Quote from: Ladybird;798815I 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!

I think it may be easier to put it like this:
Both Geeks and Femmes has been downtrodden a long time, and still is.
Who benefits from those two fighting each other?
We are both normally for Free Speech.
We are both normally for Equality.
We are both normally for Sharing.
Who is against that?

Quote from: Catelf;798826I think it may be easier to put it like this:
Both Geeks and Femmes has been downtrodden a long time, and still is.
Who benefits from those two fighting each other?
We are both normally for Free Speech.
We are both normally for Equality.
We are both normally for Sharing.
Who is against that?

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.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;798792Where 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.

I guess I'll just keep following my survival guidelines outside of this website:
- Never discuss gender issues
- Leave the space when gender issues that could become heated enter
- Never say anything about a woman's appearance, positive or negative
- Do not be seen publicly interacting with material where attractive female forms are too prominently featured

I'm gonna throw it out there that at least in America, there's another very depressing guideline we ought to be considering.  

- Avoid spending time with people who participate in accusation-as-guilt, who participate in accusation-as-bargaining-position; they are a potential legal liability.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;798732Who 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?

Wait, where does S'mon make the connection that "her being more attractive than Zoe somehow make GG more right"?

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.

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."

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?

(Thank God both of them are part Jewish, so I can't be accused of Antisemitism... :rolleyes: )

Quote from: Catelf;798781You do have a point there, I guess you just ran with it?
Perhaps you ran a bit too far?

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.

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.

Quote from: TristramEvans;798784I think judging people by their looks is not only natural , but utterly unavoidable.

No its not fair.
No, it shouldnt affect things like a person's ability to earn a living, personal liberties, and basic etiquette.

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, honest.

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.

*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':

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;798792I find this news story about the comet lander relevant:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/14/rosetta-comet-dr-matt-taylor-apology-sexist-shirt

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?"

People who support hauling that poor guy over the coals & making him cry are 'part of the problem'.

Quote from: Will;798808There's a stereotypical type of conservative who sees everyone who disagrees with him as being clearly a feminazi/radfem.

This is you demonstrating that stereotype.

Thanks - I think that's actually a lot fairer than Sacrosanct's shitty response.

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.

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.

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.

(Assuming folks think they should apologize at all)

Quote from: Novastar;798837Wait, where does S'mon make the connection that "her being more attractive than Zoe somehow make GG more right"?

because the context of that back in forth was attacking someone's appearance as if it were relevant to their position.

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

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

Quote from: Sacrosanct;798798Especially 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)

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.

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.

Quote from: S'mon;798842Thanks - I think that's actually a lot fairer than Sacrosanct's shitty response.

See, this is what I'm talking about.  You were the one to post a misogynistic post, and rather than own up to it, you're painting me as the one who fucked up?

Man up dude, and stop being such an asshole.

Quote from: Werekoala;798817I'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.

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.

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?

Quote from: S'mon;798846You 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.

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.

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".

You truly are a class A douchebag who doesn't even have a clue.  Congratulations.

Quote from: jhkim;798848And 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.

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?

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.