Bull :shit: and more bull :shit: and lots of bull :shit: (content warning: StarGate)



  • Continuing the discussion from ๐Ÿ”— Quick links thread:

    @cartman82 said:

    ###Rant from an anon game dev, about his frustrations with the social justice crowd.

    It's a bit too panicky IMO, but then, I'm not in the thick of things as this guy claims to be. Seems all the usual gamergate places are prodding him to reveal more, so this might produce some interesting drama down the line (if he gets doxed, for example).

    1. No one cares, notices or remembers all the instances when males get attacked on the internet. When a female is attacked however, it is reported on endlessly, and the motivations for the attacks are always attributed to sexism or other forms of prejudice, regardless of the person attacked or context.

    Seriously? Reported on endlessly?

    I can only assume he's seeking out these stories, because not only is it not reported "endlessly", I haven't seen any mention of it in months-- gaming or regular press.

    1. Any serious and respectful refutation of any of the arguments put forward by people like Anita Sarkeesian, about GamerGate, or other relevent issues are by default lumped in with the trolls and never addressed, while only the ridiculous or vulgar attacks are ever held up by these people as examples of their critics.

    I've never seen a "serious and respectful refutation" of any of the arguments put forward by Anita Sarkeesian. Do they exist?

    I have seen loads of misogynist bullshit heaped on her for absolutely no reason at all.

    There have been countless detailed refutations that dismantle pretty much every argument Anita Sarkeesian has put forth, using video evidence of flat out lies and misrepresentations a plenty. Itโ€™s pretty damn shocking the more you discover.

    Telling that he doesn't link to one.

    What arguments is Sarkeesian putting forth, and how are they being dismantled exactly? From what I've seen of her videos, she just briefly narrates a problem with gender in games, then shows clips from dozens of games demonstrating the problem. AFAIK she's not even making any arguments.

    However, combating โ€˜abuseโ€™ gives these people license to block all forms of critical discourse, from comments to like / dislike ratio, which allows them to project a higher perception of agreement to those within and without the games industry.

    If "critical discourse" of my works were basically a constant river of rape threats, I'd probably block them too. So a tiny bit of the stuff I blocked is a false-positive? Well, sorry I guess.

    1. The subject matter of troll tweets are specifically tailored to upset or annoy those who are trolled. If Zoe Quinn was a black male the โ€˜nโ€™ word would be coming out. If Anita Sarkeesian was a gay man the โ€˜fโ€™ word would be making an appearance. An outspoken feminist getting tweets telling her to get back in the kitchen and make a sandwich is not a surprise, and it is far from certain that even those sending such tweets remotely subscribe to the views they use to attack her, considering the nature of the tweets is specifically designed to UPSET A FEMINIST.

    Great defense here. "Sure the guys making rape threats are making rape threats, but only because rape upsets feminists specifically!"

    Oh well. I've changed my mind entirely. Let's find the people behind those Twitter accounts and give them a badge of honor. Maybe a huge cash rewards. These guys are heros!

    Making any asssumptions as to the inherent nature of over a billion gamers, their values, or the progressiveness of their views based on what could amount to 10s, or 100s of people is ridiculous and disrespectful.

    More or less ridiculous and disrespectful than making rape threats at a person because they started a Kickstarter to discuss gender issues in gaming? I need a gauge here.

    The reputation of gamers as misogynist thugs is then transmitted uncritically on mainstream TV talkshows, and ruin our reputation based on the actions of a tiny percentage of us.

    This guy needs to look up the phrase "silent majority", and turn to the Edmund Burke page of their quotation dictionary.

    1. Jack Thompson raised the exact same concerns about the games industry, with violence being the specific nature of his worries instead of sexism, with the same unfounded claims it affects real world behavior. However he found few or no allies within the games industry, and despite also being victimized by phone threats on himself and his family, attacks on him were rarely condemned to the extent attacks on females have been.

    It's almost as if that is proof that the people making these rape theats against Anita Sarkeesian are misogynists! Hmm.

    When Jack Thompson made his claims, we all rallied in defense of the reputation of our beloved industry and hobby. This time, it seems the entire games industry is colluding with the outside threat and this confuses and scares gamers.

    Colluding how? By adding a female avatar (but not bothering to re-record dialog or edit her into the cut-scenes!) to Shadow of Mordor? Is that what the collusion is here?

    Arenโ€™t our games press meant to be fighting in our corner?

    Actually it's about ethics in video game journalism!

    Why is sexism treated with more importance than violence,

    By whom? And ... who says it is? This statement is completely unfounded.

    and why is sexism in games more likely to modify real life behavior than violence is?

    Again: who says it is?

    Itโ€™s so ironic that the privileged white rich male, reputed to be โ€˜listened toโ€™ by other people due soley to his gender, was completely ignored and mocked industry wide, while the โ€˜downtrodden female whom no one respects her views due to her genderโ€™ is seemingly celebrated, worshiped and applauded at every turn by the entire industry despite almost complete equivalence of arguments

    This is just wrong.

    First of all, Jack Thompson was taken seriously by the press for a long, long time.

    Secondly, Jack Thompson was only ridiculed (in general) after his movement failed to gain traction and he refused to give up. The position he was promoting was Government censorship of video games, which is against the 1st Amendment and, even if he had succeeded, would have been stricken-down the instant it hit the Supreme Court and everybody knew it. And even then, he was never ridiculed in the mainstream press, he just stopped getting invited to talk shows and kind of quietly disappeared.

    The situation is nothing alike.

    "The Federal Government should censor video games, despite that being entirely contrary to the most important law of the land" is not equivalent to, "hey game industry, maybe stop being such sexists?"

    1. Several of the notable key figures who have been victims of twitter abuse and identify as anti-Gamer Gate and are largely supported by the games industry, have shown a long history of volatile and extremely hostile behavior against others on twitter, often with little perceivable justification or imagined oppression, often rivaling the aggressiveness of the trolling they received.

    Mooooom! Bob pushed me first!!!

    I love these arguments on a 5-year-old's intellectual level. Keep 'em coming. What's the next point, you called shotgun but Sally got into the passenger seat first?

    Where the industry at large is pretty united in calling Phil Fish a controversial figure, sometimes even an asshole, and all understanding fully the reasons he draws such negative attention from trolls, the same logic is never used on these other less male, less cis figures guilty of the exact same hostile and unpleasant behavior. Itโ€™s not possible to dislike these figures or disagree strongly with them without it being packaged in misogyny.

    Maybe it's because they're genuinely honest and likable people, and only misogynists would think otherwise? Just a theory.


    Ugh, this thing is endless. Cartman, why are you listening to this asshole? Jesus, man. Go back to 8chan.


  • mod

    I'd never thought I'd say this, but, My thoughts exactly, Blakeyrat. I got about two paragraphs into the link before I closed it and wandered off.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    If "critical discourse" of my works were basically a constant river of rape threats, I'd probably block them too.

    We only have her word that she gets a constant flow of rape threats. If only 1/1000 is one, while I agree any at all is far too much, calling it a constant flow is a flat-out lie. The only reason anyone cares about her is that she keeps going on TV talking about all the threats she receives. Everyone already knows she's wrong.

    @blakeyrat said:

    More or less ridiculous and disrespectful than making rape threats at a person because they started a Kickstarter to discuss gender issues in gaming? I need a gauge here.

    Exactly that rediculous and disrespectful, since she's on the side of the people who doxxed the Fine Young Capitalists when they tried to fund support for women game developers.

    @blakeyrat said:

    It's almost as if that is proof that the people making these rape theats against Anita Sarkeesian are misogynists! Hmm.

    It's almost as if people only care about threats if they're made against women.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Mooooom! Bob pushed me first!!!

    Wow. Just wow. What is being said is, it's cool and all that they keep saying that they're against harassment, but why is anyone listening to them if they harass everyone else? When they start telling Whedon to kill himself when all he does is support them, something is wrong.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Maybe it's because they're genuinely honest and likable people, and only misogynists would think otherwise? Just a theory.

    And maybe Blakeyrat will be voted kindest person on the planet two days hence. What? It could happen!



  • @Magus said:

    We only have her word that she gets a constant flow of rape threats.

    I don't have any reason to distrust her.

    @Magus said:

    If only 1/1000 is one, while I agree any at all is far too much, calling it a constant flow is a flat-out lie.

    I disagree.

    If she receives 10,000 pieces of feedback a month, and we assume your assumption is even remotely close to reality, that still comes out to 10 rape threats a month.

    @Magus said:

    The only reason anyone cares about her is that she keeps going on TV talking about all the threats she receives.

    That can't possibly be true. In fact I know it's not true, because I care about her and I don't even watch TV.

    @Magus said:

    Everyone already knows she's wrong.

    Who is "everyone"? Because I sure as fuck aren't included in that group.

    You're having troubles with the words "anyone" and "everyone" today. Might wanna ease-up on those.

    @Magus said:

    Exactly that rediculous and disrespectful, since she's on the side of the people who doxxed the Fine Young Capitalists when they tried to fund support for women game developers.

    I don't know what any of that means, but since you misspelled "ridiculous" I'm going to ignore it.

    @Magus said:

    It's almost as if people only care about threats if they're made against women.

    Yeah I actually think I misread that particular paragraph.

    @Magus said:

    Wow. Just wow.

    Thank you. I know I'm impressive.

    @Magus said:

    What is being said is, it's cool and all that they keep saying that they're against harassment, but why is anyone listening to them if they harass everyone else?

    It has not yet been demonstrated that they do harass everyone else. That little fundamental pillar of the argument happens to be missing.

    @Magus said:

    And maybe Blakeyrat will be voted kindest person on the planet two days hence. What? It could happen!

    My theory has exactly as much evidence provided backing it as the author of that terrible essay's.


  • mod

    @Magus said:

    We only have her word that she gets a constant flow of rape threats.

    Time and time again women screencap streams of rape threats online. I guess they're all lying bitches, huh?

    http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170

    http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/harassment-abuse-women-online-looks-like-part-72761

    Yup, women be cray-cray, clearly. All of us, lying attention whores, the whole lot.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I don't know what any of that means

    Then go find out, because until you do, you are supporting a position which is downright insane.

    @blakeyrat said:

    It has not yet been demonstrated that they do harass everyone else.

    It has, though. There are whole websites devoted to screeshots.

    @Yamikuronue said:

    Yup, women be cray-cray, clearly. All of us, lying attention whores, the whole lot.

    No one thinks that. But what we know is that there have been female gg supporters who have had to leave twitter because their children were threatened. Did you know that? Neither side is blameless here, and one side is being ignored.

    Look, I don't want to bring up Wu. Not an important person at all, except that she's on Sarkeesian's side. She's been proven to have harassed herself for attention. That does not excuse any negative thing said about her, but why would it not cast some doubt on her claims and those of people she associates with?



  • Anybody got a recap on this whole mess? There's a flamewar in the starting and I'm going to miss it.

    Anyway, I'd just like to point out

    @blakeyrat said:

    If "critical discourse" of my works were basically a constant river of rape threats, I'd probably block them too. So a tiny bit of the stuff I blocked is a false-positive? Well, sorry I guess.

    is never the right way to think. You can't judge the validity of an argument based on who makes it, and you can't judge the validity of an argument based on other people that make it.

    It's as if I said "well @Yamikuronue, I kinda agree with you on the matter, but you share @blakeyrat's views, and he's an asshole who's telling me to fuck off and die, so go fuck off and die yourself". TDEMSYR.



  • It's too long and complex to go into. It started with Wizardchan's most depressed people being told they should have various extremities cut off because they said something wasn't an accurate portrayal of depression, and has escalated to all sorts of horrors on both sides.



  • @Magus said:

    Then go find out, because until you do, you are supporting a position which is downright insane.

    The only "position" I'm supporting is that that essay is full of outright bullshit and really stupid arguments.

    I have no idea what position you think I'm supporting.

    @Magus said:

    It has, though. There are whole websites devoted to screeshots.

    It's telling that you don't link to any.

    @Magus said:

    gg supporters

    @Magus said:

    Neither side

    @Magus said:

    one side

    @Magus said:

    on Sarkeesian's side

    Is it even possible for you to consider a person's opinion without assigning them to a "side"?

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    is never the right way to think. You can't judge the validity of an argument based on who makes it, and you can't judge the validity of an argument based on other people that make it.

    Correct; but we're talking about a situation where the majority of the "arguments" are "go fuck a donkey, you cunt".

    @Magus said:

    both sides.


  • mod

    @Magus said:

    one side is being ignored.

    The pro-gg side has, time and time again, shown that they lack any sense of empathy or common decency. I refuse to engage with anyone who thinks the harassment isn't a problem or tries to redirect away by saying "well you do it too, so obviously my side is right".

    I don't harass people, and I don't support harassing people, and I will never make excuses for harassing people. You've shown you're willing to do at least one of those things. You've blatantly stated that you don't believe people when they say they're being harassed, and when shown proof, redirected the conversation back to why the harassers are more right than the harassees.

    I'm out of this thread. Good day to you, asshole.



  • @Yamikuronue said:

    pro-gg

    Which side is that? Keeping track of this shit is as confusing as "net neutrality". Which one's the good side?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Is it even possible for you to consider a person's opinion without assigning them to a "side"?

    Yes, but in this case, there are primarily two. GG has been categorized as a single side by its opposers, despite having a lot of varied goals. Both sides spew the most foul poison imaginable.

    @Yamikuronue said:

    I refuse to engage with anyone who thinks the harassment isn't a problem or tries to redirect away by saying "well you do it too, so obviously my side is right".

    Except that the one who thinks that that is being said is you. It isn't being said. What's being said is, "Don't put all the blame for harassment on one side."

    @Yamikuronue said:

    I don't harass people, and I don't support harassing people, and I will never make excuses for harassing people.

    Most people aren't. I know I'm not.

    @Yamikuronue said:

    You've shown you're willing to do at least one of those things. You've blatantly stated that you don't believe people when they say they're being harassed

    I've said that we have some evidence, and while I agree that much of it is real, some has been proven not to be, so we cannot accept all at face value.

    @Yamikuronue said:

    You've blatantly stated that you don't believe people when they say they're being harassed, and when shown proof, redirected the conversation back to why the harassers are more right than the harassees.

    I believe honest people. If I'm given reason to doubt, I doubt.

    @Yamikuronue said:

    I'm out of this thread. Good day to you, asshole.

    I have not once insulted you.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Correct; but we're talking about a situation where the majority of the "arguments" are "go fuck a donkey, you cunt".

    Well yeah, but that doesn't make the valid arguments invalid. Would you shut down a debate on, say, Muslim immigration, because most of the opponents are racist assholes who throw slurs around?

    As far as I can see, it's one side yelling "YOU MISOGYNIST RAPE-THREATING ASSHOLES SHUT UP" and the other "YOU STUPID BITCHES GET BACK TO THE KITCHEN SHUT UP". Does that mean the debate is over, just because lots of people are yelling?

    Because if you filter out the yelling, there seem to be more or less valid points on both sides. I think shutting down one or the other is uncalled for.



  • @Magus said:

    Yes, but in this case, there are primarily two.

    Ok; and which am I?

    You just said "my" side was wrong, so elaborate.

    @Magus said:

    Both sides spew the most foul poison imaginable.

    I see no evidence of that.

    @Magus said:

    I've said that we have some evidence,

    Right; which is why there's a link to it right there.

    Oh wait, there isn't.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Would you shut down a debate on, say, Muslim immigration, because most of the opponents are racist assholes who throw slurs around?

    Honestly? Yes.

    I'd then move it to a venue where you could keep the racist assholes out and try again.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Because if you filter out the yelling, there seem to be more or less valid points on both sides.

    I don't even think there are two sides. What are the two sides? WTF.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Right; which is why there's a link to it right there.

    Oh wait, there isn't.

    I'd find one of the sites, but I'm at work. But you could easily look up what happened just before Joss Whedon last quit twitter.

    Honestly, I don't care too much anymore. GG won, gaming sites are now more regulated and have to mention it when they're good friends with their subjects. IMO, it's over. What's left over is people who want to watch over things, and all the morons.

    I just hate the constant misrepresentation.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I'd then move it to a venue where you could keep the racist assholes out and try again.

    Well, it's the Internet, Blakey. There's no keeping out the scum of the world.

    @blakeyrat said:

    I don't even think there are two sides. What are the two sides? WTF.

    From what I gather, the "misogynist assholes who dwell in basements", and "feminazi bitches who should make sandwiches". More or less.



  • @Magus said:

    I'd find one of the sites, but I'm at work.

    Riiight.

    @Magus said:

    But you could easily look up what happened just before Joss Whedon last quit twitter.

    What the fuck does THAT have to do with anything?

    @Magus said:

    GG won,

    And their position was...?

    @Magus said:

    gaming sites are now more regulated and have to mention it when they're good friends with their subjects.

    That's not true.

    @Magus said:

    What's left over is people who want to watch over things, and all the morons.

    Ok...

    @Magus said:

    I just hate the constant misrepresentation.

    Then why are you in here defending a guy who you yourself just called a moron?

    Who's the bigger moron? The moron, or the guy who goes way out of his way to defend the moron?

    @Magus said:

    I just hate the constant misrepresentation.

    Me too. Which is why I'm still vexed that you assigned me to a "side" and won't even explain what "side" I'm on, or what I (supposedly) am arguing for.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    From what I gather, the "misogynist assholes who dwell in basements", and "feminazi bitches who should make sandwiches". More or less.

    Assuming there's two sides, the two I see are:

    • People asking for games to be more inclusive (I hope this is the "side" you've assigned me to)

    • People who love to send rape threats over social media and/or defend others who send rape threats over social media



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    From what I gather, the "misogynist assholes who dwell in basements", and "feminazi bitches who should make sandwiches". More or less.

    This. People decide to be against one of the two frequently. It's like that image xaade put up earlier. Each side only sees the worst.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Assuming there's two sides, the two I see are:

    I'll address them!

    @blakeyrat said:

    People asking for games to be more inclusive (I hope this is the "side" you've assigned me to)

    If that was all Sarkeesian was aiming at, everyone would be on her side. But she's saying that games must change, because they make people violent sexists. That's where people object, because it's known to be false.

    @blakeyrat said:

    People who love to send rape threats over social media and/or defend others who send rape threats over social media

    This is what the first group calls them. It isn't representative of them. That's all I'm saying.



  • @Magus said:

    If that was all Sarkeesian was aiming at, everyone would be on her side.

    I highly doubt that is true. Especially since the threats started during the Kickstarter, when people didn't even know what arguments she was going to make!

    @Magus said:

    But she's saying that games must change, because they make people violent sexists.

    Prove that to me. I've watched several of her videos, and I've never see her say anything even remotely similar to that.

    @Magus said:

    This is what the first group calls them. It isn't representative of them. That's all I'm saying.

    Is the guy who wrote this essay representative of them? Who is representative of them?

    What is the message of this "side"? What's their desired outcome? Because so far, all I've seen from this "side" is either rape threats, or defending other people who make rape threats.

    If they have a position other than that, surely you can tell us all what it is.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Assuming there's two sides, the two I see are:

    People asking for games to be more inclusive (I hope this is the "side" you've assigned me to)
    People who love to send rape threats over social media and/or defend others who send rape threats over social media

    See, that's exactly the problem I'm pointing out. Yes, the critics do suffer from an abundance of assholes associating with them, we got it - but you're supposed to filter the assholes out at the start of the debate, from both sides, not misrepresent one side or the other based on the amount of assholes associated with them.

    Back to the hypothetical Muslim debate analogy, the anti-immigration side is more likely to attract racist assholes than the pro-immigration side. But it doesn't give the pro-immigration side any head start in the argument. Pointing out that the other side has assholes stuck to it is not an argument.

    Here's a quote from a rather supportive to Ms. Sarkeesian site:

    Hell, as far as Anita goes, there are some solid criticisms you can level at her work. I'm not 100% on her side, you know. She's not perfect by a long shot and her video series seems already to be a little off base, with some of the examples she's named as targets. But we can't talk about that anymore, because the debate's not about whether she's right or wrong. The debate was invalidated when people tried to ruin her life en masse. The chance to debate her on merit was lost once people started threatening to rape her.

    Which is the kind of bullshit I'm speaking of. You might "win" because the other side resorts to screaming and threats, but it doesn't make you right. Arguments do.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    What is the message of this "side"? What's their desired outcome? Because so far, all I've seen from this "side" is either rape threats, or defending other people who make rape threats.

    The people who encourage game companies to accept what fair use means. The ones who want to know about conflicts of interest rather than being swayed by them. The people who have given millions to anti-harassment campaigns. The ones who were declared 'dead'.



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    See, that's exactly the problem I'm pointing out. Yes, the critics do suffer from an abundance of assholes associating with them, we got it - but you're supposed to filter the assholes out at the start of the debate, from both sides, not misrepresent one side or the other based on the amount of assholes associated with them.

    But you're missing my general point, which is: there isn't even an other side!

    I mean that's what I'm trying to get to with all these questions drilling into the issue. What exactly is the position of the anti-Sarkeesian side? What exactly are they arguing for?

    Because the only thing I've ever seen from them is hate and defending-hate.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Which is the kind of bullshit I'm speaking of. You might "win" because the other side resorts to screaming and threats, but it doesn't make you right. Arguments do.

    Since the argument here is "games should be more inclusive", it doesn't take a lot to convince people. It's kind of duh. It's like arguing, "hey, maybe kids shouldn't die of horrible diseases?" Well, duh.

    What I don't get is why, for example, a writer for the Mass Effect series would get literal death threats for suggesting Bioware should consider a mode in games like Mass Effect where you could skip the combat and do only the dialog portions. Because, to me and every other sane person on Earth, that's not only a reasonable suggestion, it's a very good idea. But the death threats, someone needs to explain that one to me.



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    You might "win" because the other side resorts to screaming and threats

    Even that much requires that you not join in. But when KingOfPol gets mailed a syringe, and TotalBiscuit and others get mailed knives and have their families threatened, no one has won.



  • @Magus said:

    The people who encourage game companies to accept what fair use means. The ones who want to know about conflicts of interest rather than being swayed by them. The people who have given millions to anti-harassment campaigns. The ones who were declared 'dead'.

    You're going to have to talk in plain English here, because I have no idea what any of this means.

    Fair use? You mean like... YouTube ContentID strikes?

    Knowing about conflicts of interest? You mean like... every Journalism 101 course ever already teaches?

    What about the people who have given millions to anti-harassment campaigns?

    Who was declared 'dead' and what do the scare-quotes around dead imply?

    And this is the side who won the debate, according to you? Sheesh. It's just vague gibberish.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Because, to me and every other sane person on Earth

    There was your mistake. Earth has idiots all over it. If you don't ignore them and move along, you waste a lot of time. Every developer, artist, and director gets death threats when they do something unexpected. It's a problem for everyone. But that's not how it so frequently gets represented.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Fair use? You mean like... YouTube ContentID strikes?

    yes.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Knowing about conflicts of interest? You mean like... every Journalism 101 course ever already teaches?

    Yes. Like Nathan Greyson ignored, and kotaku didn't want to accept as mattering, and GamaSutra wanted to keep around as a good thing, until they realized how much money the strike was costing them.

    @blakeyrat said:

    What about the people who have given millions to anti-harassment campaigns?

    "pro-GG is pro-harassment" is something people frequently claim, despite this.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Who was declared 'dead' and what do the scare-quotes around dead imply?

    Largely Leigh Alexander and the 10 sites that published articles saying gamers are dead within 12 hours.

    I mean, it's not like gamers go to media companies and ask them to write an SVU episode about evil journalists and lying political activists trying to destroy their reputation



  • @blakeyrat said:

    What exactly is the position of the anti-Sarkeesian side? What exactly are they arguing for?

    From what I gather, a) that the whole thing is overblown and she's making a lot of ado about nothing, and b) that the other guys are not exactly the paragons of virtue they're claiming themselves to be.

    I have no idea, nor do I give a fuck about b), but a) seems like a more or less valid point to me. The fact that the games that have standard tropes like muscular men rescuing damsels in distress is not that much of an issue. And it might not deserve all the alarm-sounding that's been made over it.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Since the argument here is "games should be more inclusive", it doesn't take a lot to convince people.

    What if the argument is "games should be more inclusive even at the expense of good storytelling"? Because it seems that's what the whole hassle is about - the balance between the writer's licence to write a story even if it doesn't fit the liberal worldview, and the misrepresentation of some social groups at the expense of others.

    @blakeyrat said:

    But the death threats, someone needs to explain that one to me.

    Told you. They're not part of the discussion, they're just assholes being assholes. As you've evidenced, assholes will be assholes over anything.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I've never seen a "serious and respectful refutation" of any of the arguments put forward by Anita Sarkeesian. Do they exist?

    I have seen loads of misogynist bullshit heaped on her for absolutely no reason at all.

    I've seen several videos that, while not without their own problems, bring up valid points against her thesis. I didn't read any of the articles with long winded refutations of her claims, although they are out there.

    Hey, I'm in this mostly for the drama and front row seats to development of an extreme ideology.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Great defense here. "Sure the guys making rape threats are making rape threats, but only because rape upsets feminists specifically!"

    Sarkeesian: "I get rape threats, therefore the world is full of misogynists and the worst of them are the ones tweeting me, therefore my ideology is correct. I'm a unique fighter for justice."

    The article: "You get rape threats, therefore the world is full of people who disagree, and the worst trolls are the ones tweeting you, therefore your ideology is controversial and gets at people's nerve. Join the club."

    @blakeyrat said:

    More or less ridiculous and disrespectful than making rape threats at a person because they started a Kickstarter to discuss gender issues in gaming? I need a gauge here.

    Rape threats are person against person. There's nothing to talk there, except condemn the anonymous offender.

    An ideology saying a group of people are "bad" based on their skin color, ethnicity or community is much more problematic. See the usual examples from the history books, let's not go Godwyn right away.

    @blakeyrat said:

    "The Federal Government should censor video games, despite that being entirely contrary to the most important law of the land" is not equivalent to, "hey game industry, maybe stop being such sexists?"

    The second situation is much more dangerous. As you said, there are limits to what government can and can't do in terms of free speech. There is no limit for corporations.

    This guy isn't afraid to say his name because of government, but because of his employer. Think about that.

    @Yamikuronue said:

    I'd never thought I'd say this, but, My thoughts exactly, Blakeyrat. I got about two paragraphs into the link before I closed it and wandered off.

    That must be pretty boring 2 paragraphs.

    @blakeyrat said:

    I don't have any reason to distrust her.

    Almost like she didn't promise a series of videos to her kickstarter supporters and failed to deliver even half of them.

    @blakeyrat said:

    I disagree.

    If she receives 10,000 pieces of feedback a month, and we assume your assumption is even remotely close to reality, that still comes out to 10 rape threats a month.

    That's pretty standard for any public figure, especially someone who gets into people faces and tells them their values are wrong. The difference is, other people accept the abusers as trolls that they are and try to minimize their impact. Sarkeesian and her crowd, on the other hand, go out of their way to rile them up and promote the worst offenders.

    It's almost like their entire livelihoods at this point depend on the constant train of abuse bringing in fresh funds to the patreon accounts



  • @blakeyrat said:

    But you're missing my general point, which is: there isn't even an other side!

    I mean that's what I'm trying to get to with all these questions drilling into the issue. What exactly is the position of the anti-Sarkeesian side? What exactly are they arguing for?

    The anti-Sarkeesian side, in a nutshell:

    • There's no problem with representation of females in games.
    • Gamers are not particularly misogynistic compared to the norm.

    Gamergate encompasses that, but also has like a parallel track with journalism and some other things. Who knows. Basically, it's centered on social justice crowd against the centrists/conservatives and "social neutrals".



  • @cartman82 said:

    There's no problem with representation of females in games.

    And many people wouldn't even argue this. It probably can be improved. But the way to do it is to make good new games, not try to force all games to change. The market works fairly well. If you can make epic cinematic games that truly pull people in and are more inclusive, no one will be unhappy. But I know that I, for one, don't want to play a game that exists for no reason other than to push someone's agenda. I don't care if you push your agenda with a game, but that has to be secondary to making a good game.



  • Jesus I'm not going to get any work done today.

    @Magus said:

    Every developer, artist, and director gets death threats when they do something unexpected.

    That cannot possibly be true.

    Let me ask you a question: since everything fits so neatly into your pro/anti binary, would you say the people who sent death threats to that Mass Effect writer are on your side, or against it?

    @Magus said:

    yes.

    Ok, so in addition to the quote you owe me proving Anita Sarkeesian thinks video games lead to rapes, you also now owe me a quote proving she objects to copyright Fair Use.

    @Magus said:

    Yes. Like Nathan Greyson ignored, and kotaku didn't want to accept as mattering, and GamaSutra wanted to keep around as a good thing, until they realized how much money the strike was costing them.

    You know what's a good strategy when you're being asked to speak in plain English?

    Name-drop a person nobody knows.

    Who the fuck is Nathan Greyson, what does he or Kotaku or GamaSutra have to do with Anita Sarkeesian, and why should I care about any of this?

    @Magus said:

    "pro-GG is pro-harassment" is something people frequently claim, despite this.

    Ok well this is the Hitler was nice to dogs things. That's great, I guess.

    @Magus said:

    Largely Leigh Alexander and the 10 sites that published articles saying gamers are dead within 12 hours.

    Who? And what? What are you talking about?

    @Magus said:

    I mean, it's not like gamers go to media companies and ask them to write an SVU episode about evil journalists and lying political activists trying to destroy their reputation

    The fuck? Do you think this is a TV show? I've never been more confused.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    From what I gather, a) that the whole thing is overblown and she's making a lot of ado about nothing,

    And that's worthy of the rape threats?

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    but a) seems like a more or less valid point to me. The fact that the games that have standard tropes like muscular men rescuing damsels in distress is not that much of an issue. And it might not deserve all the alarm-sounding that's been made over it.

    Right; but how does that justify the rape threats?

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    What if the argument is "games should be more inclusive even at the expense of good storytelling"?

    That's a completely false dichotomy. It doesn't even make slight amounts of sense.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Because it seems that's what the whole hassle is about - the balance between the writer's licence to write a story even if it doesn't fit the liberal worldview, and the misrepresentation of some social groups at the expense of others.

    That would at least kind of make sense as a motive, it's a hell of a lot better than anything Magus has come up with so far.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Told you. They're not part of the discussion, they're just assholes being assholes. As you've evidenced, assholes will be assholes over anything.

    Right; and we're talking about an article here where the author says, "oh hey don't worry about the rape threats, sure guys were making rape threats, but they were only doing that because they think feminists hate rape threats more than the normal person." This is the essay we are talking about.

    @cartman82 said:

    I've seen several videos that, while not without their own problems, bring up valid points against her thesis.

    Ok, and yet there are still no links anywhere to be seen to these mythical videos from the fantasy lands of dragons and fairies,

    @cartman82 said:

    The second situation is much more dangerous. As you said, there are limits to what government can and can't do in terms of free speech. There is no limit for corporations.

    And therefore...?

    Here's a little bit of shocking news: EA could make their games more inclusive without the Government being involved at all!

    @cartman82 said:

    This guy isn't afraid to say his name because of government, but because of his employer. Think about that.

    Occam's Razor says it's more likely he's a nobody in the game industry (or not in the game industry at all) and refuses to give his name because he knows that if someone looked him up, they'd realize he's a nobody in the game industry.

    @cartman82 said:

    Almost like she didn't promise a series of videos to her kickstarter supporters and failed to deliver even half of them.

    I'm not a Kickstarter backer. I think anybody who gives money on Kickstarter is kind of an idiot.

    Still, that's the worst you got?

    What about a cite on her saying games lead to violent rape? That's the juicy tidbit I'm waiting for now.

    @cartman82 said:

    That's pretty standard for any public figure, especially someone who gets into people faces and tells them their values are wrong.

    Cite?

    @cartman82 said:

    The difference is, other people accept the abusers as trolls that they are and try to minimize their impact.

    Cite?

    @cartman82 said:

    Sarkeesian and her crowd, on the other hand, go out of their way to rile them up and promote the worst offenders.

    Cite?

    @cartman82 said:

    It's almost like their entire livelihoods at this point depend on the constant train of abuse bringing in fresh funds to the patreon accounts

    So what?

    It sounds like the easiest way to "defeat" this evil menace is to simply stop sending her rape and death threats.

    I wonder why that essay writer's noble institution hasn't somehow managed to do that yet.

    @cartman82 said:

    The anti-Sarkeesian side, in a nutshell:

    There's no problem with representation of females in games.

    Do you seriously believe that?

    @cartman82 said:

    Gamers are not particularly misogynistic compared to the norm.

    That one might be true.

    @cartman82 said:

    Gamergate encompasses that, but also has like a parallel track with journalism and some other things. Who knows. Basically, it's centered on social justice crowd against the centrists/conservatives and "social neutrals".

    Right; meaning it's vague vagueness. Because you can't only be against something, you have to be for something to make any kind of difference in the world. This is that Devuan bullshit all over again.

    And guess what the public who doesn't spend 4 hours a day immersed in this bullshit sees? Essays like the one in the OP, that flat-out admit that there's tons of rape threats being served-up.

    @Magus said:

    But the way to do it is to make good new games, not try to force all games to change.

    Where is there any "forcing" in this scenario?

    You're the one who claimed game journalism had new "regulations" (which would constitute "forcing" a behavior), and you were flat-out lying about that.

    @Magus said:

    But I know that I, for one, don't

    We know you're one person, you don't have to emphasize that.

    @Magus said:

    don't want to play a game that exists for no reason other than to push someone's agenda.

    So don't play it then.

    But also don't send rape threats to its creator.

    Why is that so fucking hard?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Let me ask you a question: since everything fits so neatly into your pro/anti binary, would you say the people who sent death threats to that Mass Effect writer are on your side, or against it?

    Could be one side being downright stupid. Could be the other side trying to ruin the first's reputation. Could be a third party troll. There's no way to know.

    @blakeyrat said:

    you also now owe me a quote proving she objects to copyright Fair Use.

    She doesn't, as far as I know. But she claims that all her harassment comes from GG, which is not a single thing, and supports that among other things. That's what I mostly take issue with.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Who the fuck is Nathan Greyson, what does he or Kotaku or GamaSutra have to do with Anita Sarkeesian, and why should I care about any of this?

    Look, if you're going to join in the conversation knowing nothing, you have to expect that you will hear things you don't know.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Ok well this is the Hitler was nice to dogs things. That's great, I guess.

    Except this whole thing started because some people were being harassed, and those who tried to fight back against that kind of thing just got, by you, related to Hitler. WD.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Who? And what? What are you talking about?

    The things that happened. that you just ask me to repeat or say are unsubstantiated whenever you get an answer.

    @blakeyrat said:

    The fuck? Do you think this is a TV show? I've never been more confused.

    SVU did an episode about female gamers being kidnapped and raped, inspired by Sarkeesian. Months ago!

    @blakeyrat said:

    And that's worthy of the rape threats?

    No one thinks so.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Right; but how does that justify the rape threats?

    Why are you okay with attributing anonymous threats to a group of people fighting against harassment?

    @blakeyrat said:

    This is the essay we are talking about.

    Then this guy is an idiot.

    @blakeyrat said:

    You're the one who claimed game journalism had new "regulations" (which would constitute "forcing" a behavior), and you were flat-out lying about that.

    Several sites issued new policies, and I did hear something about a more formal regulation, but I may have misheard. Lying is a different thing. Go find a dictionary.

    @blakeyrat said:

    But also don't send rape threats to its creator.

    Why is that so fucking hard?

    Really?

    REALLY!?

    Now I've apparently done this? It's the only thing you could mean, since you said it, and I've repeatedly said I don't support it.

    THIS is what I'm angry about. You did it, Yami did it, and it was just as evil in both cases. Stop it.



  • @Magus said:

    She doesn't, as far as I know.

    Then why did you bring it up in this thread?

    @Magus said:

    But she claims that all her harassment comes from GG,

    Now you have to cite that, idiot.

    Stop just saying bullshit. The instant I ask you to back ANY of this bullshit up you just try to "cleverly" change the subject. I'm not that stupid, Magus. Either debate honestly or get out of here.

    @Magus said:

    Look, if you're going to join in the conversation knowing nothing, you have to expect that you will hear things you don't know.

    I created the conversation, you idiot! SCROLL TO THE TOP OF THE INFINISCROLL PAGE!

    @Magus said:

    Except this whole thing started because some people were being harassed, and those who tried to fight back against that kind of thing just got, by you, related to Hitler. WD.

    WD-40, or? Western Digital?

    @Magus said:

    No one thinks so.

    That is demonstrably false.

    Unless you're now claiming no rape threats ever existed in the first place. In which case you are insane.

    @Magus said:

    Why are you okay with attributing anonymous threats to a group of people fighting against harassment?

    What group are we talking about here?

    The guy who wrote that essay certainly isn't fighting against harassment.

    @Magus said:

    Then this guy is an idiot.

    You said he was a moron, too. Yet you're still in here, defending him. Why?

    @Magus said:

    Several sites issued new policies, and I did hear something about a more formal regulation, but I may have misheard.

    Riiight.

    @Magus said:

    Now I've apparently done this?

    I have no idea who you are or why you're defending the writer of this essay. I've actually been trying to get you to explain that in plain English for something like 3 hours now.

    @Magus said:

    It's the only thing you could mean, since you said it, and I've repeatedly said I don't support it.

    SO WHY ARE YOU IN HERE DEFENDING THIS ESSAY WRITER?!



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Jesus I'm not going to get any work done today.

    THIS IS MORE IMPORTANT!

    WE MUST SOLVE THIS ISSUE NOW!

    THE WORLD IS COUNTING ON US!

    @blakeyrat said:

    Ok, and yet there are still no links anywhere to be seen to these mythical videos from the fantasy lands of dragons and fairies,

    Why?

    1. It's the first few results in any google search
    2. You're not gonna watch them anyway
    3. Even if you do, you're gonna post 100 more questions, expecting me to be your google monkey and collect more "evidence" so you can shoot it down too.

    Fuck that. I'm not falling for your Gish gallop.

    @blakeyrat said:

    What about a cite on her saying games lead to violent rape? That's the juicy tidbit I'm waiting for now.

    I have no idea about that.

    I just disagree with her feminism-related opinions and have low opinion of her honesty and character.

    @blakeyrat said:

    It sounds like the easiest way to "defeat" this evil menace is to simply stop sending her rape and death threats.

    Yup.

    @blakeyrat said:

    I wonder why that essay writer's noble institution hasn't somehow managed to do that yet.

    What institution?

    @blakeyrat said:

    There's no problem with representation of females in games.

    Do you seriously believe that?

    Mostly. Depends on what you consider a "problem".

    @blakeyrat said:

    Gamers are not particularly misogynistic compared to the norm.

    That one might be true.

    Yup.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Right; meaning it's vague vagueness. Because you can't only be against something, you have to be for something to make any kind of difference in the world. This is that Devuan bullshit all over again.

    That's basically the gist of any conservative position. If you're conservative about something, you don't think things need to be different or at least not go in the direction they are going.

    And btw, this has nothing to do with current issues and labels in USA. Everyone is conservative about some things and progressive about other. Being conservative is a perfectly legitimate stance to take.

    @blakeyrat said:

    And guess what the public who doesn't spend 4 hours a day immersed in this bullshit sees? Essays like the one in the OP, that flat-out admit that there's tons of rape threats being served-up.

    Well yeah, duh.

    Did you consider that's one of the major issues that keeps "gamergate" going? If you don't dig too deep into it, things seem pretty one-sided. It's almost like all the mainstream press is presenting a single-sided view of reality. Someone might even call this "corruption" and invent a tweeter hashtag to spread the word.

    If you look at the very beginnings of this whole mess - the Zoe Quinn thing - the only reason it got wings was because any discussion about it was ruthlessly censored all over the internet. If people were able to get their jokes and memes out of the system, the whole thing would have been forgotten in a week.

    @Magus said:

    Really?

    REALLY!?

    Now I've apparently done this? It's the only thing you could mean, since you said it, and I've repeatedly said I don't support it.

    THIS is what I'm angry about. You did it, Yami did it, and it was just as evil in both cases. Stop it.

    Yup, this is not helping,



  • @cartman82 said:

    2) You're not gonna watch them anyway

    Not while at work, no. I would sample them at home.

    @cartman82 said:

    3) Even if you do, you're gonna post 100 more questions, expecting me to be your google monkey and collect more "evidence" so you can shoot it down too.

    I'm not Boomzilla. I'm just trying to figure out what the FUCK Magus (and to a lesser extent you) are talking about.

    @cartman82 said:

    I have no idea about that.

    Then you should bug Magus for the cite, too. Don't sit idly by while he spreads completely unfounded bullshit like...

    @cartman82 said:

    It's almost like all the mainstream press is presenting a single-sided view of reality. Someone might even call this "corruption" and invent a tweeter hashtag to spread the word.

    If you look at the very beginnings of this whole mess - the Zoe Quinn thing - the only reason it got wings was because any discussion about it was ruthlessly censored all over the internet.

    Well, like that! Exactly like that!

    Needless to say, if this censorship was so "ruthless", it should be no problem at all to pull up a cite, right?

    @cartman82 said:

    I just disagree with her feminism-related opinions and have low opinion of her honesty and character.

    Because the Kickstarter resulted in fewer videos than you expected?

    @cartman82 said:

    That's basically the gist of any conservative position. If you're conservative about something, you don't think things need to be different or at least not go in the direction they are going.

    You're not wrong, but you're also not getting my point.

    The point is: if your group/political party/whatever is solely created to oppose something instead of promote something, it can't ever get anything done.

    Look at the Republican opposition to Obamacare, for example. They're against it (because Obama), but they don't have any better plan to promote. Therefore, they've been completely ineffectual at getting Obamacare repealed or even really being taken seriously.

    So if you have a group which is opposed to Anita Sarkeesian, it's not really "for" anything and it can't accomplish anything.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    You said he was a moron, too. Yet you're still in here, defending him. Why?

    What I'm against is the 'anyone who disagrees with Sarkeesian agrees with sending rape threats to people' thing you apparently think matches reality in some way. And then you went and attached it to me personally. Why would you do that?

    I don't care who does this. I will always oppose it.



  • @Magus said:

    What I'm against is the 'anyone who disagrees with Sarkeesian agrees with sending rape threats to people' thing you apparently think matches reality in some way.

    I would disagree with her too, if you had demonstrated that your statements about her (any of them!) were factual in any way whatsoever.

    You have not.

    You said that she believes video games will encourage violent rapes. You said that. You. You typed it with your fingers.

    #CITE YOUR SHIT



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I would disagree with her too, if you demonstrate that your statements about her (any of them!) were factual in any way whatsoever.

    You have not.

    You said that she believes video games will encourage violent rapes. You said that. You. You typed it with your fingers.

    CITE YOUR SHIT

    Maybe. Once I get home. If I still care.

    But don't call me a rapist.



  • @Magus said:

    But don't call me a rapist.

    For the record, I never did.

    The word "you" in English has two different meanings. I meant the other one.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    The word "you" in English has two different meanings. I meant the other one.

    Oh, yeah, because we're all mind readers! Communicate clearly much!?

    I hope you get raped!



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Well, like that! Exactly like that!

    Needless to say, if this censorship was so "ruthless", it should be no problem at all to pull up a cite, right?

    This seems like a good summary.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Because the Kickstarter resulted in fewer videos than you expected?

    Because she lied to her backers what's she gonna do with the money. For example, she claimed she needs the money to buy the games and consoles so she could capture footage. But it turned out, she spent the money mostly on travel and living expenses, while the footage in her videos was "stolen" (as in taken without attribution) from a bunch of lets players.

    Also, she claimed she was "life-long gamer", while she doesn't actually like games and seems to haven't even tried any of the games she's complaining about.

    Basically, she just seems like an awful politician-like "end justifies the means" type of person. Add to that her ideology, and I can see why so many people hate her.

    @blakeyrat said:

    You're not wrong, but you're also not getting my point.

    The point is: if your group/political party/whatever is solely created to oppose something instead of promote something, it can't ever get anything done.

    Look at the Republican opposition to Obamacare, for example. They're against it (because Obama), but they don't have any better plan to promote. Therefore, they've been completely ineffectual at getting Obamacare repealed or even really being taken seriously.

    So if you have a group which is opposed to Anita Sarkeesian, it's not really "for" anything and it can't accomplish anything.

    You're right. All conservative causes are basically delay tactics. Try to slow progress in direction A long enough for the prevailing winds to change, so we get the chance to move in direction B (or stay where we are). In the long run, conservative causes will always lose.

    That doesn't mean the cause is wrong, though. There are plenty of good causes for which the only hope is conservative resistance against "progressive" changes. For example, nation state authority over corporations, privacy, right to free speech, 4th amendment (protections against police), free and open internet etc.



  • I can only read what you write.

    And even if you mean the other one, you're essentially making the point that all Muslims are terrorists. It's absolutely deplorable, regardless of subject.

    The only reason I cared about this whole thing in the first place is what these people do to people's reputations. They can't hurt Joss Whedon, because he will still side with them, but they managed to ruin the life of a guy who landed a probe on a comet, because of a shirt he wore. As a game developer, the fact that this can happen is terrifying. My game is about robots. But I still have to hope that no one will say that my game doesn't support women and minorities enough. That something my eventual artist designs doesn't have any connection to any culture, because as a white man, I will be charged with cultural appropriation.

    All I want is to make something people will be entertained by. I'm looking at a future where, if things don't improve, anything I make will just be a point in someone's politics, and used to attack me (in the off chance anyone cares about anything I make at all).



  • @cartman82 said:

    This seems like a good summary.

    That sounds like an MRA site, so you may lose points for that.

    Anyway, I still contend that the correct route with gaming isn't conservative. Just make good games! That's a serious stretch, these days.



  • @Magus said:

    I can only read what you write.

    Well, it's obvious you're entirely incapable of citing your ridiculous claims.

    @Magus said:

    And even if you mean the other one, you're essentially making the point that all Muslims are terrorists. It's absolutely deplorable, regardless of subject.

    No; that's not how English works. I'm saying "if you don't like a game, just don't buy it. But also don't send rape threats." There's no accusation there.

    @Magus said:

    They can't hurt Joss Whedon, because he will still side with them,

    Has it ever occurred to you that maybe Joss Whedon doesn't have a "side"? That maybe issues aren't always entirely black and white?

    @Magus said:

    but they managed to ruin the life of a guy who landed a probe on a comet, because of a shirt he wore.

    I'm sorry, did you see that shirt? Guy deserved whatever he got.

    @Magus said:

    As a game developer, the fact that this can happen is terrifying.

    Really? This is terrifying?

    @Magus said:

    But I still have to hope that no one will say that my game doesn't support women and minorities enough. That something my eventual artist designs doesn't have any connection to any culture, because as a white man, I will be charged with cultural appropriation.

    You could just not give a shit what other people think.

    @Magus said:

    All I want is to make something people will be entertained by.

    Who's stopping you?

    @Magus said:

    I'm looking at a future where, if things don't improve, anything I make will just be a point in someone's politics, and used to attack me (in the off chance anyone cares about anything I make at all).

    Now you're just being legit paranoid, man. Jesus.



  • @Magus said:

    That sounds like an MRA site, so you may lose points for that.

    How about this:

    There's plenty of resources. The censorship part isn't controversial. The reasons and organization behind it are.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I'm sorry, did you see that shirt? Guy deserved whatever he got.

    It was given to him by a female friend. He didn't know anyone would be offended by it at all. If he had, and wore it to offend people, he might deserve to be ridiculed a bit. Instead, it was so bad he had to cry in apology on camera, and that apparently wasn't enough for some people.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Now you're just being legit paranoid, man. Jesus.

    I'm going to ignore it and hope. But I'd like to have a good reason to hope. This whole thing has been getting seriously out of hand.

    @cartman82 said:

    There's plenty of resources. The censorship part isn't controversial. The reasons and organization behind it are.

    Techraptor is a pretty good site. Of course, they're pro-GG, so you may lose points there too. Plus it mentions the name of the victim who loves doxxing people, so you're now possibly at risk.

    <Count all the ways you can GAIN points!



  • @Magus said:

    It was given to him by a female friend. He didn't know anyone would be offended by it at all.

    So you want me to believe he's just really, really, really fucking stupid? That is the defense?

    @Magus said:

    I'm going to ignore it and hope. But I'd like to have a good reason to hope. This whole thing has been getting seriously out of hand.

    You said like 2 hours ago that the whole issue was done and settled, and only "morons" still talked about it. Now you're saying it's "getting seriously out of hand".

    Which is it?!

    Not only can you not cite your ridiculous lies, you can't even keep your story straight.



  • @Magus said:

    Techraptor is a pretty good site. Of course, they're pro-GG, so you may lose points there too. Plus it mentions the name of the victim who loves doxxing people, so you're now possibly at risk.

    That's the thing. Why do I have to go to these shitty little sites and hunt for 4chan image memes to get the other side? There's plenty of people opposed to the SJW current, but if you look in any mainstream media outlet, it's like there's only the courageous feminist heroes on one side and disgusting misogynist trolls on the other. At best, some outlets like The Escapist went neutral.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    You said like 2 hours ago that the whole issue was done and settled, and only "morons" still talked about it. Now you're saying it's "getting seriously out of hand".

    GG's goals have been settled, for the most part. I no longer have to worry about being attacked by a gaming site itself, only individuals. I can deal with that, probably. But there are horrible things happening to people constantly. The current climate of 'accusation == proof' is rather awful, and I hope we're able to kill it off at least somewhat, and soon.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Not only can you not cite your ridiculous lies, you can't even keep your story straight.

    Cartman seems to be doing the linking, so I'll leave that to him. Apparently when I observe things, I'm a liar, while when Sarkeesian does, she's a saint. Now I think I get how reality works. I think I'll just go commit suicide for being a white cis male now.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.