GG is bringing could make this possible. If there were understood to be a two week window before many gamers would buy, that would give reviewers time to work.</blockquote><br>No, this has always been a credible option, it's always been possible (It's what I usually tend to do; I'm sure I'm not alone). The issue is that the great majority of people don't care; sports fans want their new game so they can play with the new season content. Competitive players want their updates so they can start learning the new game. Open-world fans want a new place to run around like sociopaths in, MMO fans want those world firsts.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Game companies would hate hate <i>hate</i> this because it would fuck with their marketing, hopefully we could bargain them away from the practice of hardballing reviewers. Game companies really like having this influence, but they don't <i>need</i> it, so I figure bargaining is possible.</blockquote><br>Beware of unintended consequences.<br><br>* The first few weeks of sales, currently, are really important for sequel decisions. Now, for the megafranchises, the decisions were made years ago; I'm sure Activision and Ubisoft have the dates for the next few years of CoD or AC games already marked out (Right down to the announcements that the PC version will be delayed for <i>reasons</i>). Saint's Row, though? Borderlands? Titanfall? Bayonetta? Those are franchises that are on the bubble; a bad launch could sink them entirely (And has, in some cases).<br>* Retailers aren't going to want to get stuck with inventory that doesn't shift for two weeks, and retail has a lot of power (I'm still unsure how much of the backlash against the XBone's always, always online model was fueled by agent provoceteurs from retail chains). So they'll stock up more on the previous megahits...<br>* Which will be bad for the few remaining mid-tier franchises and developers, like your Saint's Row's or whatever, and very bad for totally new franchises to break into. If that's not going to sell, it's not going to get stocked, which will mean it won't sell... so it won't get a sequel. Now, regardless of whether you like a particular series or genre or not (I like SR, which is why I'm using it as an example) I think we can all agree that a market with more variety of games, catering to more tastes, is better than one with less, catering to fewer.<br>* And if a franchise doesn't sell, it's developers won't continue to be employed. The last generation of consoles has basically gutted the middle tier of games and developers (Increasing development costs, not-similarly-increasing sales revenues - the big headline figures mostly come from a few megahits); but, as we've seen with kickstarter, there's still a market for isometric RPG's, space exploration sims, adventure games. We'll get some good indie games out of it, absolutely, but... I miss the middle tier. They were always the most interesting in terms of concepts and gameplay.<br>* And fair enough, legitimitely bad developers should go bust... but developers don't set out to make bad games. Something like, say, a Frozen tie-in game, is never going to have mass appeal, never going to win "game of the year" or whatever. But it should still exist, there's still a market for it, some people are still going to enjoy it. Not every game needs to be a classic for the ages.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Until such substantial changes happen, I think the best we can do is spend our time exploring the many, many amateur game reviewers. Doing our due dilligence to find critics who do theirs. Amateurs, or niche outlets like the one you mentioned, seem to me to be the wave of the immediate future.</blockquote><br>We're in an interesting time right now, in that we've seen a couple of waves of respectable, relatively-free citizen journalists break through... but the majors are onto it now. They're not going to let another wave appear unless they're sure they are under control.<br><br>Don't get me wrong, I don't like the state of games journalism - it's very rare that an entire new form of media, like games, is developed; it's a huge disservice to not see it reported on properly, or for people to try and limit what areas games should be allowed to cover (Which is more of an issue with gamer culture) - but it's a situation that gamers have allowed to develop for a very, very long time. It's not going to get fixed quickly.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Herr Arnulfe</strong> on <strong>November 02, 2014, 08:59:48 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;795549</cite>I'm unaware of any feminist media critics besides radfems that focus on critiquing elements of geek entertainment. I'd go so far as to say the article of faith associated with Premise #2 is an aspect of radfem solely, not of equity feminism.</blockquote>How many feminist media critics are you aware of?<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;795549</cite>I'm not seeing the distinction you're making there other than the method. The intent is the same, is it not? If they were in the position to ban it, do you not think that they would? It's only because they lack the authority that they are trying tactics such as exerting social pressure. If the ultimate goal has the same effect, I call it the same thing. "Calling for censorship" is the desire for censorship.</blockquote>Feminists who ultimately wanted censorship would certainly have legal recourse. The US has Obscenity laws, which have been used to ban child porn, extremely abusive porn etc., and also block certain content from the internet in schools. If censorship is what feminists wanted, they would be calling for it.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 02, 2014, 09:32:50 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;795712</cite>How many feminist media critics are you aware of? </blockquote><br>Too many to list. Over the last twenty years? Probably upwards of 100, not including the entrenched communities of RPGnet, The Gail Simone boards, etc.<br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Feminists who ultimately wanted censorship would certainly have legal recourse. The US has Obscenity laws, which have been used to ban child porn, extremely abusive porn etc., and also block certain content from the internet in schools. If censorship is what feminists wanted, they would be calling for it.</blockquote><br>lol. Obscenity laws hardly covers supposedly misogynistic videogame tropes, the "male gaze", or films that don't pass the Bechdel test. Are we even talking about the same group of people?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Herr Arnulfe</strong> on <strong>November 02, 2014, 09:56:08 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;795714</cite>Too many to list. Over the last twenty years? Probably upwards of 100, not including the entrenched communities of RPGnet, The Gail Simone boards, etc.</blockquote>OK, you said that you're unaware of any non-radfem media critics who've written about geek media. Did you miss all the pro/con feminist discussions about Buffy, for example? Are you suggesting that the anti-Buffy feminists ultimately wanted the show canceled?<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;795714</cite>lol. Obscenity laws hardly covers supposedly misogynistic videogame tropes, the "male gaze", or films that don't pass the Bechdel test. Are we even talking about the same group of people?</blockquote>It's hard to judge exactly what group you're talking about, because you've switched the label from "gender feminists" to "radfems" meanwhile keeping the brush very wide and not naming any names. Arguing about people's secret, unspoken motives isn't exactly conducive to debate either.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>November 02, 2014, 10:21:16 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ratman_tf;795666</cite>And I disagree. Laws are created and repealed because of how people think about a subject, and how people think about a subject is strongly influenced by how they feel about a subject.<br><br><br>Don't like something? Run a PR campaign to show how "evil" it is. <br><br>Now, people are free to say all kinds of nutty things, what bothers me is when a narrative gets traction because of feelings and overrides our critical thinking.<br><br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave</blockquote><br>Very apt comparison to past temperance movements like the Prohibition. This is basically a temperance movement from the illiberal left.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>November 02, 2014, 10:26:41 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;795714</cite>lol. Obscenity laws hardly covers supposedly misogynistic videogame tropes, the "male gaze", or films that don't pass the Bechdel test. Are we even talking about the same group of people?</blockquote><br>Clearly not, one might be talking about ALL feminists, and the other seem to be talking about the radfems, or thinking all feminists are radfems.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>The Ent</strong> on <strong>November 02, 2014, 10:31:29 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;795718</cite>Very apt comparison to past temperance movements like the Prohibition. This is basically a temperance movement from the illiberal left.</blockquote><br>Well put.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>November 02, 2014, 12:03:02 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;795673</cite>Boycotts are intimidation. The South African boycotts weren't just a feel good policy, they were meant to hurt South Africa until it gave in to pressure. Hell, one of the reasons given for Japan's attack on the U.S. in 1941 was because the U.S. oil embargo was causing so much trouble that they thought they had to go for the Indonesian oil fields, which meant they also thought they had to take the U.S. Navy out.</blockquote>Sure, boycotts can be considered economic intimidation. Just like if one company drives a hard bargain and will only agree to terms if extra concessions are made - that is economic intimidation. Or if a manager says that a worker will be fired unless her productivity is improved, that is economic intimidation. <br><br>People with money can use that money to get other people to do what they want, or to threaten that they won't pay any more. That's inherent in capitalism. If you don't like it, go live in a communist utopia - except that those don't exist. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;795673</cite>The free marketplace of ideas only works if everyone respects it and defends it. If you're attacking something in an attempt to get it off the market, in other words if you're trying to make speech <i>between two other people </i>impossible, you aren't acting like someone who respects free speech or the free marketplace of ideas, you're acting like a censor.</blockquote>Actually, it is possible for two people to speak to each other without there being a commercial product. If a particular game designer can't get anyone to commercially publish his game, that doesn't mean that his free speech is being violated. Everyone has the right to speak, but no one is guaranteed to be <b>paid</b> for their speech. <br><br>So - Anyone can freely speak for or against a commercial product. Anyone can freely make products that they try to put on the market. But no one is guaranteed to be paid for a particular market share.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Piestrio</strong> on <strong>November 02, 2014, 12:08:09 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I'll just say as a rule of thumb that if you have an opinion about what other people choose to create or consume that doesn't involve you in any way.<br><br>It might not necessarily make you a "censor" but it does make you an asshole.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 02, 2014, 12:37:15 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Unfortunately, people tend to argue about the 'involve you in any way' part.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Piestrio</strong> on <strong>November 02, 2014, 12:45:07 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;795745</cite>Unfortunately, people tend to argue about the 'involve you in any way' part.</blockquote><br>Yeah, also insisting that other people's personal decisions about what they do in their own homes, with their own money, on their own time effects you and that therefore you are entitled to an opinion about also makes you an asshole.<br><br>Inserting themselves unwanted into other peoples private lives is one of the hallmarks of the asshole.<br><br>(General "you", just to be clear)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>apparition13</strong> on <strong>November 02, 2014, 01:14:02 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;795741</cite>Sure, boycotts can be considered economic intimidation. Just like if one company drives a hard bargain and will only agree to terms if extra concessions are made - that is economic intimidation. Or if a manager says that a worker will be fired unless her productivity is improved, that is economic intimidation. </blockquote>You just said<br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>If I do it through lying, harassment, and/or intimidation, then it is like an invalid and illegal win. </blockquote>Does this mean you've changed your mind, and using intimidation to suppress free speech you don't like is fine and dandy, if it's economic intimidation? <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>People with money can use that money to get other people to do what they want, or to threaten that they won't pay any more. That's inherent in capitalism. If you don't like it, go live in a communist utopia - except that those don't exist. </blockquote>And this is a good thing? <br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Actually, it is possible for two people to speak to each other without there being a commercial product. If a particular game designer can't get anyone to commercially publish his game, that doesn't mean that his free speech is being violated. Everyone has the right to speak, but no one is guaranteed to be <b>paid</b> for their speech. <br><br>So - Anyone can freely speak for or against a commercial product. Anyone can freely make products that they try to put on the market. But no one is guaranteed to be paid for a particular market share.</blockquote>So therefore it's okay to try and prevent other people from speaking about something you don't like? <br><br>We aren't talking about not being able to publish, we're talking about stopping publication because someone else is throwing a screaming tantrum about your speech. <br><br>I don't like what you're saying (amongst yourselves): compatible with free speech.<br><br>I don't like what you're saying (amongst yourselves), so shut up: incompatible with free speech, doesn't get the point of free speech. <br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Piestrio;795742</cite>I'll just say as a rule of thumb that if you have an opinion about what other people choose to create or consume that doesn't involve you in any way.<br><br>It might not necessarily make you a "censor" but it does make you an asshole.</blockquote>I think Jazz sucks. That's meaningless by itself, it doesn't make me an asshole or a censor. If I seek out people who like jazz and harangue them about how much jazz sucks, that makes me an asshole. If I try and prevent people from playing and/or listening to Jazz, that makes me an asshole and a censor. <br><br>Having an opinion: whatever.<br><br>Expressing that opinion: whatever.<br><br>Interfering with expressions and audiences for that opinion: censor, illiberal, anti-free speech.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Piestrio</strong> on <strong>November 02, 2014, 01:38:03 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;795755</cite>I think Jazz sucks. That's meaningless by itself, it doesn't make me an asshole or a censor. If I seek out people who like jazz and harangue them about how much jazz sucks, that makes me an asshole. If I try and prevent people from playing and/or listening to Jazz, that makes me an asshole and a censor. <br><br>Having an opinion: whatever.<br><br>Expressing that opinion: whatever.<br><br>Interfering with expressions and audiences for that opinion: censor, illiberal, anti-free speech.</blockquote><br>It's not just having an opinion, it's having an opinion about someone else's private decisions that makes you an asshole.<br><br>"I don't like Jazz" = opinion<br><br>"People who make jazz should stop" = asshole<br><br>The thinking make you an asshole, expressing it just lets the rest of us know.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 02, 2014, 01:41:01 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Or, to pick a real world example, Jazz encourages license and sex, and encourages animalistic behavior in n****rs. SO we should ban that filth.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Piestrio</strong> on <strong>November 02, 2014, 01:44:55 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;795760</cite>Or, to pick a real world example, Jazz encourages license and sex, and encourages animalistic behavior in n****rs. SO we should ban that filth.</blockquote><br>Asshole behaviors tend to cluster together yes. So a person who holds opinions about other peoples private lives is also likely to make character judgements about those people.<br><br>Someday I'll come up with a unified asshole theory.<br><br>EDIT: and just to be clear said hypothetical person would be an asshole even before they mentioned banning anything.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ratman_tf</strong> on <strong>November 02, 2014, 03:40:34 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;795718</cite>Very apt comparison to past temperance movements like the Prohibition. This is basically a temperance movement from the illiberal left.</blockquote><br>And to be honest, this one really frightens me. <br><br>(http://www-tc.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/media/photos/S0564-lg.jpg?101220111134AM)<br><br>The Temperance movement tried to use women to further it's ideology, but the current illiberal (I like that) tactic is even more refined and effective.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 02, 2014, 07:53:38 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ratman_tf;795778</cite>And to be honest, this one really frightens me. <br><br>(http://www-tc.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/media/photos/S0564-lg.jpg?101220111134AM)<br></blockquote><br>It looks like he's trying to rescue the person stuck in the chimney
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>November 02, 2014, 08:05:41 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Piestrio;795748</cite>Yeah, also insisting that other people's personal decisions about what they do in their own homes, with their own money, on their own time effects you and that therefore you are entitled to an opinion about also makes you an asshole.<br><br>Inserting themselves unwanted into other peoples private lives is one of the hallmarks of the asshole.</blockquote>OK, I'd mostly agree with this. It's more that people were going on about how protest and/or boycott is against free speech. But sure - plenty of free speech is speech by assholes, because they're louder. <br><br>I might disagree about exactly which people are assholes, but I would generally agree that it's being an asshole to complain about people's behavior in private.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 02, 2014, 08:15:23 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;795821</cite>OK, I'd mostly agree with this. It's more that people were going on about how protest and/or boycott is against free speech. But sure - plenty of free speech is speech by assholes, because they're louder. </blockquote><br>You may have misinterpreted my point earlier. I don't think protest/boycott is against free speech, unless the end goal of that protest or boycott is to silence others. And even then, I believe Free Speech is a two-Way street. I may not like what anyone has to say, but I still think they should have the right to say it. I just in turn have the right to critisize what they're saying. To go back to the thread topic, I dont think Sarkeesian should be prevented from making her videos, but I do think that her speeches and positions on things should be exposed for what they are. This is one of the reasons Yellow Journalism in the mass media really bothers me, and this whole GG thing has really highlighted that for me. Not the so-called "gaming journalists" that GG is concerned with, but the mass media reports on Gamergate, from MSNBC to the BBC.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>I might disagree about exactly which people are assholes, but I would generally agree that it's being an asshole to complain about people's behavior in private.</blockquote><br>Thats the distinction as I see it, between a feminist activist and a psuedo-activist or "SJW". A Feminist activist is concerned about sexual harrassment in the workplace, equal pay, legal rights based on gender, domestic violence, disparate standards of education, etc. An SJW is concerned with people's entertainment, creativity and imagination, and their private indulgences that don't directly involve interaction with society. One I get behind full-heartedly, the other I find despicable attempts at thought-policing.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Piestrio</strong> on <strong>November 02, 2014, 08:15:56 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;795821</cite>OK, I'd mostly agree with this. It's more that people were going on about how protest and/or boycott is against free speech. But sure - plenty of free speech is speech by assholes, because they're louder. <br><br></blockquote><br>Protests and boycotts can be anti-free speech but they needn't be, like many tools they are divorced from the goals and neither moral or immoral in and of themselves.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ratman_tf</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 12:04:48 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
It's about journalistic integrity.<br><br>http://anonymousdeveloper.tumblr.com/
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>apparition13</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 12:26:53 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Piestrio;795758</cite>It's not just having an opinion, it's having an opinion about someone else's private decisions that makes you an asshole.<br><br>"I don't like Jazz" = opinion<br><br>"People who make jazz should stop" = asshole<br><br>The thinking make you an asshole, expressing it just lets the rest of us know.</blockquote>Just to be clear, <i>thinking</i> makes you an asshole? As in thinking, without any expression of said thoughts to anyone, ever, makes you an asshole? Because you've said it twice now.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Piestrio</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 05:34:57 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;795872</cite>Just to be clear, <i>thinking</i> makes you an asshole? As in thinking, without any expression of said thoughts to anyone, ever, makes you an asshole? Because you've said it twice now.</blockquote><br>Yes.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Haffrung</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 11:15:22 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Piestrio;795748</cite>Yeah, also insisting that other people's personal decisions about what they do in their own homes, with their own money, on their own time effects you and that therefore you are entitled to an opinion about also makes you an asshole.</blockquote><br>By that definition, 98 per cent of the people who have ever walked the planet were assholes. The notion that people should be able to privately pursue whatever they take pleasure from, without regard to social norms or traditions, has only been around for a couple generations, and only in the West. Even today, only a small fraction of people outside the West have rejected communal morality. <br><br>I'm not saying you're wrong. But we should recognize that absolute hedonistic liberty is a very recent experiment in human history. We have no idea how sustainable it is a central principle of a civilization.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ratman_tf;795778</cite>And to be honest, this one really frightens me. <br><br>(http://www-tc.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/media/photos/S0564-lg.jpg?101220111134AM)<br><br>The Temperance movement tried to use women to further it's ideology, but the current illiberal (I like that) tactic is even more refined and effective.</blockquote><br>The Temperance movement was misguided and prohibition was foolish policy. But there were legitimate social concerns alongside the religious moralizing. In the 19th and early 20th century, drunkeness - I mean routine, blacked-out drunkenness - was very common among men. Think modern Russia, but worse. In a great many working-class families, the only source of real income was falling-down drunk more often than not, and spent most of his earnings on booze. Before the welfare state was in place, this was catastrophic for the families involved. Malnutrition and disease ravaged the families of alcoholics. <br><br>This is why I don't subscribe to ideology. The world is very, very complicated. Every value, every decision is a trade-off. We have an innate desire for simplicity. By nature, we think in binary terms. Good/bad. Black/white. Them/us. And ideology fosters that kind of simplistic us versus them thinking. But it's delusional. Easy answers make us feel secure, but they don't reflect the complex reality of our world.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 02:52:13 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Haffrung;795927</cite>The Temperance movement was misguided and prohibition was foolish policy. But there were legitimate social concerns alongside the religious moralizing. In the 19th and early 20th century, drunkeness - I mean routine, blacked-out drunkenness - was very common among men. Think modern Russia, but worse. In a great many working-class families, the only source of real income was falling-down drunk more often than not, and spent most of his earnings on booze. Before the welfare state was in place, this was catastrophic for the families involved. Malnutrition and disease ravaged the families of alcoholics.</blockquote>I would generally agree, and this certainly isn't limited to the 19th century. I have a family member who is an alcoholic and fell to the point of attempted suicide. Both the drinking and the attempted suicide are per se private behavior, but I don't think that someone who attempted an intervention for my family member would necessarily be an asshole (although they could be). <br><br>However, this is getting pretty off-topic from RPGs and computer games. <br><br>While I think there are a few valid criticisms, in practice I dislike most negative judgment pieces on games. I'd prefer to (a) praise positive examples, and/or (b) do analysis of games without overt judgment. I'm thinking mainly of, say, story-gamer negative pieces about traditional RPGs, and conversely traditional RPGer negative pieces about story-games. It seems to me that there is the same back-and-forth within video games.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Piestrio</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 03:24:00 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Haffrung;795927</cite>By that definition, 98 per cent of the people who have ever walked the planet were assholes. The notion that people should be able to privately pursue whatever they take pleasure from, without regard to social norms or traditions, has only been around for a couple generations, and only in the West. Even today, only a small fraction of people outside the West have rejected communal morality. <br><br>I'm not saying you're wrong. But we should recognize that absolute hedonistic liberty is a very recent experiment in human history. We have no idea how sustainable it is a central principle of a civilization.<br><br></blockquote><br>Ah, you have inferred an absolute where I did not intend one.<br><br>I began this tangent as a general "rule of thumb" not an absolute principle.<br><br>Apologies for the misunderstanding.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 03:52:18 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Haffrung;795927</cite>By that definition, 98 per cent of the people who have ever walked the planet were assholes. The notion that people should be able to privately pursue whatever they take pleasure from, without regard to social norms or traditions, has only been around for a couple generations, and only in the West. Even today, only a small fraction of people outside the West have rejected communal morality. <br><br>I'm not saying you're wrong. But we should recognize that absolute hedonistic liberty is a very recent experiment in human history. We have no idea how sustainable it is a central principle of a civilization. <br><br></blockquote><br>I think historically there were many cases where it was much easier for someone to have a private life.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 05:37:42 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/30/that_creepy_guy_from_the_internet_how_gamergate_shattered_faith_in_the_geek_community/<br><br>Read it.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Haffrung</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 05:56:33 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;795969</cite>I think historically there were many cases where it was much easier for someone to have a private life.</blockquote><br>Examples?<br><br>Not taking part in the religious and ceremonial life of the community? Defying social norms around marriage, family, and vocation?<br><br>Where and when was this easier than the West today? Most people in history lived in small and tightly-knit farming communities (the isolated homesteader was a peculiarity of the American West, and short-lived). Religion, and its prescription of behaviour, has been the governing influence on almost every person who has walked the planet. Even your wealthy country gentlemen of the English countryside, probably the closest thing in history to your private life in the burbs today, had social commitments to family and neighbours, and was subject to much stronger pressures of judgement and conformity than your modern man or woman. I suppose if you were both rich and willing to be socially ostracized, you could afford to stand outside social norms and pursue your own pleasures privately and independently. But almost anyone has that luxury today. In fact, alienation from wider society is the pathology of our times.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Piestrio</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 06:21:20 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;795996</cite>http://www.salon.com/2014/10/30/that_creepy_guy_from_the_internet_how_gamergate_shattered_faith_in_the_geek_community/<br><br>Read it.</blockquote><br>Arthur Chu used to say nice things about Hitler and the Nazi party on twitter. He is the epitome of "that creepy guy on the Internet"
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ladybird</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 06:26:00 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;795996</cite>http://www.salon.com/2014/10/30/that_creepy_guy_from_the_internet_how_gamergate_shattered_faith_in_the_geek_community/<br><br>Read it.</blockquote><br>Good article, that. Struck a nerve.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 07:01:03 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Hey, maybe a mob movement about ethical journalism should be a bit more committed to checking facts and information:<br><br>https://storify.com/turnoffthenews/gamergate-can-t-tell-two-asian-men-apart<br><br>And, well, not being racist.<br><br>(+ http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/11/02/why-are-gamergaters-so-quick-to-excuse-an-anti-semitic-caricature-of-anita-sarkeesian-thats-literally-derived-from-nazi-propaganda/ )
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Piestrio</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 07:10:17 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796016</cite>Hey, maybe a mob movement about ethical journalism should be a bit more committed to checking facts and information:<br><br>https://storify.com/turnoffthenews/gamergate-can-t-tell-two-asian-men-apart<br><br>And, well, not being racist.<br><br>(+ http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/11/02/why-are-gamergaters-so-quick-to-excuse-an-anti-semitic-caricature-of-anita-sarkeesian-thats-literally-derived-from-nazi-propaganda/ )</blockquote><br>Heh, that came through my feed today and I chuckled.<br><br>Then I made the same mistake. Oops.<br><br>To be fair to myself (aren't I generous) I'm not really following the whole mess and my last exposure to Mr. Chu was in an article about how someone posted platitudes to Nazis.<br><br>My bad.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 07:28:40 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
FWIW - is it anti-Semitic if she's not Jewish?<br><br>https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/152145454191222784
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Warboss Squee</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 07:40:03 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Werekoala;796023</cite>FWIW - is it anti-Semitic if she's not Jewish?<br><br>https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/152145454191222784</blockquote><br>I think so.<br><br>TBH, that's one comeback of hers I can get behind.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 07:48:58 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
The Antisemitic gloss is so egregious I'd actually listen to the idea of anti-GG plants. :)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 07:52:22 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Ok, so all GG supporters are now fat, white, male, mouth-breathing, basement-dwelling, anti-Semitic, racist, misogynistic, death-threat doxxing, wanna-be eye (and other) rapists. <br><br>Looks like almost all the bases are covered. Plenty of room for discussion there, then.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 08:05:34 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ratman_tf;795868</cite>It's about journalistic integrity.<br><br>http://anonymousdeveloper.tumblr.com/</blockquote><br>Or as I frequently point out, the lack thereof.<br><br>jg
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 08:12:58 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Werekoala;796023</cite>FWIW - is it anti-Semitic if she's not Jewish?<br><br>https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/152145454191222784</blockquote><br>Well, it's moronic, so that's one thing in common with Anti-Semitism.<br><br>JG
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Iosue</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 08:42:12 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;795996</cite>http://www.salon.com/2014/10/30/that_creepy_guy_from_the_internet_how_gamergate_shattered_faith_in_the_geek_community/<br><br>Read it.</blockquote><br>That was an eloquent, well-written, clearly personal piece. And it sums up my main problem with the "anti-GG" side of the issue.<br><br>Tugging on virtually thread tied to GamerGate eventually leads to some vile shit. Whether it's real legit misogynistic ugliness, or things like Purple permabanning someone after they make a moderate, articulate, and wholly non-offensive defense of GamerGate.<br><br>But here's the thing. In the course of looking at pro-GG stuff, in addition to all the vile shit, I can find reasoned, articulate pieces talking about specific events, specific people, and specific organizations. You can agree or disagree about that, but there's space for a civil debate.<br><br>I can't do that with anti-GG stuff. There's vile shit, and then there's the moderate reasoned pieces like this one by Arthur Chu, and Felicia Day's blogpost, that while not being as vile as the shit Leigh Alexander or Sam Biddle has said, <i>nonetheless</i> explicitly denies the diversity that exists within the GamerGate hashtag. That groups it all together under this stereotype of "gamer" as being white, fat, MRA assholes. After spending several weeks talking about how Bill Maher was an asshole to do that kind of shit with Islam, I can't very well turn around and say it's cool to do that with "gamers" and GamerGate.<br><br>In the end, it's a hashtag. Used by many people, for many different purposes. Some noble, some awful. Any piece that's worth my time has to account for that diversity. But the irony is, any piece that does that ends up not being "anti-GG". I can't say I'm "pro-GG", because I couldn't really give a shit about games journalism, because I don't consume games journalism. The conspiracy theories sound like most conspiracy theories do, and as far as Sarkeesian and her videos go, there doesn't really need to be a movement against that -- people can just refute her points in any number of venues. That shit's the lifeblood of the Internet.<br><br>But to be anti-GG? That's all about lumping the myriad of goals, intentions, and actions of a widely diverse group of people under one label, and saying they are one negative thing. Nope, can't do that.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Warboss Squee</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 08:57:10 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Werekoala;796028</cite>Ok, so all GG supporters are now fat, white, male, mouth-breathing, basement-dwelling, anti-Semitic, racist, misogynistic, death-threat doxxing, wanna-be eye (and other) rapists. <br><br>Looks like almost all the bases are covered. Plenty of room for discussion there, then.</blockquote><br>Yeah, but gamers have been called that for years now. Nothing new.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 09:05:51 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Warboss Squee;796037</cite>Yeah, but gamers have been called that for years now. Nothing new.</blockquote><br>Yeah, but now gamers are getting called that in the national media, not just in the halls between class.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 10:06:23 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Iosue;796036</cite>That was an eloquent, well-written, clearly personal piece. And it sums up my main problem with the "anti-GG" side of the issue.<br><br>Tugging on virtually thread tied to GamerGate eventually leads to some vile shit. Whether it's real legit misogynistic ugliness, or things like Purple permabanning someone after they make a moderate, articulate, and wholly non-offensive defense of GamerGate.<br><br>But here's the thing. In the course of looking at pro-GG stuff, in addition to all the vile shit, I can find reasoned, articulate pieces talking about specific events, specific people, and specific organizations. You can agree or disagree about that, but there's space for a civil debate.<br><br>I can't do that with anti-GG stuff. There's vile shit, and then there's the moderate reasoned pieces like this one by Arthur Chu, and Felicia Day's blogpost, that while not being as vile as the shit Leigh Alexander or Sam Biddle has said, <i>nonetheless</i> explicitly denies the diversity that exists within the GamerGate hashtag. That groups it all together under this stereotype of "gamer" as being white, fat, MRA assholes. After spending several weeks talking about how Bill Maher was an asshole to do that kind of shit with Islam, I can't very well turn around and say it's cool to do that with "gamers" and GamerGate.<br><br>In the end, it's a hashtag. Used by many people, for many different purposes. Some noble, some awful. Any piece that's worth my time has to account for that diversity. But the irony is, any piece that does that ends up not being "anti-GG". I can't say I'm "pro-GG", because I couldn't really give a shit about games journalism, because I don't consume games journalism. The conspiracy theories sound like most conspiracy theories do, and as far as Sarkeesian and her videos go, there doesn't really need to be a movement against that -- people can just refute her points in any number of venues. That shit's the lifeblood of the Internet.<br><br>But to be anti-GG? That's all about lumping the myriad of goals, intentions, and actions of a widely diverse group of people under one label, and saying they are one negative thing. Nope, can't do that.</blockquote><br>Well put. Sums up my thoughts on the matter succinctly.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 10:08:19 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Haffrung;796005</cite>Examples?<br><br>Not taking part in the religious and ceremonial life of the community? Defying social norms around marriage, family, and vocation?<br><br>Where and when was this easier than the West today? Most people in history lived in small and tightly-knit farming communities (the isolated homesteader was a peculiarity of the American West, and short-lived). Religion, and its prescription of behaviour, has been the governing influence on almost every person who has walked the planet. Even your wealthy country gentlemen of the English countryside, probably the closest thing in history to your private life in the burbs today, had social commitments to family and neighbours, and was subject to much stronger pressures of judgement and conformity than your modern man or woman. I suppose if you were both rich and willing to be socially ostracized, you could afford to stand outside social norms and pursue your own pleasures privately and independently. But almost anyone has that luxury today. In fact, alienation from wider society is the pathology of our times.</blockquote><br><br>Thats an incredibly eurocentric take on the term "historically".<br><br>Buut you asked for an example, so how about: the 1980s?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>woodsmoke</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 10:11:40 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Werekoala;796028</cite>Ok, so all GG supporters are now fat, white, male, mouth-breathing, basement-dwelling, anti-Semitic, racist, misogynistic, death-threat doxxing, wanna-be eye (and other) rapists. <br><br>Looks like almost all the bases are covered. Plenty of room for discussion there, then.</blockquote><br>"Now?"<br><br>Edit: Dammit, Warboss Squee beat me to it.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 10:22:59 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I'm not with him!<br>But you'd better do what he says.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 11:10:33 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Guess what? I found a handful of Republicans who are racists! Obviously that means every Republican is a racist bigot! Because I'm ironically unaware of the meaning of the word <i>prejudice</i>.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Iosue</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 11:24:51 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796056</cite>I'm not with him!<br>But you'd better do what he says.</blockquote><br>Cute, but lacks all nuance and context. You could easily make the very same comparison between feminists and radical feminists, and it'd be bullshit then, too.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 11:41:33 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Iosue;796065</cite>Cute, but lacks all nuance and context. You could easily make the very same comparison between feminists and radical feminists, and it'd be bullshit then, too.</blockquote><br>Yeah and don't forget Islam and Terrorism too. <br><br>Not sure why Will keeps referencing that comic, it really doesn't apply to this (or any other) debate, unless you want to imply that anyone distancing themselves from the most radical members of a group to which they happen to belong actually support their goals. <br><br>In short, any group that has radical members consists of nothing BUT radical members, regardless of their protestations. <br><br>Maybe he could enlighten us.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Iosue</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 11:57:11 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Werekoala;796069</cite>Maybe he could enlighten us.</blockquote>Given that I've tried politely responding to him twice with posts of some length arguing for a more nuanced discussion, and they've been ignored, I'm not holding out hope.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 03, 2014, 11:58:42 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
GG is a movement that started with slander and personal attacks, has continued to be fueled by internet rage and slander and personal attacks, and is constantly spinning lies.<br><br>It's a movement that's attracted neo-Nazis, antisemitic cartoons, attacks on ANY woman who dares even mildly disagree with it.<br><br>People are volunteering to fly that flag _because_ it's contentious and has visibility.<br><br>All the folks wringing their hands about 'a few bad apples' and 'they don't represent us' aren't doing something ELSE precisely because those 'few bad apples' and nonrepresentatives are creating such drama and energy.<br><br>If anyone truly believes that small-time indie gaming journalism needs to be revamped, start a club or something and do it honestly. Do it with some group you can kick assholes out of, where you have a representative who DOES speak for you.<br><br>Until that point? You are CHOOSING to stand with horrible people. And from a distance spectators will not be able to tell the difference.<br><br>Can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 12:02:05 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
And as for the tired refrain of 'Oh, but Islam...'<br><br>Islam is a 1400 year old religion that's spanned continents, been radically transformed a bunch of times. There are entire civilizations that have come and gone since it started.<br><br>When two people say they follow Islam, you could be talking about a vast gulf of history between them. More than that, they have leaders, hierarchies, systems, canon, all which distinguishes THEIR sort of Islam from some OTHER sort of Islam.<br><br><br>I should be more surprised that I have to point out the differences between that and a fucking 3 month old slacktivist hashtag meme that has folks in a tizzy.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 12:03:06 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Wow. Ok, I hereby nominate Will to be the next Secretary of State, because that way of looking at groups of people will certainly clear up all kinds of international problems in short order.<br><br>Also, he's really good at absolutes as long as they support his views - perfect compliment to our current foreign policy.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 12:03:35 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Iosue;796071</cite>Given that I've tried politely responding to him twice with posts of some length arguing for a more nuanced discussion, and they've been ignored, I'm not holding out hope.</blockquote><br>You will have to forgive me if my ROI on energy on this specific thread when I'm this outnumbered means I may skip responses sometimes (or miss posts).<br><br>Particularly when we have folks like Werekoala at the ready to make incisive productive responses.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 12:10:59 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796075</cite>Particularly when we have folks like Werekoala at the ready to make incisive productive responses.</blockquote><br>Well okay - so your point that Islam can't be compared to GG is that Islam has had 1400 years to evolve? If you know anything about Islam, you'd know it didn't exactly start out being about warm fuzzy bunnies and rainbows, but clearly it has evolved to the point that we can now call it the Religion of Peace without spitting ALL of our Coke across our keyboards? <br><br>Hm.<br><br>Maybe in 1400 years, GG will be an acceptable movement where it's ok to have a few nutcases involved, and everyone else can say "Hey, I'm not with HIM" - and not have people like you chime in with "But better give him your money"?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 12:16:11 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I call myself Christian. What can you assume?<br><br>I call myself a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. What can you assume?<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Werekoala;796076</cite>Maybe in 1400 years, GG will be an acceptable movement where it's ok to have a few nutcases involved, and everyone else can say "Hey, I'm not with HIM" - and not have people like you chime in with "But better give him your money"?</blockquote><br>Ask me then!<br><br>Heh. But, if you came from a country settled by GGers centuries ago, with a rule of journalistic ethics law and disputes between feminist camps ironed out according to the 5th century Council of Gaming, then sure, maybe.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 12:26:16 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796072</cite>All the folks wringing their hands about 'a few bad apples' and 'they don't represent us' <b>aren't doing something ELSE </b>precisely because those 'few bad apples' and nonrepresentatives are creating such drama and energy.</blockquote><br><snip blatant example of GG directly supporting independant female creators in games><br><br>https://pixietalksgamergate.wordpress.com/gamergates-achievements-thus-far/ (https://pixietalksgamergate.wordpress.com/gamergates-achievements-thus-far/)<br><br>Sorry, what was that you were lying?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 12:33:59 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
'aren't doing something else' in the sense of 'aren't in some other movement.'<br><br>Again, if there are so many uninformed people reacting to GG with dismay because of bad apples, why not form some other group and, you know, not call yourself a GamerGater?<br><br>If I started a religious hashtag movement named Mislam and a bunch of folks declaring themselves Mislish went out and said 'yeah! black people suck!' and this kept happening, I'd be inclined to go 'welp, this was only a few months old, let's rebrand and have a tighter control over things.'
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 12:53:17 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796077</cite>I call myself Christian. What can you assume?<br><br>I call myself a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. What can you assume?</blockquote>By using the same logic you're using regarding GamerGate, since Christians aren't "taking care" of the hateful message being spread by the WBC, all Christians are therefore part and parcel part of the Hate movement advocated by the extremist WBC.<br><br>Why are you an anti-Semite homophobe Will?<br>Why would you consider yourself part of the hate movement, #Christianity?<br><br>EDIT: :p<br>Need to add the emoticon, so people realize I'm not serious with the last bit.<br>Kind of sucks I have to say that, and it's not just given though, isn't it?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Iosue</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 01:07:14 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796072</cite>GG is a movement that started with slander and personal attacks, has continued to be fueled by internet rage and slander and personal attacks, and is constantly spinning lies.</blockquote>Anytime you want to call out specific people or events, rather than sum up the whole thing as "Gamergate", I'll be right there with you.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>It's a movement that's attracted neo-Nazis, antisemitic cartoons, attacks on ANY woman who dares even mildly disagree with it.</blockquote>And again, if you want to call out specific people or events, that'd be awesome. But "StopGamergate2014" attracted fucking ISIS of all things. Surely you would agree that it would be the height of stupidity to lump in any and everyone who hashtagged "StopGamergate2014" with ISIS, wouldn't you?<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>People are volunteering to fly that flag _because_ it's contentious and has visibility.<br><br>All the folks wringing their hands about 'a few bad apples' and 'they don't represent us' aren't doing something ELSE precisely because those 'few bad apples' and nonrepresentatives are creating such drama and energy.<br></blockquote>Gosh, in the thread on rolling for characters, you called out Sommerjohn for trying to dissect your motives and reasons based on what you yourself wrote, and now you want to do the same based on an answer by one lone guy in a intentionally leaderless movement.<br><br>I mean, if we're going to do that, then I suggest we have to give the same or greater value to the GamerGate Harassment Patrol. I mean, if a group wants to use the contentious visibility of hateful harassers in order to maintain the relevance of their movement, a harassment patrol seems counterproductive.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>If anyone truly believes that small-time indie gaming journalism needs to be revamped, start a club or something and do it honestly. Do it with some group you can kick assholes out of, where you have a representative who DOES speak for you.<br><br>Until that point? You are CHOOSING to stand with horrible people. And from a distance spectators will not be able to tell the difference.</blockquote>Here I'm going to have to disagree, because as a spectator it's been pretty easy to tell the difference, if you're inclined to pay attention to what people are saying, rather than just saying, "Huh, GamerGate. Must be a hateful misogynistic asshole." The key, you see, is judging people by what they say rather than the hashtag they use.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 01:11:19 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796079</cite>'aren't doing something else' in the sense of 'aren't in some other movement.' </blockquote><br><snip picture expressing goal-post shifting><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Again, if there are so many uninformed people reacting to GG with dismay because of bad apples, why not form some other group and, you know, not call yourself a GamerGater?</blockquote><br>That question has been answered numerous times already.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 01:24:22 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Moving goal posts? I've made the same argument about four times in this thread, possibly more.<br><br>Given I'm one of the only persistent anti-GGer in the thread, you'd think someone might remember it.<br><br>Which is, btw Iosue, what doesn't super motivate me to get into long explanations -- I've probably already explained myself, people forgot in the haze of trying to be snide or funny, and then everyone seems to reset for the next round.<br><br>Disagree, fine, but hey, if you really want a long explanation reread the thread.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 01:47:41 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796086</cite>Moving goal posts? I've made the same argument about four times in this thread, possibly more.<br><br>Given I'm one of the only persistent anti-GGer in the thread, you'd think someone might remember it.<br><br>Which is, btw Iosue, what doesn't super motivate me to get into long explanations -- I've probably already explained myself, people forgot in the haze of trying to be snide or funny, and then everyone seems to reset for the next round.<br><br>Disagree, fine, but hey, if you really want a long explanation reread the thread.</blockquote><br>Which argument? Why arent they doing something else/involved in other movements? Many of the are, as pointed out blatantly in the link in the post you responded to. Why don't they just change the name? Well I'd say common sense, but as that seems to not be common enough, I'd say reread the thread.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Spinachcat</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 01:58:41 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I am totally confused by this Islam / GG thing. <br><br>I am also confused about the vitriol vs. Will. He's been more than cool. And I have to agree with the criticism that bad apples in a movement bring the spotlight that others in the movement can use. But I would argue that's common for many movements. <br><br>It's why smashy-smashy anarchists were often tolerated at anti-war rallies. If nobody broke some windows, the TV crews might not even report that 10,000 people showed up for a rally. Of course, others of us argued that any smashy-smashy diminished the message, but even I could not argue that the media has a propensity to only spotlight where there's sensationalism.<br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796072</cite>Until that point? You are CHOOSING to stand with horrible people. And from a distance spectators will not be able to tell the difference.</blockquote><br>Fuck the spectators. If others want to define me, judge me, or lump me into whatever category, they are free to go ahead. WTF would I ever care what a bunch of worthless SJWs think? <br><br>Its that old adage that someone else's opinion of me is none of my business. I know where I stand and I know what I believe. The rest of the world can suck a chode in the party zone.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 03:00:46 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;796053</cite>Thats an incredibly eurocentric take on the term "historically".</blockquote><br>Tight-knit farming communities... social control... the English countryside of a couple hundred years ago was about the least controlling rural environment in world history to that point. So you seem to have it completely back to front.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 03:08:23 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796072</cite>Until that point? You are CHOOSING to stand with horrible people. </blockquote><br>So are you, mate. :D
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Warboss Squee</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 03:28:57 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;796100</cite>So are you, mate. :D</blockquote><br>But how are they horrible? They're the good guys right? Standing firm against a vile hate group of white men. How could they EVER be wrong? After all, it's not like a huge group of minorities they claim to speak for told them to go piss up a rope.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 05:39:29 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ladybird;795705</cite>No, this has always been a credible option, it's always been possible (It's what I usually tend to do; I'm sure I'm not alone). The issue is that the great majority of people don't care; sports fans want their new game so they can play with the new season content. Competitive players want their updates so they can start learning the new game. Open-world fans want a new place to run around like sociopaths in, MMO fans want those world firsts.</blockquote>I did it personally, ME3 was the nail in the coffin for my release purchases of stand-alone games. As you mentioned below, MMOs are a different deal, but there I can be in the alpha/beta and make sure it isn't terrible. I don't think "stop buying at release" was credible as anything other than a personal option until now, because there's been only passing will to advocate for it and no sense among gamers that any sort of solidarity was needed.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ladybird;795705</cite>Beware of unintended consequences.<br><br>* The first few weeks of sales, currently, are really important for sequel decisions. Now, for the megafranchises, the decisions were made years ago; I'm sure Activision and Ubisoft have the dates for the next few years of CoD or AC games already marked out (Right down to the announcements that the PC version will be delayed for <i>reasons</i>). Saint's Row, though? Borderlands? Titanfall? Bayonetta? Those are franchises that are on the bubble; a bad launch could sink them entirely (And has, in some cases).<br>* Retailers aren't going to want to get stuck with inventory that doesn't shift for two weeks, and retail has a lot of power (I'm still unsure how much of the backlash against the XBone's always, always online model was fueled by agent provoceteurs from retail chains). So they'll stock up more on the previous megahits...<br>* Which will be bad for the few remaining mid-tier franchises and developers, like your Saint's Row's or whatever, and very bad for totally new franchises to break into. If that's not going to sell, it's not going to get stocked, which will mean it won't sell... so it won't get a sequel. Now, regardless of whether you like a particular series or genre or not (I like SR, which is why I'm using it as an example) I think we can all agree that a market with more variety of games, catering to more tastes, is better than one with less, catering to fewer.<br>* And if a franchise doesn't sell, it's developers won't continue to be employed. The last generation of consoles has basically gutted the middle tier of games and developers (Increasing development costs, not-similarly-increasing sales revenues - the big headline figures mostly come from a few megahits); but, as we've seen with kickstarter, there's still a market for isometric RPG's, space exploration sims, adventure games. We'll get some good indie games out of it, absolutely, but... I miss the middle tier. They were always the most interesting in terms of concepts and gameplay.<br>* And fair enough, legitimitely bad developers should go bust... but developers don't set out to make bad games. Something like, say, a Frozen tie-in game, is never going to have mass appeal, never going to win "game of the year" or whatever. But it should still exist, there's still a market for it, some people are still going to enjoy it. Not every game needs to be a classic for the ages.</blockquote>I'm not fond of the disruption this conflict could bring to the developer side of the industry, even if I hold them responsible for a great deal of B.S. it's not the owners who really have to give a shit about all this. Didn't observe the reduction mid-tier developers, thanks for bringing that up.<br><br>Not surprised profits are a problem though, prices holding steady or going down while expectations are driven up can't really be sustainable.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ladybird;795705</cite>We're in an interesting time right now, in that we've seen a couple of waves of respectable, relatively-free citizen journalists break through... but the majors are onto it now. They're not going to let another wave appear unless they're sure they are under control.<br><br>Don't get me wrong, I don't like the state of games journalism - it's very rare that an entire new form of media, like games, is developed; it's a huge disservice to not see it reported on properly, or for people to try and limit what areas games should be allowed to cover (Which is more of an issue with gamer culture) - but it's a situation that gamers have allowed to develop for a very, very long time. It's not going to get fixed quickly.</blockquote>True that.. fortunately, I feel like our targets are so rickety we can make progress faster than anyone expects. Gawker media in particular is in trouble, few wand to stand for them on account of their practice of publishing celebrity nudes, sex tapes, and other such gross invasions of privacy.<br><br>But what's this "let" you speak of, the majors are getting less say every day.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 05:43:59 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796079</cite>If I started a religious hashtag movement named Mislam and a bunch of folks declaring themselves Mislish went out and said 'yeah! black people suck!' and this kept happening, I'd be inclined to go 'welp, this was only a few months old, let's rebrand and have a tighter control over things.'</blockquote>If you did that, the racists you bed down with would ask if you can make the movement more kinetic, while the multi-level marketers you bend knee to would demand that you hand over control of the alias to a woman (like her, for example) as soon as she saw that you had audience to target.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>MrHurst</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 08:01:08 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796079</cite>If I started a religious hashtag movement named Mislam and a bunch of folks declaring themselves Mislish went out and said 'yeah! black people suck!' and this kept happening, I'd be inclined to go 'welp, this was only a few months old, let's rebrand and have a tighter control over things.'</blockquote><br>Will, I'm an atheist. I think Sam Harris is a fucking tool and his views on Islam are roughly as backwards as fundamentalist Islam's views about women. Doesn't mean I need to come up with a colorful new term for myself, it means I don't perpetuate his opinions. I spread my own opinions instead.<br><br>That's more or less what the guys around here have been doing with gamer gate. At least one actively supporting getting rid of the disruptive element that is making them look bad. Then you sit there and keep slathering them with accusations based on people who they have little to do with.<br><br>Will, how about the Quinn supporters explain why they shouted down someone who claimed to have been harassed by Quinn until he said it was a bad time to bring it up and apologized? Can we drag that out and label you with it? How you totally suppress victims so you can have your political way. As far as I'm concerned it'd be a dick thing to do to you, even if it was a massively offensive thing to have seen done in the first place.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 09:20:46 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I'll repeat it again: anyone saying that some movement or hashtag needs to "disband nao!!" because it began with allegedly horrible X or Y thing is engaging in fallacious thinking. End of story.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>JRT</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 09:47:31 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;796133</cite>I'll repeat it again: anyone saying that some movement or hashtag needs to "disband nao!!" because it began with allegedly horrible X or Y thing is engaging in fallacious thinking. End of story.</blockquote><br>Except people do that all the time.<br><br>ISIS caused a company called ISIS wallet to change their name after millions were spent on Marketing to Softbank Wallet. They even decided to get rid of the name ISIS in the TV Show Archer.<br><br>A hashtag on twitter, by its very nature, is a short-term meme. I think too many people see too much identity in that meme, thinking it means "all gamers", which it does not--I would have to say both the pro and anti GG people are a small fraction of the gaming population--most people don't give a crap either way. <br><br>These things don't last, so I think if people want to deal with the journalist side of things, they should form a better organization for it, if people want to deal with the political stuff, they too should create something constructive. But tying up ones identity or trying to organize a serious long-term social movement or protest in a twitter hashtag is kind of missing the point.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 10:28:37 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: JRT;796136</cite>Except people do that all the time.<br></blockquote><br>Yes, people engage in fallacious thinking all the time. I agree.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>JRT</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 10:39:57 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;796145</cite>Yes, people engage in fallacious thinking all the time. I agree.</blockquote><br>Nope, I just showed an example of people moving away from confusing their identity from a toxic influence. <br><br>Organizations do it all the time. If the goals of some people in an associated twitter hashtag differ from others in it, it might be time to setup a new meme or hashtag or organization to separate the causes from the elements you disagree with.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ArrozConLeche</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 10:46:05 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: JRT;796148</cite>Nope, I just showed an example of people moving away from confusing their identity from a toxic influence. <br></blockquote><br><br>The people moving away aren't confusing their identity. The people engaging in flawed thinking are the ones who do that. Some people choose to capitulate to the latter's nonsense, some don't.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>If the goals of some people in an associated twitter hashtag differ from others in it, it might be time to setup a new meme or hashtag or organization to separate the causes.</blockquote><br>Says who?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>JRT</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 11:05:25 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;796149</cite>The people moving away aren't confusing their identity. The people engaging in flawed thinking are the ones who do that. Some people choose to capitulate to the latter's nonsense, some don't.<br><br>Says who?</blockquote><br>There's nothing flawed in my thinking. Part of engaging in social change, protest, or other movements is knowing public relations. People know when to back off if they are upsetting the public and to portray themselves in a good light. The big negatives of changing a name is branding, but we're not talking about a trademark that has dozens of years of goodwill, or a organization that has existed for centuries. We are talking about a 3 month old #HASHTAG, those things are memes that don't last.<br><br>I think you are tying up too much identity in a hashtag. If you have goals with a movement, you should care about them more than the hashtag. If you however, are identifying with the hashtag more than the actual goals you are trying to achieve, I think you may be missing the point. I think too much discussion about GG has been either about what mean things people are saying about the movement or what the movement is saying about the people they perceive as their enemies and less about the original goals involved. <br><br>Let me put it this way--I'd back an organization that was interested in looking at a positive way to help increase the integrity of video game journalism. But it's not gonna be GG...it's too nebulous and either filled with people way too worried about so-called SJW or feminists or whatever (I really don't give a fig about that stuff), or people who feel they should attack advertisers (or advertising networks) to destroy media outlets who "hurt their feelings". Both of those attacks are things I find repugnant. But if you guys moved into clearer organizations with clearer goals, I might support you--depending on which goals you support.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 11:26:32 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Spinachcat;796090</cite>Fuck the spectators. If others want to define me, judge me, or lump me into whatever category, they are free to go ahead. WTF would I ever care what a bunch of worthless SJWs think? </blockquote><br>They didn't design our uniforms. /MitchellandWebb<br><br>The spectators didn't declare you are a GamerGater, YOU did. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;796100</cite>So are you, mate. :D</blockquote><br>No I'm not. I'm not attaching #GamerGaterSux or calling myself anything. I'm not standing 'with' Sarkeesian or Quinn or anyone in particular. I'm against GG.<br><br>Unless you think every critic of, say, the US government is the same?<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Alathon;796113</cite>If you did that, the racists you bed down with would ask if you can make the movement more kinetic, while the multi-level marketers you bend knee to would demand that you hand over control of the alias to a woman (like her, for example) as soon as she saw that you had audience to target.</blockquote><br>That's hysterical. ;)<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: MrHurst;796127</cite>Will, I'm an atheist. I think Sam Harris is a fucking tool and his views on Islam are roughly as backwards as fundamentalist Islam's views about women. Doesn't mean I need to come up with a colorful new term for myself, it means I don't perpetuate his opinions. I spread my own opinions instead.</blockquote><br>Interestingly, I've started using other terms to describe myself, because Atheist is a little confusing of a term (it includes Buddhists and animists, for one thing), and because people tend to group me in with Harris and Dawkin.<br><br>So I go with Secular Materialist. It's more accurate, anyway. Or 'I don't believe in the supernatural.'<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: MrHurst;796127</cite>That's more or less what the guys around here have been doing with gamer gate. At least one actively supporting getting rid of the disruptive element that is making them look bad. Then you sit there and keep slathering them with accusations based on people who they have little to do with.<br><br>Will, how about the Quinn supporters explain why they shouted down someone who claimed to have been harassed by Quinn until he said it was a bad time to bring it up and apologized? Can we drag that out and label you with it? How you totally suppress victims so you can have your political way. As far as I'm concerned it'd be a dick thing to do to you, even if it was a massively offensive thing to have seen done in the first place.</blockquote><br>If I was #QuinnExperience guy, you might have a point.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 11:50:16 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Warboss Squee;796103</cite>But how are they horrible? They're the good guys right? Standing firm against a vile hate group of white men. How could they EVER be wrong? After all, it's not like a huge group of minorities they claim to speak for told them to go piss up a rope.</blockquote><br><br>Heh.<br>http://www.tumblr.com/search/reddit%20transgendered (http://www.tumblr.com/search/reddit%20transgendered)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 11:51:24 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796160</cite></blockquote><br>Don't you see what you are doing?<br><br>Saying all GamerGaters are misogynic or by association helps misogynic ones ....<br>It is the same as saying all muslims accept terrorism or worse.<br>It is the same as saying that all feminists really is misandrists.<br>It is the same as saying all darkskinned is rappers.<br>It is the same as saying all gamers is beardnecks.<br>It is the same as saying all roleplayers is occultist, bent on summoning demons or helping them in this.<br><br>As ArrozConLeche pointed out, that thinking is a fallacy, or simply prejudice.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 12:03:52 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Catelf;796165</cite>As ArrozConLeche pointed out, that thinking is a fallacy, or simply prejudice.</blockquote><br>It's not, I've argued extensively why.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 12:16:35 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796169</cite>It's not, I've argued extensively why.</blockquote><br>You havent successfully argued why because you've failed to account for a number of criticisms. But the argument fails largely based on the very definition of prejudice: you're trying to paint a large diverse group as sharing the negative characteristics of an outlying minority.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 12:19:14 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796169</cite>It's not, I've argued extensively why.</blockquote><br>You do not see what you are doing then.<br>Or perhaps you do, and just want an argument.<br><br>If it is the first, it seems like not even being treated the same will make you understand, because you will again claim that it isn't the same thing.<br>No matter how similar, "it isn't the same thing".<br>I'm sad, but I guess your ignorance may be important.<br><br>If it is the second, then you are silly, and we can't have it that way.:nono:<br>(Were I supposed to get interrupted while saying that?)<br>:D
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 12:25:02 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Or maybe I just disagree with you.<br>You know, that happens sometimes.<br><br>It's childish Internettery that people who have a different stance are ignorant, stupid, willfully churlish, trolling, or you haven't explained it enough.<br><br>I've explained my views on why I think moderates shouldn't use the hashtag movement, and how it's different from, say, being Christian. I've also explained why I think there aren't two 'sides' and that 'pro-GG' is different from 'anti-GG.'<br><br>Many folks here disagree. Ok.<br><br>If you want my responses to those points, reread the thread.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 12:40:05 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796178</cite>Or maybe I just disagree with you.<br>You know, that happens sometimes.<br><br>It's childish Internettery that people who have a different stance are ignorant, stupid, willfully churlish, trolling, or you haven't explained it enough. <br><br>I've explained my views on why I think moderates shouldn't use the hashtag movement, and how it's different from, say, being Christian. I've also explained why I think there aren't two 'sides' and that 'pro-GG' is different from 'anti-GG.'<br><br>Many folks here disagree. Ok.<br><br>If you want my responses to those points, reread the thread.</blockquote><br>Let's just say a disagreement backed up with evidence, logic, and a coherent argument carries more weight than a disagreement that's based on heresay, ignoring any criticism they can't account for, and myriads of logical fallacies. <br><br>Sorry, mate, you have lost The Internet. Insert another quarter to try again.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 12:53:41 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;796181</cite>Let's just say a disagreement backed up with evidence, logic, and a coherent argument carries more weight than a disagreement that's based on heresay, ignoring any criticism they can't account for, and myriads of logical fallacies.</blockquote><br>GGers discount the evidence, overlook or disagree with the logic, or habitually forget the argument I'm making.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;796181</cite>Sorry, mate, you have lost The Internet. Insert another quarter to try again.</blockquote><br>It's so cute that you guys think you are winning.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 01:17:30 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796185</cite>GGers discount the evidence, overlook or disagree with the logic, or habitually forget the argument I'm making.</blockquote><br> You should go complaign to them about it.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 01:35:11 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Will your problem is you literally think you comic strip is what is happening right now. The reality is that a guy who is a gamergate at Michigan cannot control what a gamergate guy in New York is saying. Can the guy at Michigan condemn what the guy from New York had said? Yes and he can tell people to not listen to that guy from New York, but that is it. That is all he can do in both legal and moral terms. All he can do is call out the fucker.<br><br>Oh wait we have people like Margaret Gel (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/10/25/While-the-Media-Slanders-Gamers-as-Terrorists-GamerGate-Is-Hunting-Trolls-and-Abusers) that does that. They find assholes that abuse gamergate and call them out on it. She is also not the only one that does it, but she is known to do that. She also supports gamergate despite those assholes. Point is gamergate is fixing it at the best of its ability. You can't say the same for the shits at anti-gamergate.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 02:17:40 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Anti-GamerGate isn't a thing. It's an eidolon you guys are making up so you can beat 'both sides!' drum.<br><br>You cannot control what others are doing under GamerGate flag -so you should fucking stop using the flag-.<br><br>Until then I'm going to see you as complicit.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 02:31:16 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796198</cite>Anti-GamerGate isn't a thing. It's an eidolon you guys are making up so you can beat 'both sides!' drum.<br><br>You cannot control what others are doing under GamerGate flag -so you should fucking stop using the flag-.<br><br>Until then I'm going to see you as complicit.</blockquote>You should stop calling yourself a roleplayer.<br>You should stop calling yourself "Will".<br>If you don't then you are a misogynist, a hater of women!<br><br>....How do that make YOU feel?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 02:37:04 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796160</cite>They didn't design our uniforms. /MitchellandWebb<br><br>...<br><br>No I'm not. I'm not attaching #GamerGaterSux or calling myself anything. I'm not standing 'with' Sarkeesian or Quinn or anyone in particular. I'm against GG.<br><br>Unless you think every critic of, say, the US government is the same?<br><br></blockquote><br>Every SJW is 'the same' - on the same side - even the ones who get banned from RPGnet.<br><br>There are more evil and less evil SJWs - Ettin vs Zeea, to use a couple of rpgnet moderators for example who seem to be close to the poles - but they - you - are still all on the same side. You have the same goals. You're wearing the same uniforms.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 02:44:50 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Except I'm not a Social Justice Warrior. I don't use the label, I'm not with them.<br><br>Their views and mine might coincide sometimes. But I believe in free speech and reject tribalism (which is kind of the undercurrent of all of this).<br><br>I don't believe someone is immune from criticism because they are on my 'side.'
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 02:52:02 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796178</cite>I've explained</blockquote>To borrow your language, you've femsplained and culture jammed.<br><br>I call you a social justice warrior because it's an insult, a pejorative term for people who are doing crummy things. I can't imagine it's something you'd say about yourself.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 03:02:28 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Oh, and by the way, GGers, thank you ever so much for making gamers seem like hateful misogynist basement dwelling assholes.<br><br>For all GGers complain about how radical feminists were making us look bad... people were mostly ignoring them.<br><br>You, on the other hand?<br><br>You are doing -far more- to kill Gamers.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Rincewind1</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 03:04:58 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796210</cite>Oh, and by the way, GGers, thank you ever so much for making gamers seem like hateful misogynist basement dwelling assholes.<br><br>For all GGers complain about how radical feminists were making us look bad... people were mostly ignoring them.<br><br>You, on the other hand?<br><br>You are doing -far more- to kill Gamers.</blockquote><br>Yes gamers and GGers, if you didn't dress so sluttish, you might've not been raped.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 03:05:34 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796210</cite>You are doing -far more- to kill Gamers.</blockquote>Nobody can kill us without guns, and the conservabros seem pretty chill. It's november fourth and I'm contemplating a protest vote, so I can honestly say I voted red down the ticket to my local reps, when I explain the potential costs of promoting bigotry against men.<br><br>Increasingly, I'm thinking some of the 'gamer' thing was about a shibboleth, where it was never really aimed at gamers but at men, in a society yet unwilling to tolerate open bigotry against men. I'm not interested in allowing that window to be moved.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 03:10:23 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Alathon, I invite you to read the early thread and wailing about articles about 'Death of the Gamer' and all that drama llama.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 03:16:03 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796214</cite>Alathon, I invite you to read the early thread and wailing about articles about 'Death of the Gamer' and all that drama llama.</blockquote><br>Are you an SA shill? That's usually their language.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Rincewind1</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 03:17:00 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796214</cite>Alathon, I invite you to read the early thread and wailing about articles about 'Death of the Gamer' and all that drama llama.</blockquote><br>It's okay, your most recent victim blaming is much more fun to read.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 03:17:23 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
What's SA? Something Awful? Haven't read that site in years, and never the forums.<br><br>Then again, that's just what I'd say, isn't it.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 03:19:40 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796204</cite>Except I'm not a Social Justice Warrior. I don't use the label, I'm not with them.<br></blockquote><br>That's what they all say... <br><br>(http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100726103449/thatmitchellandwebb/images/thumb/b/b9/Nazis.jpg/830px-Nazis.jpg)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 03:21:53 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
And if I was flying under the flag of a rat's anus, you'd have a point!<br><br>Or something. Heh.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 03:35:43 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Will don't you love it when you see your own bullshit arguments be twisted to go against you so easily? Maybe you should had kept your own word and never post in this thread again because people are not going to stop.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 03:48:09 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
You mean my argument of 'some of what you're saying may be valid and agreeable but is destroyed by labeling yourself what the awful people are using'?<br><br>The argument which is about willingly accepting a brand, and my noting that I'm not part of that SJW brand, and doing what I suggest 'moderate GGers' do?<br><br><br>Yeah, I'm such a hypocrite.<br>(There's your soundbite)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 03:59:49 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;796225</cite>Will don't you love it when you see your own bullshit arguments be twisted to go against you so easily? Maybe you should had kept your own word and never post in this thread again because people are not going to stop.</blockquote><br>Please don't advocate such things; I put no stock in anything Will is saying, but that's no reason to tell him to cease talking.<br><br>Shining him on about taking his marbles then not going home is fair game though :)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 04:01:08 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
One of the benefits of being against something is that you aren't necessarily lumped together with any particular enemies. <br><br>For example, I can be <b>both</b> opposed to ConsultancyGate <b>and</b> opposed to GamerGate. Which of the two sides does this put me on? I would say neither of two stereotypical sides. I can think that the primary people behind both of these are stupid.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 04:04:38 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;796236</cite>One of the benefits of being against something is that you aren't necessarily lumped together with any particular enemies. <br><br>For example, I can be <b>both</b> opposed to ConsultancyGate <b>and</b> opposed to GamerGate. Which of the two sides does this put me on? I would say neither of two stereotypical sides. I can think that the primary people behind both of these are stupid.</blockquote><br>Please consider the idea that the moving force behind #gamergate is the masses of people participating in it, not the talking heads who get the majority of the exposure. A whole lot of our direction is aggressively crowdsourced in a way that strips away a lot of the ape-gaming potential of such talking heads.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>crkrueger</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 04:43:07 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;796236</cite>One of the benefits of being against something is that you aren't necessarily lumped together with any particular enemies. <br><br>For example, I can be <b>both</b> opposed to ConsultancyGate <b>and</b> opposed to GamerGate. Which of the two sides does this put me on? I would say neither of two stereotypical sides. I can think that the primary people behind both of these are stupid.</blockquote><br>Just like I can be against the X party without being a member of the Y party.<br><br>However, this ignores the basic concept of Twitter, namely that hashtags are <i>Topics</i>, not identities. So anyone discussing GamerGate positive or negative, for or against, psycho or rational, uses that tag to be on that conversation. Saying you're against #GamerGate, means you're against discussing that topic.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>crkrueger</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 04:51:58 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Alathon;796238</cite>Please consider the idea that the moving force behind #gamergate is the masses of people participating in it, not the talking heads who get the majority of the exposure. A whole lot of our direction is aggressively crowdsourced in a way that strips away a lot of the ape-gaming potential of such talking heads.</blockquote>There you go again, denying the anti-GG narrative. Why do you hate women so?<br><br>BTW, the following picture was created by a woman, apparently she doesn't know she's a brainwashed self-hating misogynist.<br>(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/155445342/GG.jpg)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>woodsmoke</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 05:53:44 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Alathon;796212</cite>Nobody can kill us without guns, and the conservabros seem pretty chill. It's november fourth and I'm contemplating a protest vote, so I can honestly say I voted red down the ticket to my local reps, when I explain the potential costs of promoting bigotry against men.<br><br>Increasingly, I'm thinking some of the 'gamer' thing was about a shibboleth, where it was never really aimed at gamers but at men, in a society yet unwilling to tolerate open bigotry against men. I'm not interested in allowing that window to be moved.</blockquote><br>I thought that was readily apparent from the word go. This whole debacle has never been anything more than a naked power grab on the part of feminist ideologues, evidenced by the fact no one outside the hobby gave a shit what went on within it until the past decade when gaming suddenly became a multi-billion dollar industry.<br><br>The fact the accusations of misogyny and sexism are only ever leveled at male-dominated industries/activities, and then only at those perceived to have a certain level of economic, political and/or social power is telling as fuck.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Justin Alexander</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 05:57:42 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796198</cite>You cannot control what others are doing under GamerGate flag -so you should fucking stop using the flag-.</blockquote><br>You're arguing that grassroots movements aren't allowed to exist.<br><br>You're also arguing that Martin Luther King should have stopped describing himself as being a civil rights protester because he disagreed with the tactics of Malcolm X, who also described himself as a civil rights protester.<br><br>You're also arguing that Southern Baptists should have stopped calling themselves Christians because they have no control over the pedophile priests of the Catholic Church.<br><br>Your argument is really, really stupid.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796079</cite>Again, if there are so many uninformed people reacting to GG with dismay because of bad apples, why not form some other group and, you know, not call yourself a GamerGater?</blockquote><br>Because they'll simply target the next group with the same tactics of disenfranchisement.<br><br>In addition to your really, really stupid argument, you appear to be in some sort of denial over the fact that the anti-GG movement has been targeting organizations with even a tangential relationship to the GG hashtag. They've got their brush dipped in tar, they've gotten major media groups to endorse the tar as being totally awesome, and now they're using the brush to paint as broadly as possible.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 08:00:25 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Alathon;796233</cite>Please don't advocate such things; I put no stock in anything Will is saying, but that's no reason to tell him to cease talking.<br><br>Shining him on about taking his marbles then not going home is fair game though :)</blockquote><br>Simply giving him the option to get out before he digs himself into a much larger hole.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 08:20:36 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796075</cite>You will have to forgive me if my ROI on energy on this specific thread when I'm this outnumbered means I may skip responses sometimes (or miss posts).<br><br>Particularly when we have folks like Werekoala at the ready to make incisive productive responses.</blockquote><br>You know, sometimes when you're outnumbered, it doesn't mean you're correct.<br><br>JG
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 08:36:36 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796229</cite>You mean my argument of 'some of what you're saying may be valid and agreeable but is destroyed by labeling yourself what the awful people are using'?<br><br>The argument which is about willingly accepting a brand, and my noting that I'm not part of that SJW brand, and doing what I suggest 'moderate GGers' do?<br><br><br>Yeah, I'm such a hypocrite.<br>(There's your soundbite)</blockquote><br>I'm not so much pro-GamerGate as anti-bullshit.<br><br>JG
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 09:28:08 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: James Gillen;796309</cite>You know, sometimes when you're outnumbered, it doesn't mean you're correct.</blockquote><br>followed by...<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: James Gillen;796314</cite>I'm not so much pro-GamerGate as anti-bullshit.</blockquote><br>is just amazing.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 09:37:56 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Justin Alexander;796264</cite>You're arguing that grassroots movements aren't allowed to exist.</blockquote><br>Not all grassroots movements are overrun by outrageous shitbags. Those that are tend to not do well.<br><br>I know, I'm shocked, too.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Justin Alexander;796264</cite>You're also arguing that Martin Luther King should have stopped describing himself as being a civil rights protester because he disagreed with the tactics of Malcolm X, who also described himself as a civil rights protester.</blockquote><br>The analogy here would be more 'gamers.' <br>And hey, Black Panthers got flack for the actions of some of their members.<br>Go figure.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Justin Alexander;796264</cite>You're also arguing that Southern Baptists should have stopped calling themselves Christians because they have no control over the pedophile priests of the Catholic Church.</blockquote><br>The analogy here would be more folks no longer calling tehmselves Catholics, or calling themselves ex-Catholics, because of pedophile priests. Which, hey, guess what, a bunch of people did that.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Justin Alexander;796264</cite>Your argument is really, really stupid.</blockquote><br>Maybe it is, but you wouldn't know it from your post.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Justin Alexander;796264</cite>Because they'll simply target the next group with the same tactics of disenfranchisement.</blockquote><br>Except you'd have some more play from people who go 'hey, official club where people get kicked out once they turn out to be assholes and that isn't stemming from a shitbag ex-boyfriend trying to SHOW THEM ALL. Maybe I'll sign up!'<br><br>Hell, I'm all for ethics in gaming journalism. It'd be nice to see some review of an upcoming game that isn't a thinly veiled knobslobber by an intern.<br><br>I don't CARE that much, but I'd at least be favorably disposed.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Justin Alexander;796264</cite>In addition to your really, really stupid argument, you appear to be in some sort of denial over the fact that the anti-GG movement has been targeting organizations with even a tangential relationship to the GG hashtag. They've got their brush dipped in tar, they've gotten major media groups to endorse the tar as being totally awesome, and now they're using the brush to paint as broadly as possible.</blockquote><br>You seem to be in some sort of denial about the nature of GG and the nature of 'anti-GG.' Boy, that Flavor Aid is really tangy, eh?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 10:18:45 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
For those that don't know, Nick Denton is the owner of Gawker Media:<br>(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/859/392/e8e.jpg_large)<br>So...Nick just admitted to astro-turfing #GG.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 10:27:38 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Source?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Piestrio</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 10:28:55 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Yeah that seems way too "let me lay out my evil plot, mwhahaha" to be real.<br><br>Not that it's terribly unbelievable. Gawker is terrible in every way.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 10:30:12 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Question is how do we fight astro-turfing?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 10:33:19 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Snowman, I keep overlooking the divider between text and sig, which sometimes makes your posts HILARIOUS.<br><br>Ship astroturfers by roc!
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 10:38:34 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Piestrio;796332</cite>Yeah that seems way too "let me lay out my evil plot, mwhahaha" to be real.<br><br>Not that it's terribly unbelievable. Gawker is terrible in every way.</blockquote><br>It is the same owner that let one of his writers post insults to advertisers that left them which that attitude is "great" way to keep the advertisers you still have. They literally bitten not just the hand, but their own life line. The owner of Gawker being stupid and arrogant isn't some thing I would find surprising.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Spinachcat</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 10:58:30 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796185</cite>It's so cute that you guys think you are winning.</blockquote><br>GG has teenagers with hormones! Anti-GG has screeching and handwringing. It's a no brainer to see who is gonna win this one. <br><br>During my life, teens of each generation have been under assault by the Morality-brigade, then Mommy-brigade, and now Outrage-brigade and in the end, each time the kids win the culture wars. <br><br>So zits and bewbies 4 teh win!<br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;796190</cite>The reality is that a guy who is a gamergate at Michigan cannot control what a gamergate guy in New York is saying.<br></blockquote><br>And that's the same for all groups. <br><br>As much as I don't like Teabaggers, I actually felt kinda bad for them them they all got smeared with that "Keep Government out of my Medicare!" meme just because a few utter retards were waving those signs. <br><br>Being Muslim in NYC on 9/12 must have uber-sucked. <br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796198</cite>Anti-GamerGate isn't a thing. It's an eidolon you guys are making up so you can beat 'both sides!' drum.</blockquote><br>Eidolons in Pathfinder are so damn broken. <br><br>Just saying. <br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796198</cite>You cannot control what others are doing under GamerGate flag -so you should fucking stop using the flag-.<br><br>Until then I'm going to see you as complicit.</blockquote><br>I think you've made a lot of good points in this thread (and others), but this isn't a defensible position. <br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796210</cite>Oh, and by the way, GGers, thank you ever so much for making gamers seem like hateful misogynist basement dwelling assholes.<br></blockquote><br>Did you ever play Xbox Live in the early 00s? <br><br>Holy fuck. <br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Alathon;796212</cite>Nobody can kill us without guns, and the conservabros seem pretty chill.</blockquote><br>Gamers are now immune to knives and disease? <br><br>Sweet.<br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: CRKrueger;796244</cite>BTW, the following picture was created by a woman, apparently she doesn't know she's a brainwashed self-hating misogynist.</blockquote><br>Chicks can be so kooky! :)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>woodsmoke</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 11:49:08 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796331</cite>Source?</blockquote><br>Looks to have been from Denton's FB page, which, per what seems to have been a followup post, has since been deactivated.<br><br>(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v123/woodsmoke/NickDenton_zps01e1e24a.jpg)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Iosue</strong> on <strong>November 04, 2014, 11:54:44 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Irrespective of GamerGate, these Facebook posts go a long way in explaining why Gawker media is so god-awful.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>November 05, 2014, 12:22:24 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
"We apologize for the fault in the subtitles. Those responsible have been sacked."
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>November 05, 2014, 12:31:36 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Take a look at those facebook posts. That guy runs gwaker which owns several video game "journalists" sites. Take a good look at his behavior. Do you believe he is going to be a nice caring man at work? I don't think so.<br><br>Want to know why several gaming "news" sites said gamers are dead all in one day? It is because this guy gave the order. He is piss off because we peek through the curtains and many people agreed not to support this shit any more.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>November 05, 2014, 01:11:52 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Spinachcat;796344</cite>Gamers are now immune to knives and disease? <br><br>Sweet.</blockquote>Overlarge claims in truth, I'll admit, but we do seem to have some sort of bonus on psionics saves.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;796334</cite>Question is how do we fight astro-turfing?</blockquote>TBH, we just keep doing what we're doing. If people say stuff that rings false we ignore it. If it seems like they just parrot the same talking points, never really engage or honestly reply, we acknowledge that they are committed to a position and quit wasting their and our time. Whether that commitment is from honest ideology or payola is something that comes out in time, and ultimately the payola game is ruinous for most peoples self-worth. They punish themselves cruelly for a pittance; there's no need to rage at them, our words can't cut them the way their participation in their own debasement does.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Justin Alexander</strong> on <strong>November 05, 2014, 02:50:47 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796321</cite>Maybe it is, but you wouldn't know it from your post.</blockquote><br>That may be true. Fortunately, when you replied to my post by confirming that you think it's reasonable to villainize grassroots organizations, ideological groups, and entire religions based on the actions of a minority of people within those groups you nicely confirmed the complete idiocy of your argument.<br><br>Thanks for confirming your bigotry and the primitive, tribalistic thinking that dominates your thinking. Others in this thread will obviously keep trying to convince you to change your mind about #GamerGate, but your thinking is so fundamentally retrogressive and anti-rational that it's fairly clear now that you would need to completely revise your flawed methods of perceiving reality. As long as you're willing to endorse positions like "all Catholics should quit being Catholics because some priests are pedophiles and any Catholics who don't are complicit in pedophilia", you're obviously not capable of engaging in rational discourse when it comes to discussing organizations, movements, or ideologies.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ladybird</strong> on <strong>November 05, 2014, 04:05:41 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: woodsmoke;796354</cite>Looks to have been from Denton's FB page, which, per what seems to have been a followup post, has since been deactivated.</blockquote><br>If this is actually legit (FB posts aren't exactly hard to shop), it's awful behaviour (Journalistic organisation, they should be reporting the news, not making it), and it basically says to every organisation "gawker media is not your friend, and should not be trusted". There's a difference between "we infiltrated an organisation to tell our audience about it" and "we infiltrated an organisation to destroy it".<br><br>It's also possible that it's a work, that there were no such infiltrators at any point, and it's just designed to spread fear and doubt amongst GG-er ranks. Because seriously, unless he is an idiot, he would have known that any FB post of his was likely to get shared; and if you want to cause dissent in a group that believes you are engaged in a conspiracy, it won't exactly be difficult to convince them that you really do have a conspiracy going on. Saying "I am running a conspiracy" and letting people panic is much cheaper and easier than actually running one, after all.<br><br>So yeah, fuck 'em (And on a side note, fuck the people who are giving gamers a bad name, by both accusing them of being bad people and by being bad people in their name. We all know the majority of gamers are fundamentally decent people, who just want more games and more people to enjoy them.).
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>crkrueger</strong> on <strong>November 05, 2014, 04:32:35 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: CRKrueger;796244</cite>There you go again, denying the anti-GG narrative. Why do you hate women so?<br><br>BTW, the following picture was created by a woman, apparently she doesn't know she's a brainwashed self-hating misogynist.<br>(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/155445342/GG.jpg)</blockquote><br>Fixed the link.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 05, 2014, 01:46:47 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
So the campaign for journalistic integrity started with slander that was quickly disproven, but backers keep referring to it as true because they 'haven't been keeping up with the story.'<br><br>And a bunch of them can't keep track of which of two Asian dudes said that one thing one time and keep using it to make digs.<br><br>And pass around a fake facebook job to show how awful their opponents are.<br><br>And pass around antisemitic crap about an Armenian woman.<br><br><br>We can see how committed GGers are to journalistic integrity.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Premier</strong> on <strong>November 05, 2014, 02:38:38 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796475</cite>So the campaign for journalistic integrity started with slander that was quickly disproven, but backers keep referring to it as true because they 'haven't been keeping up with the story.'<br><br>And a bunch of them can't keep track of which of two Asian dudes said that one thing one time and keep using it to make digs.<br><br>And pass around a fake facebook job to show how awful their opponents are.<br><br>And pass around antisemitic crap about an Armenian woman.<br><br><br>We can see how committed GGers are to journalistic integrity.</blockquote><br>That's all as may be, but at least the GGers have acknowledged that (people claiming to belong to) <b>both</b> sides have sent threats and harassment to the other side; which is something <b>you</b> as well as the usual anti-GGers have been too chickenshit dishonest to acknowledge to date.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>November 05, 2014, 04:16:28 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Premier;796481</cite>That's all as may be, but at least the GGers have acknowledged that (people claiming to belong to) <b>both</b> sides have sent threats and harassment to the other side; which is something <b>you</b> as well as the usual anti-GGers have been too chickenshit dishonest to acknowledge to date.</blockquote>Both Will and I have acknowledged that there has been various bad behavior including harassment on the part of people who are anti-GamerGate. (This doesn't mean that I claim that the two sides have made equivalent amounts of threats and harassment. I don't have any way to measure that.) <br><br>Being opposed to something doesn't mean that I'm necessarily in favor of any particular opponents of that. If someone were to start up a hashtag campaign of #endgamergate and kick it off with slanderous lies that dragged in lurid personal details of Adam Baldwin or Internet Aristocrat, I would be opposed to that too. (On the less hypothetical side, I was opposed to ConsultancyGate as well.) <br><br>From what I can see, even if I don't agree with him about everything, Will has been remarkably patient and polite in this thread - especially given the ton of insults being thrown at him.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 05, 2014, 04:33:34 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Cock flarging quimmonkeys!<br><br>Ok, just getting that out of the way.<br><br>Premier:<br>My thesis is that 'anti-GG' isn't a coherent 'side,' because it's not FOR anything, any more than 'non-Christian' is a coherent group.<br><br>That's why 'some people who don't like GG did horrible things' seems different, to me, than 'people calling themselves GG did horrible things.'<br><br>And let's be clear, if that Nick Denton Facebook thing was actually _real_, I would be quite happily and loudly denouncing him. (And as it is, I already think he's kind of a dick and untrustworthy)<br><br>Now, feel free to think I'm wrong, that 'anti-GG' is as coherent and organized a group as pro-GG. Think I'm stupid, whatever.<br>But it's a consistent logical position.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 05, 2014, 05:38:30 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796321</cite>And hey, Black Panthers got flack for the actions of some of their members.<br>Go figure.<br></blockquote><br>Killing lots (and lots) of people can occasionally elicit criticism. From what I can tell the Black Panthers received a lot less criticism (and less publicity) than killing lots of people would usually warrant. I get the impression this was probably a political decision by US state & federal governments, and the US media, out of fear that giving their activities proper coverage would likely incite a race war - a war the Panthers presumably wanted.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ladybird</strong> on <strong>November 05, 2014, 05:53:38 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796504</cite>And let's be clear, if that Nick Denton Facebook thing was actually _real_, I would be quite happily and loudly denouncing him. (And as it is, I already think he's kind of a dick and untrustworthy)</blockquote><br>I was kinda hoping we'd have seen some independent confirmation of that, either way, by now.<br><br>If we really must "pick sides" (Because what the fuck is this, are we all twelve, is this schoolyard football, well I guess the goalposts are already moving all over the place...), then I'm against people who send death threats, I'm against people who feel videogames should only be for them and only be limited to things they want to play, I'm against anyone standing in the way of videogames becoming what they should be (Which is the best and most versatile artform in the world, bar none), and I'm against the games media being funded by the major publishers that it claims to report on.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>woodsmoke</strong> on <strong>November 05, 2014, 07:40:31 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ladybird;796525</cite>I was kinda hoping we'd have seen some independent confirmation of that, either way, by now.</blockquote><br>Yeah, on further reflection I'm not convinced there's enough info there to verify anything, so I'm filing it as "bunk until proven otherwise."
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>November 05, 2014, 07:59:58 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ladybird;796384</cite>It's also possible that (Denton's FB post is) a work, that there were no such infiltrators at any point, and it's just designed to spread fear and doubt amongst GG-er ranks. Because seriously, unless he is an idiot, </blockquote><br>This is Gawker. Why are you assuming he isn't?<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>So yeah, fuck 'em (And on a side note, fuck the people who are giving gamers a bad name, by both accusing them of being bad people and by being bad people in their name. We all know the majority of gamers are fundamentally decent people, who just want more games and more people to enjoy them.).</blockquote><br>Amen to that.<br><br>JG
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Shipyard Locked</strong> on <strong>November 05, 2014, 08:32:37 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796335</cite>Snowman, I keep overlooking the divider between text and sig, which sometimes makes your posts HILARIOUS.<br><br>Ship astroturfers by roc!</blockquote><br>Yeah, that juxtaposition is pretty good. :cool:
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 05, 2014, 08:45:37 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
http://m.kirotv.com/news/news/deputies-investigating-apparent-homicide-port-orch/nhzT6/<br><br>Holy crap.<br><br>Hopefully the 4chan connection doesn't amount to much.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Piestrio</strong> on <strong>November 05, 2014, 08:55:08 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796564</cite>http://m.kirotv.com/news/news/deputies-investigating-apparent-homicide-port-orch/nhzT6/<br><br>Holy crap.<br><br>Hopefully the 4chan connection doesn't amount to much.</blockquote><br>Some people are sickos.<br><br>What does that have to do with #gamergate?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>November 05, 2014, 08:57:31 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796564</cite>http://m.kirotv.com/news/news/deputies-investigating-apparent-homicide-port-orch/nhzT6/<br><br>Holy crap.<br><br>Hopefully the 4chan connection doesn't amount to much.</blockquote><br>Yeah, 'cause I'm sure you're totally into the 4Chan experience. <br><br>Not that I am - never been there, not even 8Chan, and have no interest in visiting either site, but your sudden "concern" strikes me as beyond disingenuous, especially since you decided to bring it up in a thread that has nothing to do with either site.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 05, 2014, 09:19:11 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Piestrio;796567</cite>Some people are sickos.<br><br>What does that have to do with #gamergate?</blockquote><br>4chan is involved in #gamergate, and if there WAS a link it'd set off another stupid horrible round.<br><br>And I mean exactly what I say. I hope there is no connection. I'm hoping 'random shit heads getting their rocks off talking a lot of shit' is all the threat of GG and similar amount to.<br><br>Gamers don't need an Elliot Rodger.<br><br>As for 'sudden interest,' it came up on my feed.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Piestrio</strong> on <strong>November 05, 2014, 09:24:32 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796575</cite>4chan is involved in #gamergate, and if there WAS a link it'd set off another stupid horrible round.<br></blockquote><br>As far as I'm aware 4chan banned all discussion of "gamergate"<br><br>Hence the creation of 8chan.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>November 05, 2014, 09:25:55 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796575</cite>4chan is involved in #gamergate, and if there WAS a link it'd set off another stupid horrible round.</blockquote><br>Ok, game over dude. <br><br>White people are involved in GamerGate.<br>Women are involved in GamerGate. <br>Lesbians are involved in GamerGate. <br>Furries are involved in GamerGate.<br>Headmates are involved in GamerGate. <br>Minorities are involved in GamerGate. <br>Liberals are involved in GamgerGate.<br>Conservatives are involved in GamerGate. <br><br>4Chan is involved in GamerGate - sure, why not? <br><br>But some sick fuck posts pics of an alleged murder to 4Chan, and all of a sudden you're "CONCERENED" that it might be tied to GamerGate?<br><br>Fuck. You. I'm done with you, and I know that breaks your heart, but I'm sure you'll get over it.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 05, 2014, 09:33:54 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Werekoala;796580</cite>But some sick fuck posts pics of an alleged murder to 4Chan, and all of a sudden you're "CONCERENED" that it might be tied to GamerGate?<br><br>Fuck. You. I'm done with you, and I know that breaks your heart, but I'm sure you'll get over it.</blockquote><br>Aren't you? Pop out your conservative party dance mix for a moment and think about it.<br><br>How good do you think it'd be if the public at large was thinking 'hey, maybe videogames and internet fads can lead someone to murders for entertainment'?<br><br>It doesn't matter what 'side' you think you are on.<br><br>Stop fixating on explaining away people who think differently than you do and look at the big picture.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 05, 2014, 09:36:01 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Piestrio;796579</cite>As far as I'm aware 4chan banned all discussion of "gamergate"<br><br>Hence the creation of 8chan.</blockquote><br>Ah, ok, I didn't realize that.<br>So the link is more tenuous than I thought.<br><br>(I was going to add 'good' but that's selfish of me, considering a woman's been murdered)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>AmazingOnionMan</strong> on <strong>November 05, 2014, 10:09:33 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796585</cite>Ah, ok, I didn't realize that.</blockquote><br>You mean you didn't <i>know</i>. You just <i>assumed</i>.<br>And that's the problem with this clusterfuck, everybody - on both sides and in the excluded middle - assumes too much.<br>And, as everybody should know, assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>deMonica</strong> on <strong>November 05, 2014, 11:23:15 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796585</cite>Ah, ok, I didn't realize that.<br>So the link is more tenuous than I thought.<br><br>(I was going to add 'good' but that's selfish of me, considering a woman's been murdered)</blockquote><br>This is one of two things:<br><br>#1 Opportunistic scapegoating of a perceived enemy. I've watched these people tag the villain of the month w/any exploitable tragedy that happens to occur during the period of said conflict. The Anti element already tried to pin the Parliament shooting in Canada on GG and 'toxic masculinity'. Every degenerate carpetbaggering faction rushed out to point to their adversary. This repeating occurrence is probably one of the most distasteful tactics that I've ever been witness to.<br><br>...and it SCREAMS ill intent<br><br>#2 Rinse & repeat bumble:<br><br>80's: "Satanism!"<br>90's: "Video games cause violence!" <br>Now: 360degree "misogyny!"<br><br>Honest & aware parties will take note of how often an offense is seen & uttered. If you repeatedly find yourself standing at the center of an all encompassing X, you should take into consideration where all angles lead.<br>Patterns & common denominators matter, to all but those devoid of the needed awareness, but more often those that stand to gain by dismissing them.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>apparition13</strong> on <strong>November 05, 2014, 11:26:02 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796504</cite>Cock flarging quimmonkeys!<br><br>Ok, just getting that out of the way.<br><br>Premier:<br>My thesis is that 'anti-GG' isn't a coherent 'side,' because it's not FOR anything, any more than 'non-Christian' is a coherent group.</blockquote>Your thesis is incorrect. There is active conflict between GG and others, the others may not be a "coherent group" (but then again neither is GG), but they are united in all being <i>anti</i>-GG. <br><br>If there is conflict there are at least 2 sides. If one side is #GG, then the other is anti-GG, whether or not they are coherent groups. One side is "united" and identifies as pro-GG, the other as anti. <br> <br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796575</cite>4chan is involved in #gamergate, and if there WAS a link it'd set off another stupid horrible round.<br><br>And I mean exactly what I say. I hope there is no connection. I'm hoping 'random shit heads getting their rocks off talking a lot of shit' is all the threat of GG and similar amount to.<br><br>Gamers don't need an Elliot Rodger.<br><br>As for 'sudden interest,' it came up on my feed.</blockquote>Anyone can post anything to 4chan (not that it won't get modded). If your first thought on reading that is "gamergate" rather than "sick fuck of a murderer", you need to take a couple steps back and re-examine your cognitive filters because your perceptions and judgement are being seriously distorted. <br><br>Check your anti-GG privilege, as it were.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 05, 2014, 11:32:06 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
My first thought was '4chan? The hell?'<br><br>Even if the story about posting is absolutely true, I don't in any way think Gamergate is responsible for a crazy person murdering his girlfriend. <br><br>I said what I meant, I meant what I said. If you are wondering what my real motive is, I wrote it.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>November 05, 2014, 11:50:11 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796614</cite>My first thought was '4chan? The hell?'<br><br>Even if the story about posting is absolutely true, I don't in any way think Gamergate is responsible for a crazy person murdering his girlfriend. <br><br>I said what I meant, I meant what I said. If you are wondering what my real motive is, I wrote it.</blockquote><br>(ok, already breaking my word, but this deserves a response)<br><br>Um, no, Will - you don't just drop a "random" "news" "story" into a thread about GG unless you're trying to imply something. It'd be like me dropping a story into the thread about, oh, I dunno, Rose McGowan saying that gay men are misogynists. <br><br>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/rose-mcgowan-attacks-lgbt-community-for-failing-to-campaign-for-feminism-gay-men-are-more-misogynistic-than-straight-men-9841873.html
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 06, 2014, 12:04:50 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
10 Print "Will: I am not trying to imply anything."<br>20 Print "Werekoala: You are trying to imply something."<br>30 Goto 10<br><br><br>What about my behavior in this thread suggests to you, Werekoala, that I'd restrain myself to IMPLYING a connection if I thought there was one?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>November 06, 2014, 12:25:44 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Careful, chummer. You get much closer to the point, you might put your eye out,.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>deMonica</strong> on <strong>November 06, 2014, 12:29:42 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796622</cite>10 Print "Will: I am not trying to imply anything."<br>20 Print "Werekoala: You are trying to imply something."<br>30 Goto 10<br><br><br>What about my behavior in this thread suggests to you, Werekoala, that I'd restrain myself to IMPLYING a connection if I thought there was one?</blockquote><br>Were I in the know on the topic, I would determine judgement based on your pattern of public behavior(s) <br><br>I spoke from personal experience a plenty, as it relates to observing such conduct
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>November 06, 2014, 12:34:55 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Ah, wait, here we go. This might shed some light on the random news story posted by Will:<br><br>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPUJ3zm3C1Q&list=UUxXUQuvoiIAlpM2osoAitjQ<br><br>Brianna Wu trying to tie GG to this incident and her "threats"...<br><br>Yeah... means nothing, I'm sure. <br><br>Will - you're a cunt.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>November 06, 2014, 12:55:03 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Is there any fucking low that Brianna Wu and her ilk wouldn't go? I don't even know why people defend them because they are lower than fucking scum.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>November 06, 2014, 12:56:41 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;796630</cite>Is there any fucking low that Brianna Wu and her ilk wouldn't go? I don't even know why people defend them because they are lower than fucking scum.</blockquote><br>Ah, now - you know WE are the fucking scum... get with the program, Frosty.<br><br>Still, if they're lower than fucking scum, then I guess you might have a point...
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 06, 2014, 02:53:59 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796564</cite>http://m.kirotv.com/news/news/deputies-investigating-apparent-homicide-port-orch/nhzT6/<br><br>Holy crap.<br><br>Hopefully the 4chan connection doesn't amount to much.</blockquote><br>JEsusfuck man. SERIOUSLY? Seriously, I thought you had your head up your ass in this argument, granted, but didn't really hold it against you as a person. I mean, its just a stupid debate about some online drama.<br><br>But this? This is <i>low</i>. You reallyreally should feel ashamed of yourself. Using a human tragedy like this. I don't have the words. Seriously, <i>bad show</i>. I mean, I am not the nicest person at the best of times, I can be an asshole as much as anyone on this site, and admittedly my life has made me a bit more callous that most people could probably understand. But there's a LINE, just of <i>basic human decency</i>. <br><br><br><br><br>I don't think I'll be posting in this thread anymore.<br><br><br><br>Edit: oh look, and apparently Brianna Wu is doing the same thing. Classy. A class act all around. <br><br>I hope somebody spits in her coffee.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>November 06, 2014, 03:00:42 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;796630</cite>Is there any fucking low that Brianna Wu and her ilk wouldn't go? I don't even know why people defend them because they are lower than fucking scum.</blockquote>The people who defend them are often people who share their values. They buy into a grand narrative of social justice, of an obligation to act on everyones behalf to advance the causes of minorities and victims. With such a weighty goal in mind, things such as 'ethics' and 'long term consequences' fall to the wayside.<br><br>It's very similar to how some misguided Christian zealots consider peoples' souls to be of such overriding importance that they disown their children over their sexual preferences or cover up pedophilia to allow the pedophiles a better environment for spiritual growth.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;796639</cite>I don't think I'll be posting in this thread anymore.</blockquote>It's pretty disgusting, yeah, but why drive yourself forth when you can press the mute button?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 06, 2014, 03:44:09 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Alathon;796640</cite>It's pretty disgusting, yeah, but why drive yourself forth when you can press the mute button?</blockquote><br>honestly, after that I just need a break. I work hard (10 hour days) and when I come home and sit in bed with my laptop and pull up this site on one of 5 or 6 tabs I've got going on, its to enjoy myself with some talk about RPGs, or, to be perfectly honest, some debate. I like debating. I totally cop to that. Its an enjoyable passtime for me. Maybe to some people that makes me a bit of a dick, but I think here on theRPGsite, that just means I'm one of the crowd. <br><br><br>But coming home to find THAT post? Its obvious implications wrapped in world-class bullshit? Sorry to say but I was shocked. It takes a lot to shock me but honestly <i>I'm offended</i>. And I don't ever get offended. Like I cant remember the last time in my life anything actually offended me.<br><br> And I still believe that being offended is just an emotional reaction and that people are responsible for thier own emotional reactions and it's not okay to put the responsibility for that on others. So this is how I'm taking responsibility for myself; just going to quit the conversation. Go do something that washes the bad taste out of my mind.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ladybird</strong> on <strong>November 06, 2014, 04:14:16 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796564</cite>http://m.kirotv.com/news/news/deputies-investigating-apparent-homicide-port-orch/nhzT6/<br><br>Holy crap.<br><br>Hopefully the 4chan connection doesn't amount to much.</blockquote><br>Bit of a stretch. 4chan is a huge website, there are going to be plenty of bad people there, just through the law of averages (I mean, this site is tiny, but we've had at least one paedophile post here regularly for a while). I'd bet money on him not being the first criminal, or even the first murderer, to have posted on 4chan; putting pictures up may be new, but it was bound to happen anyway as communication tech advances.<br><br>I understand how tabloid media tends to freak out ("His friend's cousin once heard someone tell a summary of a review of the latest Marilyn Manson album, so it's all Doom's fault"), but that flap is bound to happen about something anyway, the Wheel of Blame never gets to rest for long.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Todtsteltzer</strong> on <strong>November 06, 2014, 07:15:30 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I apologize in advance if this was already posted here, but this article does sum up my opinion on GamerGate perfectly: https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2lf8oa/to_redditors_who_are_in_good_faith_on_the_fence/
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>November 06, 2014, 07:22:46 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796614</cite>My first thought was '4chan? The hell?'<br><br>Even if the story about posting is absolutely true, <b>I don't in any way think Gamergate is responsible for a crazy person murdering his girlfriend</b>. <br><br>I said what I meant, I meant what I said. If you are wondering what my real motive is, I wrote it.</blockquote><br>Then why did you post it in this thread?<br>If the bolded is correct, then there is no connection at all between that link and this topic.<br><br>EDIT:<br>As I do not like to read about gruesome things, I have not read the thing in the link.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>November 06, 2014, 07:37:16 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Todtsteltzer;796684</cite><b>The Company You Keep</b><br>Everyone in the world is judged by who they hang out with, fairly or not. They thought Jesus was a good-for-nothing hobo because he hung out with good-for-nothing hobos. Say you hang out with the Ku Klux Klan. You're not racist, in fact you're against racism as a principle, you just approve of their charitable activities. Nobody thinks giving to a children's hospital is a shitty thing to do, unless the children's hospital is a Hellmouth.<br>However, you know that people who aren't in the KKK (read: most people) would ostracize you for associating with a group of people who have some pretty abhorrent views based on outdated science and good old-fashioned xenophobia. It's not just that you're hanging out with punks your parents don't approve of, it's that you're hanging out with people who think black people are subhumans. You still identify as a KKKer. You don't approve of their racist activities, but you agree with the charitable donations.<br>Even if their opinions don't rub off on you, in order to join the KKK, you have to either willfully turn a blind eye to something morally objectionable, or you have to be so unobservant you'd have to think about it a minute if someone asked you the color of the sky. It's disingenuous to try and ignore their views on race because the KKK was founded on opposition to laws that were being put in place in the 1800s to promote greater equality for black Americans. The KKK is a small group - large enough to be present on the American stage, but too small and racist to claim that those things are no longer relevant to their causes.<br>The KKK uses similar tactics to gain followers as far-right nationalists and other reactionary groups. This is just stuff I've noticed - I'm sure there's more.</blockquote>It's hard for me to give credence to people who repeatedly compare #gamergate to the Ku Klux Klan. This is an organization which orchestrated the murders of a great many Americans, along with who knows how many acts of property destruction and domestic terrorism in general.<br><br>That you post this, suggests that you hold those black Americans lives so cheap (http://i.imgur.com/eNvSPhE.png) that their great losses are equivalent to gender feminists being issued anonymous threats on the internet. I hope for your sake this is not the case; that would be a crass thing indeed.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Todtsteltzer;796684</cite>You often think "I can't help that I was born white with a penis and a preference towards women."</blockquote>Are you ashamed of who you are, Todd? That's no way to live, and if someone is telling you to be ashamed of who you were born (male or female, black or white, gay or straight, etc...) it's a powerful sign that they are sadistic manipulators. Also, bigots.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>yabaziou</strong> on <strong>November 06, 2014, 07:55:15 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I fail to see the logic behind the comparison betwwen gamergate and the KKK. The latter is formal organization with ranks, titles and clear leadership while the former is a hastag or at most an very informal organization without rank, title and clear leadership. Ths reasoning seems very odd to me !
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>November 06, 2014, 08:06:43 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;796649</cite>honestly, after that I just need a break. I work hard (10 hour days) and when I come home and sit in bed with my laptop and pull up this site on one of 5 or 6 tabs I've got going on, its to enjoy myself with some talk about RPGs, or, to be perfectly honest, some debate. I like debating. I totally cop to that. Its an enjoyable passtime for me. Maybe to some people that makes me a bit of a dick, but I think here on theRPGsite, that just means I'm one of the crowd. <br><br>But coming home to find THAT post? Its obvious implications wrapped in world-class bullshit? Sorry to say but I was shocked. It takes a lot to shock me but honestly <i>I'm offended</i>. And I don't ever get offended. Like I cant remember the last time in my life anything actually offended me.<br><br> And I still believe that being offended is just an emotional reaction and that people are responsible for thier own emotional reactions and it's not okay to put the responsibility for that on others. So this is how I'm taking responsibility for myself; just going to quit the conversation. Go do something that washes the bad taste out of my mind.</blockquote>I think it's pretty K to be offended when people are acting in a profoundly despicable manner, and hey.. you're showing better sense than I did on TBP. Getting all butthurt and drunkposting is kinda the opposite of what you're doing, which suggests to me that you may be doing it right ;p
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 06, 2014, 10:26:20 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Catelf;796685</cite>Then why did you post it in this thread?<br>If the bolded is correct, then there is no connection at all between that link and this topic.</blockquote><br>Like I apparently keep having to say, read the other posts I made after that.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 06, 2014, 10:47:55 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I WILL apologize for making that initial post without better framing or indications of what I was thinking.<br><br>I was rather shocked by the story, particularly coming two weeks after a high school shooting near here.<br><br><br>I don't believe spree killers or murders in general are caused by media stuff (videogames, Catcher in the Rye, or otherwise). Looking at shootings and other killings, they are basically done by a particular kind of CRAZY PERSON (not a ding on people with mental problems generally, the vast majority of whom only hurt themselves).<br>Shooting sprees are all over the place, and the killers show little commonality beyond often being youngish males.<br>They are also, statistically, utterly unimportant in number of deaths in the country, but fuel a lot of hysteria.<br><br>My reason for linking it HERE was... well, I was somewhat naively thinking every 'side' can go 'oh fucking great, just what we needed.'<br>It wasn't intended as an attempt to take pot-shots at GGers.<br><br><br>You can disagree with me or think I'm a fucking idiot, that's your prerogative.<br><br>But if you decide I'm 'up' to something or that I'm flat-out lying and misrepresenting my views, you can go fuck yourself.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>November 06, 2014, 03:02:29 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Todtsteltzer;796684</cite>I apologize in advance if this was already posted here, but this article does sum up my opinion on GamerGate perfectly: https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2lf8oa/to_redditors_who_are_in_good_faith_on_the_fence/</blockquote><br>Reddit. The same site whose moderator told a transgender that she is property and should feel ashamed for disagreeing with the social justice warrior corrupt media. Of course the transgender was banned and that was literally the parting words the moderator left her.<br><br>Yeah your source of info is not only wrong, not only hypocritical, but is closet bigot that will take it out on people they view too weak to defend themselves. My advice towards you is to find better sites with better people.<br><br>Also comparing gamergate to the Ku Klux Klan is just as horrible as ISIS. Both ISIS and the KKK had murdered people and are terrorists. They both had blown up buildings and done mass murders to terrorize other people to get what they want. No one in gamergate had done any of these horrible crimes against humanity. The fact that Reddit is making that kind of a argument shows how fucking corrupt they are. They need to spread lies because the truth would only make them lose their jobs.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>November 06, 2014, 03:07:59 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: yabaziou;796690</cite>I fail to see the logic behind the comparison betwwen gamergate and the KKK. The latter is formal organization with ranks, titles and clear leadership while the former is a hastag or at most an very informal organization without rank, title and clear leadership. Ths reasoning seems very odd to me !</blockquote><br>There is no logic when gaming journalists said that gamers are worst than ISIS. It is just a tactic they use to get people outrage. It also shows the true colors of those gaming journalists and those colors are not pretty.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>November 06, 2014, 08:37:46 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Yeah, sorry, but "the company you keep" is of a piece with "if this hashtag is so tainted, why don't you organize under another one?" Because the antis are the ones who have their minds made up. All it takes is one goon to say he's pro GG (or whatever the hypothetical tag would be) to let all of the professionally concerned people blacklist them again. I mean, all we need to do is look at that case where Anita Sarkeesian got hit with anti-Semitic slurs when she's not even Jewish. Will, if you want to know why you're not getting any slack in this thread, it's because by your guilt-by-association terms, GamerGate must necessarily be treated as not only sexist but anti-Semitic because of a declaration of solidarity by someone who's not even smart enough to be a good anti-Semite.<br><br>JG
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Spike</strong> on <strong>November 06, 2014, 09:24:25 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796727</cite>I was rather shocked by the story, particularly coming two weeks after a high school shooting near here.<br><br>.</blockquote><br><br>That wasn't a 'high school shooting', that was a classic murder-suicide that happened to take place on school grounds.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 06, 2014, 10:01:24 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Um. What's the difference?<br><br>Details here:<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marysville_Pilchuck_High_School_shooting<br><br><br>(And in case people need it outlined in crayon, no, I'm not claiming the Marysville shooting had anything at all to do with Gamergate Really really really really really. Ok?)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>November 07, 2014, 08:24:41 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Trenchcoats and Marilyn Manson.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>November 07, 2014, 08:47:35 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Got to give Marilyn Mansion props. During that time he was getting death threats like a heavy down pour of rain and he still did his concerts. Man is gifted and a lot more braver than social justice jack asses.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Bradford C. Walker</strong> on <strong>November 07, 2014, 08:58:23 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Remember when I said that one of the problems with an insurgency is that it creates a chaotic and unstable environment wherein third parties can execute their own agenda using one or both sides as cover? <b>That's what we're seeing now.</b><br><br>Aside from the emails targeting advertisers and other direct, private communications (the sort that the pro-GG side do very well), the best way to do Gamergate is to <i>keep up playing those games</i> and being part of the gaming nation and culture.<br><br>So, I'm going to enjoy this Virtual Ticket to BlizzCon that I won from WOWhead and be a big ol' gamer enjoying games and gaming info from my company of choice. (Overwatch is going to be awesome.)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>JRT</strong> on <strong>November 07, 2014, 09:33:37 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
The best way to "do" GamerGate is to not be part of GG, and just focus on playing and enjoying games without getting involved in the drama.<br><br>And that's what I predict will happen, long term.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Spinachcat</strong> on <strong>November 07, 2014, 09:50:47 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;797162</cite>So, I'm going to enjoy this Virtual Ticket to BlizzCon that I won from WOWhead and be a big ol' gamer enjoying games and gaming info from my company of choice. (Overwatch is going to be awesome.)</blockquote><br>Please post a review of Virtual BlizzCon in Other Games! I want to hear more about Overwatch...even if its not StarCraft Ghost :(
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Bradford C. Walker</strong> on <strong>November 07, 2014, 09:51:37 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Spinachcat;797171</cite>Please post a review of Virtual BlizzCon in Other Games! I want to hear more about Overwatch...even if its not StarCraft Ghost :(</blockquote>Sunday, after it's all over and I've had some time to digest it.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>November 07, 2014, 11:25:27 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: JRT;797168</cite>The best way to "do" GamerGate is to not be part of GG, and just focus on playing and enjoying games without getting involved in the drama.<br><br>And that's what I predict will happen, long term.</blockquote><br>That would be kind of short sighted for us, wouldn't it? I mean, those of us involved want things.. and they don't magically happen when we don't act. A shift toward disclosure by major sites such as IGN would not have happened had we not acted. Gamasutra's drubbing and the repudiation of Leigh Alexander as a voice in gaming would not have happened otherwise. Gawker's drubbing and Nick Denton's humiliation in the business world might never have happened had we not acted.<br><br>"The ride never stops" is a slogan born of the observation that because gamers were not engaged, not looking out for our interests, we were soft targets for many things. I don't fault anyone for not getting involved personally, particularly given the vile innuendos anti-GG types are so quick to sling around. I don't see myself disengaging any time soon.<br><br>Besides, not only has GG made real progress in our goals, there is near-infinite entertainment to be had. (http://gfycat.com/BasicCourteousClumber)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Future Villain Band</strong> on <strong>November 08, 2014, 12:25:44 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;797156</cite>Got to give Marilyn Mansion props. During that time he was getting death threats like a heavy down pour of rain and he still did his concerts. Man is gifted and a lot more braver than social justice jack asses.</blockquote><br>Marilyn Manson also enjoyed round the clock bodyguard presence, band security, and site security that was put into contract riders and whose failure would result in insurance liability and the possibility of tort lawsuits. <br><br>Doing the job I do, I've gotten the odd death-threat, and I would kill to have as much "bravery" as Marilyn Manson, if it came with the big guy in the black tee-shirt with "SECURITY" written on it. Also, groupies.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>yabaziou</strong> on <strong>November 08, 2014, 04:06:39 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Future Villain Band;797195</cite>Marilyn Manson also enjoyed round the clock bodyguard presence, band security, and site security that was put into contract riders and whose failure would result in insurance liability and the possibility of tort lawsuits. <br><br>Doing the job I do, I've gotten the odd death-threat, and I would kill to have as much "bravery" as Marilyn Manson, if it came with the big guy in the black tee-shirt with "SECURITY" written on it. Also, groupies.</blockquote><br>FVB, Dimebag Darrell, the guitarist of Pantera was murdered by pistol fire during a concert despite security and police presence.<br><br>So even if Marilyn Manson did have all those security measures, I was not safe from a determined killer.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>November 08, 2014, 06:06:54 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796727</cite>I WILL apologize for making that initial post without better framing or indications of what I was thinking.<br><br>I was rather shocked by the story, particularly coming two weeks after a high school shooting near here.<br><br><br>I don't believe spree killers or murders in general are caused by media stuff (videogames, Catcher in the Rye, or otherwise). Looking at shootings and other killings, they are basically done by a particular kind of CRAZY PERSON (not a ding on people with mental problems generally, the vast majority of whom only hurt themselves).<br>Shooting sprees are all over the place, and the killers show little commonality beyond often being youngish males.<br>They are also, statistically, utterly unimportant in number of deaths in the country, but fuel a lot of hysteria.<br><br>My reason for linking it HERE was... well, I was somewhat naively thinking every 'side' can go 'oh fucking great, just what we needed.'<br>It wasn't intended as an attempt to take pot-shots at GGers.<br><br><br>You can disagree with me or think I'm a fucking idiot, that's your prerogative.<br><br>But if you decide I'm 'up' to something or that I'm flat-out lying and misrepresenting my views, you can go fuck yourself.</blockquote><br>Thank you, that was a clear response, and I believe you.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Future Villain Band</strong> on <strong>November 08, 2014, 10:17:11 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: yabaziou;797227</cite>FVB, Dimebag Darrell, the guitarist of Pantera was murdered by pistol fire during a concert despite security and police presence.<br><br>So even if Marilyn Manson did have all those security measures, I was not safe from a determined killer.</blockquote><br><i>Nobody's</i> safe from a determined killer, but I seriously question the idea that Marilyn Manson is "braver" than a "social justice warrior jackass" in the face of death threats, like Sarkeesian at her Utah speech. Somebody who's a celebrity at that level has a) better security, and b) more incentive to take the stage. <br><br>The very fact that nobody's safe from a determined killer means I'm not gonna go online and call somebody out for not having balls to go onstage when somebody makes a threat to kill them. I don't blame anybody for taking that shit seriously.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 08, 2014, 10:35:51 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I would argue it's also a little easy to be blasé when you aren't some random academic who is suddenly getting a constant torrent of hate, everyone around you.<br><br>And particularly a few months after some misogynist fuckhead killed a bunch of people ranting about the same stuff that sounds very similar.<br><br><br>How many of us would actually step in to have everyone around us be subjected to constant invective and the attention of highly enraged people, some of whom might be murderous psychopaths?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jeff37923</strong> on <strong>November 08, 2014, 11:03:46 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;797270</cite>How many of us would actually step in to have everyone around us be subjected to constant invective and the attention of highly enraged people, some of whom might be murderous psychopaths?</blockquote><br>But I already vote Republican. :D
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>November 08, 2014, 11:36:08 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jeff37923;797274</cite>But I already vote Republican. :D</blockquote><br>And I'm Libertarian. :D<br><br>JG
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>November 08, 2014, 05:04:46 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: James Gillen;797280</cite>And I'm Libertarian. :D</blockquote><br>I lodged a protest vote this year, does that count?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Rincewind1</strong> on <strong>November 08, 2014, 05:13:33 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796727</cite>I WILL apologize for making that initial post without better framing or indications of what I was thinking.<br><br>I was rather shocked by the story, particularly coming two weeks after a high school shooting near here.<br><br><br>I don't believe spree killers or murders in general are caused by media stuff (videogames, Catcher in the Rye, or otherwise). Looking at shootings and other killings, they are basically done by a particular kind of CRAZY PERSON (not a ding on people with mental problems generally, the vast majority of whom only hurt themselves).<br>Shooting sprees are all over the place, and the killers show little commonality beyond often being youngish males.<br>They are also, statistically, utterly unimportant in number of deaths in the country, but fuel a lot of hysteria.<br><br>My reason for linking it HERE was... well, I was somewhat naively thinking every 'side' can go 'oh fucking great, just what we needed.'<br>It wasn't intended as an attempt to take pot-shots at GGers.<br><br><br>You can disagree with me or think I'm a fucking idiot, that's your prerogative.<br><br>But if you decide I'm 'up' to something or that I'm flat-out lying and misrepresenting my views, you can go fuck yourself.</blockquote><br>Yeah, seeing how you previously stated, in this very thread* how "one side has ready to go mass murderers", I can see why people could be confused. :rolleyes:<br><br>*<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;792277</cite>I don't think any group is intrinsically immune.<br><br>There are certain phrases and views which often herald bullshit arguments, though. One is 'both sides!'<br><br>When one 'side' has hateful invective from a few folks, and the other side has pervasive social power, loads of hateful speech, <b>and mass killers eager to do it's bidding</b>, the argument of 'both sides do it!' comes across as a bullshit ploy.<br><br>There can be legitimate commentary. But when it overwhelmingly isn't, one is inclined to look for extraordinary evidence that THIS TIME it's not going to turn to vile crap.</blockquote><br><br>Also, isn't giving in to death threats kind of letting the other side win? If you think they are terrorists, aren't silencing you and making you live in fear mean they've won? Of course, on the other hand, Sarkeesian wasn't afraid that some GGing Jack Ruby will shoot her, when she was on her way to a much bigger stake than Utah University interview.<br><br>Let's face it - if GG had any credibility as an actual threat, they'd cover her with security - nobody's letting anyone without airtight watch if police thinks the threat is credible - Theo van Gogh refused the security, and look what happened to the South Park guys over Cartoon Wars.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>crkrueger</strong> on <strong>November 08, 2014, 05:24:44 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
It might have something to do with the fact that the Outrage Brigade isn't ready to actually put anything on the line seeing as how their chosen method of achieving "Social Justice" is through equalizing representation in First World Entertainment Media. :rolleyes:
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 08, 2014, 06:04:37 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Of potential interest:<br><br>http://www.sciencealert.com/definitive-study-finds-zero-link-found-between-video-game-and-youth-violence
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Spinachcat</strong> on <strong>November 08, 2014, 06:37:28 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
My absolute favorite part of #GG is the reaction of mainstream media outlets. <br><br>Their pants are blasting off their ankles from the shockwave of shit flying out of them over a bunch of gamers suggesting the possibility there could be issues of collusion in their sacred industry. <br><br>I think this is because we live in an age where embedded & native advertising is the only financial hope for online "news" outlets. Nobody wants to pay for content, nobody gives a fuck about banner ads (or blocks them) and whether we like want to admit it or not, content creation and hosting isn't free. Bills have to be paid to keep the lights on.<br><br>That leaves embedded & native advertising where the subject of the article is paid for by the subject. AKA, Coke can pay Time to write an article about the three super tasty flavors of Coke coming out next month. Without embedded or native adverts, I wonder how many magazines (online and off) could even exist today? <br><br>People like their glossy mags and their flashy websites with "brand new exclusives!", but don't like to pay for them and if #GG were to gain any traction on the collusion issue, there could be problems for native advertising in the future...and thus "news" outlets will fold. <br><br>I don't know the answer to this problem.<br><br>BTW, if you don't know what I am talking about. Here's John Oliver talking about native advertising with his proper English accent and some F-bombs.<br>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_F5GxCwizc<br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Future Villain Band;797267</cite>The very fact that nobody's safe from a determined killer means I'm not gonna go online and call somebody out for not having balls to go onstage when somebody makes a threat to kill them. I don't blame anybody for taking that shit seriously.</blockquote><br>I fully agree. <br><br>I am happy to disagree with Anita's positions, but I am never gonna blame anyone for valuing their life higher than their politics. <br><br>RIP Dimebag and the 3 others killed that night. And let's remember that they never figured out WTF caused Gale to kill Dimebag. Maybe crazed fan, maybe just fucked in the head. <br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;797270</cite>How many of us would actually step in to have everyone around us be subjected to constant invective and the attention of highly enraged people, some of whom might be murderous psychopaths?</blockquote><br>Not me, no way, no how, but I'm not an attention seeking drama queen* <br><br>Twitter and YouTube offers those people their 15 minutes of fame, er I mean victim status. For many SJWs and drama queens, death threats are creamy frosting on the attention cake. <br><br>Brianna Wu is a case in point. I don't blame her for fleeing her home after death threats (I might have done the same), but her Twitter junk about trying to tie the "4chan Killer" in with #GG? That's a drama queen desperately trying to stretch out her moments in the spotlight. <br><br>*and while some drama queens are actually female, I use the term for anyone of any gender who acts like a drama queen, regardless of their crotch junk or lack thereof.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>JRT</strong> on <strong>November 08, 2014, 08:24:25 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Spinachcat;797318</cite>I think this is because we live in an age where embedded & native advertising is the only financial hope for online "news" outlets. Nobody wants to pay for content, nobody gives a fuck about banner ads (or blocks them) and whether we like want to admit it or not, content creation and hosting isn't free. Bills have to be paid to keep the lights on.<br><br>That leaves embedded & native advertising where the subject of the article is paid for by the subject. AKA, Coke can pay Time to write an article about the three super tasty flavors of Coke coming out next month. Without embedded or native adverts, I wonder how many magazines (online and off) could even exist today? <br><br>People like their glossy mags and their flashy websites with "brand new exclusives!", but don't like to pay for them and if #GG were to gain any traction on the collusion issue, there could be problems for native advertising in the future...and thus "news" outlets will fold.</blockquote><br>True. That's one of the biggest problems right now. More broad based coverage gets paid for because there are people willing to pay for in-depth news, but that doesn't really exist because video game journalism is more or less akin to the Entertainment industry in terms of coverage. There's only a few main things that are covered in video game sites.<br><br>* Hype for the latest releases--news about upcoming games. Outside of the majors, some will decide to plug a kickstarter or an indie game. This is the majority of what people will want to read.<br><br>* Reviews for games.<br><br>* Walkthroughs and Guides.<br><br>* Op-ed pieces.<br><br>There's very little coverage of things like stockholders or the business side of things. Occasionally stuff like a creator getting fired or legal troubles gets coverage, but it's rarer.<br><br>Not to mention there's not a lot of respect for exclusives. Even those places that get an exclusive, such as Game Informer, which is a magazine I pay for--just as soon as an issue comes out somebody decides to line-list all the info on NeoGaf and then every large and small blogger reposts it. <br><br>To create something that would be removed from the industry influence would take money. And I haven't seen any talk about decide to pay X dollars a year to create a non-profit organization to cover games. Without that, the only people who'd do it would be bloggers doing it "for free" as a side hobby--but those things are incredibly unstable as it can only last as long as the person maintains an interest and/or has to give it up for his "real job". <br><br>There's talk about YouTube replacing traditional media, but that's risky--Google might someday embed ads, or require the producers to pay fees based on traffic. Not to mention the big traffic guys would make it their living and need to get paid as well. It's the same as a blogger.<br><br>That's why I have a lot of trouble with the general targets of GG. You're going to call for a ad boycott of Polygon because they gave Bayonetta a lower score based on some subjective opinions (which is what exists in a review)--in other words, you're going to the advertiser and saying "Hey, they gave you a poor review and insulted your game, pull the ads"--which is giving them a license to do the type of thing you don't WANT to have happen. Or Gamasutra--GS is one of the few sites that isn't just doing hype--it's basically a collection of opinion columns and takes into account a lot of developer perspective--I find the articles there much more interesting and informative. But one woman--a developer--writes a single unpopular opinion column and all of the sudden the entire site is corrupt and needs to be punished? So let's kill the advertising to one of the few sites that gives a different perspective on the gaming world than other sites?<br><br><br>That's why I have a lot of trouble with it--it seems it's more about cutting off the stories that people disagree with rather than fixing things, or actively trying to collapse them. For instance, this kind of "enemies list" really troubles me. http://makealist.com/content/quinngategamergate-boycott-list <br><br>Good journalism to me means allows other opinions, and publishing articles that the audience may not want to hear or may anger the audience. The big problem with the world today is everybody doesn't just want to agree to disagree, they want to remove all the elements that disagree with them. I see this GG thing as a part of a much larger problem with society. Unless it's more about actively fixing the problem--either by engaging the media and asking for reforms, or having a solid plan that involves more that just listing enemies and acting defensively towards any criticism, I don't see much getting done here.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>nightwind1</strong> on <strong>November 08, 2014, 09:53:51 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;796630</cite>Is there any fucking low that Brianna Wu and her ilk wouldn't go? I don't even know why people defend them because they are lower than fucking scum.</blockquote><br>(https://33.media.tumblr.com/f6c2be5c00bee6b267d4322ad0a81e15/tumblr_ne1pyduiod1r7vffno1_500.png)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Warboss Squee</strong> on <strong>November 08, 2014, 11:39:27 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: nightwind1;797351</cite>(https://33.media.tumblr.com/f6c2be5c00bee6b267d4322ad0a81e15/tumblr_ne1pyduiod1r7vffno1_500.png)</blockquote><br>Some battles cannot be won when willful ignorance rears it's blind little head.<br><br>Also, In Before the Lock.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>November 09, 2014, 12:48:33 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Alathon;797307</cite>I lodged a protest vote this year, does that count?</blockquote><br>From what I could tell, most people's "protest vote" this year was not showing up. :D<br><br>JG
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>November 09, 2014, 12:56:52 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I think there had been good things coming from this thread. Gamergate people showed a lot of evidence that no one with are reasonable mind and honest intentions could ignore. Hell this thread reach up to 101 pages and have a thousand threads all in thanks to Will and his anti-gamergate buddies for keeping this thread so strong with their inability to apply critical thinking skills.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 09, 2014, 01:33:16 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: JRT;797340</cite>Good journalism to me means allows other opinions, and publishing articles that the audience may not want to hear or may anger the audience. The big problem with the world today is everybody doesn't just want to agree to disagree, they want to remove all the elements that disagree with them. I see this GG thing as a part of a much larger problem with society. Unless it's more about actively fixing the problem--either by engaging the media and asking for reforms, or having a solid plan that involves more that just listing enemies and acting defensively towards any criticism, I don't see much getting done here.</blockquote>Currently, there's something of a 15,000+ user Block list going around Twitter, to block anyone who speaks positively about #GG. That's a hell of an echo chamber in the making.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Spinachcat</strong> on <strong>November 09, 2014, 01:53:25 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
How does a Twitter block list work? How do you install it into your Twitter? I am not interested in doing it, just understanding how it works. Echo chambers are bad for the culture, but good for business. <br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;797373</cite>Hell this thread reach up to 101 pages and have a thousand threads all in thanks to Will and his anti-gamergate buddies for keeping this thread so strong with their inability to apply critical thinking skills.</blockquote><br>That's very uncharitable to Will and the "his anti-gamergate buddies" (???) who have been more open to discussion than anything I've seen elsewhere on the internet regarding #GG. <br><br>This thread could have clusterfucked itself into oblivion, as many threads have in the past, but even when I haven't agreed with Will or other posters in this thread, I am just not seeing whackass SJW derangement by them. Just different opinions on a complex topic. <br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Warboss Squee;797369</cite>Also, In Before the Lock.</blockquote><br>I see what you did there.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>November 09, 2014, 02:23:25 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Oh I am sorry if I have little sympathy towards those that been offered a mountain of evidence, proof that gamergate is doing its best to take out trolls, proof that anti-gamergate will harass/death threat people, and yet still deny all that. These are not people that want to debate because if it was a actual debate they would end up agreeing with gamergate after seeing all the evidence. Instead they repeat the same bullshit lies, excuses, and keep repeating them till everyone is fed up.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>One Horse Town</strong> on <strong>November 09, 2014, 06:32:13 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Warboss Squee;797369</cite>Also, In Before the Lock.</blockquote><br>I won't lock the thread, but i <i>will</i> remind people to post content instead of just a picture.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 09, 2014, 10:08:48 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Interesting blog post by Brad Wardell, CEO of Stardock, accused (and later cleared of) harassment charges:<br><br>http://www.littletinyfrogs.com/article/458959/Bullying_for_a_good_cause (http://www.littletinyfrogs.com/article/458959/Bullying_for_a_good_cause)<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>They say timing is everything.<br><br>I keep being told that #gamergate started as a harassment and threat campaign. Maybe they're right if you treat #gamergate as having started years ago when people under the guise of "Social Justice" started harassing and threatening people they didn't like. I don't just speak of myself. What is happening now in the gaming community has been building up for years. <br><br>So let me be succinct: People have the growing, creeping feeling that "pull" and "politics" rather than merit are becoming the driving force of our society. They believe it's infected the coverage of their hobby. And they're now pushing back.<br><br>Bullying<br><br>But let's talk about bulling. Let's make sure we understand each other:<br><br>Let me address those friends and colleagues who are vocally anti-GamerGate who have told me I need to be careful not to be associated with "GG":<br><br>Don't tell me that I must disassociate myself from #gamergate because it's become a "harassment" movement when many of you personally witnessed the harassment, threats and hate I have been receiving for years on forums and social media that you knew was undeserved but did nothing about. You didn't say a word. You didn't speak up. You just didn't want to get involved. Some of you participated in the very threads where I was being attacked and just looked the other way.<br><br>And mind you, I didn't hold it against you that you didn't want to step up and come to my defense. I didn't expect you to. I have a thick skin. And I am the bigger person. That's what I keep being told. In essence, I'm told I have to put up with the abuse and harassment and threats by the virtue of having the ability to crush them if I wanted. Therefore, as an "overdog", you felt no need to say a single word in, say, a thread that was full of personal attacks you knew were false because, hey, I can take it. And you're right. I can.<br><br>But it also means that your outrage against harassment, threats and abuse is selective. When you saw me being defamed for years and just ignored it (no tweets, no comments, etc.) you clearly made a distinction that some people need to be supported and others do not. <br><br>In fact, in all those years, only one person who knew the details spoke up for me. (and you can look at the thread to see the hate thrown at me and then see that these haters now, 100% are the ones bullying and smearing #gamergate supporter today. Go ahead, check. These aren't anonymous people. These are the people claiming to be "the good guys"). And you know what they did to him? My friend? They suggested disgusting things about us. Ridiculed him. Of course, some of you know that because you saw what they said on other forums but you said nothing. Didn't want to get involved.<br><br>I've seen the tactic used over and over: Delegitimize your critics and disperse their support base. That's what you're trying to do to these #gamergate people through insults, bullying, ridiculing. <br><br>And if that doesn't work, economic punishment:<br><br>(http://draginol.stardock.net/images2014/Bullying-for-a-greater-cause_BB0C/image.png)<br><br>He's using a word I don't think he understands. Basically: I should be fired because...reasons (unspecified) Tolerance.<br><br>If I say something or do something or write something that you think is inappropriate, inflammatory or unfair then call me on it. I can take it. <br><br>But don't tell me that I have some "guilt by association" thing going when you were perfectly okay associating with people and groups that have spent years harassing others.</blockquote>
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 09, 2014, 10:53:00 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
That was interesting.<br><br>I don't know ultimately what to think about Gamergate. On the one hand there's a distinction not being made between the actual gamergate movement and the gamergate hashtag. A hashtag can be used by anyone. Its simply a way of getting your thoughts across to a massive audience. People who say "change the hashtag" are basically saying "start a new television network. Its nonsensical and it doesnt work like that. Meanwhile the actual <br>Gamergate movement has been the only ones in this whole affair to be contributing anything positive to society whatsoever. The inability of certain posters here to be able to distinguish between the two is nothing besides an indication of either their stubborness or intelligence.<br><br>But the origins are there. The Zoey Quinn fiasco is always a pallour that will hang over the group, no matter how muuch they try to distance themselves. And don't get me wrong I think Zoey Quinn is slime. But not because of who she slept with, or because she cheated on her boyfriend. I read his story, and I dont feel any pity for the guy. "You deserve what you're willing to put up with" as my grandfather used to say. But the massive attacks on Zoey Quinn are not things I condone in any way either. They were frequently sexist and disgusting and a vomiting forth of everything horrible about online culture.<br><br>But that's not where GG began, really. It began as a reaction to the "Death of the Geek" campaign, an orchestrated exercise in bigotry. <br><br>I've said before and I'll say again that I don't really care about "ethics in gaming journalism". I would class it somewhere in importance with the "effort to get more bikelanes put into a city". I'm not against it, it just doesn't inspire any feeling in me besides apathy. <br><br>So we reach the point where, as I've said before I'm not pro-GG but I am anti-anti-gamergate. It's been claimed here and elsewhere that "antiGG isn't a thing", that it's just GG and everyone else. Well, no. "Everyone else" doesn't give a crap one way or the other. This is an online battle that matters less than zero to the average person. "Anti-Gamergate" is everyone that attacks or criticizes Gamergate. But they aren't an organized group, just as anyone who uses the hashtag #gamergate isn't part of an organized group. But again just like gamergate there IS an actual group within the anti-GG movement. And that group identifies itself as feminists. And according to this group anyone against them anyone against feminism, is deFacto a sexist. Hence GG is sexist.<br><br>The problem with that is manyfold. First and foremost, this group, nomatter what they personally think, do not represent the be-all end-all of feminism, no more than Catholics represent the whole of Christianity. There are many philosophies and movements that identify as feminist, and (surprise!), they don't all agree. Several groups are wildly opposed to the precepts and beliefs of others. Hence "No True Scotsman" arguments abound. <br><br>Secondly, being anti-femist does not equate to being sexist or misogynistic. It may fit the specific definition of any one feminist group, but their opinions only matter as much as one is willing to buy into their particular brand. <br><br>Which is not to say there are not plenty of misogynists quite willing to use the gamergate hashtag. Which brings us back to the faulty reasoning behind equating the hashtag with the actual group. To complicate matters further, we have within the anti-gamergate movement many people who are quite willing to unscrupulously claim any online harassment or threats they've recieved are the result of or perpetrated by Gamergate. There's been no evidence presented so far to believe this is the case. In fact, there's pretty damning evidence to suggest it's very much not the case. Sarkeesian, Wu, Quinn, and several others have been shown to engage in some very dishonest tactics to promote their accusations (and themselves). <br><br>Where it gets more complex though is that I also agree that sexism and misogyny does exist within the gaming industry and is a problem that should be dealt with. But I'm not willing to exchange one problem for another, or to abide by the "ends justify the means" tactics employed for "the greater good". I would support a feminist movement that held itself to a higher level of ethical standards beyond "we hate misogyny, so we're the good guys, no matter what". There also needs to be room for the acceptance of other, contrary philosophies and conclusions, just as religious tolerance is necessary for a free society. The what I believe = a universal truth paradigm does not work for society. It doesn't work for politics, it doesn't work for religion, it doesn't work for "social justice". <br><br>To that end I think that a concentrated work against the particular intolerant, hateful, and dishonest brand of feminism that forms the backbone of the anti-gamergate movement is a worthwhile cause. I'm not going to be as silly as those suggesting that gamergate drop the hashtag gamergate and suggest that the equity feminists or sex-positive feminists drop the term "feminism" because its become tainted by a group of vocal extremists. But I think that the distinction needs to be made more public more pronounced, and become a more readily disseminated talking point. "Feminism" should not be a dirty word co-opted by the post-Dworkin extremists. They should be challenged, and either adapt to society (i.e. learn tolerance, accept that their PoV is not a universal truth, and drop the hatemongering tactics), or be relegated to the status of "part of the overall problem". I think this is vital so that actual legitimate concerns with sexism in society can be addressed. <br><br>And I don't think Gamergate is the movement to do that.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>November 10, 2014, 02:47:21 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;797557</cite>-Long rant, see above-<br></blockquote><br>Wow.<br>Except for that I rather define myself as Pro-Feminism and Pro-Gamergate, I think I actually agree with everything in that rant, at least all in the general viewpoint and the conclusions.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>November 10, 2014, 03:09:43 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;797557</cite>So we reach the point where, as I've said before I'm not pro-GG but I am anti-anti-gamergate. It's been claimed here and elsewhere that "antiGG isn't a thing", that it's just GG and everyone else. Well, no. "Everyone else" doesn't give a crap one way or the other. This is an online battle that matters less than zero to the average person. "Anti-Gamergate" is everyone that attacks or criticizes Gamergate. But they aren't an organized group, just as anyone who uses the hashtag #gamergate isn't part of an organized group. But again just like gamergate there IS an actual group within the anti-GG movement. And that group identifies itself as feminists. And according to this group anyone against them anyone against feminism, is deFacto a sexist. Hence GG is sexist.</blockquote>I'm sure that somewhere on the Internet there are some feminist anti-GGers who say this - because there are tons of stupid people out there. However, I also know that there are a ton of people who are both feminist and anti-gamergaters who don't say this. <br><br>You say, "<i>there IS an actual group within the anti-GG movement</i>". I am willing to believe that, and if you are specific about that group and its positions, then maybe I would be anti that group, but I'm not against anyone who attacks or criticizes gamergate (especially since I'm in that group). <br><br>Since I'm not much of a computer gamer, this thread is actually the main place where I am discussing gamergate, and I've been influenced by what I've seen here. For example, earlier, Novastar and S'Mon had argued in favor of the original accusations against Zoe Quinn that started the tag. That's fucked up, in my opinion, because those accusations were nasty and obviously wrong even at the time - and for people to be still arguing for them months later suggests to me that the movement is failing to distance itself from that. <br><br>Incidentally, Novastar is still on this thread. Have you changed your mind at all about those original charges about Zoe Quinn and Depression Quest?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>November 10, 2014, 01:11:59 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
IMO, if the sudden posting of "anti-gamer" articles hadn't happened on the same day, then this whole thing would have likely lost steam by now. Whether or not it started as a "let's harass Zoe" thing or not, it HAS moved beyond that, no matter what the anti-GG side wants to make everyone think. <br><br>I'm not saying the articles shouldn't have been published, or might not have had some valid points, I'm saying that sudden burst of essentially the same party-line being posted all at once made borderline-GG supporters sit up, take notice, and start getting involved. People like me, for example. I didn't even know about Zoey until well after this whole thing had started, I simply ran across the "Five Guys" videos while watching others by IA related to Tumblr of all things. Now, I'm fully invested, and NOT because of ZQ. It was a tactical mistake on the part of the anti-GG crowd. <br><br>On a related note - I find it extremely humorous that the anti-GG people are screaming bloody murder about the "attacks" on advertisers, when I have precisely ZERO doubt that they all supported (or would support once they knew about it) the orchestrated campaign by Media Matters and other leftists groups to harass advertisers on the Rush Limbaugh show to drop their ads after the Sandra Fluke kerfuffle. Seriously - SJWs and feminists decrying the same tactics they used against Limbaugh and others... you can't make this shit up. <br><br>IT'S OK AS LONG AS WE'RE DOING IT!
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ladybird</strong> on <strong>November 10, 2014, 03:07:37 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Werekoala;797719</cite>IMO, if the sudden posting of "anti-gamer" articles hadn't happened on the same day, then this whole thing would have likely lost steam by now.</blockquote><br>Those articles had been brewing for a long time; there was a history developing of games people being sent hatred and death threats for changing gun stats, or giving a game the wrong review score, or including NPC's of a certain sexuality, or for working on a game that people didn't like, or for being a woman, or for criticising games, or for liking different aspects of games... people being cunts under the guise of being gamers, basically.<br><br>And if you are into games, those people are not your friends! They are not on your side, they have no interest in games, they just want to hurt people and blame it on something else. If it wasn't in the name of games it would be in the name of religion, or politics, or some other bullshit reason. They are the people giving gamers a bad name, resulting in gamers not being taken seriously, and holding back games as a medium (And make no mistake; I think videogames are the best artistic medium ever developed); their hiding behind "free speech!!1!" is what will result in it being taken away from people.<br><br>The ZQ stuff, and the hounding she got, just set off the backlash... but if it hadn't been that, it would have been something else, and pretty soon. She slept with a bunch of people? Well, that's a pretty shitty thing to do, but unless you have or plan to have slept with her, it's none of your business; it's not an excuse to harass her.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>markfitz</strong> on <strong>November 10, 2014, 03:11:29 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Woah! Since when is sleeping with a bunch of people a shitty thing to do?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>November 10, 2014, 03:14:06 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Yeah it did started with whatshername, but it would had died out if it wasn't for the fact that she tried to censor MundaneMatt's youtube video. That got people to notice, but even then it was a trinkle compared to the what the "jounalists" plan to do next. When the gamers are dead headlines showed up the gamergate <b><u>hashtag</u></b> was born and the number of people who supported exploded in population.<br><br>If the journalists had done nothing, then gamergate wouldn't be so big. If whatshername let the video go off without censoring, then gamergate would had died in its womb.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>November 10, 2014, 03:15:55 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: markfitz;797745</cite>Woah! Since when is sleeping with a bunch of people a shitty thing to do?</blockquote><br>When your cheating on the person your dating. That goes for both men and women. Still like I said whatshername is not even important in this internet wide discussion.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jeff37923</strong> on <strong>November 10, 2014, 03:30:25 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: markfitz;797745</cite>Woah! Since when is sleeping with a bunch of people a shitty thing to do?</blockquote><br>When sex is being bartered for good reviews, as was alleged.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ladybird</strong> on <strong>November 10, 2014, 03:40:07 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: markfitz;797745</cite>Woah! Since when is sleeping with a bunch of people a shitty thing to do?</blockquote><br>If everyone is cool with it, it's cool.<br><br>In this instance, it was most assuredly not cool.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;797748</cite>Yeah it did started with Zoe Quinn, but it would had died out if it wasn't for the fact that she tried to censor MundaneMatt's youtube video.</blockquote><br>Maybe. You might be right!<br><br>But there are bigger issues - like how the major publishers use the same tactics to quash criticism of their games, which I think is a bigger problem for gamers-as-consumers.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Justin Alexander</strong> on <strong>November 10, 2014, 04:04:08 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Werekoala;797719</cite>IMO, if the sudden posting of "anti-gamer" articles hadn't happened on the same day, then this whole thing would have likely lost steam by now. (...) I'm not saying the articles shouldn't have been published, or might not have had some valid points, I'm saying that sudden burst of essentially the same party-line being posted all at once made borderline-GG supporters sit up, take notice, and start getting involved.</blockquote><br>The decision to attempt a mass-censorship campaign to prevent anyone from discussing the cluster of issues revolving around Zoe Quinn's inappropriate relationships with members of the press (both sexual and otherwise) was also an important screw-up.<br><br>But there were still people willing to dismiss that mass-censorship campaign as merely coincidental and not part of a deliberate collusion between the media corporations. (Even when the people involved in coordinating the mass-censorship campaign were discussing it publicly on Twitter.)<br><br>But then the media organizations under assault decided to double down on their collusion by coordinating a propaganda campaign.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>November 10, 2014, 04:54:04 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ladybird;797755</cite>But there are bigger issues - like how the major publishers use the same tactics to quash criticism of their games, which I think is a bigger problem for gamers-as-consumers.</blockquote>We've got surprisingly good signs from IGN, at least they're willing to talk the talk. That's not proof they'll actually deal, of course, but I'm willing to suspend distrust on continued proof of not-awful conduct.<br><br>In lighter news, #gamergate the faux music video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B57vWZnnk0).
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 10, 2014, 06:36:01 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;797626</cite>For example, earlier, Novastar and S'Mon had argued in favor of the original accusations against Zoe Quinn that started the tag. </blockquote><br>I don't think I can possibly have 'argued in favour of them', I never claimed to know enough to do that; at most I repeated the allegations.<br><br>Also I am not a GamerGater - I don't play video games (except the free version of ADOM) - and you shouldn't take anything I say as representing their side. I know very little about the whole thing.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Justin Alexander</strong> on <strong>November 10, 2014, 06:56:33 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796575</cite>4chan is involved in #gamergate...</blockquote><br>In pretty much the exact same way that theRPGsite and the English language are "involved" in #gamergate.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>November 10, 2014, 07:30:55 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;797789</cite>I don't think I can possibly have 'argued in favour of them', I never claimed to know enough to do that; at most I repeated the allegations.<br><br>Also I am not a GamerGater - I don't play video games (except the free version of ADOM) - and you shouldn't take anything I say as representing their side. I know very little about the whole thing.</blockquote>I'm thinking of when you said this in Post #218 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=793118&postcount=218)<br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'Mon</cite>I think the conspiracy was among the game journalists who pushed her 'game', although I suppose maybe having sex with her caused them to genuinely like her 'game'.</blockquote><br>This became more relevant later when ArrozConLeche stated in Post #454 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=794399&postcount=454)<br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794399</cite>The point being that no one had ever mentioned Literally Who's sex life or implied a belief that she exchanged sexual favors for positive reviews. So Will's initial charge that GG and it's sympathizers are a hate group is clearly bunk. So is his attempt at pretending that what you posted is somehow representative of everyone else here or in the GG side generally.</blockquote><br>To S’Mon - Yes, you repeated the allegations. However, the allegations are blatantly false and slanderous, and repeating them is not OK. <br><br>The only game journalist that there is evidence she had a relationship with was Nathan Grayson. He never reviewed her game. He did give it positive mention in his blog - but he did so <b>before</b> they were alleged to have been in a relationship (back in January and February). As Eron Gjoni grudgingly clarified in his exposure of her private life, <i>”To be clear, if there was any conflict of interest between Zoe and Nathan regarding coverage of Depression Quest prior to April, I have no evidence to imply that it was sexual in nature.”</i> No one has produced any evidence of her having a relationship with any game journalist other than Grayson. And all of this was information that has been available since Eron Gjoni’s first post. <br><br><br>To other recent posters on this topic: <br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jeff37923;797753</cite>When sex is being bartered for good reviews, as was alleged.</blockquote><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Justin Alexander;797760</cite>The decision to attempt a mass-censorship campaign to prevent anyone from discussing the cluster of issues revolving around Zoe Quinn's inappropriate relationships with members of the press (both sexual and otherwise) was also an important screw-up.<br><br>But there were still people willing to dismiss that mass-censorship campaign as merely coincidental and not part of a deliberate collusion between the media corporations.</blockquote>To jeff37923 and Justin - are you asserting that Zoe Quinn bartered sex for good reviews, or that there is good reason to discuss this as a possibility?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>November 10, 2014, 07:40:04 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I will say this, I can understand why the SJWs immediately dismiss anybody who identifies with the hashtag #gamergate, since I tend to immediately dismiss anything dealing with hashtags or Twitter in general. :D<br><br>JG
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Iosue</strong> on <strong>November 10, 2014, 08:20:09 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;797748</cite>When the gamers are dead headlines showed up the gamergate <b><u>hashtag</u></b> was born and the number of people who supported exploded in population.</blockquote><br>The hashtag predates the articles, although certainly the articles poured gasoline on the fire. But Adam Baldwin first used it when linking to youtube videos by Aristocrat that discussed Quinn, Grayson, and collusion, before Gjoni clarified the timeline.<br><br>Looking at those vids, it's not surprising GamerGate is all over the place in terms of goals and participants. There's something for everyone there. It's mainly about collusion in games journalism, but it's pretty contemptuous of Quinn. A reasonable person could say, "I don't agree with everything this guy says, but he has a point about games journalism." While the trolls would see the same thing and say, "Yeah, fuck that slut!"
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 10, 2014, 08:24:30 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Iosue;797836</cite>The hashtag predates the articles, although certainly the articles poured gasoline on the fire. But Adam Baldwin first used it when linking to youtube videos by Aristocrat that discussed Quinn, Grayson, and collusion, before Gjoni clarified the timeline.<br></blockquote><br>Heh, googled that and got Gilbert Godfried telling The Aristocrats joke.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Justin Alexander</strong> on <strong>November 11, 2014, 12:38:12 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;797808</cite>To jeff37923 and Justin - are you asserting that Zoe Quinn bartered sex for good reviews, or that there is good reason to discuss this as a possibility?</blockquote><br>Note that I was specifically talking about the censorship of people talking about these things. Which, at the time the censorship was taking place (within 48 hours of the relationship between Quinn and Grayson beind made public), was, IMO, an absolutely reasonable discussion to be having.<br><br>Looking at the facts as they exist today:<br><br>Re: Reviews. Although it was widely misreported that Grayson had written a review of Quinn's game, it's clear at this point that Grayson only wrote articles providing positive publicity for Quinn and her game (not a full review).<br><br>Re: The ethical consequences of their relationship. The personal ethics are obviously reprehensible, but also largely irrelevant to anyone not personally involved with these people. The journalistic ethics depend largely on whether or not you accept Grayson's claim that their sexual relationship didn't start until a few weeks after the last of his articles was written.<br><br>Re: The wider issue of Zoe Quinn's relationships with members of the press. It's pretty much undisputed that Zoe Quinn formed close friendships with members of the gaming press and then used those connections to push narratives that were useful to her: Whether that was accusing the Wizardchan messageboard of a harrassment campaign in order to generate free publicity for her game or attacking organizations that were in competition with her own business plans.<br><br>You don't have to have sex with a reporter in order for your relationship with them to be inappropriate and unethical. For example, nobody accused the reporter at the center of the #pointergate scandal of sleeping with Minneapolis police officers, but that doesn't change the problematic aspects of what he did.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jeff37923</strong> on <strong>November 11, 2014, 08:24:34 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;797808</cite>To jeff37923 and Justin - are you asserting that Zoe Quinn bartered sex for good reviews, or that there is good reason to discuss this as a possibility?</blockquote><br>Go look at my quote again and then tell us what part of "as was alleged" you do not understand.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 11, 2014, 02:17:17 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;797626</cite>Incidentally, Novastar is still on this thread. Have you changed your mind at all about those original charges about Zoe Quinn and Depression Quest?</blockquote>That Nathan Grayson provided positive <i>coverage</i> (for some reason, people keep trying to change that into positive <i>reviews</i>, which would be odd since I don't believe Kotaku DOES reviews) of ZQ and DQ?<br><br>Yes, I think Grayson did. On a game he's personally thanked in the credits for, and credited as a Beta Tester as well.<br><br>Is he a-shilling for all he's worth? No. But he does have an improper relationship with the subject of his reporting. <u>End of line</u>.<br><br>Whether ZQ slept with one guy, five guys, or five hundred guys, I really couldn't give a rat's ass. Sleep with whomever you want to, sister. <br><br>I do think the allegation she did so without using protection is skeezy, in light of STD's and "informed consent" of your partners, but I'll also point out it's only one guys' allegation, and ultimately a private matter. <br><br>I also think it's reprehensible to sleep with a married man, but again, that's a personal issue, no cause of mine. I cannot fathom how doing so when they are your Boss, cannot lead to serious repercussions for both of them in the company (including termination of one or both). <br><br>Do I think ZQ needs to be publicly shamed, prosecuted, or stoned to death in the streets? Of course not! She's a young woman who's just made some very bad choices. But she needs to face up to the consequences of those actions too.<br><br><b>Much more importantly</b>, the people willing to TAKE a bribe, whether it is for monetary, sexual, or physical gain, need to be taken to task.<br><br>IMO, at this point, ZQ is irrelevant; she is the primer that lit the charge that blew GamerGate open. The people actually guilty of malfeasance, are desperately trying to USE her to make a narrative of misogyny to deflect inquiry. For her part, she is desperately trying to salvage a reputation that has been savaged by scandal.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Spinachcat</strong> on <strong>November 11, 2014, 10:09:12 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;797840</cite>Heh, googled that and got Gilbert Godfried telling The Aristocrats joke.</blockquote><br>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGA0dIz9-Wk<br><br>...and people say nothing good comes from #gamergate!!!<br><br>;)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Shipyard Locked</strong> on <strong>November 12, 2014, 06:21:49 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Andrew Sullivan of the Daily Dish has gotten involved now, talking about the way twitter is now working with some groups to silence certain accounts.<br><br>http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/11/10/the-sjws-now-get-to-police-speech-on-twitter/<br><br>and part 2<br><br>http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/11/11/the-sjws-now-get-to-police-speech-on-twitter-ctd/
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 12, 2014, 06:54:44 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Women Action and the Media</cite>"Less than 1 in 100 of classical pieces performed in concert in 2009-2010 were written by a female composer"</blockquote><br>Wow. Just...(head shake) wow.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Gone are the accounts of Mykeru, a critic of feminism within the Atheist-Skeptic movement, as well as Janet Bloomfield, Social Media Director of A Voice for Men. Their accounts also disappeared in the past three days. Thunderf00t, another prominent critic of feminism within the Skeptic movement, had his account suspended for close to a month. None of these accounts were abusive or harassing. The only thing they had in common was that they were all critical of feminism.</blockquote><br>Remember what I was saying several pages back about the ultimate goal being censorship? <br><br><br>(https://31.media.tumblr.com/402b288ff3c28279b63413f1b37384b2/tumblr_inline_mjvnn5YmPN1qz4rgp.gif)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ladybird</strong> on <strong>November 12, 2014, 11:58:57 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Yeah, that seems directly related to video games journalism.<br><br><i>Anyway</i>, in real news, Ubisoft are finally getting a bit of a kicking, or at least a gentle tap in the shin-guards (http://www.gamespot.com/articles/assassin-s-creed-unity-review-roundup/1100-6423521/), in regards to Assassin's Creed 2014, with review scores as low as 7/10 (And given reviews are on a 7-9 scale...) and some displeasure about the "micro"transactions involved in the game. So that's good news; if the game is genuinely a turd, review sites should be telling players that! It's kinda what should be their jobs.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Shipyard Locked</strong> on <strong>November 12, 2014, 12:26:07 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ladybird;798158</cite>Yeah, that seems directly related to video games journalism.</blockquote><br>I wasn't claiming it was. My first post (the first post of this thread) was not about gaming journalism, but specifically how this whole GG mess has made me contemplate my discomfort with recent behavior from certain groups I used to trust implicitly. Sullivan is hardly a model human either, but I think he and the people he links to have a point here and so I am further dismayed. That's news enough to me.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 12, 2014, 01:29:10 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ladybird;798158</cite>Yeah, that seems directly related to video games journalism.<br></blockquote><br>Its about the antiGG group, not GG
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ladybird</strong> on <strong>November 12, 2014, 02:25:12 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;798165</cite>Its about the antiGG group, not GG</blockquote><br>Yeah. It's the same "waaaagh SJW's, waaaagh FOM's*" bullshit that gets in the way of us getting to have a proper discussion about anything.<br><br><span style="font-size: 0.7em;" class="bbc_size">* FOM = Forces Of Misogyny. I don't know if there's an official "opposite to SJW" abbreviation, and tbqh, I don't really care; that'll do for this example.</span>
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>November 12, 2014, 02:34:49 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ladybird;798177</cite>Yeah. It's the same "waaaagh SJW's, waaaagh FOM's*" bullshit that gets in the way of us getting to have a proper discussion about anything.<br><br><span style="font-size: 0.7em;" class="bbc_size">* FOM = Forces Of Misogyny. I don't know if there's an official "opposite to SJW" abbreviation, and tbqh, I don't really care; that'll do for this example.</span></blockquote><br>Um ...<br>What are you talking about?<br><br>That is not "FOM", that is about how others has been closed down by "feminists".<br>One was a dirtbag, ok, good riddance, but one was a feminist critical of the anti-GG's, if I understood it correct, and the others seemed open for discussion?<br>.... There is something wrong here.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 12, 2014, 02:57:37 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ladybird;798177</cite>Yeah. It's the same "waaaagh SJW's, waaaagh FOM's*" bullshit that gets in the way of us getting to have a proper discussion about anything.<br></blockquote><br>Almost ironic statement that, considering the story being discussed.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ladybird</strong> on <strong>November 12, 2014, 03:27:59 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Catelf;798180</cite>Um ...<br>What are you talking about?<br><br>That is not "FOM", that is about how others has been closed down by "feminists".<br>One was a dirtbag, ok, good riddance, but one was a feminist critical of the anti-GG's, if I understood it correct, and the others seemed open for discussion?<br>.... There is something wrong here.</blockquote><br>There are just as many trolls working under the cloak of feminism as there are under... not feminism. And that's the real problem; any debate just becomes those two sides arguing at each other, again, about the same tired old topics, and people who actually care about them get drowned out.<br><br>If you are a gamer, for example, surely you <i>want</i> more people to play games, because that means more people for you to play with. Surely you want a larger variety of games, because that means more types of game... and if they're not the sorts of games you like, well, that doesn't affect you. If you only play for the gameplay, games having better storylines or more diverse characters doesn't detract from that.<br><br>When it gets down to it, I don't understand what the core difference is between writing to advertisers to get them to stop advertising on a given site, and thus close it through lack of funds (And thus taking a voice away), and writing to twitter to suspend down some accounts. Oh, sure, there's a difference in scale - it's easier to suspend a twitter account than bankrupt a website - but the end goal is the same; silencing the "opposition" as a victory for your side.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>crkrueger</strong> on <strong>November 12, 2014, 03:38:55 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Women, Action and the Media</cite>A completely open and unmoderated platform imposes its own form of censorship.</blockquote><br>All you really need to know right there.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 12, 2014, 03:49:52 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ladybird;798199</cite>When it gets down to it, I don't understand what the core difference is between writing to advertisers to get them to stop advertising on a given site, and thus close it through lack of funds (And thus taking a voice away), and writing to twitter to suspend down some accounts. Oh, sure, there's a difference in scale - it's easier to suspend a twitter account than bankrupt a website - but the end goal is the same; silencing the "opposition" as a victory for your side.</blockquote><br>The difference is that writing to an advertiser to ask them to do something gives the advertisers a choice to evaluate the request and come to an informeddecision. From the looks of things in regards to Twitter, there is no informed decisions being made, a small group has been placed in charge of deciding who is allowed to post on twitter, a group that has already declared thier intention to abuse that authority. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>“We’ll be escalating [harassment reports] even if they don’t fit Twitter’s exact abuse guidelines,” Friedman said. WAM intends to “cast a wider net” and see what Twitter’s moderators address.</blockquote><br>Andfrom the looks of things Twitter is just going to take their word for it. <br><br>Now Ilooked uup a few of the fellows who have been suspended and yes they seem like sexist dicks overall, but there was nothing they did specifically to break Twitter's rules to get their accountssuspended, let alone harass anyone. And thus we have the same situation as we have with RPGnet: people being banned for no reason because they don't tow the party line. This is a group expressedly against free speech. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>“I see this as a free speech issue,” Friedman said. She said she knew some would see the work WAM does as “censorship,” but that a completely open and unmoderated platform imposes its own form of censorship. It effectively prevents women, especially queer women and women of color, from getting to speak on the service.</blockquote><br>The sameline I heard on tbp for years: free speech prevents women from talking. In other words, women andminorities areunable to have a voice if anyone else is allowed to contradictor challenge it. Note I'm not talking about harrassment. We're talking about people simply saying ("tweeting") things that they don't like. <br><br>I don't use twitter, so this doesn't affect me, except in that the more control these groups are allowed to have over social media, the more they will be able to censor any talk that doesn't fit their ideology. That's <i>dangerous</i> IMHO. That's a legitimate threat to free speech.<br><br>"Monsieur l'abbé, je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerai ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer à écrire"<br>"...I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write" - Voltaire
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alzrius</strong> on <strong>November 12, 2014, 04:27:15 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;798212</cite>"Monsieur l'abbé, je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerai ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer à écrire"<br>"...I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write" - Voltaire</blockquote><br>My understanding is that Voltaire never actually wrote this (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire):<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Another possible source for the quote was proposed by Norbert Guterman, editor of "A Book of French Quotations," who noted a letter to M. le Riche (6 February 1770) in which Voltaire is quoted as saying: "Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write" ("Monsieur l'abbé, je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerai ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer à écrire"). This remark, however, does not appear in the letter.</blockquote>
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>November 12, 2014, 04:33:31 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ladybird;798199</cite>There are just as many trolls working under the cloak of feminism as there are under... not feminism. And that's the real problem; any debate just becomes those two sides arguing at each other, again, about the same tired old topics, and people who actually care about them get drowned out.<br><br>If you are a gamer, for example, surely you <i>want</i> more people to play games, because that means more people for you to play with. Surely you want a larger variety of games, because that means more types of game... and if they're not the sorts of games you like, well, that doesn't affect you. If you only play for the gameplay, games having better storylines or more diverse characters doesn't detract from that.<br><br>When it gets down to it, I don't understand what the core difference is between writing to advertisers to get them to stop advertising on a given site, and thus close it through lack of funds (And thus taking a voice away), and writing to twitter to suspend down some accounts. Oh, sure, there's a difference in scale - it's easier to suspend a twitter account than bankrupt a website - but the end goal is the same; silencing the "opposition" as a victory for your side.</blockquote><br>But then it is rather FOD (Forces of Dirtbags) since they are indeed on both sides.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 12, 2014, 04:37:52 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Alzrius;798233</cite>My understanding is that Voltaire never actually wrote this (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire):</blockquote><br>Then I shall anonymously dedicate it to the great thinker who did I suppose.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ladybird</strong> on <strong>November 12, 2014, 05:06:52 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;798212</cite>The difference is that writing to an advertiser to ask them to do something gives the advertisers a choice to evaluate the request and come to an informeddecision. From the looks of things in regards to Twitter, there is no informed decisions being made, a small group has been placed in charge of deciding who is allowed to post on twitter, a group that has already declared thier intention to abuse that authority. <br><br>Andfrom the looks of things Twitter is just going to take their word for it.</blockquote><br>Right, but that's the same thing; nobody can just state "I'm going to police twitter for badwrongthink", twitter has had to accept them as a valid source of information. It's looked at them, made an informed decision.<br><br>It's evidently not a decision you agree with, I don't agree with it either (Shitty people will happily admit to it, given a chance), but that's the decision twitter made.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Shipyard Locked</strong> on <strong>November 12, 2014, 05:47:58 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>... but that a completely open and unmoderated platform imposes its own form of censorship. It effectively prevents women, especially queer women and women of color, from getting to speak on the service.</blockquote><br>This is so amazingly toxic on so many levels. Self-defeating too. Again, tying back to my first-post concerns, how have we come to the point where some ostensibly feminist groups are arguing that women are <i>too weak</i> to stand up for themselves in a free medium?<br><br>Where will they draw the line on this, and are they prepared for the searing backlash when they're done censoring the caustic types and start censoring reasonable skeptics who question a woman's word on subjects that have nothing to do with gender/feminism?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 12, 2014, 07:02:15 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;798212</cite>The sameline I heard on tbp for years: free speech prevents women from talking. In other words, women andminorities areunable to have a voice if anyone else is allowed to contradictor challenge it. Note I'm not talking about harrassment. We're talking about people simply saying ("tweeting") things that they don't like. </blockquote><br>The cultural Marxist Left applies Marcuse's notion of "Repressive Tolerance" - classical-liberal tolerance for all speech is repressive because it can be used to criticise the Left, the good guys. So it must be replaced with "Liberating Tolerance" - which is tolerance for the approved, good opinions and banning/repression of speech the good people don't like.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 13, 2014, 01:05:55 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ladybird;798244</cite>Right, but that's the same thing; nobody can just state "I'm going to police twitter for badwrongthink", twitter has had to accept them as a valid source of information. It's looked at them, made an informed decision.<br><br>It's evidently not a decision you agree with, I don't agree with it either (Shitty people will happily admit to it, given a chance), but that's the decision twitter made.</blockquote><br>Though an advertiser puulling from a magazine, doesnt prevent the magazine from existing or the writers that make up the said magazine from writing. Ad revenue might be important, but honestly 2 or 3 guys in a basement with a compter can put together amagazine these days. At most it will affect the magazine's success, a success that the magazine isnt entitled to, especially one willing to bite the hand that feeds it. Whereas restricting someone from posting on Twitter prevents them from speaking at all in that venue. Granted they can go elsewhere bt as social media becomes more ubiquitous in life, the bigger an impact this will have over time. As I said before I don't personally use twitter. I'd still use Myspace if all my friends and relatives hadnt ditched it for Facebook. So effectively this isnt really a concern forme, other than I see it as an ogoing trend.The freedom of speech is being challenged onmultiple venues andI think thats going to continuue until its checked or aline in the sand is drawn. <br><br>Twitter has the right to go along with this sure but there's lots of things that are legal that are still unethical or amoral, IMO. The law doesnt dictate the whole of right and wrong. So this is something I find ethically offensive. The Constitution doesnt grant free speech, it says its an inaliable right that all free human beings have and no person or governing body is supposed to be able to take it away. This is I think, one of the most glorious parts of the founding of the United States, and too many people I think are willing to throw it away at the drop of the hat if anything makes them feel uncomfortable. And that saddens me. <br><br>Of the people banned,Ive read the blogs/seen the vlogs of a few, and for the most part they didnt seem to be great human beings. But they werent harassing anyone; they were merely stating their opinions. Thus if Twitter has become a place where intoleranceis the norm becuuae of this grouup, it will eventually be shaped into and echo chambger, left unchecked. And I don't think that's good for anyone.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 13, 2014, 06:46:58 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;798259</cite>The cultural Marxist Left applies Marcuse's notion of "Repressive Tolerance" - classical-liberal tolerance for all speech is repressive because it can be used to criticise the Left, the good guys. So it must be replaced with "Liberating Tolerance" - which is tolerance for the approved, good opinions and banning/repression of speech the good people don't like.</blockquote><br>That sounds so much like communist rhetoric
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>crkrueger</strong> on <strong>November 13, 2014, 09:22:25 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ladybird;798244</cite>Right, but that's the same thing; nobody can just state "I'm going to police twitter for badwrongthink", twitter has had to accept them as a valid source of information. It's looked at them, made an informed decision.<br><br>It's evidently not a decision you agree with, I don't agree with it either (Shitty people will happily admit to it, given a chance), but that's the decision twitter made.</blockquote><br>If Twitter was making careful, informed decisions, why were some reversed? It's like a DCMA takedown, getting it done is easy, then it's up to you to get yourself unbanned. The admitted intention is to push the envelope of what they can get banned.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ladybird</strong> on <strong>November 13, 2014, 10:17:42 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: CRKrueger;798349</cite>If Twitter was making careful, informed decisions, why were some reversed? It's like a DCMA takedown, getting it done is easy, then it's up to you to get yourself unbanned. The admitted intention is to push the envelope of what they can get banned.</blockquote><br>Unclear wording on my part.<br><br>Twitter has look at <i>the group</i> (WAM) and made an informed decision, based on what they (Twitter) were told and shown, that they (WAM) are a valid source that can be relied on for assisting Twitter's abuse team.<br><br>Whether or not we agree with Tiwtter's decision making process in this matter is not the same as realising what Twitter's decision making process in this matter would have been.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 13, 2014, 10:37:11 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: CRKrueger;798349</cite>If Twitter was making careful, informed decisions, why were some reversed? It's like a DCMA takedown, getting it done is easy, then it's up to you to get yourself unbanned. The admitted intention is to push the envelope of what they can get banned.</blockquote>Indeed.<br>It makes me wonder how big the disconnect is, between what was sold to Twitter, and their current stated strategy, is.<br>If anything, their current aims will only <b><i>inflame</i></b> the rhetoric on <i>both</i> sides.<br><br>Hur. Maybe that <i>was</i> Twitter's plan all along. GamerGate has to be good for business...
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>crkrueger</strong> on <strong>November 13, 2014, 10:49:35 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ladybird;798356</cite>Unclear wording on my part.<br><br>Twitter has look at <i>the group</i> (WAM) and made an informed decision, based on what they (Twitter) were told and shown, that they (WAM) are a valid source that can be relied on for assisting Twitter's abuse team.<br><br>Whether or not we agree with Tiwtter's decision making process in this matter is not the same as realising what Twitter's decision making process in this matter would have been.</blockquote><br>Possibly, I don't know what goes on at Twitter. I can easily see this happen though...<br><br>"Hey guys, one of our Investment Firms is a little worried about the #gamergate thing, thinks the backlash might hurt the stock".<br><br>"Hmm, this WAM group has this tool for reporting harassment they're offering us. We have partnered with other groups in the past."<br><br>"What's the effect?"<br><br>"Well, it will look good and take the heat off, trim out the extreme nuts and get the lefties off our case."<br><br>"Ok, let 'er rip."<br><br>I can also see people at Twitter being completely in line with WAM's political objective of social engineering through censorship.<br><br>In any case, of all the possible options, a detailed, rigorous analysis of WAM's politics and agenda behind the tool being done is pretty much the bottom of the list.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;798359</cite>Maybe that <i>was</i> Twitter's plan all along. GamerGate has to be good for business...</blockquote>Heh, or that.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 13, 2014, 10:57:23 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I suspect Twitter, Facebook, and similar companies only care about Problems.<br>Their behavior is to minimize Problems, not be 'fair' or anything.<br><br>I have acquaintances on Facebook who rail against what tribe Facebook is supporting by shutting down X, but generally FB shuts down things temporarily when a bunch of people complain, because FB just ... doesn't want problems. People complain, stuff gets shut off, owner complains, stuff gets turned back on.<br><br>Just (social media) business.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ladybird</strong> on <strong>November 13, 2014, 11:58:38 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: CRKrueger;798361</cite>"Ok, let 'er rip."</blockquote><br>Well, yeah. That was my point. They've made it through twitter's "should we use this tool" process, whatever that is.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;798365</cite>I suspect Twitter, Facebook, and similar companies only care about Problems.<br>Their behavior is to minimize Problems, not be 'fair' or anything.</blockquote><br>A WINNER IS YOU
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>November 13, 2014, 12:06:02 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Will - I would agree that companies like Twitter and Facebook are probably just motivated by business concerns - but that doesn't mean it isn't a real free speech problem. <br><br>That said, I don't think there's a pure solution. For example, even here on theRPGsite, people still get banned for being trolls and/or violating policies - and that's a good thing. Private companies and groups should have the right to moderate, just like how stores and restaurants have the right to refuse certain customers. <br><br>I think it's not so much a legal issue as a social one. People need to accept having open debate - and behave like open debate, rather than like flamewars or campaigns. Twitter and Facebook react to their customers, and so their customers need to express it.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ladybird</strong> on <strong>November 13, 2014, 03:48:46 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;798311</cite>Though an advertiser puulling from a magazine, doesnt prevent the magazine from existing or the writers that make up the said magazine from writing. Ad revenue might be important, but honestly 2 or 3 guys in a basement with a compter can put together amagazine these days. At most it will affect the magazine's success, a success that the magazine isnt entitled to, especially one willing to bite the hand that feeds it. Whereas restricting someone from posting on Twitter prevents them from speaking at all in that venue. Granted they can go elsewhere bt as social media becomes more ubiquitous in life, the bigger an impact this will have over time.</blockquote><br>And I think this is the key point on which we disagree. I don't see what the core difference is between an organisation being unable to use a website called twitter, or being unable to use a website called gawker (For example, as magazines have basically been replaced by web sites). Either way, they have to go elsewhere (Which they've probably already done); either way, a particular platform has been closed off to them, and the intended outcome looks like "prevent this organization from having a voice".<br><br>We all know that, in the end, it won't work, but that still looks like the intention.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>As I said before I don't personally use twitter. I'd still use Myspace if all my friends and relatives hadnt ditched it for Facebook. So effectively this isnt really a concern forme, other than I see it as an ogoing trend.The freedom of speech is being challenged onmultiple venues andI think thats going to continuue until its checked or aline in the sand is drawn.</blockquote><br>Web 2.0 sites aren't really designed for communication or information transfer, they're designed around that sweet, sweet advertising money. The nominal content is just something to get you to look at the site (But not too much content, you can't have enough space for anything more than a soundbite or a throwaway quip, because then you might not pay attention to the next advert).<br><br>If twitter (For example) stops providing this content, because it bans enough influential people that posters start to leave, then it will die, and a competitor will emerge. Free market, working as intended. Will twitter's working with WAM turn out to be bad for twitter? Well, let's see. Nothing in tech or media is forever.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Of the people banned,Ive read the blogs/seen the vlogs of a few, and for the most part they didnt seem to be great human beings. But they werent harassing anyone; they were merely stating their opinions. Thus if Twitter has become a place where intoleranceis the norm becuuae of this grouup, it will eventually be shaped into and echo chambger, left unchecked. And I don't think that's good for anyone.</blockquote><br>Echo chambers are fine, if you like the noise.<br><br>If there was a large enough group not interested in being in that echo chamber, but into expressing their thoughts in 140 characters or less, a twitter rival would appear.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>November 13, 2014, 04:32:08 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
TBH I can really live with the WAM thing. I figure it's win win win for me in the long run. If they're a fair-minded group, it won't be a problem. If they unfairly target people on ideological premises, it's likely that twitter will cease doing business with them, and also give similar complaints far less hearing in the future. And, if they are unfair and twitter doubles down on them, in the long run they lose all credibility, they become a safe space, and I don't have to care so much about what's going on there as people move on.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Shipyard Locked</strong> on <strong>November 13, 2014, 05:18:50 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Alathon;798413</cite>And, if they are unfair and twitter doubles down on them, in the long run they lose all credibility, they become a safe space, and I don't have to care so much about what's going on there as people move on.</blockquote><br>Interesting (sad?) how "safe space" is becoming a pejorative.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 13, 2014, 05:43:45 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I think there are legitimate fears that lead to a need for safe havens and rules to keep people from being screamed over.<br><br>Unfortunately, I think that ALSO requires a firm respect for the limits of such things and why it can get out of hand.<br><br>(Witness TBP, which I think started with a good idea and then went cancerous)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>November 13, 2014, 05:44:54 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Here's a little light reading detailing, well, pretty much everything to do with Gamergate and the Journalism issue to date. I present, the Gamergate Dossier:<br><br>http://press.gamergate.me/dossier/<br><br>You can see that the problems related to gaming and journalism go back well before ZQ and others, so no, it's not all about her. <br><br>It's a bit of a slog, but I think it will help refute the "It's all about misogyny!!!!!" side of the debate. <br><br>Not that I expect the Anti-GG side to stop their drum-beating of course...<br><br>I also find it "funny" that merely posting that link on TBP would get someone banned. Nope, no echo chamber there...
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>November 13, 2014, 08:14:58 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;798365</cite>I suspect Twitter, Facebook, and similar companies only care about Problems.<br>Their behavior is to minimize Problems, not be 'fair' or anything.</blockquote><br>I think Twitter is too aptly named.<br><br>jg
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 01:29:31 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: James Gillen;798445</cite>I think Twitter is too aptly named.</blockquote><br>No kidding. That's another reason why I'm so okay with the WAM thing.. I'm kinda hoping we can get a shift away from twitter as a medium. It's a terrible medium for having conversations, for conveying anything of value. It's also an awesome medium for dissing people, for trolling people, for scoring with one-liners, and for ditto cults.<br><br><b>Ditto Cult</b><br>noun<br>1. A group of followers who parrot precisely their leaders soundbite fragments and attempt to carry out all communication in such fragments.<br><br>adjective<br>1. What happens when a liberal grows up shit-scared of Rush Limbaugh.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 01:42:27 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
On a lighter (but telling) note, I think this is fucking hilarious - but only if you have at least some exposure to Sarkeesian's "Tropes vs. Women" video series or the various video commentaries on said series: <br><br>http://youtu.be/JpAQDwsJriQ
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 01:56:26 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Werekoala;798547</cite>On a lighter (but telling) note, I think this is fucking hilarious - but only if you have at least some exposure to Sarkeesian's "Tropes vs. Women" video series or the various video commentaries on said series: <br><br>http://youtu.be/JpAQDwsJriQ</blockquote><br>Ok, that won the thread.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 02:09:05 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Werekoala;798424</cite>Here's a little light reading detailing, well, pretty much everything to do with Gamergate and the Journalism issue to date. I present, the Gamergate Dossier:<br><br>http://press.gamergate.me/dossier/<br><br>You can see that the problems related to gaming and journalism go back well before ZQ and others, so no, it's not all about her.</blockquote>Interesting. Thanks - that's much more cogent than a lot of what I've seen on the topic. (Though as far as I've seen, all of the other anti-gamergaters I've talked to agree that there are problems of corruption and lack of professionalism in game journalism.) <br><br>One note about corruption - It seems like there are a number of complaints about journalists being biased if they <i>donate</i> to developers. That seems backwards to me. If the developer is paying the journalist - or if the journalist has a paying investment in the game doing well, then obviously that is corrupt. The journalist has monetary gain for giving good reviews. But if the journalist personally donates to a developer, how is that corrupt? It seems to me that it suggests that the journalist genuinely likes the developer's stuff.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ladybird</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 09:08:13 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;798554</cite>It seems to me that it suggests that the journalist genuinely likes the developer's stuff.</blockquote><br>My guess is that it would be seen as the writer being inherently biased towards the developer, and thus likely to highlight the positive, minimise the negative in regard to their work.<br><br>And that's a valid point, kinda. <i>On the other hand</i>, you wouldn't, for example, ask a writer who hates guns, war, deathmatches or FPS to write about Call of Duty; you'd give it to the shooter fan (And a not-uncommon complaint on games forums is "they gave it to someone who doesn't like #genre"), because they'd be better able to write about the game and tell shooter fans about it. The attempts at doing objective games writing <i>seriously</i> are just dull; the subjectivity is what makes the writing interesting, and as with every other creative medium, there isn't an "objective" scale on which games can be reviewed... we can say "game doesn't run, 0/10", but beyond that, anything goes.<br><br><span style="font-size: 0.7em;" class="bbc_size">* Actually, in today's review market, "game does not run, box only contained poisonous scorpion, CEO of company personally kicked me in the nuts and then fucked my dog" would be good for a 7/10.</span>
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 10:05:58 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ladybird;798586</cite>My guess is that it would be seen as the writer being inherently biased towards the developer, and thus likely to highlight the positive, minimise the negative in regard to their work.<br><br>And that's a valid point, kinda. <i>On the other hand</i>, you wouldn't, for example, ask a writer who hates guns, war, deathmatches or FPS to write about Call of Duty; you'd give it to the shooter fan (And a not-uncommon complaint on games forums is "they gave it to someone who doesn't like #genre"), because they'd be better able to write about the game and tell shooter fans about it. The attempts at doing objective games writing <i>seriously</i> are just dull; the subjectivity is what makes the writing interesting, and as with every other creative medium, there isn't an "objective" scale on which games can be reviewed... we can say "game doesn't run, 0/10", but beyond that, anything goes.</blockquote>The last part makes it sound like you think the point is <i>not</i> valid. <br><br>I agree with the latter part. I don't expect my reviewer to be purely neutral and objective, so it's OK for them to dislike a person's work (and thus tend give them low marks) or like a person's work (and thus tend to give them high marks).
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alzrius</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 10:12:22 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;798551</cite>Ok, that won the thread.</blockquote><br>That was quite funny. <br><br>Interestingly, one of the comments posted a link to a surprisingly scholarly critique (https://medium.com/@cainejw/dishonesty-feminist-frequency-part-1-fe937f6a791e) of Feminist Frequency for intellectual dishonesty. I'm reading through it now, and so far it's quite impressive.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 10:18:53 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Well, hey, at least we can come together in joyous harmony about how much Twitter sucks.<br><br>What James and Alathon said.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ThatChrisGuy</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 10:20:28 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ladybird;798586</cite>* Actually, in today's review market, "game does not run, box only contained poisonous scorpion, CEO of company personally kicked me in the nuts and then fucked my dog" would be good for a 7/10.</blockquote><br>Today's? Computer Gaming World would have given it the equivalent of a 6 at worst back in the day.<br><br>Big titles getting glowing reviews they don't deserve is hardly a new problem.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 10:45:57 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;798554</cite>One note about corruption - It seems like there are a number of complaints about journalists being biased if they <i>donate</i> to developers. That seems backwards to me. If the developer is paying the journalist - or if the journalist has a paying investment in the game doing well, then obviously that is corrupt. The journalist has monetary gain for giving good reviews. But if the journalist personally donates to a developer, how is that corrupt? It seems to me that it suggests that the journalist genuinely likes the developer's stuff.</blockquote><br>I would say that if a reviewer/journalist contributes to a developer's income, then yes, they either like their stuff or like the person. Either way, it would seem to indicate a bias in favor of the person, however, and if not "corruption", at the least it shows a bias in their favor. After all, if you're giving someone money, you likely predisposed to report on them favorably.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Iosue</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 11:58:48 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
IMO, if their employer has no policy on the matter, journalists should be free to donate whatever cause they want. If they do a story on that cause, though, disclosure is necessary.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 12:23:12 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
One thing that has been raised a few times is that the reporting and industry of indie gaming is WAY smaller and more hobby-like than, say, AAA titles and the giants of the industry.<br><br>Expecting the same journalistic rigor of dealing with the White House, Enron reporting, and coverage of Blizzcon with things like Depression Quest and other small titles might not be really fair -- people are more likely to be rubbing elbows casually (or other bits).<br><br><br>You might not agree that standards should be different, of course, but at least there's some reason many people don't treat them the same.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 12:33:58 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Werekoala;798608</cite>I would say that if a reviewer/journalist contributes to a developer's income, then yes, they either like their stuff or like the person. Either way, it would seem to indicate a bias in favor of the person, however, and if not "corruption", at the least it shows a bias in their favor. After all, if you're giving someone money, you likely predisposed to report on them favorably.</blockquote>OK, let's say I genuinely like a game designer's work. Yes, there's some sense that I am "biased" or "predisposed" to report on them favorably, because I like their stuff. Is it at all unethical or corrupt for me to report on them? Consider two cases: <br><br>1) I genuinely like a designer, and I donate to them. <br><br>2) I genuinely like a designer, and I don't donate to them because of policy. <br><br>It seems to me that in case #2, I am going to be even <b>more</b> motivated to give them a good review, because I am blocked from being able to donate to them directly - when I want to help them because I genuinely like their stuff.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Justin Alexander</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 12:38:00 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Werekoala;798608</cite>I would say that if a reviewer/journalist contributes to a developer's income, then yes, they either like their stuff or like the person. Either way, it would seem to indicate a bias in favor of the person, however, and if not "corruption", at the least it shows a bias in their favor. After all, if you're giving someone money, you likely predisposed to report on them favorably.</blockquote><br>So, to sum up:<br><br>(1) Reviewers should not receive compensation from developers (i.e., being given a review copy of <i>Halo</i>);<br><br>(2) Reviewers should not pay developers (i.e., buying a copy of <i>Halo</i> and then reviewing it)<br><br>I'm not sure what process of immaculate conception you think reviewers are engaging in, but I've got bad news for you.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>AmazingOnionMan</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 01:06:03 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;798650</cite>OK, let's say I genuinely like a game designer's work. Yes, there's some sense that I am "biased" or "predisposed" to report on them favorably, because I like their stuff. Is it at all unethical or corrupt for me to report on them? Consider two cases: <br><br>1) I genuinely like a designer, and I donate to them. <br><br>2) I genuinely like a designer, and I don't donate to them because of policy. <br><br>It seems to me that in case #2, I am going to be even <b>more</b> motivated to give them a good review, because I am blocked from being able to donate to them directly - when I want to help them because I genuinely like their stuff.</blockquote><br>I don't see what one thing has to do with the other. Or the third.<br>If you like something and have the capacity to bring it out to the masses, that's what you're going to do. <br>If you don't like something, you're probably going to spell that fact out to the same masses. I hope.. <br>Saying good things about something good is a good thing. Saying good things about something not good is a bad thing. Saying nothing about bad things is marginally better, but it is not a good thing. <br>None of these scenarios will stop you from supporting the designer if you feel they deserve your support. Of course, if you're actually reviewing a product that you've helped fund, informing the masses of that fact is a good thing.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>crkrueger</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 01:26:32 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: baragei;798662</cite>Of course, if you're actually reviewing a product that you've helped fund, informing the masses of that fact is a good thing.</blockquote><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Iosue;798634</cite>IMO, if their employer has no policy on the matter, journalists should be free to donate whatever cause they want. If they do a story on that cause, though, disclosure is necessary.</blockquote><br>Information. Disclosure. Baseline honest things you see in amateur reviews on RPG sites all the time (which is a hobby and industry a lot more close and less numerous then any aspect of video games) - conspicuously absent in the practices of the principals that kicked off this shitstorm.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 01:53:15 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Justin Alexander;798653</cite>So, to sum up:<br><br>(1) Reviewers should not receive compensation from developers (i.e., being given a review copy of <i>Halo</i>);<br><br>(2) Reviewers should not pay developers (i.e., buying a copy of <i>Halo</i> and then reviewing it)<br><br>I'm not sure what process of immaculate conception you think reviewers are engaging in, but I've got bad news for you.</blockquote>Heh. <br><br>Yeah. Here's my take: <br><br>A reviewer should definitely disclose if they have received money or gifts including review copies (#1). They should also disclose if they have invested money in the project, such that they will see rewards or financial gain if it succeeds, or if they have any close personal relationship with the developer. <br><br>However, if they *like* the project, and personally play it, and/or have bought a lot of products in the line, and/or have donated to the developer - that's their personal taste. It's not an unethical bias. There's nothing wrong with fucking liking a game. A reviewer shouldn't have to reveal their finances or personal details or prove that they don't like the game in order to review it.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Sacrosanct</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 02:25:56 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Man, Pundit's been doing all the wrong reviews. Just think of all the sweet ass he could have been getting...
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 02:33:21 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Justin Alexander;798653</cite>(2) Reviewers should not pay developers (i.e., buying a copy of <i>Halo</i> and then reviewing it)</blockquote><br>There is a difference between buying a copy of the game and DIRECTLY giving money to the developer's patreon account for doing NOTHING. Some of these journalists are giving away money to fund developers in patreon and no it isn't so these developers can make a new game either. It is just funding each other because they share the same view points. Scratch my back and I will scratch your back kind of deal.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 02:35:42 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;798679</cite>Man, Pundit's been doing all the wrong reviews. Just think of all the sweet ass he could have been getting...</blockquote><br>Pretty sure his wife may take issue with that.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 04:08:18 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Shipyard Locked;798419</cite>Interesting (sad?) how "safe space" is becoming a pejorative.</blockquote>Because it doesn't exist, not really. A plane could crash on you, or a meteorite.<br>"Safe Space" is a relative lie we tell ourselves, to make life easier.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Iosue;798634</cite>IMO, if their employer has no policy on the matter, journalists should be free to donate whatever cause they want. If they do a story on that cause, though, disclosure is necessary.</blockquote>I'd be happy with that.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;798650</cite>OK, let's say I genuinely like a game designer's work. Yes, there's some sense that I am "biased" or "predisposed" to report on them favorably, because I like their stuff. Is it at all unethical or corrupt for me to report on them? Consider two cases: <br><br>1) I genuinely like a designer, and I donate to them. <br><br>2) I genuinely like a designer, and I don't donate to them because of policy. <br><br>It seems to me that in case #2, I am going to be even <b>more</b> motivated to give them a good review, because I am blocked from being able to donate to them directly - when I want to help them because I genuinely like their stuff.</blockquote>Ok, now imagine you do that for the first 2 games, the third is coming out, and you find it just plain stinks. And I mean, stinks! <br><br>Are you going to be as honest reporting that, being so invested in the first 2 games? Being made by your friend you've helped financially on all 3 games?<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Justin Alexander;798653</cite>So, to sum up:<br><br>(1) Reviewers should not receive compensation from developers (i.e., being given a review copy of <i>Halo</i>);<br><br>(2) Reviewers should not pay developers (i.e., buying a copy of <i>Halo</i> and then reviewing it)<br><br>I'm not sure what process of immaculate conception you think reviewers are engaging in, but I've got bad news for you.</blockquote>I don't have a problem with a free review copy, anymore than a film critic getting to see a movie for free. But them also getting high-grade hardware, free plane trips, posh hotels, and pampered room service, in regards to their review scores, seems like outright bribery.<br><br>Buying a product likewise isn't a problem; contributing to a Kickstarter or worse yet, a Patreon, is a financial tie that creates a relationship, one that is hard to judge bias upon.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ladybird</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 04:32:57 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;798600</cite>Big titles getting glowing reviews they don't deserve is hardly a new problem.</blockquote><br>You're preaching to the choir, my friend.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;798647</cite>Expecting the same journalistic rigor of dealing with the White House, Enron reporting, and coverage of Blizzcon with things like Depression Quest and other small titles might not be really fair -- people are more likely to be rubbing elbows casually (or other bits).</blockquote><br>And there's also the question of exactly how put-out someone can be by a "corrupt" review.<br><br>If someone reads a glowing review of Call of Duty 2014, buys it, and then thinks it's a turd, they're out £40 or so. That's a significant chunk of money! I'd get upset over that. Anybody would.<br><br>If someone played Depression Quest after Grayson's "here is a bunch of games greenlit for steam:" article, it would have cost them... exactly nothing. I don't know; I can understand saying "I did not like the game because of reasons", but there's not much room to really get upset.<br><br>Oh, sure, there's a fuzzy line somewhere in the middle where something costs enough to get ragey about, but I don't know where that is, it kinda varies for all of us.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;798697</cite>Are you going to be as honest reporting that, being so invested in the first 2 games? Being made by your friend you've helped financially on all 3 games?</blockquote><br>Again, blame the publishers; they're the ones who have contracts with developers that say "your game's arbitrary numbers, which are mainly based on our marketing spend, must reach this arbitrary level".<br><br>And yeah, if I knew the devs I work with (Commercial software tester!) were at risk of losing out due to my work (ie, reporting bugs), it would certainly change the way I did things; in fact, I wouldn't want to work at that company any more, because I would be being incentivised to either screw over my team, or screw over our customers.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>I don't have a problem with a free review copy, anymore than a film critic getting to see a movie for free. But them also getting high-grade hardware, free plane trips, posh hotels, and pampered room service, in regards to their review scores, seems like outright bribery.</blockquote><br>They don't seem like bribery, they are bribery, pure and simple. But those are the conditions that the major publishers are putting up, and the choice is "accept the bribe" or "no pre-launch review". Oh, and by the way, all your competitors have accepted. We'd like a nine.<br><br>I'd bet that most writers would rather play the game and write their thoughts about the game (Because given the low pay, you'd really have to love games to be a games writer), than have to deal with the hassle of review trips and lying to other gamers.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 05:16:27 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;798697</cite>Ok, now imagine you do that for the first 2 games, the third is coming out, and you find it just plain stinks. And I mean, stinks! <br><br>Are you going to be as honest reporting that, being so invested in the first 2 games? Being made by your friend you've helped financially on all 3 games?</blockquote>You're stating "invested" and "friend", but I thought the premise here is just that reviewer gave money - with no investment or close personal relationship. <br><br>If I've shelled out money for this guy, and the guy comes out with a product that I genuinely think stinks - then hell yeah, I'm going to report that it stinks. I don't see that my having paid out money motivates me to say that it doesn't stink. <br><br>On the other hand, if I really like this guy's work enough to put out my personal money for it, then chances are that our tastes and/or viewpoints are similar - and I'm going to like it more than other people. But that isn't changed by whether I put out money or not. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;798697</cite>I don't have a problem with a free review copy, anymore than a film critic getting to see a movie for free. But them also getting high-grade hardware, free plane trips, posh hotels, and pampered room service, in regards to their review scores, seems like outright bribery.<br><br>Buying a product likewise isn't a problem; contributing to a Kickstarter or worse yet, a Patreon, is a financial tie that creates a relationship, one that is hard to judge bias upon.</blockquote>Free review copies should be disclosed, in my opinion, the same as any other gift from the developer. (For example, if someone is reviewing a hotel, and the hotel pay for a free plane trip out there, staying at the hotel, and room service - that should be disclosed even though it is technically part of the review.) <br><br>To my mind, the issue with contributing to a Kickstarter is if I stand to get more return on my investment if the Kickstarter reaches stretch goals. That would be an incentive for me to get other people to contribute. However, if there are no stretch goals or if the Kickstarter is over, then it shouldn't matter whether I bought the game through Kickstarter or off the shelf. <br><br>I haven't used Patreon, but my impression is that there is no obligation back to the contributor. So I don't see what the issue is.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ladybird</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 05:22:47 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;798706</cite>Free review copies should be disclosed, in my opinion, the same as any other gift from the</blockquote><br>...publisher (Or publisher's PR department).<br><br>In some cases these will be the same, but not with the big titles that are the real problem.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Spinachcat</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 06:11:51 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
More disclosure in ALL journalism is a good thing.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 07:15:50 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;798679</cite>Man, Pundit's been doing all the wrong reviews. Just think of all the sweet ass he could have been getting...</blockquote><br>Have you seen Zoey Quinn? :p
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Sacrosanct</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 07:19:34 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;798719</cite>Have you seen Zoey Quinn? :p</blockquote><br>Yes. 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.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 07:28:36 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;798720</cite>Yes. 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.</blockquote><br>Well, she's not totally hideous, but from the hype I was expecting some femme fatale type, not the rather plain & overweight typical gamer nerd I saw.<br><br>Meanwhile, the typical GamerGater girl (Syrian Division): :D<br><br>(http://www.salem-news.com/stimg/november302013/syria-girl-3.jpg)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 07:33:33 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Good thing people are showing how non-misogynist GG is.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 07:56:58 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;798599</cite>Well, hey, at least we can come together in joyous harmony about how much Twitter sucks.<br><br>What James and Alathon said.</blockquote><br>No seriously, this is why I've said elsewhere that Huxley was a better predictor of dystopia than Orwell. In <i>1984</i>, Orwell assumed that the government would need a campaign of converting Newspeak to destroy people's ability to think in coherent sentences. In the real world, we developed Twitter.<br><br>JG
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 08:01:49 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Justin Alexander;798653</cite>So, to sum up:<br><br>(1) Reviewers should not receive compensation from developers (i.e., being given a review copy of <i>Halo</i>);<br><br>(2) Reviewers should not pay developers (i.e., buying a copy of <i>Halo</i> and then reviewing it)<br><br>I'm not sure what process of immaculate conception you think reviewers are engaging in, but I've got bad news for you.</blockquote><br>When I was still on The Banning Place, sometimes companies or small publishers would email me asking me to review their product on RPG.net. Mostly it was PDFs, but I got my hardcopy of <i>Legend of the Five Rings 4th Edition</i> this way. I certainly appreciated it (especially given that these are free reviews) but it didn't stop me from saying what I thought.<br><br>JG
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 08:02:57 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;798720</cite>Yes. 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.</blockquote><br>I think we should be able to agree on that too.<br><br>JG
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 08:07:26 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;798722</cite>Good thing people are showing how non-misogynist GG is.</blockquote>Yes, because discussion of personal tastes of beauty are classical signs of 'hatred of women'.<br><br>Watering down loaded terms, does no one any service.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 08:17:40 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;798727</cite>Yes, because discussion of personal tastes of beauty are classical signs of 'hatred of women'.<br><br>Watering down loaded terms, does no one any service.</blockquote><br>To keep Will happy, another cool pro-GamerGater, not so conventionally beautiful (but certainly much more beautiful than Will!): <br>(http://i2.wp.com/www.avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/05/karen-straughan-gww-girl-writes-what-girlwriteswhat-750.png?resize=750%2C420)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Sacrosanct</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 08:32:38 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;798721</cite>Well, she's not totally hideous, but from the hype I was expecting some femme fatale type, not the rather plain & overweight typical gamer nerd I saw.<br><br>Meanwhile, the typical GamerGater girl (Syrian Division): :D<br><br></blockquote><br>Who knows if she's typical. But most importantly, why does it matter? Why does her being more attractive than Zoe (I'm assuming that's what you're trying to imply) somehow make GG more right?<br><br><br>it doesn't. Not relevant. Making attacks on Zoe's appearance, like you've just done*, only proves that there's merit to the argument the antiGG have been making. And it just hurts the proGG side.<br><br><br>*saying someone's "not totally hideous" and "plain and overweight" are attacks on an appearance. I'd like to think we'd all agree on that
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 08:48:31 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I don't think the attractiveness of various women involved in this issue has any goddamned thing to do with the topic, unless you are trying to show that the comments about GG are correct.<br><br>Seriously, it's like having a female CEO on a financial TV show and asking her about her favorite dress designer.<br><br>As for predictors of modern craziness, one of my favorites:<br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Imaginary Magnitude, Stanislaw Lem</cite>Are we not threatened with a flood of information? And is this not the monstrousness of it, that it crushes beauty by means of beauty, and annihilates truth by means of truth? For the sound of a million Shakespeares would produce the very same furious din and hubbub as the sound of a herd of prairie buffalo or sea billows.</blockquote>
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 08:48:35 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;798650</cite>OK, let's say I genuinely like a game designer's work. Yes, there's some sense that I am "biased" or "predisposed" to report on them favorably, because I like their stuff. Is it at all unethical or corrupt for me to report on them? Consider two cases: <br><br>1) I genuinely like a designer, and I donate to them. <br><br>2) I genuinely like a designer, and I don't donate to them because of policy. <br><br>It seems to me that in case #2, I am going to be even <b>more</b> motivated to give them a good review, because I am blocked from being able to donate to them directly - when I want to help them because I genuinely like their stuff.</blockquote><br>Well, if you genuinely like their stuff, then of course you're likely to give a positive review - a review is basically an opinion piece, after all, and there's nothing wrong with that from an ethical standpoint. There's still some "wiggle room" to say that you just like the game. But when you give the developer money, there's a much lighter shade of gray there, IMO. <br><br>If you don't see a problem with that, fine, but I do.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 10:55:12 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Werekoala;798735</cite>Well, if you genuinely like their stuff, then of course you're likely to give a positive review - a review is basically an opinion piece, after all, and there's nothing wrong with that from an ethical standpoint. There's still some "wiggle room" to say that you just like the game. But when you give the developer money, there's a much lighter shade of gray there, IMO. <br><br>If you don't see a problem with that, fine, but I do.</blockquote>Can you unpack why? I think I've explained logically why there is a problem with the publisher or developer give gifts like free copies or extras to reviewers. The reviewer stands to gain more stuff if they continue to produce reviews that the publisher likes. <br><br>However, I don't see what the problem is with the reviewer giving money the other way. If you do see something, can you explain it? <br><br>If you can't explain it, could you at least describe what looks more like it and what looks less like it. Consider a few cases: <br><br>1) A reviewer on his own time and money buys a copy of the game to play. <br><br>2) A reviewer on his own time and money buys a special "designer's edition" of a game that is sold for $90 with signature and extras, which the creators make an extra $30 profit. <br><br>3) The reviewer on his own time and money buys into a Kickstarter for a game, and then gets the game plus some rewards after it is funded and released. <br><br>4) The reviewer pays for a "ransom" model game, where if enough people pay for it, it is released to the world for free. <br><br>5) The reviewer donates to the developers without buying something tangible.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>November 14, 2014, 11:05:41 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Professional reviewers typically get a copy of the game to play so they CAN review it, so cases 1-4 don't really apply. Only case 5 seems to meet the Patreon threshold, where someone professionally employed to review games gives money out of their own pockets to support "developers". <br><br>I suppose it's possible that they could shell out to help the developers buy food and pay their bills while they develop a game, then once the game is sent to the supporter - who then reviews it - they could give it a shitty review. <br><br>If you are going to give someone money to support them while they develop a game, I'd say that would be ok so long as they do not review any games released by said developer.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Justin Alexander</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 12:24:52 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;798721</cite>Well, she's not totally hideous, but from the hype I was expecting some femme fatale type, not the rather plain & overweight typical gamer nerd I saw.<br><br>Meanwhile, the typical GamerGater girl (Syrian Division): :D</blockquote><br>When people talk about pro-GG people being sexist morons, this is the type of stupidity they're talking about. Y'all are gross.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Werekoala;798754</cite>If you are going to give someone money to support them while they develop a game, I'd say that would be ok so long as they do not review any games released by said developer.</blockquote><br>You have still completely and utterly failed to explain your "reviewers must not review games they preordered" maxim here.<br><br>This is pretty straightforward: In order for a conflict of interest to exist in the absence of a personal relationship, the reviewer has to be receiving some form of compensation from the subject. If the reviewer is instead giving money <i>to</i> the subject of their review, there is no quid pro quo and there is no conflict of interest.<br><br>What you are seriously proposing here is a situation in which the designer is either directly or indirectly saying, "If I let you give me money, you'll give my game a good review." And you're claiming that this is a statement which is something other than total nonsense.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 12:38:37 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;798721</cite>Well, she's not totally hideous, but from the hype I was expecting some femme fatale type, not the rather plain & overweight typical gamer nerd I saw.<br><br>Meanwhile, the typical GamerGater girl (Syrian Division): :D<br><br>(http://www.salem-news.com/stimg/november302013/syria-girl-3.jpg)</blockquote><br>YOU FUCKING DUMBASS!<br><br>How the fuck does looks determine any thing? If your shock by my statement, then think about this. I called out on Will for his stupid ass shit and now I am calling on you for this stupid ass shit. Just what the hell man? Your giving gamergate a bad name and you need to stop.<br><br>Just when I decided to give this thread a break.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Spike</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 02:48:59 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;796939</cite>Um. What's the difference?<br><br>Details here:<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marysville_Pilchuck_High_School_shooting<br><br><br>(And in case people need it outlined in crayon, no, I'm not claiming the Marysville shooting had anything at all to do with Gamergate Really really really really really. Ok?)</blockquote><br>A school shooting tends to apply a generalized mass shooting, where random people are targeted, usually after a specific person.<br><br>In Marysville, all of the victims were called to the location by the shooter before hand. Two were his girlfriend/ex-girlfriend and his cousin with whom she was sleeping/seeing. Classic love triangle shooting. The other two victims were friends of the victims and the shooter, and I can only speculate that they may have been involved in facilitating the love triangle.<br><br>The reason it is important is that when you call it a school shooting you are conjuring images of sociopathic loners with giant grudges against society stalking the halls grimly looking for cool kids.<br><br>None of which applies in this case. The shooter was very popular and well liked. There was no hall stalking, no apparent mental issues other than an adolescent broken heart. <br><br><br>I was going to punctuate this with an example personalized to you, but I can't think of a good one that isn't gratuitiously insulting, so I'm letting you off the hook there. Its almost holiday season, doncha know?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 04:51:24 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;798732</cite>Who knows if she's typical. But most importantly, why does it matter? Why does her being more attractive than Zoe (I'm assuming that's what you're trying to imply) somehow make GG more right?<br><br><br>it doesn't. Not relevant. Making attacks on Zoe's appearance, like you've just done*, only proves that there's merit to the argument the antiGG have been making. And it just hurts the proGG side.<br><br><br>*saying someone's "not totally hideous" and "plain and overweight" are attacks on an appearance. I'd like to think we'd all agree on that</blockquote><br>Weird, you were the one who said: <br><br>"Originally Posted by Sacrosanct View Post<br>Man, Pundit's been doing all the wrong reviews. Just think of all the sweet ass he could have been getting..."<br><br>Which I took to be a joke. Should have known better than to respond with a joke to a SJW.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 05:40:03 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;798732</cite>Who knows if she's typical. But most importantly, why does it matter? Why does her being more attractive than Zoe (I'm assuming that's what you're trying to imply) somehow make GG more right?<br><br><br>it doesn't. Not relevant. Making attacks on Zoe's appearance, like you've just done*, only proves that there's merit to the argument the antiGG have been making. And it just hurts the proGG side.<br><br><br>*saying someone's "not totally hideous" and "plain and overweight" are attacks on an appearance. I'd like to think we'd all agree on that</blockquote><br>I think i'm a bit bigoted.<br><br>It is weird, I found S'mon's stab at Will's looks when S'mon posted the other GG-femme, yet when I read this(the quote above), I think "So much this!"<br><br>So where does that leave my reaction towards S'mon's stab at Will's looks?<br>Or even my view on the second femme vs the Syrian Girl?<br>Not in a happy place, that's for certain.<br>I'm, as I would call it "off"(in judgement, I recon).<br>S'mon is perhaps more off for posting it, but I need to look over my own reactions too, or i'm not really better.<br><br>Justin says it too, and even Snowman!<br><br>Now, I do not feel ashamed for thinking S'mon's stab at Will's looks was fun, but I do not feel shame as such normally anyway.<br>But.<br>It is important, as the joke was ... not really that fun, and it do show at what some feminists would call misogyny.<br><br>It is interesting, really.<br>To some, it seems like a harmless(?) joke, yet to some it is a massive affront.<br>So, is it wrong to joke about looks?<br>I think Groucho Marx said something to this effect in a movie:<br>"Madam, I rarely forget a face, but in your case i'll gladly make an exception."<br>Now, the movie was a comedy, and Groucho is a comedian.<br>Also, i'm not sure when he said it(the situation in the movie).<br>So, the joke part may be ok.<br>However.<br>The situation concerning GamerGate is one of debate at best, and flamin' toxic at worst.<br>That situation is what makes a joke like S'mon's stab at will, and general looks on women ... not a good thing to flaunt.<br><br>That goes for my reaction, too.<br><br>...I think I need to think more about this.<br>For now, I agree fully with that commenting on people's beauty or lack thereof, when it comes to GamerGate is a no-no.<br>Perhaps it should be a no-no at all times, but that is perhaps a later question.<br>Or is it?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 05:53:13 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;798777</cite>Weird, you were the one who said: <br><br>"Originally Posted by Sacrosanct View Post<br>Man, Pundit's been doing all the wrong reviews. Just think of all the sweet ass he could have been getting..."<br><br>Which I took to be a joke. Should have known better than to respond with a joke to a SJW.</blockquote><br>You do have a point there, I guess you just ran with it?<br>Perhaps you ran a bit too far?<br>Yeah, as I just wrote above: I'm not really better myself.<br>However, I doubt Sacrosanct can be classed as an SJW.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 06:26:06 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I think judging people by their looks is not only natural , but utterly unavoidable. <br><br>No its not fair. <br>No, it shouldnt affect things like a person's ability to earn a living, personal liberties, and basic etiquette.<br><br>But, nonetheless the idea that looks don't profoundly affect a person's life and shape their worldview? I think its too "ostrich with its head in the sand" to just pretend that's not the case. I was called out a while ago for bringing up Andrea Dworkin's appearance in relation to her views on sexuality. At the time, I apologized, admitted it was crass, and felt suitably guilty for stooping to that level. But in the time since I've thought about it for a while and in the end I don't think I was wrong. People who are attractive lead different lives than people who are average looking who lead different lives than people who are ugly. It shapes all of our social interactions profoundly. I don't think that ignoring that to maintain some pretense is actually ,well, <i>honest</i>.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ladybird</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 06:27:15 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;798777</cite>Which I took to be a joke. Should have known better than to respond with a joke to a SJW.</blockquote><br>Or perhaps you could have not responded to a joke with "Zoe Quinn is ugly, gamergaters are pretty". The appearances of anyone involved in this topic, on any "side", are all irrelevant.<br><br>But no, keep telling us how you're the wronged party in all of this.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Shipyard Locked</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 08:20:33 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I see a box closing in around male sexuality. <b>I DO believe it's a box that needed to close in a bit. BUT,</b> as it's restricting jokes, art, and even job opportunities (the increasing assumption/fear that any male who wants to work with kids is a predator), we probably need to question the process sometimes. The problem is, simply questioning the process as a male gets you lumped in with the vicious pigs and predators, and that's a very powerful charge right now. I'm still deeply uncomfortable posting about these thoughts as a result (wondering, "Am I the bad guy?"), but I've been thinking them for a long time, and I'm clearly not the only one.<br><br>I find this news story about the comet lander relevant:<br><br>http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/14/rosetta-comet-dr-matt-taylor-apology-sexist-shirt<br><br>I would never wear a shirt like that, but I didn't think it was that bad. I'd certainly feel weird telling someone not to wear it. Again that sneaking thought, "Am I part of the problem?"<br><br>Where is this all going? As a straight male I feel like I'm basically waiting for some segments of feminism to speak up on my behalf. They have done so in the past, although with GG and stories like this shirt business we've now come to the point where even they are being label-and-dismissed as "misogynist feminists", whatever that means, so I don't know if that will even work.<br><br>I guess I'll just keep following my survival guidelines outside of this website: <br>- Never discuss gender issues<br>- Leave the space when gender issues that could become heated enter<br>- Never say anything about a woman's appearance, positive or negative<br>- Do not be seen publicly interacting with material where attractive female forms are too prominently featured
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Rincewind1</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 08:39:10 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Shipyard Locked;798792</cite>I guess I'll just keep following my survival guidelines outside of this website: <br>- Never discuss gender issues<br>- Leave the space when gender issues that could become heated enter<br>- Never say anything about a woman's appearance, positive or negative<br>- Do not be seen publicly interacting with material where attractive female forms are too prominently featured</blockquote><br>"Yes, Hans, so about the Jews and Mongrel Races..."<br>"Uhm, sorry, I have a bus to catch."
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Sacrosanct</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 09:19:08 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;798777</cite>Weird, you were the one who said: <br><br>"Originally Posted by Sacrosanct View Post<br>Man, Pundit's been doing all the wrong reviews. Just think of all the sweet ass he could have been getting..."<br><br>Which I took to be a joke. Should have known better than to respond with a joke to a SJW.</blockquote><br>That comment was a joke. But not about Zoe specifically, but a sarcastic response to the thought that reviewers could be getting laid for their reviews in general.<br><br>And if it makes a person a SJW to think what you said is sexist, I guess most everyone is a SJW but you<br><br>That's OK though, I guess you're "not totally a moron."<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;798784</cite>I think judging people by their looks is not only natural , but utterly unavoidable. <br><br>No its not fair. <br>No, it shouldnt affect things like a person's ability to earn a living, personal liberties, and basic etiquette.<br><br>But, nonetheless the idea that looks don't profoundly affect a person's life and shape their worldview? I think its too "ostrich with its head in the sand" to just pretend that's not the case.</blockquote><br><br>Yes, we as people judge people by their looks when we see them. But to attack someone's looks and use that as a reason invalidate their position on something goes way beyond that. Especially when the follow up is to post a picture of someone you think is prettier (I'm assuming without her permission, which would bug the hell out of me if I were her, not only because you were sharing a picture of me without me knowing it, but to completely ignore what I have to say and use me just for my looks) as if somehow that makes your side of the argument more right.<br><br>What he said and posted was clearly misogynist. That's not me being a SJW. That's me pointing out the obvious.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 10:34:32 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Spike;798772</cite>None of which applies in this case. The shooter was very popular and well liked. There was no hall stalking, no apparent mental issues other than an adolescent broken heart.</blockquote><br>Ok, fair point.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Spike;798772</cite>I was going to punctuate this with an example personalized to you, but I can't think of a good one that isn't gratuitiously insulting, so I'm letting you off the hook there. Its almost holiday season, doncha know?</blockquote><br>I appreciate people actually, you know, discussing things rather than making quippy personal attacks and reading in grandiose assumptions of motive, tribe, etc. So, thank you. ;)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 10:38:22 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;798777</cite>Which I took to be a joke. Should have known better than to respond with a joke to a SJW.</blockquote><br>There's a stereotypical type of conservative who sees everyone who disagrees with him as being clearly a feminazi/radfem.<br><br>This is you demonstrating that stereotype.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Shipyard Locked</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 11:35:21 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Rincewind1;798793</cite>"Yes, Hans, so about the Jews and Mongrel Races..."<br>"Uhm, sorry, I have a bus to catch."</blockquote><br>So is this an accusation of cowardice on my part?<br><br>If so, you're probably right to an extent, but I really, really doubt that the stakes are ever going to get raised to anything like men being oppressed and exterminated, so forgive me if I don't feel like risking too much of my reputation on this issue at the moment.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ladybird</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 11:51:30 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Shipyard Locked;798792</cite>The problem is, simply questioning the process as a male gets you lumped in with the vicious pigs and predators, and that's a very powerful charge right now. I'm still deeply uncomfortable posting about these thoughts as a result (wondering, "Am I the bad guy?"), but I've been thinking them for a long time, and I'm clearly not the only one.</blockquote><br>I agree, but I think at least some of the blame should be laid at the extremist men's rights organisations - it's them that have poisoned the well, basically, by approaching it as "counteracting feminism", rather than "helping men".<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>I find this news story about the comet lander relevant:</blockquote><br>When I wore a tshirt to work with a Batman character done as a (Pretty tasteful, very clothed) 50's pin-up, a (Female) colleague said to me "if I couldn't wear it to work, you shouldn't have it on someone on your shirt"... which seems like a fair rule to me.<br><br>I'd be very surprised if nobody had said to the scientist "is that really an appropriate shirt to wear on TV?"; it was a poor choice for a public-facing role, in general.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>I guess I'll just keep following my survival guidelines outside of this website: <br>- Never discuss gender issues<br>- Leave the space when gender issues that could become heated enter<br>- Never say anything about a woman's appearance, positive or negative<br>- Do not be seen publicly interacting with material where attractive female forms are too prominently featured</blockquote><br>Hmm.<br><br>I think we need to fight back against the extremist "men's right's" groups, but it's kinda hard to start a moderate pressure group. What do we want? To discuss issues that affect us as a gender, without trying to discredit those of a different gender who wish to discuss issues relevant to them! When do we want it? I don't know, sometime soon, I guess!
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 12:22:09 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Justin Alexander;798766</cite>You have still completely and utterly failed to explain your "reviewers must not review games they preordered" maxim here.<br><br>This is pretty straightforward: In order for a conflict of interest to exist in the absence of a personal relationship, the reviewer has to be receiving some form of compensation from the subject. If the reviewer is instead giving money <i>to</i> the subject of their review, there is no quid pro quo and there is no conflict of interest.<br><br>What you are seriously proposing here is a situation in which the designer is either directly or indirectly saying, "If I let you give me money, you'll give my game a good review." And you're claiming that this is a statement which is something other than total nonsense.</blockquote><br>I've said it twice and I'll say it again - PROFESSIONAL reviewers will receive copies of the game to review so they play it first. Preferably, the COMPANY they work for will receive the game, then distribute to the assigned reviewer(s). But if you don't think a professional game journalist/reviewer giving money to a game developer, in absence of a product to review, is ok, then that's your opinion.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 12:24:38 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ladybird;798785</cite>Or perhaps you could have not responded to a joke with "Zoe Quinn is ugly, gamergaters are pretty". The appearances of anyone involved in this topic, on any "side", are all irrelevant.<br></blockquote><br>She's not ugly, IMO. Google her nude pics from a couple of years back and she actually is pretty dang cute (or was back then), not that it really matters. That said, how many of you get all dolled up for your Youtube chats (if any of you do that)? Most people are just in their day-to-day garb from what I've seen, if they even use a cam to record their 'casts.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 01:36:43 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;798798</cite>Yes, we as people judge people by their looks when we see them. But to attack someone's looks and use that as a reason invalidate their position on something goes way beyond that. Especially when the follow up is to post a picture of someone you think is prettier (I'm assuming without her permission, which would bug the hell out of me if I were her, not only because you were sharing a picture of me without me knowing it, but to completely ignore what I have to say and use me just for my looks) as if somehow that makes your side of the argument more right.<br><br>What he said and posted was clearly misogynist. That's not me being a SJW. That's me pointing out the obvious.</blockquote><br>Yes, sorry, not disputing that just sort of philosophizing on the subject.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 01:37:59 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ladybird;798815</cite>I think we need to fight back against the extremist "men's right's" groups, but it's kinda hard to start a moderate pressure group. What do we want? To discuss issues that affect us as a gender, without trying to discredit those of a different gender who wish to discuss issues relevant to them! When do we want it? I don't know, sometime soon, I guess!</blockquote><br>I think it may be easier to put it like this:<br>Both Geeks and Femmes has been downtrodden a long time, and still is.<br>Who benefits from those two fighting each other?<br>We are both normally for Free Speech.<br>We are both normally for Equality.<br>We are both normally for Sharing.<br>Who is against that?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Sacrosanct</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 02:51:08 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Catelf;798826</cite>I think it may be easier to put it like this:<br>Both Geeks and Femmes has been downtrodden a long time, and still is.<br>Who benefits from those two fighting each other?<br>We are both normally for Free Speech.<br>We are both normally for Equality.<br>We are both normally for Sharing.<br>Who is against that?</blockquote><br>the key is to start holding ourselves (like what you did above) and "our side" (like the folks who called out s'mon) accountable. It doesn't do any good to chastise the "other" side, because all it seems to do is rally them and circle the wagons. Look at tbp.. Someone there says something ludicrous about pro gg, and no one on the anti gg side holds them accountable. The opposite actually, where they ban any dissenting opinion. Is that an environment that fosters real discussion? I think we can agree it doesn't, but forms a more and more radical echochamber.. Until each side calls out and holds the radical extremes of their side accountable, we won't be able to come to agreement on things we should be.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 03:13:00 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Shipyard Locked;798792</cite>Where is this all going? As a straight male I feel like I'm basically waiting for some segments of feminism to speak up on my behalf. They have done so in the past, although with GG and stories like this shirt business we've now come to the point where even they are being label-and-dismissed as "misogynist feminists", whatever that means, so I don't know if that will even work.<br><br>I guess I'll just keep following my survival guidelines outside of this website: <br>- Never discuss gender issues<br>- Leave the space when gender issues that could become heated enter<br>- Never say anything about a woman's appearance, positive or negative<br>- Do not be seen publicly interacting with material where attractive female forms are too prominently featured</blockquote><br>I'm gonna throw it out there that at least in America, there's another very depressing guideline we ought to be considering. <br><br>- Avoid spending time with people who participate in accusation-as-guilt, who participate in accusation-as-bargaining-position; they are a potential legal liability.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 03:20:53 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;798732</cite>Who knows if she's typical. But most importantly, why does it matter? Why does her being more attractive than Zoe (I'm assuming that's what you're trying to imply) somehow make GG more right?</blockquote>Wait, where does S'mon make the connection that "her being more attractive than Zoe somehow make GG more right"?<br><br>I see him making a comparison between two women, of which he finds more attractive. Like if I said I prefer Rembrandt to Picasso. It's an aesthetic choice.<br><br>Seriously Sacro, I think you're reaching to make one comment somehow about something else. He said nothing about Zoe's intelligence, motives, or character. The closest you could say is he made a tribal identification between pro-GG and anti-GG, but that's about as serious as saying "I like California Girls, not Jersey Girls."<br><br>Jesus Christ, if I say I think Scarlet Johansson is prettier than Anne Hathaway, am I now a Misogynist, even if I think both are drop dead gorgeous?<br><br>(Thank God both of them are part Jewish, so I can't be accused of Antisemitism... :rolleyes: )
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 03:23:20 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Catelf;798781</cite>You do have a point there, I guess you just ran with it?<br>Perhaps you ran a bit too far?</blockquote><br>That is possible I suppose. I get angry myself when people (usually Americans) make vile sexual comments about (usually American) female politicians (Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin et al). But I don't think I was doing anything like that, really. To say that Zoey Quinn is not good looking, I don't think is in itself an attack on Zoey Quinn. If anything it goes against the narrative that she was this Mata Hari character seducing games journalists.<br><br>I do think there is an ugliness in the heart of SJWs, and I sometimes think this is reflected in the way they look - this is equally true of the male ones, of course. But no one is interested in white-knighting for male SJWs. The assumption is that only women are hurt by being called unattractive, and only women should be defended.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 03:29:01 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;798784</cite>I think judging people by their looks is not only natural , but utterly unavoidable. <br><br>No its not fair. <br>No, it shouldnt affect things like a person's ability to earn a living, personal liberties, and basic etiquette.<br><br>But, nonetheless the idea that looks don't profoundly affect a person's life and shape their worldview? I think its too "ostrich with its head in the sand" to just pretend that's not the case. I was called out a while ago for bringing up Andrea Dworkin's appearance in relation to her views on sexuality. At the time, I apologized, admitted it was crass, and felt suitably guilty for stooping to that level. But in the time since I've thought about it for a while and in the end I don't think I was wrong. People who are attractive lead different lives than people who are average looking who lead different lives than people who are ugly. It shapes all of our social interactions profoundly. I don't think that ignoring that to maintain some pretense is actually ,well, <i>honest</i>.</blockquote><br>People 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.<br><br>*I understand from my American wife that in US-English the word is just a synonym for ugly. I tried Google image search for Homely - here's a woman I'd say was definitely 'homely' but not 'ugly':<br>(http://ih3.redbubble.net/image.7129917.1155/flat,550x550,075,f.jpg)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 03:32:43 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Shipyard Locked;798792</cite>I find this news story about the comet lander relevant:<br><br>http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/14/rosetta-comet-dr-matt-taylor-apology-sexist-shirt<br><br>I would never wear a shirt like that, but I didn't think it was that bad. I'd certainly feel weird telling someone not to wear it. Again that sneaking thought, "Am I part of the problem?"</blockquote><br>People who support hauling that poor guy over the coals & making him cry are 'part of the problem'.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 03:34:56 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;798808</cite>There's a stereotypical type of conservative who sees everyone who disagrees with him as being clearly a feminazi/radfem.<br><br>This is you demonstrating that stereotype.</blockquote><br>Thanks - I think that's actually a lot fairer than Sacrosanct's shitty response. <br><br>As a recovering ex-liberal I probably do go a bit 'stereotypical conservative' at times. Of course I do think y'all are badly misguided, at the very least.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 03:39:04 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I wish more people, when faced with things like wearing a tasteless shirt, would simply announce 'yeah, sorry about that, I fucked up, I'll try not to fuck up again' and then move on.<br><br>Yes, of course, there will be the SALT THE EARTH types, but maybe there'd be less of them ready to go if people were more willing to just apologize.<br><br>(Assuming folks think they should apologize at all)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Sacrosanct</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 03:47:01 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;798837</cite>Wait, where does S'mon make the connection that "her being more attractive than Zoe somehow make GG more right"?<br></blockquote><br>because the context of that back in forth was attacking someone's appearance as if it were relevant to their position.<br><br>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.<br><br>Obviously I wasn't the only one to notice that.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 03:48:28 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;798798</cite>Especially when the follow up is to post a picture of someone you think is prettier (I'm assuming without her permission, which would bug the hell out of me if I were her, not only because you were sharing a picture of me without me knowing it, but to completely ignore what I have to say and use me just for my looks) </blockquote><br>You are a fucking nutcase. Those pics of Syrian Girl & Karen Straughan are links to pictures of public personalities that are publicly posted, either by the person themselves or with their permission. You are either trolling or have some kind of sick mentality.<br><br>Oh, and I strongly suggest you do go and listen to what they both say, they have lots of good videos on youtube. I disagree with Syrian Girl on some stuff (I'm fairly pro-Israel, understandably she's not) but they both certainly beat anything an SJW has ever produced.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Sacrosanct</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 03:49:23 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;798842</cite>Thanks - I think that's actually a lot fairer than Sacrosanct's shitty response. <br></blockquote><br>See, this is what I'm talking about. <i>You </i>were the one to post a misogynistic post, and rather than own up to it, you're painting <i>me </i>as the one who fucked up?<br><br>Man up dude, and stop being such an asshole.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 03:49:44 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Werekoala;798817</cite>I've said it twice and I'll say it again - PROFESSIONAL reviewers will receive copies of the game to review so they play it first. Preferably, the COMPANY they work for will receive the game, then distribute to the assigned reviewer(s). But if you don't think a professional game journalist/reviewer giving money to a game developer, in absence of a product to review, is ok, then that's your opinion.</blockquote>And it is your opinion, apparently, that it is not OK. But for both of these, there is some sort of logic or thought behind that opinion. <br><br>As another test case: A reviewer wants to spend their own money on a "pay what you want" product, like Bundle of Holding. Is it OK for them to pay a lot more than the minimum?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Sacrosanct</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 03:51:30 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;798846</cite>You are a fucking nutcase. Those pics of Syrian Girl & Karen Straughan are links to pictures of public personalities that are publicly posted, either by the person themselves or with their permission. You are either trolling or have some kind of sick mentality.<br><br>Oh, and I strongly suggest you do go and listen to what they both say, they have lots of good videos on youtube. I disagree with Syrian Girl on some stuff (I'm fairly pro-Israel, understandably she's not) but they both certainly beat anything an SJW has ever produced.</blockquote><br>Jesus, you don't get it, do you? You didn't post her picture because she had a lot of good stuff to say. You posted her picture based solely on her appearance, as if that somehow matters more than what she actually believes. You didn't post a link to her commentary, you only posted a picture and said "see, ours are better looking".<br><br>You truly are a class A douchebag who doesn't even have a clue. Congratulations.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Werekoala</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 04:00:49 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;798848</cite>And it is your opinion, apparently, that it is not OK. But for both of these, there is some sort of logic or thought behind that opinion. <br><br>As another test case: A reviewer wants to spend their own money on a "pay what you want" product, like Bundle of Holding. Is it OK for them to pay a lot more than the minimum?</blockquote><br>If they are paying for the games to play for themselves, or even to review, then sure, I guess, as long as they make note of it in their review.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 04:11:59 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
http://press.gamergate.me/dossier/ (http://press.gamergate.me/dossier/)<br><br>A very good, precise treatment over ethics in video game journalism, in Wiki format.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 05:15:13 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Truly ethical video game reviews:<br>http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-ethical-video-game-reviews-post-gamergate-world/
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ladybird</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 05:24:20 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;798865</cite>Truly ethical video game reviews:<br>http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-ethical-video-game-reviews-post-gamergate-world/</blockquote><br>I get what he's trying to do, I just don't find the joke funny.<br><br>Have some Objective Game Reviews in return! (http://www.objectivegamereviews.com)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 05:30:14 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ladybird;798866</cite>I get what he's trying to do, I just don't find the joke funny.</blockquote>That sums up the entirety of Cracked.com, the last several years.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 05:57:57 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;798847</cite>See, this is what I'm talking about. <i>You </i>were the one to post a misogynistic post, and rather than own up to it, you're painting <i>me </i>as the one who fucked up?<br><br>Man up dude, and stop being such an asshole.</blockquote><br>It wasn't misogynistic. Asshole.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Spike</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 07:47:25 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Shipyard Locked;798792</cite>I see a box closing in around male sexuality. <b>I DO believe it's a box that needed to close in a bit. BUT,</b> as it's restricting jokes, art, and even job opportunities (the increasing assumption/fear that any male who wants to work with kids is a predator), we probably need to question the process sometimes. The problem is, simply questioning the process as a male gets you lumped in with the vicious pigs and predators, and that's a very powerful charge right now. I'm still deeply uncomfortable posting about these thoughts as a result (wondering, "Am I the bad guy?"), but I've been thinking them for a long time, and I'm clearly not the only one.<br><br>I find this news story about the comet lander relevant:<br><br>http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/14/rosetta-comet-dr-matt-taylor-apology-sexist-shirt<br><br>I would never wear a shirt like that, but I didn't think it was that bad. I'd certainly feel weird telling someone not to wear it. Again that sneaking thought, "Am I part of the problem?"<br><br>Where is this all going? As a straight male I feel like I'm basically waiting for some segments of feminism to speak up on my behalf. They have done so in the past, although with GG and stories like this shirt business we've now come to the point where even they are being label-and-dismissed as "misogynist feminists", whatever that means, so I don't know if that will even work.<br><br>I guess I'll just keep following my survival guidelines outside of this website: <br>- Never discuss gender issues<br>- Leave the space when gender issues that could become heated enter<br>- Never say anything about a woman's appearance, positive or negative<br>- Do not be seen publicly interacting with material where attractive female forms are too prominently featured</blockquote><br>Normally I like to just edit a quote down to size, rather than force everyone to read the whole thing again in the same thread, but this post is so unutterably depressing in its entirety that I can't strip anything from it without softening the blow. <br><br>Likewise, I pretend to be a reasonably eloquent fellow, but in this case I have just, the other day, been exposed to someone who said it far, far better than I could. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Synova from, I believe Sarah Hoyt's blog</cite>Synova:<br><br>Some of the comments by people who had been subject to the full treatment just made me want to cry. I didn't think it was funny because the guilty parties and enablers aren't the ones who are hurt. Yes, we can scoff at Scalzi when he makes a rational counter-argument and is made, ultimately, to retract and abase himself and agree in public and start proselytizing in public that no... you really can't trust your own brain and if something seems wrong to you or you feel like defending yourself it is simply proof that you're guilty.<br><br>But there were people who reported rather severe PTSD type reactions to even sitting down at a keyboard to write because they were so terrified of offending... again. Because *rationally* they'd done nothing wrong the first time, but they were forced to an irrational acceptance of their guilt. So now they've "accepted their privilege" and "checked it" and confessed and repented (they could come to the Dark Side and be welcomed, but they don't know that, and have been taught that the Dark Side is evil, and that's why shunning is so very evil within closed communities... being exiled is a horrific punishment) but since they had NO IDEA how they could have done something wrong in the first place, they also have no idea how to avoid it the next time.<br><br>Imagine doing this to a child.<br><br>The kid is walking through a room doing nothing much and suddenly POW... and then you tell the kid... well that was YOUR fault. You screwed up. You stepped on that spot on the floor.<br><br>So the kid looks at the spot and it looks like every other spot. But the kid is told that, no, the fact that she can't even SEE the spot is what the problem is. You can't SEE the spot... that's why it is YOUR fault. Also, a good child will try to learn. You're a good child, aren't you?<br><br>So the kid says, yes... it was my fault. I could not SEE the spot. Not seeing the spot makes this my fault.<br><br>Afterward, it's still impossible to see the spots, and walking across the room becomes fraught with danger. Sitting down at the keyboard gives this very "good" person the shakes and panic attacks... where are the spots? She still can't see the spots but she MUST agree and believe that those spots exist.<br><br>I have a LOT of sympathy for those who were hurt, just like I have sympathy for any abused person.</blockquote><br><br>You, Shipyard Locked, demonstrated clearly in your post that you are the abused child in Synova's example. I pity you. You have accepted your guilt, internalized your privilege, and yet you still fear that next blow. <br><br>You, along with Dr. Matt Taylor have participated in the Auto da fe, and merely await your sentences. I weep bitter tears for man, and how he has fallen.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 08:31:58 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Oh the #shirtstorm shit. That man in that t-shirt did a lot more good for humanity, than that bitchy reporter could ever fucking do. Who here was actually landed a real spacecraft on a moving comet? No one except for that man. His actions alone had push the human race forward in the grand scheme of things and yet all the attentions go towards that t-shirt which frankly I seen worst t-shirts.<br><br>I seen t-shirts with full blown nudity and sexual positions in high school. The kid that worn that t-shirt was told to cover it up and that was it. This t-shirt on that guy who made a once in life time achievement that no one else could top had fully dress women that just happen to look attractive. Ironicly enough it was made by a woman.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 08:36:45 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;798833</cite>the key is to start holding ourselves (like what you did above) and "our side" (like the folks who called out s'mon) accountable. It doesn't do any good to chastise the "other" side, because all it seems to do is rally them and circle the wagons.</blockquote>Remember this comment, Sacrosanct?<br>Think about it when you re-read this:<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;798847</cite>See, this is what I'm talking about. <i>You </i>were the one to post a misogynistic post, and rather than own up to it, you're painting <i>me </i>as the one who fucked up?<br><br>Man up dude, and stop being such an asshole.</blockquote><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;798874</cite>It wasn't misogynistic. Asshole.</blockquote><br>No matter whether you see S'mon as on your side or the other, he do not see what he did as misogynistic.<br>It seems also that if you only try to get him to admit that it was misogynistic, he will just cling to that it wasn't, perhaps worse than Will stuck to that GamerGate is misogynistic.<br><br>Now, you probably are more used to S'mon than I am, but I did ask him if he perhaps ran a bit too far with the joke you started, and he admitted that possibility, perhaps because <b>I did not claim that doing so was misogynistic</b>.<br>And no, running to far with a joke is not automatically misogynistic.<br><br><i>(Shifting away from addressing Sacrosanct into a general "you" here.)</i><br><br>Now the question is if his extension of said joke is misogynistic or not, and here we come to a piece of nasty reasoning.<br>One.<br>It is, according to some feministic views.<br>Two.<br>Outside of those views, to a lot of others, it isn't.<br><br>So who is correct?<br>It is the all-too-often case of both and neither, as it depends on the viewpoint, who uses it, and why.<br><br>But, Snowman is also right, in this case it does not matter, as it hurts GamerGate by giving the ... "Feminists" (the extremists) the proof they need that GamerGate is Misogynistic.<br>However, a really extreme "feminist" could even see Sacrosanct's initial joke as Misogynist.<br>Think of that.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 08:45:45 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Originally Posted by Synova from, I believe Sarah Hoyt's blog <br>Synova:<br><br>Some of the comments by people who had been subject to the full treatment just made me want to cry. I didn't think it was funny because the guilty parties and enablers aren't the ones who are hurt. Yes, we can scoff at Scalzi when he makes a rational counter-argument and is made, ultimately, to retract and abase himself and agree in public and start proselytizing in public that no... you really can't trust your own brain and if something seems wrong to you or you feel like defending yourself it is simply proof that you're guilty.<br><br>But there were people who reported rather severe PTSD type reactions to even sitting down at a keyboard to write because they were so terrified of offending... again. Because *rationally* they'd done nothing wrong the first time, but they were forced to an irrational acceptance of their guilt. So now they've "accepted their privilege" and "checked it" and confessed and repented (they could come to the Dark Side and be welcomed, but they don't know that, and have been taught that the Dark Side is evil, and that's why shunning is so very evil within closed communities... being exiled is a horrific punishment) but since they had NO IDEA how they could have done something wrong in the first place, they also have no idea how to avoid it the next time.<br><br>Imagine doing this to a child.<br><br>The kid is walking through a room doing nothing much and suddenly POW... and then you tell the kid... well that was YOUR fault. You screwed up. You stepped on that spot on the floor.<br><br>So the kid looks at the spot and it looks like every other spot. But the kid is told that, no, the fact that she can't even SEE the spot is what the problem is. You can't SEE the spot... that's why it is YOUR fault. Also, a good child will try to learn. You're a good child, aren't you?<br><br>So the kid says, yes... it was my fault. I could not SEE the spot. Not seeing the spot makes this my fault.<br><br>Afterward, it's still impossible to see the spots, and walking across the room becomes fraught with danger. Sitting down at the keyboard gives this very "good" person the shakes and panic attacks... where are the spots? She still can't see the spots but she MUST agree and believe that those spots exist.<br><br>I have a LOT of sympathy for those who were hurt, just like I have sympathy for any abused person.</blockquote><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Spike;798886</cite>You, Shipyard Locked, demonstrated clearly in your post that you are the abused child in Synova's example. I pity you. You have accepted your guilt, internalized your privilege, and yet you still fear that next blow. <br><br>You, along with Dr. Matt Taylor have participated in the Auto da fe, and merely await your sentences. I weep bitter tears for man, and how he has fallen.</blockquote><br>This MUST be reposted.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Sacrosanct</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 08:49:52 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
By 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.<br><br>And I don't really give a shit if he admits it or not. THat's not the point of what I said that you quoted. The point was that people on "his side" (i.e. pro GG) should and did, call him out on it. And that's what I was getting at. That people need to start holding the idiots on their own side accountable.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 09:07:15 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
So, considering my two above posts ....<br>We're caught between a rock and a hard place.<br>Well.<br>I happen to like rock, both as music, and as a firm ground to stand on.<br>Yup.<br>I twist the perspective, but that is me.<br>I realized a long time ago, that being flawed is not the worst thing.<br>Also, seeming bad do not mean that one is bad nor worse.<br><br>Jokes?<br>Jokes are jokes and should be treated as such, even if they are bad.<br>Your sentiments and opinions remains the same.<br>Someone calls you misogynist and you know you don't hate women?<br>Say you are not, and continue as before.<br>Or just ignore it, and continue as before.<br><br>Do like you did when I once accused you of being racist through the orc alignment debate:<br>Prove that the accusers are wrong through what you do.<br>Sure, be prepared for being seen as bad ones, but still, let your actions speak for you, and do not bend over backwards for anyone.<br><br>.....Sheesh, sometimes I really go preachin' ...
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 09:16:06 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;798892</cite>By 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.<br><br>And I don't really give a shit if he admits it or not. THat's not the point of what I said that you quoted. The point was that people on "his side" (i.e. pro GG) should and did, call him out on it. And that's what I was getting at. That people need to start holding the idiots on their own side accountable.</blockquote><br>You fail to notice that an extreme feminist would see your joke as misogynist, too, it seems.<br>That makes you placed in the same group as S'mon.<br><br>What group is yours, then?<br>I'm in the middle, practically.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Sacrosanct</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 09:32:54 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Catelf;798897</cite>You fail to notice that an extreme feminist would see your joke as misogynist, too, it seems.<br>That makes you placed in the same group as S'mon.<br>.</blockquote><br>Wait, 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.<br><br>"I don't find her ugly, and why should it even matter to the content of the argument?"<br>"Well, she's not horribly ugly, just fat and plain. Now THIS is what pro-GG girls look like on our side"<br><br>That was a sincere quote, posted with an image. Not anything with what that woman actually thinks on the topic, but just her image, while attacking the other woman based only on her image.<br><br>That is textbook misogyny.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 09:45:06 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Problem is Sarcosanct is that sarcasim doesn't exist in the internet as people literally take things to literally.<br><br>Now I agree S'more did something stupid that can be taken for as sexist which is why I got on him for doing that. Do I think that S'more is sexist? NO. He did one stupid thing that could be taken for as sexist which is why I called him a dumbass. Did his one stupid mistake hurt gamergate. A tiny bit which is why I called him a dumbass. I, however, don't think that S'more is sexist. I think he is human that did a dumb move. Now if he keeps doing it my mind will change accordingly.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 09:49:13 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
In my experience, it's not the initial offense but what folks do after that that really makes or breaks them.<br><br>Most reasonable people will accept 'whoa, I thought I was being funny, sorry, that was stupid.'<br><br>But people have a tendency to dive dive DIVE
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 10:19:32 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Hm, shall I point out to Will that he is diving too?<br>Shall I point out to Sacrosanct that he missed my point?<br>Shall I point out that Will, despite his failings, has a point?<br>Shall I point out that Snowman also has a point?<br>Is there any point in me pointing things out?<br>Am I doing something wrong?<br><br>Heh, I may have to resort to an alternative approach and just ask a few questions:<br><br>What are you arguing for?<br>What do you hope to accomplish?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 10:34:37 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;798900</cite>Wait, 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.<br><br>"I don't find her ugly, and why should it even matter to the content of the argument?"</blockquote>Except that's not what you said. You said:<br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;798720</cite>Yes. 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.</blockquote>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 <i>intent</i>, 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).<br><br>Which plays into this:<br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;798845</cite>because the context of that back in forth was attacking someone's appearance as if it were relevant to their position.<br><br>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.<br><br>Obviously I wasn't the only one to notice that.</blockquote>If you make the <b>assumption</b>, 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.<br><br>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).<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;798892</cite>By 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.</blockquote>:cool:<br>So, Sacro, what "non objectifying" use of "Sweet Ass" were you originally using? :p
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 10:55:33 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Catelf;798907</cite>What are you arguing for?</blockquote>For better ethics in journalism, at this point.<br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>What do you hope to accomplish?</blockquote>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.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 11:05:02 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;798865</cite>Truly ethical video game reviews:<br>http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-ethical-video-game-reviews-post-gamergate-world/</blockquote>Yes, Will, let's give people a little taste of that Cracked article...<br>(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/865/121/d1e.png)<br><br>Truly, a reasoned rebuttal for the ages. :rolleyes:<br><br>Also, in a lot of anti-GG, the most messed-up comments don't come from random trolls and anons, but supposed "professionals":<br>(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/865/100/b7e.jpg)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 11:18:47 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Ok, it's official: Sarkeesian has gone batshit insane.<br>https://archive.today/zcJla (https://archive.today/zcJla)<br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: First sentence</cite>There's no such thing as sexism against men.</blockquote>
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 11:23:16 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;798840</cite>People 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.<br></blockquote><br>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.<br><br><br>At the same time I also think taking relationship advice from Dworkin is about the same as taking financial advice from a homeless man.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 11:28:22 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;798847</cite>Man up dude, and stop being such an asshole.</blockquote><br>"Man up"? ooooh...now whose being a misogynist?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 11:33:45 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;798892</cite>By 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.</blockquote><br>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"?<br><br>I'm not asking that with any intended sarcasm or malice.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 11:37:54 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;798912</cite>Ok, it's official: Sarkeesian has gone batshit insane.<br>https://archive.today/zcJla (https://archive.today/zcJla)</blockquote><br>Yeah, well, she knows her audience. Whatever rakes in the donations.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Sacrosanct</strong> on <strong>November 15, 2014, 11:54:03 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;798908</cite>:cool:<br>So, Sacro, what "non objectifying" use of "Sweet Ass" were you originally using? :p</blockquote><br>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. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;798914</cite>"Man up"? ooooh...now whose being a misogynist?</blockquote><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;798915</cite>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"?<br><br>I'm not asking that with any intended sarcasm or malice.</blockquote><br>Pay attention Tristram.<br><br><i>"Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, <b>denigration of women</b>, violence against women, and<b> sexual objectification of women</b>."</i><br><br>"Man up" doesn't apply to any of that. s'mon's post? both bolded areas apply directly.<br><br>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.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 12:31:01 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;798921</cite><i>"Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, <b>denigration of women</b>, violence against women, and<b> sexual objectification of women</b>."</i></blockquote><br>That doesn't answer my question. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>"Man up" doesn't apply to any of that. s'mon's post? both bolded areas apply directly.</blockquote><br>"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. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>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.</blockquote><br>Please dont involve me in your paranoid delusions. I have no association with s'mon.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 12:35:13 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
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)<br>http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/863/578/566.png (http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/863/578/566.png)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 12:43:39 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;798930</cite>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, rant is super-long)<br>http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/863/578/566.png (http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/863/578/566.png)</blockquote><br>Wow. <br><br>I expanded that to a size to read it and the first thing I encountered was a person saying that <b>the Jews only experienced the holocaust for 12 years, women were experiencing it throughout the whole of history until the 1970s</b>.<br><br>I didn't have the tolerance for stupidity to continue. Don't even know who that was.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 12:51:27 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
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 <i>cheering him on</i>. :eek:
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Spike</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 01:34:35 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I read the whole thing. It is to laugh. <br><br>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!<br><br>What with his wonderful grasp of facts and all, I'm pretty sure an unbiased moderator would give me the points, all of them. <br><br>Now: Finding an unbiased moderator? That might be a challenge in this day and age. <br><br>Did you know that 50 BILLION women have suffered oppression their entire lives until 1970?<br><br>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.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Rincewind1</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 01:55:02 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Spike;798936</cite>I read the whole thing. It is to laugh. <br><br>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!<br><br>What with his wonderful grasp of facts and all, I'm pretty sure an unbiased moderator would give me the points, all of them. <br><br>Now: Finding an unbiased moderator? That might be a challenge in this day and age. <br><br>Did you know that 50 BILLION women have suffered oppression their entire lives until 1970?<br><br>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.</blockquote><br>You've always heard wrong, if I remember correctly the estimate for overall number of dead people throughout history is between 50 and 150 billions (it probably depends also how far back you go with your definition of people).<br><br>Not to mention - 15 years, really? Put aside the fact that Final Solution was enacted in '41 (I am pretty sure if it lasted 15 years, there'd be no European Jewry left to smack him behind the ear for this post), Hitler only came to power in '33, so at the most liberal estimate, we'd be talking 12 years here.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;798933</cite>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 <i>cheering him on</i>. :eek:</blockquote><br>"In this day and age, one can start a religion using washing machine instructions."<br><br>I've seen same shit with rightist idiots praising Putin for taking Crimea as he'll save us all from the wickedness of HOMOSEXUALISM.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>apparition13</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 02:41:29 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;798892</cite>By the definition of what misogyny is, what he did was misogynistic. </blockquote>Nooo,<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;798900</cite>That is textbook misogyny.</blockquote>Still no,<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;798921</cite><i>"Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, <b>denigration of women</b>, violence against women, and<b> sexual objectification of women</b>."</i></blockquote>and no. Googling that phrase gives 61 hits, none of which are from a dictionary. The entire second sentence is an ideological addendum attempting to reframe the meaning of "misogyny" from "hatred" to "behaviors we don't like". Note also how "violence" is equated with "denigration" and "sexual objectification", as if they are all equally bad; that's why "violence" is in there in the first place, to push emotional buttons and cause people to uncritically accept that "equality". <br><br>You've bought into a spurious definition put forth for political purposes. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Spike;798936</cite>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.</blockquote>I've read that too; it's flat wrong. I've read 80 billion before, the most recent estimate is around 108 billion, thought that's starting from 50k BC, not 10k years ago. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-living-outnumber-dead/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-living-outnumber-dead/)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 07:53:28 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;798892</cite>By 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.<br><br>And I don't really give a shit if he admits it or not. THat's not the point of what I said that you quoted. The point was that people on "his side" (i.e. pro GG) should and did, call him out on it. And that's what I was getting at. That people need to start holding the idiots on their own side accountable.</blockquote><br>Misogynistic = hates women. Only in the twisted fucked up minds of SJWs and their fellow travellers is saying that Zoey Quinn is unattractive 'misogynistic'. I don't hate Zoey Quinn, and if I did her looks would have nothing to do with it. And I don't hate women in general, if it needed saying - but I doubt even you really believe that.<br><br>Telling pro-GGs that they need to call me (or anyone) out on that is doing anti-GGs work for them. It's called concern trolling. Either you really are a SJW or they have so colonised your mindspace that you are like one of those insects whose brain has been eaten out by an invasive species, doing the invaders' bidding.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 07:55:03 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;798900</cite>Wait, 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.<br><br>"I don't find her ugly, and why should it even matter to the content of the argument?"<br>"Well, she's not horribly ugly, just fat and plain. Now THIS is what pro-GG girls look like on our side"<br><br>That was a sincere quote, posted with an image. Not anything with what that woman actually thinks on the topic, but just her image, while attacking the other woman based only on her image.<br><br>That is textbook misogyny.</blockquote><br>Whose textbook? You seem to think radical feminist dialectic is gospel.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 08:08:10 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;798942</cite>You've bought into a spurious definition put forth for political purposes. <br></blockquote><br>I'm starting to think this is what happened. I forget how stupid some people are. There's a big difference between someone who seeks to redefine words for political purposes because they agree with those purposes (SJWs & their supporters, eg Will) and sheeple who apparently will accept whatever they're told by SJWs even when they apparently disagree with their ends (here, Sacrosanct). <br><br>"My SJW-written textbook tells me 2+2=5! We must police ourselves for anyone saying 2+2=4!"
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Pmir</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 10:02:19 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Punishment because of collective guilt. This should end well.<br><br>http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/patrick-blanchfield-masculine-mistake-article-1.2011600
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>apparition13</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 10:38:01 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;798965</cite>I'm starting to think this is what happened. I forget how stupid some people are. There's a big difference between someone who seeks to redefine words for political purposes because they agree with those purposes (SJWs & their supporters, eg Will) and sheeple who apparently will accept whatever they're told by SJWs even when they apparently disagree with their ends (here, Sacrosanct). <br><br>"My SJW-written textbook tells me 2+2=5! We must police ourselves for anyone saying 2+2=4!"</blockquote><i>Everyone</i> is 'stupid'. Brains are evolved to get the job done with the minimum of resource use, which means there are lots of built in and developed shortcuts and heuristics they use. These are "in the aggregate" usually functional, but in particular cases can mess you up. Everyone has their blind spots, everyone engages in motivated reasoning, everyone makes mistakes of perception and interpretation, everyone jumps to conclusions, everyone lumps others into groups... and I think I'll stop there because I could go on for pages. <br><br>Conservativism is based on the notion that change is dangerous, that societies are the way they are because they work, which is true. But conditions change, and "the way things are because they work" can become "the way things are because they work<b><i>ed</i></b>" pretty quickly because environments change, and formerly beneficial adaptations can become maladaptive. Societies also need people exploring the edges of social space and coming up with potential solutions, that then become new traditions. Take the idea of individualism for example. 250 years a go it was a radical left-wing notion, now it's mainstream conservative. <br><br>The core SJW notion is, I think, compassion. But it is a compassion that has become infected with groupishness (which is one of the things people do that "can mess you up"), anthropomorphisation of purported aspects of societies (patriarchy) by seeing moral intent in abstract (and unsubstantiated, lots of conjecturing about the way things are, not a lot of testing of those conjectures) social forces, moral virtue ascribed based on group characteristics and identity (stereotyping), not the least of which is the de-legitimization of class identity as central to "privilege". There is a lot wrong with Marx, eschatological utopianism being the biggest I'd say, but identifying wealth, power, and influence, <i>privilege</i>, as the natural enemy of progressivism wasn't one of them. Nothing could be more comforting to penthouse bankers or internet millionaires than seeing progressives squabbling about identity politics rather than focusing their (progressives) ire on them (those with wealth and power).
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Sacrosanct</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 10:43:19 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;798929</cite>That doesn't answer my question. </blockquote><br>I suppose I need to write it out in crayon for you, since either your mental capacity is so lacking that you can't make the obvious connection, or you're being deliberately obtuse.<br><br>When someone asks, "why should their appearance even matter at all?" and the response to that is to attack one person's appearance and say that "women on our side are hotter", that's textbook objectification of women. The entire post does exactly what I warned against: placing the value of members of a group based on their looks, and not a standard that was held equally. He wasn't degenerating ugly men on their side and highlighting attractive men on his. He didn't bring up this Syria woman based on any content of her thoughts or actions; he only posted a picture of her as if her looks are what was important.<br><br>When you're placing the value of a woman to a debate based on her looks, that is textbook objectification.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>"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. </blockquote><br>Keep reaching. That phrase means to grow up and take responsibility for what he did. I said "man" up because he's a man. If he were a woman, I would have said "woman up" or something similar. That's not sexist. Do you know what is? What he said.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Please dont involve me in your paranoid delusions. I have no association with s'mon.</blockquote><br>The only one here who is delusional is you. He is the one who made a pretty shitty post and you're trying to make me as the bad guy and acting like an apologist for him? That's <i>exactly</i> the sort of behavior that gives the anti GG side merit, because you're doing <i>exactly</i> what they are complaining about. That's not paranoia. That's something that is actively happening and is a basis of their entire argument.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;798942</cite>Nooo,<br><br>Still no,<br><br><br>and no. Googling that phrase gives 61 hits, none of which are from a dictionary. The entire second sentence is an ideological addendum attempting to reframe the meaning of "misogyny" from "hatred" to "behaviors we don't like". Note also how "violence" is equated with "denigration" and "sexual objectification", as if they are all equally bad; that's why "violence" is in there in the first place, to push emotional buttons and cause people to uncritically accept that "equality". <br><br>You've bought into a spurious definition put forth for political purposes. </blockquote><br>Sorry, you're wrong. If anyone's using spurious definitions, it would be you. Heck, you're even trying to hand wave away part of what that word means right above by your strawman of "as if they are equally bad". Equality of those words isn't relevant, and isn't what the definition is trying to imply.<br><br>Not only is the definition I used the common definition used by most sociological academia, but it also the official definition of the Macquarie Dictionary, which is the dictionary that is used as the official dictionary of Australian courts.<br><br>It's not some "radfem" definition I used for my own biased purposes. It's the commonly accepted definition.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;798962</cite>Misogynistic = hates women. Only in the twisted fucked up minds of SJWs and their fellow travellers is saying that Zoey Quinn is unattractive 'misogynistic'. I don't hate Zoey Quinn, and if I did her looks would have nothing to do with it. And I don't hate women in general, if it needed saying - but I doubt even you really believe that.<br><br>Telling pro-GGs that they need to call me (or anyone) out on that is doing anti-GGs work for them. It's called concern trolling. Either you really are a SJW or they have so colonised your mindspace that you are like one of those insects whose brain has been eaten out by an invasive species, doing the invaders' bidding.</blockquote><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;798963</cite>Whose textbook? You seem to think radical feminist dialectic is gospel.</blockquote><br>Look above. I just answered that.<br><br>And once again, refusal to take responsibility for your actions (you don't even think you did anything wrong), and are trying to make me as the bad guy when you were the one to objectify women.<br><br>The more and more you talk, the more right the anti-GG side is because you're proving their point. And you're too fucking blind to even see that. The really hilarious thing is you accusing me of being a SJW. How many posts, over how many years, have I expressed my disdain for that group? Hell, just look at my user title for God's sake. What you're doing is taking the approach of "I'm going to say something really fucking horrible, and if you don't agree with me, you must be a radical -ist." That makes you <i>exactly</i> like them.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 10:44:04 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;798909</cite>For better ethics in journalism, at this point.<br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br><br>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.</blockquote><br>I'll ask you, because the others seem busy arguing over whether S'mon is misogynist or not.<br>(It seems like he technically isn't, but that the extreme alleged "feminists" would not care about that in practice.)<br><br>Oh yes, my question:<br>Why taking up the corruption in journalism now?<br>I mean, if it is about biased reviews, I doubt that totally objective reviews is possible, so what is the point there?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>ThatChrisGuy</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 10:57:10 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Catelf;799004</cite>Oh yes, my question:<br>Why taking up the corruption in journalism now?<br>I mean, if it is about biased reviews, I doubt that totally objective reviews is possible, so what is the point there?</blockquote><br>They can be better, dammit. They don't have to be perfect.<br><br>In 1994, Sierra released a game called "Outpost" for the PC. It got glowing, fantastic reviews in every magazine (90%+, or the equivalent.) When it actually got released, it was a buggy, miserable mess laking basic features the reviewers gave great praise to.<br><br>Turns out, they reviewed a beta and gave the publisher credit for things that they were simply TOLD were in the game and never actually existed.<br><br><b>Twenty</b> years later, this <b>exact</b> situation could happen, with the only difference being the reviews being on websites. Computer gaming journalism has sucked bigtime since I was a fucking teenager. Any damn excuse to make it better is a good one.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 11:16:57 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;799002</cite>I suppose I need to write it out in crayon for you, since either your mental capacity is so lacking that you can't make the obvious connection, or you're being deliberately obtuse.</blockquote><br>lol. I think more likely you're not as smart as you think you are and you're arguments aren't as valid as you think they are. Of course, if you had a valid argument you wouldnt feel the need to regress to junior high ad hominem.<br><br>Well I gave you a fair, unbiased chance to explain your position. And you failed in every way. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>When someone asks, "why should their appearance even matter at all?" and the response to that is to attack one person's appearance and say that "women on our side are hotter", that's textbook objectification of women. </blockquote><br>Again you're stating your conclusion without offering any reasoning. Its like you're simply repeating some mantra. I'm going to assume at this point you're simply incapable of answering my question, because you seem to think saying something makes it true. Your phrases like "textbook definition of..." are absolutely meaningless. You have not yet made a single reasoned argument. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>When you're placing the value of a woman to a debate based on her looks, that is textbook objectification.<br></blockquote><br>Which isn't what happened. I think you also suffer from a failure of reading comprehension.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Keep reaching. That phrase means to grow up and take responsibility for what he did. I said "man" up because he's a man. If he were a woman, I would have said "woman up" or something similar. That's not sexist. Do you know what is? What he said.</blockquote><br>You can't even admit it when you yourself said something sexist. This is sad on so many levels. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>The only one here who is delusional is you. He is the one who made a pretty shitty post and you're trying to make me as the bad guy and acting like an apologist for him? That's <i>exactly</i> the sort of behavior that gives the anti GG side merit, because you're doing <i>exactly</i> what they are complaining about. That's not paranoia. That's something that is actively happening and is a basis of their entire argument.</blockquote><br>lol, I didnt try to make you "feel" anything, and I never once made any sort of "apologism" for S'mon. I never even mentioned him. Didnt know who that was in the context of this thread till you brouught him up. Hence your paranoid delusion. I asked you simply for clarification of your position, giving you the benefit of the doubt you had some reasoning behind what you were saying in this thread. Your responses in turn have been decidedly juvenile and ignorant, with no discernible logic or even an indication that you understand what a reasoned position is, and as such your opinions are simply dismiss-able.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 11:52:10 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;799017</cite>You can't even admit it when you yourself said something sexist. This is sad on so many levels. <br></blockquote><br>Just pointing out this specifically:<br>Saying "Man up" to a man is not automatically sexist.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 12:01:32 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Catelf;799028</cite>Just pointing out this specifically:<br>Saying "Man up" to a man is not automatically sexist.</blockquote><br>Honestly? I dont think so either. But it is according to the interpretative standards that Sacrosanct is employing. So its either sexist, or hypocritical, I'm not sure which is better.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 12:12:38 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;799031</cite>Honestly? I dont think so either. But it is according to the interpretative standards that Sacrosanct is employing. So its either sexist, or hypocritical, I'm not sure which is better.</blockquote><br>Good point.<br><br>..... I think I read in a link somewhere about a femme comic character, that frequently say "Woman up" to people, independent of gender.<br>I like that kind of counteraction more than forbidding the expression itself.<br>:)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 01:00:08 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;799009</cite><b>Twenty</b> years later, this <b>exact</b> situation could happen, with the only difference being the reviews being on websites. Computer gaming journalism has sucked bigtime since I was a fucking teenager. Any damn excuse to make it better is a good one.</blockquote><br>It almost did with Aliens Marine game. The beta of that game was far more superior than what the actual game was. I mean every thing. When the media found out the truth they gave that game a lot of shit.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>apparition13</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 01:52:06 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;799002</cite>Sorry, you're wrong. If anyone's using spurious definitions, it would be you. Heck, you're even trying to hand wave away part of what that word means right above by your strawman of "as if they are equally bad". Equality of those words isn't relevant, and isn't what the definition is trying to imply.</blockquote>"Murder, arson, and jaywalking" is a common rhetorical tactic (I'm sure there is a "fallacy" for it as well, but I'm not sure what it's name is, I don't think it's "false equivalency", but it's certainly an implied equivalency). "Violence" (bad), "discrimination" (bad), denigration (vague as all get out but it sure <i>sounds</i> bad), and "sexual objectification" (disputed within and without academia and feminism) are presented as elements of the same set. The natural inference is that they are all equally immoral. People's brains will automatically make this association; that's <i>why </i>the rhetorical tactic works.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Not only is the definition I used the common definition used by most sociological academia, but it also the official definition of the Macquarie Dictionary, which is the dictionary that is used as the official dictionary of Australian courts.<br><br>It's not some "radfem" definition I used for my own biased purposes. It's the commonly accepted definition.<br></blockquote><br>You say something, I look into it. <br><br>The first thing I see is that this is a recent redefinition (2012) triggered by Julia Gillard's misogyny speech against Tony Abbott. I also see that it is not a universally approved of redefinition <i>within </i>Australia:<br><br>http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/macquarie-dictionary-widens-definition-of-misogyny-after-julia-gillards-putdown-of-tony-abbott/story-fncw91kq-1226498914785?nk=22bd158fd55f835dfb70c65ab7d33b52 (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/macquarie-dictionary-widens-definition-of-misogyny-after-julia-gillards-putdown-of-tony-abbott/story-fncw91kq-1226498914785?nk=22bd158fd55f835dfb70c65ab7d33b52)<br><br>http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/17/julia-gillard-australia-misogyny-dictionary (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/17/julia-gillard-australia-misogyny-dictionary)<br><br>It's also a contested definition among dictionaries (link (http://www.afr.com/p/national/macquarie_dictionary_has_last_word_NzrQFdWcPJG6G8qLRRiZtKhttp://www.afr.com/p/national/macquarie_dictionary_has_last_word_NzrQFdWcPJG6G8qLRRiZtK)):<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Australian Financial Review</cite>The widening will bring Macquarie closer to definitions from Oxford and dictionary.com while re-energising Ms Gillard’s backers.<br><br>But it will put Macquarie at odds with at least six other major dictionaries which define misogyny as purely a hatred of women.<br><br>The change will also enrage critics who claim the term is linked closely with theories of feminism. It is also likely to rekindle the debate about *literal versus deconstructivist interpretations of language.</blockquote><br>The second thing I see is that Macquarie is behind a paywall, so I can't get to their definition. You posted this: <br><br>"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."<br><br>Is this copy/paste from Macquarie?<br><br>It's considerably more aggressive a definition that either Oxford (Dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women: she felt she was struggling against thinly disguised misogyny) and dictionary.com (hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women), and different from the proposed change to Macquarie (hatred of women PLUS entrenched prejudices against women (as opposed to visceral hatred). Oxford adds "ingrained prejudice", dictionary.com "dislike or mistrust", the definition you put forth talks about manifestations, none of which necessarily include hatred or dislike. Sexual discrimination can originate in a protective impulse ("women are delicate flowers"), denigration is unclear about whether it means as a group or whether denigrating individual women counts ("women are stupid" vs. "Sarah Palin is stupid", or from the all-woman afternoon talk show I was subjected to while having new tires installed "Kim Kardashian is a bad mother because of her booty photo"), violence can be motivated by plenty of emotions other than hatred or dislike (some people are just controlling pricks, whether that be of a spouse, children, or employees), and sexual objectification is a disputed concept in and out of academia. <br><br>All of which ignores that other dictionaries have not followed suit in editing their definitions. <br><br>You're using a definition used by <i>some</i>, not <i>most</i>, sociological academia, specifically the non-scientific critical-essay writing post-modern fundamentalist elements who seem to think saying something makes it true, rather than engaging in science and deriving hypotheses from their conjectures and putting them to the test and seeing if the world seems to empirically be in accord with their worldview, because they are actually ideologues, not scientists. <br><br>You're also using a <i>re</i>definition triggered by politics, which makes it inherently suspect because one could easily infer that it was done for political purposes rather than due to changing usage, which is what the dictionary has been accused of by some Australians, which ultimately undermines its authority, especially its legal authority.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 05:33:11 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;798999</cite>...the de-legitimization of class identity as central to "privilege". There is a lot wrong with Marx, eschatological utopianism being the biggest I'd say, but identifying wealth, power, and influence, <i>privilege</i>, as the natural enemy of progressivism wasn't one of them. Nothing could be more comforting to penthouse bankers or internet millionaires than seeing progressives squabbling about identity politics rather than focusing their (progressives) ire on them (those with wealth and power).</blockquote><br>The wealthy and powerful have often been 'progressive' - seeking social change. But I would agree with you that cultural Marxism, the SJW ideology, is very very useful to the capitalists. It deligitimises class-based dissent, it destroys 'working class' as a metric of resistance, it allows for guilt-free wealth inequality - and thus massive widening of wealth inequality. <br><br>I've said this (politely) to academic cultural Marxists at my University staff seminars - you are supposedly attacking capitalism, but the capitalists love this stuff you're coming up with. It suits them just fine.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 05:41:38 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;799002</cite>The really hilarious thing is you accusing me of being a SJW. How many posts, over how many years, have I expressed my disdain for that group? Hell, just look at my user title for God's sake. </blockquote><br>Well, I think you are worse than them. I'm sure the Australian legal system (is misogyny illegal now?) is just as controlled by cultural Marxists as the British one. They've been in control since at least the 1990s, and they are perfectly capable of rewriting definitions. Go read '1984', and stop accepting whatever the Ministry of Truth puts out this week. <br><br>"Misogyny" means "Hates Women", that's what it means, a direct translation. It can't mean anything else.<br><br>Going to have to leave this now.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 05:48:06 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;799058</cite>You say something, I look into it. <br><br>The first thing I see is that this is a recent redefinition (2012) triggered by Julia Gillard's misogyny speech against Tony Abbott...<br>(snip)<br> </blockquote><br>Thanks for doing the research. I could say this proves how full of shit Sacrosanct is, but it seems a lot sadder than that - that he actually thinks he is opposing the SJWS while in fact buying in completely to their narrative frame.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Spike</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 06:33:21 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
So many people participate in the Auto da fe, usually unwittingly. <br><br>Feminism has become the church, and Social Justice it's inquisition. Sacrosanct is merely shouting along with the mob, hoping he will not be called to account for his thoughtcrimes, his heresies, in the next purging.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Sacrosanct</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 06:41:31 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;799088</cite>Well, I think you are worse than them. I'm sure the Australian legal system (is misogyny illegal now?) is just as controlled by cultural Marxists as the British one. They've been in control since at least the 1990s, and they are perfectly capable of rewriting definitions. Go read '1984', and stop accepting whatever the Ministry of Truth puts out this week. <br><br>"Misogyny" means "Hates Women", that's what it means, a direct translation. It can't mean anything else.<br><br>Going to have to leave this now.</blockquote><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;799090</cite>Thanks for doing the research. I could say this proves how full of shit Sacrosanct is, but it seems a lot sadder than that - that he actually thinks he is opposing the SJWS while in fact buying in completely to their narrative frame.</blockquote><br><br>Please, keep posting. Because each time you do, you're just showing how much extreme you are. It's starting to get pretty comical actually.<br><br>You're the one who decide to (not once, but twice) post pictures of women involved as if their physical appearance mattered to the context of this whole GG thing. Do you know what that's called when you judge somebody based on their looks when their looks aren't relevant? Objectifying. Do you know what it is called when you attack someone on their looks without merit? Denigration. And do you know what it is when you hold women to a separate standard than men when doing the above? Misogyny. Pretty much the entire educated world agrees on this. If you want a different definition? Fine.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>mi·sog·y·ny<br>məˈsäjənē/<br>noun<br>noun: misogyny<br><br> dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.</blockquote><br>Those three things you did pretty much easily fall under this definition. Otherwise I'd at least hope you'd hold the same standards to men. Put your money where your mouth is and post a picture of you, and let people do just like you're doing and judge the merit of your worth to your cause based on your appearance.<br><br>So you keep going on with your refusal to accept normal widely accepted definitions and labeling of people who don't agree with your extreme position as radicals themselves. Like I said it's the exact same thing they do. You are no different than them in integrity or methods. As much as I think people like Ettin are dirtbags for engaging in this bullshit, I think you're just the same. And all you're doing is giving them more fuel, and you're too stupid to even realize it, even after people other than myself have pointed this out to you.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 07:04:46 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: S'mon;799088</cite>Well, I think you are worse than them.</blockquote><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Spike;799094</cite>So many people participate in the Auto da fe, usually unwittingly. <br><br>Feminism has become the church, and Social Justice it's inquisition. Sacrosanct is merely shouting along with the mob, hoping he will not be called to account for his thoughtcrimes, his heresies, in the next purging.</blockquote>Do you two notice that you are estranging Sacrosanct?<br><br>I have a quote for you, from apparition13:<br>"<b>Nothing could be more comforting to penthouse bankers or internet millionaires than seeing progressives squabbling about identity politics rather than focusing their (progressives) ire on them (those with wealth and power)</b>."<br>Now I am looking at <i>your</i> squabbling.<br>Just_don't_do_it, ok?<br>Please?<br><br>And Sacrosanct, the impression I've gotten from you is that you are better than this squabbling.<br>How trustworthy is your sources? Do they match other sources?<br>Check them: is apparition13 correct? or not?<br>Doublecheck.<br><br>My own sources is much what people say and refer to, but if anyone asks me to refer to anything, I often can't link, making my arguments easily refuted, which is ok, since I may be wrong anyway.<br>That is something I learned on this site, of all places. ^_^<br><br>EDIT:<br>No, I do not want people to be docile and therefor not squabble, then i'd rather take some squabbling.<br>Questioning things is good too, but the situation here is obvious to most if not all, so why keep it going?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 07:18:32 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I'm tired, why do I keep coming back to this thread, I should be posting about games ...
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 07:33:01 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
It's pretty simple. When you turn a discussion that's not related to fashion or attractiveness into a discussion that's about how good a woman looks, you are being a misogynist.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Spike</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 07:41:23 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Catelf;799097</cite>Do you two notice that you are estranging Sacrosanct?<br><br>I have a quote for you, from apparition13:<br>"<b>Nothing could be more comforting to penthouse bankers or internet millionaires than seeing progressives squabbling about identity politics rather than focusing their (progressives) ire on them (those with wealth and power)</b>."<br>Now I am looking at <i>your</i> squabbling.<br>Just_don't_do_it, ok?<br>Please?<br><br></blockquote><br>I'm sorry: have I somehow given you the impression I view myself as a Progressive? Or that I respond to shaming language?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 08:14:31 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
As long as that rich person in the penthouse had not fuck over people I am fine with him/her being so rich. It is only those that fuck over millions for their own personal gain that I have a issue with. Mainly they are fucking over millions part.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 08:56:24 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Spike;799094</cite>So many people participate in the Auto da fe, usually unwittingly. <br><br>Feminism has become the church, and Social Justice it's inquisition. Sacrosanct is merely shouting along with the mob, hoping he will not be called to account for his thoughtcrimes, his heresies, in the next purging.</blockquote><br>That's much what it looks like to me. I'm glad GG is stepping up to the plate to eat the hurt of shutting this sadistic bullshit down.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;799111</cite>As long as that rich person in the penthouse had not fuck over people I am fine with him/her being so rich. It is only those that fuck over millions for their own personal gain that I have a issue with. Mainly they are fucking over millions part.</blockquote>Same; I don't give two fat damns how large people in Aspen are living as long as long as everyone else is getting by. It's the "everyone else getting by" part that seems busted right now.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 09:02:47 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Spike;799105</cite>I'm sorry: have I somehow given you the impression I view myself as a Progressive? Or that I respond to shaming language?</blockquote><br>Sorry, my mistake.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>apparition13</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 09:10:57 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>So you keep going on with your refusal to accept normal widely accepted definitions and labeling of people who don't agree with your extreme position as radicals themselves. Like I said it's the exact same thing they do. You are no different than them in integrity or methods. As much as I think people like Ettin are dirtbags for engaging in this bullshit, I think you're just the same. And all you're doing is giving them more fuel, and you're too stupid to even realize it, even after people other than myself have pointed this out to you.</blockquote>Yo, mate, is this:<br><br>"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."<br><br>the definition you originally used, from Macquarie or not? Because the one you just quoted is from Oxford. <br><br>Actually nevermind, it's from wikipedia, from one or both of these books published by Routledge in 2000:<br><br>^ Kramarae, Cheris (2000). Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women. New York: Routledge. pp. 1374–1377. ISBN 0-415-92088-4.<br><br>^ a b c d Clack, Beverley (1999). Misogyny in the Western Philosophical Tradition: A Reader. New York: Routledge. pp. 95–241. ISBN 0415921821.<br><br>For such a widely accepted definition, it's weird I get less than 100 google hits when I search for the full phrase.<br><br>And you keep saying "widely accepted". Widely accepted doesn't mean universally accepted, it doesn't mean uncontested, it doesn't even mean accepted by a plurality, let alone a majority. Widely accepted isn't a "win" button. <br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;799096</cite>You're the one who decide to (not once, but twice) post pictures of women involved as if their physical appearance mattered to the context of this whole GG thing. Do you know what that's called when you judge somebody based on their looks when their looks aren't relevant? Objectifying. Do you know what it is called when you attack someone on their looks without merit? Denigration. And do you know what it is when you hold women to a separate standard than men when doing the above? Misogyny. Pretty much the entire educated world agrees on this. If you want a different definition? Fine.<br><br>Those three things you did pretty much easily fall under this definition. Otherwise I'd at least hope you'd hold the same standards to men. Put your money where your mouth is and post a picture of you, and let people do just like you're doing and judge the merit of your worth to your cause based on your appearance.</blockquote>What is with your obsession with counting coup on S'mon by bapping on the noggin with the <i>misogynist!</i> stick? You posted something, he posted something, each misunderstood the other, and you keep on picking at it. It's just another internet misunderstanding, primate up and get over it.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 10:37:26 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Catelf;799004</cite>Why taking up the corruption in journalism now?</blockquote>Honestly? <br>The ability to criticize and reform it seems better at this moment, with a sparking point, mass censorship, Streisand Effect, and mass condemnation of unethical practices, than before.<br>Opportunity has presented itself, to reform something that's been seen as corrupt for a <b><i>very</i></b> long time.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>I mean, if it is about biased reviews, I doubt that totally objective reviews is possible, so what is the point there?</blockquote>It's not just about reviews; I also don't want clickbait articles, false allegations presented as gospel truth, and straight up slandering of political rivals (in a non-political forum), and one-sided stories.<br><br>Totally objective reviews may not be possible, but either recusing oneself from a story, or disclosing potential conflicts of interest, should not be an onerous requirement on the part of the reporter.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Catelf;799028</cite>Just pointing out this specifically:<br>Saying "Man up" to a man is not automatically sexist.</blockquote>Yes, it actually is. It's just an example of "beneficial sexism", like opening a door for a lady, or pulling out a chair. Unlike "oppressive sexism" which is more the "make me a sammich!" (or worse) type.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Spike</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 11:05:03 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I think the corruption in Journalism angle is way oversold. A huge part of it has to do with the newest attacks on the persons of gamers and the games they play. <br><br>Gamer is a pejorative to a lot of people, and having all this pressure being applied to them: This time from the left instead of the Right, has caused the designated out-group to close ranks and defend themselves... again.<br><br>Make no mistake: The calls from the Zoe Quinns and the Anita Sarkeesians are not merely to make gaming somehow more inclusive to women (how much money has Bejeweled made? Anyone?), but essentially to fundamentally end games like Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto for being thoughtcrimes, ending the hobby that nearly literally is the only thing the social outcasts have to give their lives simple enjoyment. <br><br>Once more the enlightened elite wish to impose top down controls on the market. You shall not make games the people wish to buy, instead you shall make games that are deemed 'inoffensive'.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>November 16, 2014, 11:43:07 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Alathon;799118</cite>Same; I don't give two fat damns how large people in Aspen are living as long as long as everyone else is getting by. It's the "everyone else getting by" part that seems busted right now.</blockquote><br>Quite.<br><br>jg
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 17, 2014, 01:42:53 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
It's also, apparently, pretty good money, for little or no effort.<br>http://www.patreon.com/zoe (http://www.patreon.com/zoe)<br>Just shy of $3800/month, to make games like <i>Depression Quest</i>, every so often?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>November 17, 2014, 01:51:33 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Shit I can make better role playing games for cheaper than that. If you take the money out of the gaming industry these assholes would just disappear.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 17, 2014, 01:54:45 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I don't care for Zoey Quinn as a person, but if she's making money off of her Depression Quest games I don't fault her for that at all. At least its an actual product. Its the Sarkeesians so-called "consultants" and the like, who dont actually contribute anything, that I would consider parasites.<br><br>I think being a "professional critic" of <i>anything</i> solely indicates that you were not talented enough to actually do that thing.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>The Ent</strong> on <strong>November 17, 2014, 02:06:51 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Spike;799094</cite>Sacrosanct is merely shouting along with the mob, hoping he will not be called to account for his thoughtcrimes, his heresies, in the next purging.</blockquote><br>Bullshit.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>November 17, 2014, 03:28:07 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;799164</cite>I don't care for Zoey Quinn as a person, but if she's making money off of her Depression Quest games I don't fault her for that at all. At least its an actual product. Its the Sarkeesians so-called "consultants" and the like, who dont actually contribute anything, that I would consider parasites.<br><br>I think being a "professional critic" of <i>anything</i> solely indicates that you were not talented enough to actually do that thing.</blockquote>A competent critic who is only (or primarily) a critic, also has to be a competent entertainer or writer. But, I'll admit that few meet that bar; I don't really go to critics so much, though I'm starting to reconsider. I'm cautiously optimistic about this new advertisement+crowdfunding model.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>November 17, 2014, 04:59:42 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;799133</cite>Yes, it actually is. It's just an example of "beneficial sexism", like opening a door for a lady, or pulling out a chair. Unlike "oppressive sexism" which is more the "make me a sammich!" (or worse) type.</blockquote><br>Oh?<br>Even if the same person would say "woman up" to women?<br><br>I personally would not use either, but that is me, and extreme "feminists" would probably see ME as sexist or even misogynist anyway for some of my views, but I don't care, and it don't stop me from being pro-feminism, as I think they do good things as long as the don't go extreme so they lose their real goal.<br>The extreme "feminists" is no longer feminists, as I see them.<br>They use a similar foundation, similar words, and even may see themselves as feminists, but to me, they are not.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Ladybird</strong> on <strong>November 17, 2014, 12:46:59 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: The Ent;799167</cite>Bullshit.</blockquote><br>Exactly.<br><br>We've got a stage where some people have bought into this "SJW's are destroying fun" delusion that they confuse <i>basic human decency</i> for being part of a global conspiracy.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 17, 2014, 12:50:43 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ladybird;799209</cite>Exactly.<br><br>We've got a stage where some people have bought into this "SJW's are destroying fun" delusion that they confuse <i>basic human decency</i> for being part of a global conspiracy.</blockquote><br>In what way are people confounding "basic human decency" and SJWs? I see no correlation between the two.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>The Ent</strong> on <strong>November 17, 2014, 01:19:18 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ladybird;799209</cite>Exactly.<br><br>We've got a stage where some people have bought into this "SJW's are destroying fun" delusion that they confuse <i>basic human decency</i> for being part of a global conspiracy.</blockquote><br>Well put.<br>That'd be my view as well. Agreed.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;799213</cite>In what way are people confounding "basic human decency" and SJWs? I see no correlation between the two.</blockquote><br>No one is.<br><br>However it's rather wrong to point at people* and scream "SJW!" when all they're doing is acting decent. In fact doing so is lowering oneself to the level of the slacktivists.<br><br>*=that'd be Sacro in this case. Who ain't a slacktivist, and never has been, and saying he is would be BULLSHIT.<br><br>I'm as anti-slacktivist as they come (this side of Pundit) but that doesn't mean I ally myself with reactionaries and sexists. My enemies' enemies ain't necessarily my friends.<br><br>A man* gotta keep his scruples about him and his eyesight clear in cases like this.<br>*=or woman of course<br><br>And of course one should always Act decent.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>November 17, 2014, 01:21:26 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;799213</cite>In what way are people confounding "basic human decency" and SJWs? I see no correlation between the two.</blockquote><br>There isn't any correlation between the two because Ladybird is bullshitting you. Seriously we have a mountain of evidence pointing out the social justice warriors had bullied, threaten, and treated people less than human. This isn't just white cis males that disagree with them either. Their most vicious attacks are aimed at minorities. Must I point out that a social justice warrior flat out told a transgender person that she is property?<br><br>Social justice warriors been demanding human decency, but had treated others less than human. The lack of human decency started off with them when they decided to be hypocrites.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 17, 2014, 01:50:06 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: The Ent;799222</cite>No one is.<br>However it's rather wrong to point at people* and scream "SJW!" when all they're doing is acting decent. In fact doing so is lowering oneself to the level of the slacktivists.<br><br>*=that'd be Sacro in this case. Who ain't a slacktivist, and never has been, and saying he is would be BULLSHIT.<br></blockquote><br>Well I think in this case Sacro has brought his troubles in this thread onto himself, but, no, I wouldnt call him an SJW either. But he made a joke and then when someone made a joking reply in response he freaked out and blew it out of proportion, making accusations that are of the same type people in this thread are complaining about SJWs making. Objecting to what someone posts is one thing, calling them a "textbook misogynist" , especially in this context, is asking for a fight (who knows, its therpgsite, maybe he was asking for a fight). I dont think in this case Sacro is acting like a "decent human being", he's being an obtuse dick. That has nothing to do with his politics, but how hes conducted himself in debate.<br><br>But its one thread. All of us are assholes in one thread or another.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 17, 2014, 01:52:11 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I was thinking of making an asshole badge to hand out, but in testing I found it generally confused people as to what I was suggesting to them.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Sacrosanct</strong> on <strong>November 17, 2014, 01:56:53 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;799223</cite>Social justice warriors been demanding human decency, but had treated others less than human. The lack of human decency started off with them when they decided to be hypocrites.</blockquote><br><br>I have long held, and often expressed, my absolute disgust in the hypocrisy of the vocal SJW movement. Back with Grim, then again with Pundit/Zak, and again here. They seem to be more than willing to engage in the exact same behavior that they supposedly are so much against.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 17, 2014, 02:03:37 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Catelf;799177</cite>Oh?<br>Even if the same person would say "woman up" to women?</blockquote>My wife's expression is "Put on your Big Girl Panties, and deal with it!"<br><br>The reason I don't associate as a Feminist is the same reason 80% of Americans do not; at best, the current institution serves only it's own ideological purity, and at worst, it's a flagrant Hate Movement (yes, #KillAllMen is a hate movement, sorry to disappoint). Like 89% of Americans I believe in the equality of the sexes.<br><br>I'm also more than willing to have a discussion (even an argument) about some of the worst areas where sexism still creates a disparity. I'll be more than happy to question why so few women follow a career in STEM fields, just as I'll happily ask why so many women expect a man to pay for dinner, on a date. ;)<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;799223</cite><blockquote class="bbc_alternate_quote"><cite>Quote from: Ladybird;799209</cite>We've got a stage where some people have bought into this "SJW's are destroying fun" delusion that they confuse <i>basic human decency</i> for being part of a global conspiracy.</blockquote>Social justice warriors been demanding human decency, but had treated others less than human. The lack of human decency started off with them when they decided to be hypocrites.</blockquote>I don't think SJW's ask for common human decency; moderates ask for common human decency. The definition of a SJW is asking for special privileges, to combat the special privileges they see in another group.<br><br>Hence why they can make assertions like "Sexism cannot happen to men." (ironically, an<i> incredibly</i> sexist remark in itself).
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>November 17, 2014, 07:29:19 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;799232</cite>I have long held, and often expressed, my absolute disgust in the hypocrisy of the vocal SJW movement. Back with Grim, then again with Pundit/Zak, and again here. They seem to be more than willing to engage in the exact same behavior that they supposedly are so much against.</blockquote><br>Ergo, the divergence between SJWs and basic human decency: If you hate something, don't do it too.<br>JG
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Catelf</strong> on <strong>November 17, 2014, 09:35:19 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;799233</cite>My wife's expression is "Put on your Big Girl Panties, and deal with it!"<br><br>The reason I don't associate as a Feminist is the same reason 80% of Americans do not; at best, the current institution serves only it's own ideological purity, and at worst, it's a flagrant Hate Movement (yes, #KillAllMen is a hate movement, sorry to disappoint). Like 89% of Americans I believe in the equality of the sexes.<br><br>I'm also more than willing to have a discussion (even an argument) about some of the worst areas where sexism still creates a disparity. I'll be more than happy to question why so few women follow a career in STEM fields, just as I'll happily ask why so many women expect a man to pay for dinner, on a date. ;)<br></blockquote><br>I'm pro-feminist, but i'm not a feminist.<br>The reason is that I think feminism is needed as a counterweight, or as a crowbar, to give the necessary leverage needed to produce gender equality.<br>For this reason, I can accept some extremes, but not too much.<br><br>I live in Sweden, we are more used to lefties here, and people in general is more .... (ahem) moderate (in Sweden we have a right-wing party that calls themselves "the Moderates" which messes up the concepts a bit).<br>We are also more left in general than people in the US.<br><br>So, the feminism here is in general also more able to discuss matters, and more reasonable.<br><br>Of course something called "Kill all men" is a hate movement and misandrist to an extreme degree, even most feminists in Sweden would see it that way.<br>No, I dare say most Feminists in general would see it that way.<br>However, it seems feminism suffers from the same problem as all political movements:<br>Extremists that over-interpret and overreacts, and shout the loudest.<br>It is possible that SJW's suffer from the same thing, but as I hadn't heard of those before the Sarkeesian-thing, and then only barely before the GamerGate started, I have no real idea.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 17, 2014, 10:15:38 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I've no idea who coined the phrase SJW as a pejorative, but I first encountered it on this site in relation to the RPGnet tangency clique. I do think that Pundit's "pseudo-activists" moniker fits better, mainly because it doesn't rely on sarcasm to get across its point. Before GG, there were 2 entrenched communities of this brand of "marxist post-feminism" I encountered: the aforementioned Big Purple, and the Gail Simone message boards. Both groups had similar messages and tactics and had staked out one particular geek hobby to focus their attention on. <br><br>I don't think any of these groups existed until after "geek chic" became a thing in popular culture. Make of that what you will. In regards to the Simone board, I amusingly identified a majority of their more vocal supporters as a group of formerly hardcore Objectivists (Ayn Randians) that frequented the Byrne Robotics mb in the early aughts.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 17, 2014, 11:04:42 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Catelf;799311</cite>The reason is that I think feminism is needed as a counterweight, or as a crowbar, to give the necessary leverage needed to produce gender equality.</blockquote>The problem with that, is rightly or wrongly, you create a system that discriminates against merit, in favor of politics.<br><br>e.g. A scholarship sends 10 people to University, based upon exceptional merit. Suddenly, they decree they will use at least one of those spots to send a <cause> person to University. But what if there is no qualified candidates, who meet both the merit requirements AND the <cause> requirement? Do you not send you <cause> de jour to University, awarding by merit as previously, or do you select the 'best possible candidate' from <cause>, even if they would not normally meet the merit requirements?<br><br>It's one of the most common criticisms of Affirmative Action in the US, and one of the reasons it's a fairly rare policy in professional careers.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>We are also more left in general than people in the US.</blockquote>I'm a conservative, and even I have enough awareness to point out the only nations more conservative than the US tend to be Islamic monarchies/theocracies. :o<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Of course something called "Kill all men" is a hate movement and misandrist to an extreme degree, even most feminists in Sweden would see it that way.<br>No, I dare say most Feminists in general would see it that way.</blockquote>I daresay there was a lot more favoriting of #KillAllMen, than the entire sum of misogynistic threats generated in the 3 months of #GamerGate.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>However, it seems feminism suffers from the same problem as all political movements:<br>Extremists that over-interpret and overreacts, and shout the loudest.<br>It is possible that SJW's suffer from the same thing, but as I hadn't heard of those before the Sarkeesian-thing, and then only barely before the GamerGate started, I have no real idea.</blockquote>I would normally give that benefit of the doubt, but after 3 months of GamerGate, I'm just not sure I can believe that religious fervor hasn't taken hold (I can argue matters of reason with a person; there is no point to argue a matter of faith, by it's very definition).<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;799324</cite>I've no idea who coined the phrase SJW as a pejorative...</blockquote>I've personally preferred "Social Justice Profiteer" myself. The major players of anti-GG are profiting nicely off the current system, so I can see reform threatening their pay check.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>woodsmoke</strong> on <strong>November 17, 2014, 11:23:03 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Spike;799138</cite>I think the corruption in Journalism angle is way oversold. A huge part of it has to do with the newest attacks on the persons of gamers and the games they play.<br><br>Gamer is a pejorative to a lot of people, and having all this pressure being applied to them: This time from the left instead of the Right, has caused the designated out-group to close ranks and defend themselves... again.<br><br>Make no mistake: The calls from the Zoe Quinns and the Anita Sarkeesians are not merely to make gaming somehow more inclusive to women (how much money has Bejeweled made? Anyone?), but essentially to fundamentally end games like Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto for being thoughtcrimes, ending the hobby that nearly literally is the only thing the social outcasts have to give their lives simple enjoyment.<br><br>Once more the enlightened elite wish to impose top down controls on the market. You shall not make games the people wish to buy, instead you shall make games that are deemed 'inoffensive'.</blockquote><br><i>Thank you.</i><br><br>Yes, GG is about journalistic ethics. The fact the gaming press has always had problems with that is irrelevant; as Novastar stated, the current climate within the hobby is such that those who are concerned about the issue are finally able to do something about it with a reasonable expectation of significant results.<br><br>That said, It's <i>also</i> a push back against feminist ideologues trying to co-opt and politicize our hobby in order to reshape it to their liking, and the fact it's generating such a strong push back is directly rooted in their having already done so in so many other areas of society. Hobby gaming, be it video, tabletop or otherwise, is one of the few remaining areas of western culture in which people don't reflexively feel the need to walk on egg shells lest they unwittingly run afoul of the paper-thin skin of some self-righteous harpy with a persecution complex and an ideological axe to grind.<br><br>I know quite a few people who feel like they're living in Martin Niemöller's famous poem. Somewhat melodramatic, perhaps, but more or less accurate. "First they came for the board room... and now we're planting our fucking flags and saying enough is fucking enough. We're speaking up, we're fighting back and we're playing to fucking win."<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Shipyard Locked;798792</cite>I guess I'll just keep following my survival guidelines outside of this website: <br>- Never discuss gender issues<br>- Leave the space when gender issues that could become heated enter<br>- Never say anything about a woman's appearance, positive or negative<br>- Do not be seen publicly interacting with material where attractive female forms are too prominently featured</blockquote><br>Rephrase this to put it in the context of a gay man having written it. See the naked bigotry at work yet?<br><br>I'm not accusing <i>you</i> of bigotry, of course; that would be all kinds of out of line. Simply making the point.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 12:25:06 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;799333</cite>The problem with that, is rightly or wrongly, you create a system that discriminates against merit, in favor of politics.</blockquote><br>Yeah, that's much worse than a system that discriminates against merit, in favor of privilege.<br><br>The best thing about GG and things like it is that it's a sign of how much progress has been made, that folks are realizing that their comfortable privilege is ending and they are freaking out about it.<br><br><br>And I'll point out that I'm a man who manages to have friendly conversations with all sorts of people without making them go 'wtf!' and cringe away. It doesn't take some hysterical I MUST NOT SAY card that I must refer to during all interactions lest my parole officer get wind.<br><br>Though, admittedly, I don't bring up women's appearances or carry prominent pictures of scantily clad women because that's demented.<br>I find if a man or woman wants my opinion on their appearance, they'll ask.<br><br>Though if the conversation goes an appropriate way, you never know. Cool tattoos, glasses, and so on? Sure.<br>In the right crowd, you CAN talk about women's breasts with them. It's just not really an ice breaker.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Spike</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 12:48:11 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: The Ent;799167</cite>Bullshit.</blockquote><br>Ah... such eloquence. I shall, of course, pretend that this is, in fact, a reasoned and cogent argument and respond in kind. <br><br>Yes, I suppose it is possible that Sacrosanct is not merely loudly proclaiming what a right-thinking person he is, with the correct beliefs out of fear that if he doesn't someone might accuse him of wrong-think. <br><br>The alternatives that present themselves are few, of course:<br><br>Sacrosanct sees himself as Leading the Mob of Inquisitors on their latest witch-hunt, thinking, as all such men do* that it will not eat him in turn. <br><br>Sacrosanct is a true believer, a drinker of the coolaide, who has no fear of the mob because it has never turned on him, yet. This hardly invalidates my observation that he is a willing participant in the auto da fe, of course. They usually are believers. <br><br>One supposes that Sacrosanct might, in fact, not be terribly interested in Feminism and SJW activities at all, but merely leapt with a somewhat old fashioned chauvanistic chivalry to the defense of those poor hapless women who were being, in his mind, slighted by having their beauty, or lack, commented upon. <br><br><br>The last option, simply put, is that I was right, but since you are standing next to him in the crowd jeering at those heretics who have already been pulled forth for purging, you cannot allow yourself to see. In which case your response will be along the lines of 'there is no auto da fe, no inquisition... only evil heretics and witches being called to account by 'public decency' ' <br><br>But, sadly, your belief is not required. The world does not order itself according to how you wish it to be.<br><br><br><br><br>* Robespierre, anyone?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Spike</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 01:08:37 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;799324</cite>I've no idea who coined the phrase SJW as a pejorative,</blockquote><br>I can't answer that question directly, but the term 'Social Justice' has been in use for quite some time, well over a hundred years, and is always linked to this sort of utopian-puritanism that we see in the SJW crowd. The current crop are far more obnoxious and removed from reality than its past adherents, but frankly I've always found Utopians to be blinkered fools. <br><br>The term "Social Justice" remains quite popular for PR reasons. We all like Justice and fairness right? So who could object to Justice in the social realms?<br><br>The problem is that Social Justice is no Justice at all. <br><br>Example: Peter slaps Mary. Social Justice demands that Paul is punished for Peter's crime, either alongside Peter, or if he escapes justice, in his place. <br><br>Peter, of course, is innocent. That is no justice at all. <br><br>Too often Social Justice is about blind Retribution, lashing out at all perceived and potential oppressors without assigning any merit. <br><br>What makes the current crop especially obnoxious is how very pathetic and trivial their complaints are. A woman in New York was oppressed by a shirt being worn by a british man in Northern Europe*, and the entire world had to recognize her complaint as valid. <br><br>Of course, there is also the rampant hypocrisy. A loud shirt is offensive and oppressive, but clitoridectomies performed with no anesthesia? Why that's a valid expression of a vibrant culture! Burkas are empowering! <br><br>Or for more fun the Requires Hate/Benjanun Sriduangkaew scandal, where all manner of shaming tactics that the SJWs love to employ were perfectly fine until they found themselves being targetted by them. Or the frequent complaints about Doxxing, when in most SJW related incidents, its the SJWs doxxing their opponents... often while loudly proclaiming their victims were teh doxxers. The list goes on, for tedious lengths.<br><br><br><br><br><br>*Several minutes of googling did not tell me where Dr Taylor works or was interviewed, but the ESA operates out of the Netherlands and Germany, primarily. Since this isn't an academic thesis, I feel that's accurate enough.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 01:14:19 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;799333</cite>I'm a conservative, and even I have enough awareness to point out the only nations more conservative than the US tend to be Islamic monarchies/theocracies. :o</blockquote><br>I've always found it odd how anti-Islam conservatives are and pro-Israel, given radical Islam is WAY more consistent with conservative policies than Israel is.<br><br>Particularly given conservatives really worked hard to install radical Islam so they could push out socialist-leaning moderates.<br><br>Like, the whole 'Obama is a secret Muslim!' when he supports policies the Muslims being referenced hate.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Sacrosanct</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 01:25:37 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Spike;799351</cite>Ah... such eloquence. I shall, of course, pretend that this is, in fact, a reasoned and cogent argument and respond in kind. <br><br>Yes, I suppose it is possible that Sacrosanct is not merely loudly proclaiming what a right-thinking person he is, with the correct beliefs out of fear that if he doesn't someone might accuse him of wrong-think. <br><br>The alternatives that present themselves are few, of course:<br><br>Sacrosanct sees himself as Leading the Mob of Inquisitors on their latest witch-hunt, thinking, as all such men do* that it will not eat him in turn. <br><br>Sacrosanct is a true believer, a drinker of the coolaide, who has no fear of the mob because it has never turned on him, yet. This hardly invalidates my observation that he is a willing participant in the auto da fe, of course. They usually are believers. <br><br>One supposes that Sacrosanct might, in fact, not be terribly interested in Feminism and SJW activities at all, but merely leapt with a somewhat old fashioned chauvanistic chivalry to the defense of those poor hapless women who were being, in his mind, slighted by having their beauty, or lack, commented upon. <br><br><br>The last option, simply put, is that I was right, but since you are standing next to him in the crowd jeering at those heretics who have already been pulled forth for purging, you cannot allow yourself to see. In which case your response will be along the lines of 'there is no auto da fe, no inquisition... only evil heretics and witches being called to account by 'public decency' ' <br><br>But, sadly, your belief is not required. The world does not order itself according to how you wish it to be.<br><br><br><br><br>* Robespierre, anyone?</blockquote><br>hate to break it to you, but you're not nearly as clever or as smart as you think you are. The most probable, and accurate, is one where a regular person can call out his stupid post objectifying women for exactly that without either being some part of some SJW conspiracy or fear from SJW. Seriously, as much as I've expressed my disdain for them, you think I'm afraid? Get real. Maybe instead of attacking me, you shift focus on the guy who objectified women. You know, the actual behavior that is unacceptable and proves them right?<br><br>the question then becomes, "what are <i>you</i> afraid of?"<br><br>protip: if you're tired of anti GG folks focusing on sexism and misogyny instead of journalistic integrity, STOP turning a blind eye and/or accepting and/or tacitly approving of sexism/misogyny in your ranks. Just a thought...
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Spike</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 01:30:11 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;799360</cite>I've always found it odd how anti-Islam conservatives are and pro-Israel, given radical Islam is WAY more consistent with conservative policies than Israel is.</blockquote><br>I am constantly shocked at how anti-Israel Liberals are, and pro-Islam given how Israel is way more consistent with Liberal policies than Islam is. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Particularly given conservatives really worked hard to install radical Islam so they could push out socialist-leaning moderates.<br></blockquote><br>Da fuq? Wahabism has its roots in Saudi Arabia more than a century ago, and the general movement of Radical Islam is old enough to have assassinated the fifth Caliph within a generation of Muhammed's death. The only 'Socialist Leaning Moderate' in the middle east pushed out by conservatives was? I mean: Offically the Baath Party was socialist, but Saddam Hussein was definitely not a moderate... or really even a socialist. Afghanistan was a failed state without any governance since the communist Afghans called in the Soviet Army to help them after they overthrew the not terribly socialist monarchy. Iran? The Shah was a socialist moderate? If the US was responsible for those particular radicals, well: Carter was President. Not a conservative.<br><br>So where does that leave us: Syria, Egypt, Libya? All under a profoundly liberal president. <br><br>So... what stable middle eastern country did Conservatives deliberately install radical Islam into in order to replace a moderate socialist? <br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Like, the whole 'Obama is a secret Muslim!' when he supports policies the Muslims being referenced hate.</blockquote><br>You're behind the times. Pretty much everyone who hasn't drunk the kool aid has pretty much come to notice that Obama is pretty much a narcissist, though clearly one who has a great opinion of Islam... possibly because he grew up in Indonesia, with a Muslim stepfather. <br><br>If you want the current 'conspiracy theory', I do believe it is that Obama is secretly gay, which explains why he spends so much time with Reggie Love, wears mom-jeans and rides girl's bicycles. Of course: that beggers the question: Why secretly? I mean: In addition to being the first (second? Bill was deeply hurt to lose his status so quickly, and I sorta feel sorry for him...) black president, he could also be the first Gay president. Given that every member of the LBTQWTFBBQ coalition has more rights than straights now, and more social cachet, why wouldn't he?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 01:46:57 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Re: liberals and Israel.<br><br>Good question. Possibly folks just generally hate on Israel and conservatives nowadays find them politically expedient allies. Yeah, Israel has its war Hawks, but compared to the rest of the region? Smacks of antisemitism to me (obviously not entirely, as you have a number of Jewish critics)<br><br>As for the rest, I'm not sure how OT the mods will put up with me on, but I'll poke at it tomorrow when I can.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Spike</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 01:54:14 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;799362</cite>hate to break it to you, but you're not nearly as clever or as smart as you think you are. The most probable, and accurate, is one where a regular person can call out his stupid post objectifying women for exactly that without either being some part of some SJW conspiracy or fear from SJW. Seriously, as much as I've expressed my disdain for them, you think I'm afraid? Get real. Maybe instead of attacking me, you shift focus on the guy who objectified women. You know, the actual behavior that is unacceptable and proves them right?</blockquote><br>I'm never as smart as I think I am. I'm used to it. <br><br>That's okay, though, since you either fail at reading comprehension, or you simply refuse to acknowledge that I might have a point. I never attacked you. I simply pointed out that your behavior is similar to what Shipyard Locked claimed, only without the self reflection SL showed. <br><br>But I have no hope of actually getting through to you, since you and I are fundamentally not speaking the same language. Rendering judgements about someone's looks is not objectifying them. Nor is it particularly unacceptable to normal people, and there is nothing wrong with that. <br><br>In small words: normal people, all normal people, judge others on their looks, all the time. If someone looks good, then people attracted to those looks will express perfectly normal sexual interest in them, and this is both natural and good... since it is a foundational cornerstone to perpetuation of the human species. There is nothing particularly noble or good about pretending that you think ugly people aren't ugly or unattractive, or pretending you are attracted to people you don't actually find attractive. At best, in a face to face conversation with the person in question it is merely polite. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>the question then becomes, "what are <i>you</i> afraid of?"</blockquote><br>Given that I almost ate a bullet in the last year? Not a damn thing. Why? <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>protip: if you're tired of anti GG folks focusing on sexism and misogyny instead of journalistic integrity, STOP turning a blind eye and/or accepting and/or tacitly approving of sexism/misogyny in your ranks. Just a thought...</blockquote><br>Protip: Starting any piece of advice with the word 'protip' automatically signals that what you are about to say is not, in fact, advice in any meaningful sense of the word. <br><br>Now, a more on point rebuttal: I am not tired. I pointed out earlier that it is a knife with a dull blade, overused. In fact I encourage the anti-gg crowd to keep shouting, as loudly and shrilly as possible, about what victims they are, because the unaligned hear that shit and tune them right the fuck out. <br><br>Second: I pointed out earlier that the Journalistic Integrity is a secondary concern at best. The nature of the corruption, to whit: That they are essentially siding against Gamers with the SJW crowd, is relevant. The real battleground is the attempts to destroy the male half of gaming (that is: Games like Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto, among others) as if there was no room for games like Candy Crush or Bejeweled (the preferred games of women. And no: This is not to say that either 'type' of gaming is locked against the 'opposed' gender, don't be a tool.) can't be sold while CoD is on the market. The dishonest tactics being employed by, say, Anita Sarkeesian earn her the focus of the GG crowd, not her tits. <br><br>Third: No blind eyes, in fact the Gamer Gate crowd have long since organized internal policing groups to marginalize or silence people who post those kinds of things supposedly under the aegis of GG. Not that you care about that, since you still think its a valid reason to discredit Gamer Gate... <br><br>Fourth: I personally don't care about the so called rampant misogyny or sexism, since both of those terms have been so redefined over the years to more or less mean 'Stuff any random woman decides she doesn't like', which is essentially a value-neutral statement. Actual misogyny? Sure, I'll stand against that. Pro-tip: Most men, even socially outcast men who retreat into video games really like women. That's why they want to fuck them. As for Sexism: The word was coined entirely by movement Feminists in 1965. I hold it about as valid as Andrea Dworkin's opinion on Incest.* The word literally exists only to drive a wedge between men and women, and curiously enough it appears that only women can be victims of it. Madeup word is madeup. <br><br><br>Just a thought...<br><br><br>*Pro, in case you haven't bothered to read her books.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Spike</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 02:10:02 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;799364</cite>Re: liberals and Israel.<br><br>Good question. Possibly folks just generally hate on Israel and conservatives nowadays find them politically expedient allies. Yeah, Israel has its war Hawks, but compared to the rest of the region? Smacks of antisemitism to me (obviously not entirely, as you have a number of Jewish critics)<br><br>As for the rest, I'm not sure how OT the mods will put up with me on, but I'll poke at it tomorrow when I can.</blockquote><br>In case you missed it, Will: I was satirizing your 'out there' characterization of conservatives having a lot in common with Muslims. It works as satire as most of the similarities you presumably see are based on failing to understand, or want to understand, anything resembling conservative positions, while the similarities I mentioned are based on what we are told are liberal values. You know: Tolerance for others, multiculturalism and so forth. They hang gays in Iran, but Israel is pro gay. The liberal stance on gays is that they are people too... just like in Israel. Weirdly, most political conservatives (to include the religious/social conservatives that get all the press...) don't advocate hanging gays.<br><br>Then on inclusiveness: the Knesset has twelve arab members, palestinians can and are full citizens of Israel with no caveats. Not all Palestinians, of course, else we wouldn't be talking about Gaza and the West Bank. <br><br>Meanwhile, in the arab parts of the middle east, ancient christian communities are being wiped out, as are ancient jewish communities. Gone, finito. Its not all ISIS either, they're relative latecomers to the purging of the Ummah. <br><br><br>I will certainly entertain whatever research you care to deliver, but I do feel obligated to point out that your inability to answer the question directly means that it was entirely an unfounded allegation, an ass pull based on your beliefs. Luckily, I have surrendered my title as 'point scorer of internet debates', as of my last Sig change some time back, so... <br><br><br>... hmm... I guess that means I'm reduced to childish displays of shouting 'burn!' and patting myself on teh back until I sprain something. Not terribly dignified, I suppose. Well, since I do pride myself on my dignity (not really, but run with me here...), I shall have to do all that whilst holding my pinky finger out, just so, and with a nice British Accent. Maybe some spats.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>apparition13</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 02:13:32 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;799347</cite>Yeah, that's much worse than a system that discriminates against merit, in favor of privilege.</blockquote>You've really got to stop using that word. It refers to phenomena, like that measured by the implicit association test, that are all about unconscious biases, not privileges. Co-opting privilege, a word that has meant people who have real power, wealth, social connections, and influence, who can <i>deliberately</i> make the world bend to their will, in other words the very real, material advantages of class, is just plain stupid. It's counterproductive, it alienates the traditional working class allies of progressives, and it splits progressives into tiny clans squabbling about who has less subconscious favoritism. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;799360</cite>I've always found it odd how anti-Islam conservatives are and pro-Israel, given radical Islam is WAY more consistent with conservative policies than Israel is.</blockquote>Some fundamentalists are looking to immanentize the eschaton, and in order for that to happen Israel needs to exist. Have a link. <br><br>http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2010/06/christian-fundamentalists-support-israel-why/ (http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2010/06/christian-fundamentalists-support-israel-why/)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 02:19:41 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;799370</cite>Co-opting privilege, a word that has meant people who have real power, wealth, social connections, and influence, who can <i>deliberately</i> make the world bend to their will, in other words the very real, material advantages of class, is just plain stupid. It's counterproductive, it alienates the traditional working class allies of progressives, and it splits progressives into tiny clans squabbling about who has less subconscious favoritism. <br></blockquote><br>I rather thought that was the point of all the "privilege" nonsense: to distract people from noticing.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>The Ent</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 02:27:38 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Spike;799351</cite>Ah... such eloquence. I shall, of course, pretend that this is, in fact, a reasoned and cogent argument and respond in kind.</blockquote><br>It's the response your post deserved.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 02:32:16 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: The Ent;799375</cite>It's the response your post deserved.</blockquote><br>Now THAT is what "looking for a fight" looks like.<br><br><br>This thread is pretty far past its expiration date anyways<br><br>(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/816/393/77c.png)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 03:02:54 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;799347</cite>Yeah, that's much worse than a system that discriminates against merit, in favor of privilege.</blockquote>All the privilege in the world can't make you capable of doing calculus.<br>...it might help to get a bullshit degree, though. Like Women's Studies.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>The best thing about GG and things like it is that it's a sign of how much progress has been made, that folks are realizing that their comfortable privilege is ending and they are freaking out about it.</blockquote>Dude, do you even look at the people on the anti-side?<br>Zoe Quinn, Alex Lifschiez(sp?), and Brianna Wu are all Trust Fund babies.<br>McIntosh and Sarkeesian aren't exactly hurting for money, either.<br><br>I can go thru my High School Yearbook, point to 1 out of 3 people and finish with "Dead" or "Served/Serving Time". <br><br>Don't even try to play the privilege card on me, with any of these people. None of them have <b><u>EVER</u></b> known the joy of a Welfare Christmas.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 03:09:15 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;799362</cite>protip: if you're tired of anti GG folks focusing on sexism and misogyny instead of journalistic integrity, STOP turning a blind eye and/or accepting and/or tacitly approving of sexism/misogyny in your ranks. Just a thought...</blockquote><br>I've considered it, but after having a look at my ranks, they seem pretty chill. Particularly for a bunch who've been swung on at length, by major media outlets no less. I think I'd rather act to strip social justice advocates of all credibility. Denied their accusation-as-guilt, accusation-as-bargaining-position strategies, they'll fade from the public sphere and be academia's problem again.<br><br>Also, I'll have to do something about academia; they've fucked America over but good, and I don't just mean the scam-artistry they've practiced in conning a bunch of kids into getting mortgages with no houses.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 07:37:24 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;799333</cite>I'm a conservative, and even I have enough awareness to point out the only nations more conservative than the US tend to be Islamic monarchies/theocracies. :o<br></blockquote><br>I think that's a bit shortsighted. The US is more conservative (less radical) than the rest of the Anglosphere* and Germanic/Scandic northwestern Europe. I don't think it's more conservative than southern or eastern Europe or Japan, and it's certainly not more conservative than most of the developing world.<br><br>*US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada. I'd exclude Ireland, which is relatively conservative in some ways, though like Spain etc it has a powerful left-liberal elite now.<br><br>I would agree though that normal Americans and normal Muslims tend to have more in common than either do with the secular left-liberals who seem to be the majority in Sweden and a hegemonic minority in other Anglosphere and Germanic/Scandic nations.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 07:41:46 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: woodsmoke;799339</cite>Hobby gaming, be it video, tabletop or otherwise, is one of the few remaining areas of western culture in which people don't reflexively <u>feel the need to walk on egg shells lest they unwittingly run afoul of the paper-thin skin of some self-righteous harpy</u> with a persecution complex and an ideological axe to grind.</blockquote><br>Well, I do now. :D
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 07:49:00 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Spike;799359</cite>I can't answer that question directly, but the term 'Social Justice' has been in use for quite some time, well over a hundred years, and is always linked to this sort of utopian-puritanism that we see in the SJW crowd. </blockquote><br>Yes - http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_copybook.htm - Kipling uses Social Progress similarly:<br><br><i><br>As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man<br>There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.<br></i><br><br>I believe it was written in 1919, and is a strong attack on SJW ideology which also predicts much of our present travails.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 07:54:32 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;799360</cite>I've always found it odd how anti-Islam conservatives are and pro-Israel, given radical Islam is WAY more consistent with conservative policies than Israel is.<br><br>Particularly given conservatives really worked hard to install radical Islam so they could push out socialist-leaning moderates.<br><br>Like, the whole 'Obama is a secret Muslim!' when he supports policies the Muslims being referenced hate.</blockquote><br>Modern Israel is quite conservative; it hasn't really been socialist for a long time.<br><br>I would call your 'socialist leaning moderates' Communists & Socialists - I still greatly prefer them to the Islamists the US favoured. I remember as a young child being sad when the USSR abandoned Afghanistan, leaving the USSR-allied Najibullah regime alone to face the US-backed Mujahideen. Najibullah was a Communist - which meant secularism and rights for women. Bad by European standards, but vastly better than the Mujahideen & Taleban. <br>There is a general tendency for the US to overthrow bad guys by backing much-worse guys; in the Muslim world that means backing Islamists to overthrow secular socialists.<br><br>Edit: US Conservatives did not use to be very hostile to Islamism. They became hostile to Shia Islamism when the Iranian revolutonaries took over the US embassy in Tehran. They were pro Sunni Islamism through the 1980s when they were on the same side vs the USSR. Relations deteriorated after the end of the Cold War and the rise of Al Qaeda, with 9/11 cementing the current opposition. It looks to me that the Islamists were the primary mover in this realignment - after the defeat of the USSR they decided to attack the US Imperium, and the US conservatives reacted to that attack.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 02:06:29 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Just in case I wasn't clear, yes, I think modern liberal attitudes toward Israel are unfair and stupid, too, and their soft handling of radical Islam bizarre.<br><br>So I suppose there's symmetry there.<br><br>(Sorry my responses are short -- this is low priority compared to other things and this is getting wildly ot)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Sacrosanct</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 02:39:07 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;799454</cite>Just in case I wasn't clear, yes, I think modern liberal attitudes toward Israel are unfair and stupid, too, and their soft handling of radical Islam bizarre.<br><br>So I suppose there's symmetry there.<br><br>(Sorry my responses are short -- this is low priority compared to other things and this is getting wildly ot)</blockquote><br>I would replace "liberal" with "leftist". Roughly half the country is liberal, but only a much smaller % are unfairly critical of Israel while not holding the same standards to Islam. Just like half the country is conservative, but only a smaller % are unfairly critical of Islam while not holding the same standard to Israel.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 03:22:21 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
How the heck did we get to Israel and Islam? I've been super busy at work, so I haven't kept up. I'd still like to get back to what the problem is with liberals buying games, but I suppose I'll bite...<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Sacrosanct;799470</cite>I would replace "liberal" with "leftist". Roughly half the country is liberal, but only a much smaller % are unfairly critical of Israel while not holding the same standards to Islam. Just like half the country is conservative, but only a smaller % are unfairly critical of Islam while not holding the same standard to Israel.</blockquote>The strange thing to me is how attitudes on Islam have flipped. <br><br>Conservatives have always been pro-Israel, but radical muslims used to also be heroic freedom fighters against the communists - James Bond and Rambo were portrayed fighting alongside radical Afghani resistance. Conservatives complained about the Ayatollah or perhaps arabs more broadly, but not about Islam as a whole. Prior to 9/11, it seemed to me that the only people complaining about the Taliban were liberals complaining about education of women and the destruction of Buddhist statues. <br><br>My perception is that it was the invasion of Iraq solidified that shift. Liberals were all solidly against Bush and his push for war against Iraq, which they viewed as needless war-mongering. So movement against war-mongering and imperialism took precedence over complaints about Islam. Conservatives then took up all sorts of previously liberal complaints about Islam. <br><br>I think the consistent attitude should be "Yes, there are problems with radical Islam - but that doesn't mean that war-mongering or imperialism against them is OK." However, that easily gets twisted into emotionally being perceived as on their side and/or actually defending them.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 03:24:44 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Well, the Gamergate issue feeds into tensions in the US between conservatives and liberals, so that's one reason for side topics.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>The Ent</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 05:41:39 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;799378</cite>Now THAT is what "looking for a fight" looks like.</blockquote><br>Nah...not really.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>The Ent</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 05:42:35 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;799492</cite>Well, the Gamergate issue feeds into tensions in the US between conservatives and liberals, so that's one reason for side topics.</blockquote><br>You dudes and Your li'l soapboxes...:D
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 06:22:49 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;799489</cite>How the heck did we get to Israel and Islam? I've been super busy at work, so I haven't kept up. I'd still like to get back to what the problem is with liberals buying games, but I suppose I'll bite...<br><br>The strange thing to me is how attitudes on Islam have flipped. <br><br>Conservatives have always been pro-Israel, but radical muslims used to also be heroic freedom fighters against the communists - James Bond and Rambo were portrayed fighting alongside radical Afghani resistance. Conservatives complained about the Ayatollah or perhaps arabs more broadly, but not about Islam as a whole. Prior to 9/11, it seemed to me that the only people complaining about the Taliban were liberals complaining about education of women and the destruction of Buddhist statues. <br><br>My perception is that it was the invasion of Iraq solidified that shift. Liberals were all solidly against Bush and his push for war against Iraq, which they viewed as needless war-mongering. So movement against war-mongering and imperialism took precedence over complaints about Islam. Conservatives then took up all sorts of previously liberal complaints about Islam. <br><br>I think the consistent attitude should be "Yes, there are problems with radical Islam - but that doesn't mean that war-mongering or imperialism against them is OK." However, that easily gets twisted into emotionally being perceived as on their side and/or actually defending them.</blockquote><br>I think conservatives are simple creatures, and it makes sense that they would flip from "these guys are on our side vs the Soviets - great!" to "these guys destroyed our World Trade Center - they suck!". <br><br>Left-Liberal attitudes are more complex, I could easily get into another flame war on this, but I'll note that most US Liberals are actually pro-Israel (whereas the European Left is strongly anti-Israel) and have a fairly 'nuanced' view of Islam & Muslims - but the general tendency is to see the Muslims in the USA/West as Good, unless actively engaged in terrorism - and the cute younger Tsaernev brother (Boston bombers) seems rather popular even while being a terrorist. This support seems to come from the idea that Muslims in the USA & the West are designated Victim Group and therefore should be supported vs US/Western conservatives/racists/right-wingers. But the Left-Liberal view tends to deprive Muslims and other Designated Victims of moral agency; in this view the Victim Group exists as a stick to beat the conservatives/racists/right-wingers with. Understandably, regular Muslims IME tend not to be too keen on left-liberals.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 06:27:53 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;799489</cite>I think the consistent attitude should be "Yes, there are problems with radical Islam - but that doesn't mean that war-mongering or imperialism against them is OK." However, that easily gets twisted into emotionally being perceived as on their side and/or actually defending them.</blockquote><br>I would say that even if you don't like people or their culture, it's not ok to wish them harm. I've been told such horrible things about Gulf Arab culture by a renegade princess (really!)... It doesn't make me want to hurt them or invade them. Leave them alone, and get them to leave us alone.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>The Ent</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 06:36:49 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I dunno. Killing every single IS member would probably be mainly positive.<br><br>Ditto the Saudi royals but that'd be murder, etc.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 06:47:24 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: The Ent;799545</cite>Ditto the Saudi royals but that'd be murder, etc.</blockquote><br>I think one of my students this year is an Al-Saud. I wouldn't want to kill her either. <br>Of course the Al-Saud leadership are a nasty bunch, but I don't see how killing them would help. Whoever took over might well be even worse. I'm pretty firmly of the opinion these days that dropping bombs on people does not help anyone. The only time killing works is when it is specific reprisal for specific acts, primarily because that can deter future aggression. So eg Mossad's assassinations of the PLO terrorists involved in the Munich massacre was effective, because cause & effect were clearly linked.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>The Ent</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 06:59:53 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Agreed, S'mon.<br><br>What I'm mainly worried about re: IS is my countrymen going off to join them then returning as ticking bombs.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 07:31:20 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;799324</cite>I've no idea who coined the phrase SJW as a pejorative, but I first encountered it on this site in relation to the RPGnet tangency clique. I do think that Pundit's "pseudo-activists" moniker fits better, mainly because it doesn't rely on sarcasm to get across its point.</blockquote><br>Strange, I first read the terms "Social Justice Warrior" and "White Knight" ON RPG.net. Similar to how the Right quit embracing the term "teabagger" when people told them what it meant.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>I don't think any of these groups existed until after "geek chic" became a thing in popular culture. Make of that what you will. In regards to the Simone board, I amusingly identified a majority of their more vocal supporters as a group of formerly hardcore Objectivists (Ayn Randians) that frequented the Byrne Robotics mb in the early aughts.</blockquote><br>Well, I always found it deliciously ironic that the more one despises Ayn Rand, the more prone they are to espouse "black and white" thinking. :D<br><br>JG
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 07:33:31 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;799360</cite>I've always found it odd how anti-Islam conservatives are and pro-Israel, given radical Islam is WAY more consistent with conservative policies than Israel is.<br><br>Particularly given conservatives really worked hard to install radical Islam so they could push out socialist-leaning moderates.<br><br>Like, the whole 'Obama is a secret Muslim!' when he supports policies the Muslims being referenced hate.</blockquote><br>It's called "projecting."<br><br>JG
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 09:56:53 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Interesting TwitLonger by the cynical Brit, TotalBiscuit:<br>http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sihieb (http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sihieb)<br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Their logic, which I'd be interested to see if it has any basis in academia, is that you can't be "ist" against the people with the power, that the power dynamic is what leads to oppression ergo, "ism". It's an interesting idea that certainly feeds into the oppression narrative but, when I read Miracle of Sounds tweets I noticed a constant in a lot of what these people said.<br>It's so goddamn American.</blockquote>
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>November 18, 2014, 11:01:44 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I think there are some pretty awesome American exports, but our narcissistic bullshit isn't one of them.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>James Gillen</strong> on <strong>November 19, 2014, 12:09:57 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: novastar;799615</cite>interesting twitlonger by the cynical brit, totalbiscuit:<br>http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sihieb (http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sihieb)</blockquote><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>you'd maybe be surprised (i hope not) at how many people genuinely want equality for all races, genders, creeds and sexual-orientations, they just maybe don't think your way of going about it is the right one.</blockquote><br>...<br>Naaaah.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>apparition13</strong> on <strong>November 19, 2014, 01:30:56 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;799615</cite>Interesting TwitLonger by the cynical Brit, TotalBiscuit:<br>http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sihieb (http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sihieb)</blockquote><br>I'd respond to TotalBiscuit myself, but I'm not on twitter. Perhaps someone could link this to him if they think he might find it useful.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TotalBiscuit</cite>The current popular narrative from some people who believe in what they call "social justice" (which still ultimately confuses me since it's such a nebulous concept and seems to mean different things to different people), is that sexism against men isn't real and racism against white people isn't real. Their logic, which I'd be interested to see if it has any basis in academia, is that you can't be "ist" against the people with the power, that the power dynamic is what leads to oppression ergo, "ism". </blockquote>The origin of this lies in "institutional racism", the idea whole societies are racist in that they are structured so as to advantage some favored element and disadvantage some other unfavored elements. It is a concept that operates at the level of whole societies, and is distinct from the common definition of racism, which is about individual attitudes (let's call this attitudinal racism).<br><br>Naturally if you are a member of a discriminated against group in institutional racism terms you cannot be an institutional racist because your group is the one without the social power to be racist. Of course even as a member of the dominant group, you can't be an institutional racist because institutional racism is an attribute of societies. <br><br>The confusion arises because institutional racism/sexism/X-ism, let's call it "institism", uses the word racism (or sexism) that usually refers to individual attitudes. The result is the two meanings get conflated, and a society level attribute gets applied to <i>every member of the dominant social grouping</i>, and then gets mixed up with attitudinal racism (attitism?). The end result is the view that what is true at the societal level where institism is concerned is also true at the individual level of attitism. <br><br>Needless to say this is bollocks, but it appears to b seductive bollocks because plenty of folks have bought into it.<br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>More recently, we've had the government-driven violence with its Fast-track land reform, in which land is being taken from white people (a 5% or lower minority in Zimbabwe), often by force. Supporters of Robert Mugabe, calling themselves the "War Veterans Association" literally went around murdering white farmers, according to the organisation Human Rights Watch.</blockquote>Technically this would be institutional racism against whites in Zimbabwe, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's explained away somehow. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>The concept of white privilege is very American too.</blockquote>This is another case of a misappropriated word. "X-privilege" really means "a subconscious favoritism of people belonging to a certain group, that operates at the level of individual attitudes (but has its origins in social portrayals)". The Implicit Association Test (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/iatdetails.html) (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/iatdetails.html) is based on this idea (and confirms the social origins part of my definition above, since African-Americans also score as biased against blacks, though to a smaller degree), and research looking into renting/hiring/college applications/etc. decisions where the race of the applicant is the only difference between two applicants is pretty consistent in showing that when all else <i>is</i> equal there is a bias in favor of whites (i.e. an application with a stereotypically white name) and against blacks (i.e. an application with a stereotypically black name). Of course it isn't just names that are used as the differentiating variable.<br><br>Again, the problem lies in appropriating an existing word rather than making one up out of Latin or Greek or whatever. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>Our towns were vast white majorities but I can safely say we had no privilege, no advantages for being white.</blockquote>Correct, you had no <i>material</i> advantage due to wealth, class, power, influence, social connections, etc., what privilege means, but all else being equal you might get a more positive subconscious response from another member of your society. E.g. the guard in the store who is concerned with shoplifting might be more likely to follow the identically dressed black guy than the white one without consciously being aware of what they were doing.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote</cite>When looking from our perspective, the American white-privilege thing doesn't make a lot of sense, because we grew up in countries where race was less of a factor. What I've noticed, is that there seems to be an incorrect conflation between race and class. Now from a British perspective, privilege is very much class-focused and the idea of class warfare is very much in our minds. People are privileged and have more opportunities because they live in middle or upper class families vs living in a working class family. People living in council houses are probably going to have less opportunities in their lives and there are a huge variety of social factors for that. Even just pointing at "class" is intellectually lazy thinking, it's so much more complicated than that. So when I see Americans point to "White privilege", I instead think, "well, do you mean it's a class problem? A lot of these black people you're pointing to seem to be working class, so maybe that's got a lot to do with their limited opportunities, right?". </blockquote>And while this makes intuitive sense, it is completely wrong. X-privilege has nothing to do with limitations on opportunity due to material factors*, it's all about attitudes most people aren't even consciously aware of. The problem is the post-modern social philosophizing (it isn't rigorous enough to qualify as western academic philosophy, and it doesn't test it's ideas so it isn't science) is so confusing the people who buy into it don't understand what they are buying into, and conflate material privilege with subconscious favoritism because someone made the terrible word choice to use X-privilige for their concept.<br><br>Both cases are essentially the same thing, examples of category errors in which words with established meanings in one context (attitudes and racism, material advantages and privilege) are misappropriated by academics to describe phenomena at a different level (societies and institutional racism, positive subconscious bias and X-privilege), and then when they filter back to non-academics the terrible neologisms are misapplied to the original context. <br><br>As an academic, it's ridiculously frustrating. I mean come on, how difficult is it to come up with institism or something along the same lines?<br><br>*Note that this has the side effect of splitting people without material privilege into groups that do or don't have X-privilege, setting them at each other rather than uniting against their common foe.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Spinachcat</strong> on <strong>November 19, 2014, 05:05:31 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Alathon;799635</cite>I think there are some pretty awesome American exports, but our narcissistic bullshit isn't one of them.</blockquote><br>Narcissistic bullshit and faux outrage are some of the last things we can still manufacture in America.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Iosue</strong> on <strong>November 19, 2014, 08:37:54 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;799668</cite>And while this makes intuitive sense, it is completely wrong. X-privilege has nothing to do with limitations on opportunity due to material factors*, it's all about attitudes most people aren't even consciously aware of. The problem is the post-modern social philosophizing (it isn't rigorous enough to qualify as western academic philosophy, and it doesn't test it's ideas so it isn't science) is so confusing the people who buy into it don't understand what they are buying into, and conflate material privilege with subconscious favoritism because someone made the terrible word choice to use X-privilige for their concept.<br></blockquote>I have another pet peeve about privilege, ironically enough perfectly demonstrated by this comic (http://www.buzzfeed.com/aaronc13/this-comic-perfectly-explains-what-white-privilege-is) that "perfectly explains white privilege."<br><br>The comic says, "When it comes to school, I'm 78% more likely to be admitted into a university because of my race." You see this kind of comment all time. Some studies find that, all other things being equal, a white candidate is selected over a black candidate X% of the time, and people will say things like, "If you're white, you are X% more likely to be selected."<br><br>That's not how probability works. Those studies find in an affect in the aggregate. Which is great, but means fuck-all to the <i>individuals</i> in each subset of the sample. It's all well and good that someone from the white subset has a better chance of being picked, but it doesn't mean that any one white person in that subset has that chance. Each person's chance is mitigated by all the other white people in the group.<br><br>So it's like, I can see the idea and even agree with it in many respects, but I wish people would be more mathematically robust in their expression of it. Along those lines, one or even two studies do not a statistic make. Especially in psychology and sociology studies, where experimental power is often low and effect sizes relatively small.<br><br>Back in 2003, when I first heard the term in a cultural psychology class, I suggested that the terminology was probably more harmful than helpful from the perspective of education and persuasion of people regarding the issue. I suspected it would linger in the halls of academia as a shibboleth, never breaking out into the mainstream. Obviously, I never expected the internet to become the freakin' meme factory it is now.<br><br>Edit: Oh and one more thing. I wish more people understood that <i>everybody</i> has privilege of one sort or another.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 19, 2014, 09:27:21 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I don't like the term privilege mainly because it's one of those words that started in one context (IE: psychology) and then got appropriated. And, in a different context, it invariably leads to misunderstandings (but I'm not 'winning' or a fat cat, or have power, what the hell?) that then take a long conversation to get past.<br><br>I have yet to see a good word for 'nested perspective issues that cause certain people to have advantages, other people to have disadvantages, and causes folks to be unaware of these issues because of their limited experience. Also, this unawareness helps foster the issues.'<br><br>I mean, obviously, when someone says that I have 'privilege,' I think 'well, shit, that sounds like I didn't work hard for anything or never had bad luck! But I had a series of dead-end jobs after I left college early, and I once ate terrible instant mashed potatoes for a month and had to get someone's old shoes because I was already borrowing from friends to make rent.'<br><br>Or worse.<br><br>But hey, I have advantages compared to, say, a blind guy growing up in a literal war zone. Or a dwarf. Or someone growing up very poor. Or a black transwoman lesbian hispanic Jew. And my privilege makes it easy to overlook any issues they face unless I TRY REALLY HARD to be aware of them.<br><br>The thing is, privilege isn't a point score. But it's a lousy term because it sounds like it is.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Novastar</strong> on <strong>November 19, 2014, 10:01:15 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I've never met a person who's told me "Check your privilege!", that didn't mean "Check your entitlements!" rather than "Check your perspective!"<br><br>If 'privilege' is meant to be taken the latter way, people have done a poor job teaching it that way.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Daztur</strong> on <strong>November 19, 2014, 11:01:55 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
There have been studies done with taking a big stack of resumes and changing the gender or ethnicity of the name at the top (for example switching out "John Smith," "Jane Smith" "Jamal Smith, "Lisa Choi," etc. etc.) you get quite different responses often quite massive ones (like "Jamal Smith's" resume being e-mailed to 100 random companies and "John Smith's" resume being emailed to a 100 random companies and John Smith getting twice as many responses despite their being identical except for the name. So there's a real problem here, there are a thousand problems with how "privilege" is used on the internet but there are real substantial biases still at work that can be objectively proven.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>November 19, 2014, 11:15:14 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Okay what do you want me to do with it after I am done checking my privilege? Seriously there isn't a lot to do about it and I refuse to be a walking sheeple that annoys other people like the social justice crowd. Like it, or not I am not the one causing the suffering of others nor did they cause me to suffer. Just take that check your privilege talk and shove it straight up your ass.<br><br><b>Edit:</b> Should clarify that was not targeted at anyone in this thread. I am just sick of whiny people with entitlement complexities spewing that phrase. If they get to act like bigots behind everyone's back to minorities that don't agree with them, then I don't need to respect them.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 19, 2014, 11:21:02 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Novastar;799856</cite>I've never met a person who's told me "Check your privilege!", that didn't mean "Check your entitlements!" rather than "Check your perspective!"<br><br>If 'privilege' is meant to be taken the latter way, people have done a poor job teaching it that way.</blockquote><br>I see it used about perspective a lot, particularly when guys are mansplaining or white people are telling black people what the black experience is.<br><br>The thing is, privilege usually does translate to advantage. It's just not simple, because there's a bunch of different privileges that interact, and better odds are just that... better odds.<br><br>The fact that, say, a poor white person has more odds of success than a poor black person isn't a great comfort, and it also doesn't seem meaningful if the white person is unlucky and the black person is lucky.<br><br><br>But hey, class and income is ALSO a privilege issue. I see a lot of folks say 'I'm white but I grew up poor and'... well, ok. You got a +20% bonus for being white, a -30% penalty for growing up poor, but the special rules for 'poor' mean that your whiteness bonus is halved unless you get the Swords and Sciences supplement, in which case you have to multiply it by Tan of the geographic location angle...
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 19, 2014, 11:22:03 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;799864</cite>Okay what do you want me to do with it after I am done checking my privilege? Seriously there isn't a lot to do about it and I refuse to be a walking sheeple that annoys other people like the social justice crowd. Like it, or not I am not the one causing the suffering of others nor did they cause me to suffer. Just take that check your privilege talk and shove it straight up your ass.</blockquote><br>You could try being a more compassionate human being who doesn't insist that people's experiences aren't valid when they tell you about them.<br><br>Just a thought.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Alathon</strong> on <strong>November 19, 2014, 11:36:28 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Snowman0147;799864</cite>Okay what do you want me to do with it after I am done checking my privilege? Seriously there isn't a lot to do about it and I refuse to be a walking sheeple that annoys other people like the social justice crowd. Like it, or not I am not the one causing the suffering of others nor did they cause me to suffer. Just take that check your privilege talk and shove it straight up your ass.</blockquote><br>That's pretty much where I'm at.. I've heard this privilege bullshit from too many trust fund babies and petty false authorities. I figure it's pretty much just a bargaining position, an accusation made to put a target on the defensive, twist a conversation around to Them having to justify.. ya know, being Them.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 20, 2014, 12:24:16 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I'v thankfully never had someone actually say to me that I needed to "check my privilege". Probably because I don't associate with the sorts of people likely to say something like that. Thinking about it, the only response I can imagine offering is "it's doing just fine, thanks". <br><br><br>What I think this touches on is the huuge divide between the way I see the world and my responsibility within it, and the way certain other people do. <br><br>I hate statistics. I think they are meaningless drivel. Half the time they're either made up or based on incredibly biased studies, most of the rest of the time they involve samples of 500 (or even less) people, which considering that is barely 1% of the population of the city I cuurrently live in, let alone a country, let alone the world, it drives me nuts to have people use statistics to back up their, frankly, prejudices. But more importantly than that, I don't think it matters. Ever. <br><br>I personally believe that the only thing in life that matters is the unique interactions between individuals. I don't care about trends, I don't care about probabilities I don't care about any excuse someone comes up with to justify dealing with other human beings as <i>generalizations</i>. I think every human being is unique, and I dont care how easy it is to think otherwise, I think the only moral way to <i>think</i> is to deal with people that way. And yes, that's a harder way to live. Human brains are naturally predisposed to generalizations. To prejudice. Its easier to think in those terms. Its safer its more comforting, it makes people feel like they've got something "figured out". <br><br>I don't care. I'm not interested in people's comfort or what's easy for them. I think the moment , in any line of reasoning, where you jump from dealing with people as individuals to dealing with people as aggregate representations of a group, then you've committed a fallacy of thought. <br><br>And I also realize that view is the direct opposite of many other people around. But that's the line in the sand I draw between an idea or belief I think is worth considering and political claptrap I have no interest in.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 20, 2014, 12:31:37 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Iosue;799849</cite>this comic (http://www.buzzfeed.com/aaronc13/this-comic-perfectly-explains-what-white-privilege-is) that "perfectly explains white privilege."<br>.</blockquote><br>That comic is moronic, frankly. Itsays "being white means I'm more likely to get my degree"?No. If you f-ing study and pass your classes you are 100% likely to receive your degree, regardless of any other factor. I mean, what are they even trying to say? That PoC are being discriminated against by not doing their homework? That schools hand out diplomas based on ethnicity of the recipient? That being white makes you better at school? Hell if I was a PoC, I'd be offended by that BS.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 20, 2014, 12:48:00 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
That people will filter their judgement about your performance based on what you are, because people aren't robots, which is kind of the point?<br><br>I've known people who got summarily ejected from their major because some highly placed professor just decided 'nope, you aren't right for this program.'<br><br>(CMU Architecture department, for example)
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 20, 2014, 01:02:51 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Then that person should be sued. Its not a matter of "white privilege" that some people are racist dumbasses.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 20, 2014, 01:11:38 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
... Seriously, Tristram?<br><br>You can't imagine the thousand different ways someone can do racist, sexist, anti-Christian, or a dozen other unfair things and not get sued over it? Or where a suit just ends up with the accuser getting a heap of shit for the rest of their life?<br><br>You're also REALLY glossing over the entire concept of perceptive blindness to begin with. Lots of people do racist stuff without thinking they are racist, without being conscious of it. That's... kind of the point.<br><br>Give a bunch of people an SAT test. Before the test, give one of two speeches.<br>Speech A, encourage people to do well.<br>Speech B, encourage people to do well, but note that women often score worse on SAT tests.<br><br>Group B, the women will do worse.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Justin Alexander</strong> on <strong>November 20, 2014, 01:15:23 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;799872</cite>That comic is moronic, frankly. Itsays "being white means I'm more likely to get my degree"?No. If you f-ing study and pass your classes you are 100% likely to receive your degree, regardless of any other factor.</blockquote><br>It's a terrible treatment of the subject, but there's definitely institutional factors contributing to these statistics. The studies of how people with "black-sounding" names suffer when applying for schools, getting graded on assignments, and when applying for jobs after school are damnably clear.<br><br>Your belief that a white guy and a black guy can both provide the same input to the system and get the same output back is, in fact, <i>exactly</i> what white privilege is.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Iosue</strong> on <strong>November 20, 2014, 01:17:45 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;799872</cite>That comic is moronic, frankly. Itsays "being white means I'm more likely to get my degree"?No. If you f-ing study and pass your classes you are 100% likely to receive your degree, regardless of any other factor. I mean, what are they even trying to say? That PoC are being discriminated against by not doing their homework? That schools hand out diplomas based on ethnicity of the recipient? That being white makes you better at school? Hell if I was a PoC, I'd be offended by that BS.</blockquote>Well, all other things being equal, college is expensive. That will skew things.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 20, 2014, 01:37:57 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Iosue;799882</cite>Well, all other things being equal, college is expensive. That will skew things.</blockquote><br>IT'll skew attendance, maybe, but not <i>graduation</i>.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Snowman0147</strong> on <strong>November 20, 2014, 01:44:25 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Mind you this is for the USA as I don't know the rest of the world, but college is expensive because of two reasons. <br><br>First off our society had done a wonderful job in tricking people into thinking they need college which normally you don't. No I literally mean that. Unless your going for a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Medicine), working in law, or something that demands a great deal of knowledge you honestly don't need college. In fact your wasting money and putting yourself into debt that may not be payable. Most people do not figure that out till it is too late because they got swept in the belief that if they don't go to college they won't get a job.<br><br>Secondly college is expensive because the colleges are getting income that they can't lose. It is practically a giving. This is due to the federal government giving out loans to everyone. With such a easy and dependable source of income colleges can jack up the costs to their liking. Which means more students are going to get fuck over. Mind you once the loan is made the college is paid. They got their money and don't have to worry about things such as if your education can land you a job. Instead you have to worry about the federal government that is now breathing down the back of your neck. They want the money back and bankruptcy will not save you from the IRS.<br><br>My personal advice for people who got out of high school is this. Pick up a trade in trade school. Not only do they pay you money while you train, but your at least picking up a skill that people will want to hire you. Not completely perfect, but even if it doesn't work out your not debt slave.<br><br>Now if there is no trade school for the job you want it might be because you don't need a higher education for that job. I mean if you want to be a podcast host do you really need a college education? No. You need to have some basic computer skills and know how to use your equipment. Beyond that your success is determine by your talent and showman skill which cannot be taught in a college.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 20, 2014, 01:46:54 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Justin Alexander;799881</cite>It's a terrible treatment of the subject, but there's definitely institutional factors contributing to these statistics. The studies of how people with "black-sounding" names suffer when applying for schools, getting graded on assignments, and when applying for jobs after school are damnably clear.<br><br>Your belief that a white guy and a black guy can both provide the same input to the system and get the same output back is, in fact, <i>exactly</i> what white privilege is.</blockquote><br>Can you come up with one example of a student with a 4.0+ grade average whose failed school because of their ethnicity? Because I'm invoking my skepticism right now. And if that is the case, I don't think "privilege" is anything close to the right term.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Iosue</strong> on <strong>November 20, 2014, 02:13:08 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;799884</cite>IT'll skew attendance, maybe, but not <i>graduation</i>.</blockquote>Unless you've got student loans, or a huge nest-egg, college is paid by the quarter/semester. Scholarships and non-loan financial aid do not always cover everything. Miss a tuition payment, and you get a hold on your record, preventing you from registering for new classes. Four years is a long time. Poorer students may get accepted and have a plan for payment, but over the course of those four years things can go haywire.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;799886</cite>Can you come up with one example of a student with a 4.0+ grade average whose failed school because of their ethnicity? Because I'm invoking my skepticism right now. And if that is the case, I don't think "privilege" is anything close to the right term.</blockquote>You keep passing over the fact that it is easier for a white student to maintain a 4.0 grade point average than for black or Hispanic students.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Spinachcat</strong> on <strong>November 20, 2014, 02:23:24 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Except that in the USA, a 4 year college degree is the new high school diploma. <br><br>While Snowman is right many jobs don't need a college diploma, employers are requiring college diplomas for jobs that don't need them. A high school diploma is equal to a kindergarten certificate in the white collar work force. <br><br>As for the skin color dance, let's admit MOST people prefer people who look like themselves, either consciously or unconsciously. Of course, such a preference among "white" people is a thought crime, but called solidarity or brotherhood for other ethnic groups. I had hoped that Obama's election would ease racial tensions, but the clearly the opposite has occurred.<br> <br>That comic is such a joke, but I hope all the self-hating honkies enjoy their unending flagellating.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>S'mon</strong> on <strong>November 20, 2014, 03:27:08 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Iosue;799849</cite>The comic says, "When it comes to school, I'm 78% more likely to be admitted into a university because of my race." You see this kind of comment all time. Some studies find that, all other things being equal, a white candidate is selected over a black candidate X% of the time, and people will say things like, "If you're white, you are X% more likely to be selected."</blockquote><br>Since the US University system has Affirmative Action, if you control for grades then whites and east-Asians are much less likely to be admitted than affirmative-action beneficiaries. If you take whites as the baseline, then east-Asians are the ones suffering discrimination, being less likely to be admitted with equivalent grades - http://www.unz.com/runz/asian-quotas-in-the-ivy-league-we-see-nothing/<br>If you don't control for anything then non-Jewish non-Hispanic whites are the most under-represented group at elite US Universities, being ca 60% of the US population and ca 22% of US elite University membership, per Ron Unz:<br>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/<br>This is because this group is in the ca 66% of the US population that does not benefit from Affirmative Action quotas, along with Jewish whites and east-Asians. Those two groups each take roughly 22% of the pie, leaving a similar slice for the non-Jewish whites. According to Unz this is not purely due to non-Jewish whites scoring lower on test scores.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 20, 2014, 04:19:29 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Iosue;799887</cite>You keep passing over the fact that it is easier for a white student to maintain a 4.0 grade point average than for black or Hispanic students.</blockquote><br>Well, I've seen the statement at least. I haven't encountered a reason to believe it as yet.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>jhkim</strong> on <strong>November 20, 2014, 09:39:52 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;799898</cite>Well, I've seen the statement at least. I haven't encountered a reason to believe it as yet.</blockquote>Do you believe, for example, that it is harder for a black person to get an interview because of their race? Because it is well documented that the exact same resume is less likely to result in an interview if it seems like a black person. <br><br>If you do believe this, do you believe that while there might be prejudiced people within HR departments, that teachers are always fair and unprejudiced?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>apparition13</strong> on <strong>November 20, 2014, 10:04:03 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Spinachcat;799889</cite>As for the skin color dance, let's admit MOST people prefer people who look like themselves, either consciously or unconsciously. Of course, such a preference among "white" people is a thought crime, but called solidarity or brotherhood for other ethnic groups. I had hoped that Obama's election would ease racial tensions, but the clearly the opposite has occurred.</blockquote>If you look at the data from implicit association tests, Blacks socialized in the U.S. also (but to a lesser extent) show a bias against Blacks and in favor or Whites, which suggests it is a product of cultural socialization.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;799852</cite>I don't like the term privilege mainly because it's one of those words that started in one context (IE: psychology) </blockquote>You have a cite for that Will? I've seen plenty of psych studies dealing with implicit attitides and implicit discrimination, but they don't use the word "privilege". I'm pretty sure it's from critical theory/PM "sociology". And yes, I meant to put "sociology" in quotes. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Daztur;799861</cite>There have been studies done with taking a big stack of resumes and changing the gender or ethnicity of the name at the top (for example switching out "John Smith," "Jane Smith" "Jamal Smith, "Lisa Choi," etc. etc.) you get quite different responses often quite massive ones (like "Jamal Smith's" resume being e-mailed to 100 random companies and "John Smith's" resume being emailed to a 100 random companies and John Smith getting twice as many responses despite their being identical except for the name. So there's a real problem here, there are a thousand problems with how "privilege" is used on the internet but there are real substantial biases still at work that can be objectively proven.</blockquote>The best example of this is orchestras. Once they switched to auditions where the musicians were behind blinds/curtains so the judges couldn't see them the number of female hires skyrocketed. No one thought they were discriminating against women, they really believed they were judging based on merit, but they were discriminating because their implicit attitudes colored their perceptions of musical quality. <br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;799865</cite>I see it used about perspective a lot, particularly when guys are mansplaining or white people are telling black people what the black experience is.<br><br>The thing is, privilege usually does translate to advantage. It's just not simple, because there's a bunch of different privileges that interact, and better odds are just that... better odds.<br><br>The fact that, say, a poor white person has more odds of success than a poor black person isn't a great comfort, and it also doesn't seem meaningful if the white person is unlucky and the black person is lucky.<br><br><br>But hey, class and income is ALSO a privilege issue. I see a lot of folks say 'I'm white but I grew up poor and'... well, ok. You got a +20% bonus for being white, a -30% penalty for growing up poor, but the special rules for 'poor' mean that your whiteness bonus is halved unless you get the Swords and Sciences supplement, in which case you have to multiply it by Tan of the geographic location angle...</blockquote>Will, you (and everyone else actually) really need to stop using that word the way you're using it. Being subject to implicit (unconscious) socio-cultural discrimination or favoritism is not privilege. Being more or less likely to get into med-school because of some demographic variable isn't privilege. Getting into med-school <i>because your parents bought a wing at Johns-Hopkins </i>is privilege. Buying OJ's defense team is privilege. Getting that plum internship because your parents contributed to the Senators campaign is privilege. Meeting with the president because you contributed 2 million to the party is privilege. Getting the laws/tax breaks you want passed by a legislature is privilege. <br><br>Having slightly better or worse socio-cultural stats isn't that significant when you're one of the zero-level masses living in a world where there are people with 20 levels of "make the world dance to their tune" <i>material</i>, real, privilege. Class and wealth aren't "ALSO", they are qualitatively different and orders of magnitude more powerful. That's why the word privilege exists, to describe <i>exceptional</i> social power, not run of the mill differences. <br><br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: Will;799866</cite>You could try being a more compassionate human being who doesn't insist that people's experiences aren't valid when they tell you about them.<br><br>Just a thought.</blockquote>Firstly, this is a passive-aggressive way of saying "you're an asshole".<br><br>Secondly, "more compassionate" is a red herring. There are over 7 billion people on the planet, 55 million of whom die every year, close to 2 per second. No one has enough compassion to care about all those tragedies happening to strangers. And that's what the vast majority of anonymous names on the internet are.<br><br>Thirdly, leaving aside the validity of peoples subjective experiences, experiences are not necessarily generalizable. "Denying the experience" is usually "denying the <i>generalizability</i> of your experience". <br><br>Fourthly, people's memories are terrible. Every time you remember something you call it up to working memory, which makes it unstable. When it goes back to long term memory it is changed by what you were experiencing while it was in working memory. Which means people's <i>memories </i>of their subjective experiences may well be wrong. There's interesting research that was done during and following 9-11 that showed that what people remembered about their experience of 9-11 months to a couple of years after <i>differed</i> from what they said they experienced when it happened. The longer the time lapse, the more the differences. <br><br>So your memories of your experiences may well be false. <br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;799898</cite>Well, I've seen the statement at least. I haven't encountered a reason to believe it as yet.</blockquote>So ask for a citation, or better yet do your own search/research. You shouldn't accept things people say without evidence, but you shouldn't reject them out of hand either.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>apparition13</strong> on <strong>November 20, 2014, 10:05:10 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;799921</cite>Do you believe, for example, that it is harder for a black person to get an interview because of their race? Because it is well documented that the exact same resume is less likely to result in an interview if it seems like a black person. <br><br>If you do believe this, do you believe that while there might be prejudiced people within HR departments, that teachers are always fair and unprejudiced?</blockquote><br>It's way simpler than that I believe. It's a lot easier to maintain a 4.0 when you don't have to work three jobs to pay for school.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>apparition13</strong> on <strong>November 20, 2014, 10:35:54 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
And another thing;<br><br>all this "racist, sexist, X-ist" bs is just name calling. I don't give a crap what Malky Mackay believes or feels or even expressed in what he believed was a private conversation; did he engage in discriminatory practice (implicit or explicit) or not? Did he buy or sell players based on race/ethinicity? Did he allocate playing time based on race/ethnicity? Did he treat players better or worse based on race/ethnicity? If not, whatever his actual attitudes are don't matter.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Sacrosanct</strong> on <strong>November 20, 2014, 10:52:48 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I have a mixed race family. Anyone who thinks privilege isn't a real problem is grossly incorrect.<br><br>But I don't really blame people for not seeing it. I didn't see it myself until I lived in a country where I was the only white person around. That's when you really start to see just how many things are impacted by being part of a small minority. Higher taxi fares, racial/ethnicity jokes that no one else really noticed because they were part of the norm in that society, unfavorable treatment by merchants and vendors, the list goes on and on. Things that aren't really illegal or major, but they pile up.<br><br>So yeah, while a black person and a white person might be in the same school with the same access to facilities, imagine being the only white person in a room of black people who most of them don't share any of your interests. Imagine that everywhere you go, people assume you're up to no good. Integration is important, and if you feel the outcast, that can impact your success, regardless if you "technically" have access to the same material.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 20, 2014, 11:02:20 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: TristramEvans;799898</cite>Well, I've seen the statement at least. I haven't encountered a reason to believe it as yet.</blockquote><br>... Which is privilege. That's... are you really that un-selfaware??<br><br>When black people tell you they experience systematic discrimination and an uphill battle to do stuff that white people are able to do, why do you assume they are all lying or exaggerating?<br><br>It's shit like THAT that undermines your supposedly reasonable stance.<br><br>Look, if people with extensive experience in the military keep telling me 'being in the military is like X,' I don't start telling them how the military really is, or make up excuses for people I've never met and assume those 'other people' are more reasonable than the person I'm talking to.<br><br>But privileged people do that constantly whenever disenfranchised folks say stuff, particularly when there's a defensive motive to do so.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 20, 2014, 11:09:30 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;799923</cite>You have a cite for that Will? I've seen plenty of psych studies dealing with implicit attitides and implicit discrimination, but they don't use the word "privilege". I'm pretty sure it's from critical theory/PM "sociology". And yes, I meant to put "sociology" in quotes. </blockquote><br>A cite, no. But scientifically when you state something is 'privileged' you don't generally mean what a lot of people think about by privilege.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;799923</cite>Firstly, this is a passive-aggressive way of saying "you're an asshole"</blockquote><br>If I wanted to call him an asshole, I would. Does my behavior suggest otherwise?<br><br>But if you are SERIOUSLY ASKING for what to do in the face of issues like discrimination and privilege, that's my answer.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;799923</cite>Secondly, "more compassionate" is a red herring. There are over 7 billion people on the planet, 55 million of whom die every year, close to 2 per second. No one has enough compassion to care about all those tragedies happening to strangers. And that's what the vast majority of anonymous names on the internet are.</blockquote><br>Um, talking about a red herring, and a bit of an excluded middle.<br><br>All I'm suggesting is that when someone looks or acts upset by their lot in life, don't get defensive and tell them how it's all their fault and how stupid they are.<br>Which is what a lot of this 'reacting against excesses of feminism' sound like.<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;799923</cite>Thirdly, leaving aside the validity of peoples subjective experiences, experiences are not necessarily generalizable. "Denying the experience" is usually "denying the <i>generalizability</i> of your experience". </blockquote><br>If lots of people in a given experience communicate some of the same ideas and worries, why do you predicate your ignorance over them?<br>If you do that, you are being a colossal pig-headed asshole. (See? I have no problem calling it out)<br><br><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: apparition13;799923</cite>Fourthly, people's memories are terrible. Every time you remember something you call it up to working memory, which makes it unstable. When it goes back to long term memory it is changed by what you were experiencing while it was in working memory. Which means people's <i>memories </i>of their subjective experiences may well be wrong. There's interesting research that was done during and following 9-11 that showed that what people remembered about their experience of 9-11 months to a couple of years after <i>differed</i> from what they said they experienced when it happened. The longer the time lapse, the more the differences. <br><br>So your memories of your experiences may well be false. <br>So ask for a citation, or better yet do your own search/research. You shouldn't accept things people say without evidence, but you shouldn't reject them out of hand either.</blockquote><br>Why do you assume your ignorance about a subject entitles you with more perspective and discernment than people dealing with it?
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Sacrosanct</strong> on <strong>November 20, 2014, 11:12:51 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
As I mentioned, I have bi-racial children, so this article (https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/7-things-i-can-do-that-my-black-son-cant-99408985077.html) hits pretty close to home. But more importantly, it's all true. Every last bit. Privilege is a very real thing that shouldn't just be hand waved away.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>Will</strong> on <strong>November 20, 2014, 11:23:15 AM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
Speeches mothers have to give their black children:<br>http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/07/killing_keaton_otis_mothers_of.html<br><br>LeVar Burton about his caution dealing with police:<br>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-ckDJ3xTaE<br><br><br>Stress affects lots of things, including health and learning. It doesn't take hippy dippy feelgood crystal magic to see, scientifically, how living like this can have pervasive negative effects.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>TristramEvans</strong> on <strong>November 20, 2014, 12:20:32 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
<blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><cite>Quote from: jhkim;799921</cite>Do you believe, for example, that it is harder for a black person to get an interview because of their race? Because it is well documented that the exact same resume is less likely to result in an interview if it seems like a black person. <br><br>If you do believe this, do you believe that while there might be prejudiced people within HR departments, that teachers are always fair and unprejudiced?</blockquote><br>Yes I'm certain it is harder for visible minorities to get job interviews. I also don't believe that teachers are necessarily "fair and unprejudiced". In this case though, a bottom-of-the-class barely-passing C- average student might have a slightly better chance of passing if they are white than a minority but only to the same extent of an overweight student or any other factors of bias. I don';t believe that under any normal circumstances, a competent student is going to fail based solely on their race. <br><br>What I'm saying is "white privilege" isn't something that I'd consider a significant factor over, say, "neurotypical privilege" or "physical attractiveness privilege".
</div><!-- .postbody -->
<div class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Most interesting thing about #gamergate: the #notyourshield protests</strong><br>
Post by: <strong>One Horse Town</strong> on <strong>November 20, 2014, 12:32:07 PM</strong>
</div>
<div class="postbody">
I think this thread has run its course now you're all finding new -isms to fight over.<br><br>Feel free to start a new thread focusing on Gamergate if you like, but this one is over.
</div><!-- .postbody -->
</div><!-- #posts -->
<div class="print_options">
<strong><a href="https://www.therpgsite.com/other-games/most-interesting-thing-about-gamergate-the-notyourshield-protests/?action=printpage;PHPSESSID=6a026a67ca755428c6a029d017268fc8">Text only</a></strong> | <a href="https://www.therpgsite.com/other-games/most-interesting-thing-about-gamergate-the-notyourshield-protests/?action=printpage;images;PHPSESSID=6a026a67ca755428c6a029d017268fc8">Text with Images</a>
</div><!-- .print_options -->
<div id="footer" class="smalltext"><a href="https://www.therpgsite.com/credits/?PHPSESSID=6a026a67ca755428c6a029d017268fc8" title="License" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SMF 2.1.4 © 2023</a>, <a href="https://www.simplemachines.org" title="Simple Machines" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Simple Machines</a></div>
</body>
</html>