Gamergate reached 1.8 million

[The End]

Relevant in that, this generation is so god damn sensitive.

In other news,

Feminists got GTA 5 banned from Target in Australia.

 

[The Question]

Relevant in that, this generation is so god damn sensitive.

Not wanting to give a microphone to a vocal racist is being over sensitive. Anecdotal evidence from a middle aged stand up comedian is proof that people are over sensitive. Riiiiiight.

In other news,

Feminists got GTA 5 banned from Target in Australia.

1: Ah yes, the monolithic, homogenous "feminist" boogeyman that seeks to suck the joy and freedom out of the world. Because, it's not like feminism is a basic ideology as opposed to an organized group of people with a charter and an agenda.

You know, you're not really helping your case about GamerGate not being misogynist with talk like that.

2: So ****ing what? GTA 5 made 2 billion dollars in sales, it's hardly a victim here. And it's not like it's banned in Australia, one chain of stores simply stopped selling it.

 

[The End]

Because not wanting to give a microphone to someone who is openly racist is ruining America and being offended by someone saying that Muslims are evil is totally comparable to being offended by someone making dick jokes.

I have no idea who this comment is even addressing.


And 'muslims are evil', I can only assume this is about Maher. I don't think he's ever said that. He's critical of the doctrine of Islam. You probably think Sam Harris hates muslims too when that's not his actual position.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/can-liberalism-be-saved-from-itself

I have no interest in back and forth arguments with you Question, your posts are long winded, you presume to speak for most people and think that you can tell others what is in good taste and what isn't, you have a holier-than-thou attitude, you are repetitive.

 

[The End]

1: Ah yes, the monolithic, homogenous "feminist" boogeyman that seeks to suck the joy and freedom out of the world. Because, it's not like feminism is a basic ideology as opposed to an organized group of people with a charter and an agenda.

You know, you're not really helping your case about GamerGate not being misogynist with talk like that.

Hang on, hang on, hang on....


Factually pointing out that feminists got GTA 5 banned from Target in Austrialia, is misogynist?

Say what?!

Reality does not bend to your will, Question.

Feminists got GTA 5 banned from Target in Australia. It happened. (#Notallfeminists!)

If you think stating that makes someone a misogynist (someone that hates women), forgive me for not giving a damn who you think is racist or hates muslims.

You are full blown SJW.

You throw around terms like racist and misogynist like you're playing Bingo.

I am passionately anti-censorship.

I am also opposed to the banning of female ejaculation in UK pornography.

 

[The Question]

I have no idea who this comment is even addressing.

Bill Maher. Bill Maher is a racist sack of crap.

And 'muslims are evil', I can only assume this is about Maher. I don't think he's ever said that. He's critical of the doctrine of Islam.

“most Muslims — at least half of them, I think, around the world — think it is ok to kill someone if they insult the Prophet.” - Bill Maher

Bill Maher is disproportionately critical of the doctrine of Islam while simultaneously not knowing anything about it. He treats Islam and the Muslim and Arab world as the axis of evil and assumes that the problems in that part of the world are inherent to the people there.

Seems to me like a distinction without a difference.

You probably think Sam Harris hates muslims too when that's not his actual position.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/can-liberalism-be-saved-from-itself

Your rebuttal is linking an article where Sam Harris says that the vast majority of Muslims are intolerant extremists, and that the troubles in Arab and Muslim countries are the sole result of the inherently bloodthirsty and barbaric nature of their culture.

Your rebuttal to the notion that Sam Harris hates Muslims is Sam Harris explaining why he hates Muslims.

Ooookay…

I have no interest in back and forth arguments with you Question, your posts are long winded, you presume to speak for most people and think that you can tell others what is in good taste and what isn't, you have a holier-than-thou attitude, you are repetitive.

Your definition of a holier than thou attitude seems to be "when people tell me I'm wrong."

Try to be a little less oversensitive, yeah?

Hang on, hang on, hang on....


Factually pointing out that feminists got GTA 5 banned from Target in Austrialia, is misogynist?

Yeah, no, that is not what I said nor was it what I meant and you know it.

Stating a fact doesn't make you misogynist. The implication of that statement, which is very clear based on your phrasing and your past anti-feminist rhetoric, that this means there is something inherently wrong with feminism and that feminism is ruining free speech, seems pretty damn misogynist to me.

I never said it didn't happen, nor did I imply that. Try to avoid straw man arguments in the future, please?

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Does this "movement" really have the profile it did?

 

[The Question]

[YT]E47-FMmMLy0[/YT]

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

[YT]E47-FMmMLy0[/YT]

fantastic video, sadly it'll mean nothing because of the channel that produced it will bring nothing but *******s mocking it, and that just makes the whole thing worse

 

[The End]

“most Muslims — at least half of them, I think, around the world — think it is ok to kill someone if they insult the Prophet.” - Bill Maher

He is addressing a central tenant of the faith that yes, many Muslims believe. Polling does show that a high number of muslims believe apostates should be killed.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

86% in Egypt. It's reckless to ignore these sorts of facts.

I think that today's liberals (I consider myself a liberal) dance around being critical of Islam, out of political correctness.

Your rebuttal is linking an article where Sam Harris says that the vast majority of Muslims are intolerant extremists, and that the troubles in Arab and Muslim countries are the sole result of the inherently bloodthirsty and barbaric nature of their culture.

His position seems more nuanced than what you are saying he is saying

'Kristof made the point that there are brave Muslims who are risking their lives to condemn “extremism” in the Muslim community. Of course there are, and I celebrate these people too. But he seemed completely unaware that he was making my point for me—the point being, of course, that these people are now risking their lives by advocating for basic human rights in the Muslim world.'

'As I tried to make clear on Maher’s show, what we need is honest talk about the link between belief and behavior. And no one is suffering the consequences of what Muslim “extremists” believe more than other Muslims are. The civil war between Sunni and Shia, the murder of apostates, the oppression of women—these evils have nothing to do with U.S. bombs or Israeli settlements. Yes, the war in Iraq was a catastrophe—just as Affleck and Kristof suggest. But take a moment to appreciate how bleak it is to admit that the world would be better off if we had left Saddam Hussein in power. Here was one of the most evil men who ever lived, holding an entire country hostage. And yet his tyranny was also preventing a religious war between Shia and Sunni, the massacre of Christians, and other sectarian horrors. To say that we should have left Saddam Hussein alone says some very depressing things about the Muslim world.'

Where is he wrong? Don't just say that you're offended and put him out of context. Your position solely seems to be that he shouldn't say these things because you find it offensive.

Your rebuttal to the notion that Sam Harris hates Muslims is Sam Harris explaining why he hates Muslims.

But he doesn't say that he hates Muslims.

He does state rather specifically, that hope lies with Muslim reformers.

Whatever the prospects are for moving Islam out of the Middle Ages, hope lies not with obscurantists like Reza Aslan but with reformers like Maajid Nawaz. The litmus test for intellectual honesty on this point—which so many liberals fail—is to admit that one can draw a straight line from specific doctrines in Islam to the intolerance and violence we see in the Muslim world. Nawaz admits this. I don’t want to give the impression that he and I view Islam exactly the same. In fact, we are now having a written exchange that we will publish as an ebook in the coming months—and I am learning a lot from it. But Nawaz admits that the extent of radicalization in the Muslim community is an enormous problem. Unlike Aslan, he insists that his fellow Muslims must find some way to reinterpret and reform the faith. He believes that Islam has the intellectual resources to do this. I certainly hope he’s right. One thing is clear, however: Muslims must be obliged to do the work of reinterpretation—and for this we need honest conversation.

It seems that fundamentally, you want honest conversation shut down. You want all nuance removed, and to just shriek your offence. I think that this is both dishonest and cowardly.

Stating a fact doesn't make you misogynist. The implication of that statement, which is very clear based on your phrasing and your past anti-feminist rhetoric, that this means there is something inherently wrong with feminism and that feminism is ruining free speech, seems pretty damn misogynist to me.

Pointing out literal censorship is misogynist.

Consider how often you use the words, and hold the belief that your opponent in discussion is -

misogynist
racist
Islamophobic or 'hates muslims'.

You are thoroughly embedded into an ideology of hyper sensitive political correctness. There is no room for discussion for you. The women that identify as anti-feminists, that state that they are women against feminism, for you must be misogynists - they must have internalized misogyny (rather than having substantial disagreements with modern aspects of an ideoloogy, it is more reasonable to believe that they hate themselves and hate other women). You don't even have to wait to hear what their view is yet, merely being against a specific ideology is evidence of some ingrained hatred.

You have in your mind, groups and ideologies that are sacred cows. That are above criticism. To hold a critical lens to them, is to be guilty.

It's the equivalent of someone being against socialism, or being critical of socialism, and then claiming that this person is guilty of hatred. It's absurd.

YOU are the problem with third wave feminism, YOU are the problem with today's liberalism and political correctness. Everything offends you. And you think that merely stating that you are offended, is a good argument. And you think that continuously throwing accusations of misogyny and racism at people you have simple disagreements with, is a good argument. You are mistaken. That you think they are good arguments, speaks to a shallowness and dishonesty of your own position.

You have implied or outright stated that I am a misogynist (that I literally hate women, rather than just have disagreements with a specific ideological view) MANY times in this thread. The latest evidence, is me specifically pointing out feminists in Australia that have brought about censorship. Merely being critical is evidence of guilt. It doesn't matter that this is a real action, committed by people in the name of feminism - I am the guilty one, merely for pointing it out.

'You're a misogynist!' isn't an argument. Being critical of specific, real aspects of modern, third wave feminism does not = misogyny.

This is why I say you are repetitive. You don't have an argument other than being offended.

Nevertheless, you WILL likely respond again by claiming I am a misogynist, and that my denial is just further evidence of my guilt. You seriously remind me of characters in Orwell's 1984. You are the thought police.




Regarding, '25 invisible benefits of being male'

The premise that merely the fact that they are male, means they will be taken more seriously, is immediately undermined by the fact that the comments and ratings are disabled on the video. And that this talking point specifically, comes from the mouth of Jonathan McIntosh, who for months now has inspired the hashtag #FullMcIntosh. Never go Full McIntosh. The guy is an absolute fool, with demonstrably false beliefs about the links between game violence and reality, who is called out and mocked for his post-modernist horse **** all the time.

A selection of comments about the video.

stephanie @StephanieSonmi · Dec 2
@femfreq @ryanodonnell @chrisremo @talkingorange I resent all the privileged white men in this video who are trying to speak for my gender.

Chloe Price @Dekashoko · Dec 2
i find that video incredibly insulting, patronising, and downright disgusting. how dare 25 men think they can speak for women. #GamerGate

Lee Williams @demisaysstuff · Dec 2
I think @femfreq should know that as a gay black man my experience in gaming is wildly different from the one asserted by her panel.

Uh oh, thought crimes taking place on aisle 8. Women and homosexuals guilty of improper opinions, disagreement with upper-middle class hipster feminists. File these as evidence of internalized misogyny!

Stop!

Stop having contrary opinions, you poor mislead woman!

Lady Ellie @EllieBaker92 · 11h 11 hours ago
Encourages to kill women.. kill women...women...WOMEN.. in a game where you kill thousands of people of any gender.

STOOOOOOP YOU MISOGYNISTS

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

Speaking as an Australian who lives in Australia I can safely say that GTAV was not banned here. One chain of stores - Target - decided not to sell it because of criticism by several feminist groups.

I would prefer they didn't, even speaking as someone who hate GTA, but ultimately this was just capitalism in action. People criticised a product, that product was not ordered in. EB Games and other outfits, which are used more to purchase games anyway, will still sell it.

Also, The End; can I disprove racism by quoting one Aboriginal blogger who disagrees that my society still treats them unfairly?

 

[The End]

I think the onus is on the person claiming racism.

Be wary of people that just throw these terms around in discussion in place of any actual argument.

If what someone REALLY means is, 'if you don't agree with me on x, you are racist or a misogynist, etc' they ought to be clear about what they mean, right? What is Position X that you MUST agree with, in order to not be a racist or a misogynist.

Also be wary of ignoring the experiences of minorities just because they don't match a certain narrative; therein lies its own bigotry.


In other news,

Microsoft have apparently not been paying indie developers

http://www.destructoid.com/blogs/Th...tember-payment-before-christmas--284512.phtml

 

[Tempest]

Why is it the victim always has to defend themselves?

 

[The End]

Be clear about what you mean.

How does this apply to the minorities we're talking about, are the minorities quoted here making someone a victim?

It's possible to disagree with a person, and not condone threats or harassment they receive.

 

[Tempest]

Be clear about what you mean.

How does this apply to the minorities we're talking about, are the minorities quoted here making someone a victim?

It's possible to disagree with a person, and not condone threats or harassment they receive.

It's an older article. It's a bit older, but still a good read:

http://www.xojane.com/issues/casual-racism-matt-lauer-indian-giver

 

[The End]

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/...n_code=nocode&promote_channel=social_facebook

Grand Theft Auto and the problem with banning 'violent' video games and media
Date
December 4, 2014
38 reading nowComments 207Read later
Tim Biggs
Tim Biggs
Technology reporter / producer
View more articles from Tim Biggs
Follow Tim on Twitter Email Tim
There are still many who refuse to consider the worth of games alongside film and TV as entertainment for adults, argues Tim Biggs.

Email articlePrintReprints & permissions
COMMENT

Arguments you don't often hear: "GTA encourages players to get outside and ride a bike."
Arguments you don't often hear: "GTA encourages players to get outside and ride a bike."
We have a problem with video games.

Despite the age and wide acceptance of the medium, despite the unfathomable breadth of content and art it contains — from colourful and friendly adventures to pulpy romances, from mournful deconstructions of impermanence to blowing up jeeps with rocket launchers — there remain sensitivities that we've long since left behind for other forms of entertainment.

While reflections of our society in all its grime and a playful exaggeration of sex and violence is de rigueur in film and games, an old-fashioned perception of the latter as "more active", more likely to influence behaviour and more universally suitable for children than film, persists.

"GTA encourages people to go to the beach and buy a new hat."
"GTA encourages people to go to the beach and buy a new hat."
While as a society we respect the worth of films and TV meant expressly for the consumption of adults, games such as Grand Theft Auto V — rated R18+ and first released more than a year ago — can be pulled from sale at Target at the drop of feedback from a small number of people arguing that it spreads dangerous ideas.

Evidence of the disparity between the way we look at films and games, and the lingering perception that games are more suitable for children, is plain in the language used in the petition that supposedly brought the issue to Target's attention: "This sickening game encourages players to commit sexual violence and kill women", and "games like this are grooming yet another generation of boys to tolerate violence against women".

While the idea that a piece of entertainment will influence its consumer to act out in line with the themes of the story is nothing new (after all it happened with theatre, books, film and television), it has been a particular sticking point for video games.

In this case, rather than addressing the incredibly important issues of violence against women (in the actual lived world) or the exposure of children to complex media they can't hope to process, the debate has slammed back to the same old rhetoric: that violent representations inform a violent society (not the other way around), and that obliterating the representations will somehow result in a safer environment.

Art and media, which includes games as well as movies and books, have always been used to explore, discuss and play with taboo themes in a safe environment. In most cases it's accepted that adults can engage with this kind of media if they want to.

This should, of course, not be entirely without bounds, which brings me to another aspect of the petition, the idea that Grand Theft Auto rewards players for simulating sexual violence.

In fact the Australian Classification Board guidelines are quite clear — sexual violence tied to any kind of incentive or not justified by context disqualifies a game from classification. Such a game would not be released for sale in Australia at all. There are many people with a completely unacceptable attitude to sexual violence, but this game didn't give it to them.

And speaking of the Classification Board, bans of course have a particular significance in Australia given our country's history with adult-focused video games. Before January 2013, games (such as GTA) that were clearly meant for adults were classified MA15+ and sold to children, simply because certain people within the government refused to accept there were games that should be restricted to people over 18. Though the introduction of an R category was a positive move, we clearly still have a way to go.

Specifically, while some findings of the Interactive Games and Entertainment Association's yearly Digital Australia survey may surprise some people (47 per cent of gamers are female; the average age of video game players is 36), there is one finding that is sadly not surprising at all: fewer than half of the people surveyed said a game's classification influences whether or not they'd buy it for a child.

There is an important discussion that needs to take place about video games with violent and sexual themes in Australia, but it isn't about whether or not retailers should be selling them. We can take responsibility for the media our children consume without removing the media altogether.

I understand that Target not selling one game is hardly a mass book burning or even an impediment to any adult who wants to play the game. However, a very public rejection of a game based on outdated attitudes and willing close-mindedness about entertainment, only serves to foster those attitudes further.

They're an impediment to and distraction from much more important issues.

 

[The End]

Female gamers react to feminist frequency's latest video

http://techraptor.net/content/female-gamers-react-feminist-frequencys-latest-video

 

[The Question]

http://www.themarysue.com/indie-devs-nope/

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

I'm gonna be honest the more I read about this whole thing the more I want to just wash my hands of both sides, but seem to be nothing but ******* extremists

All gamer gates seem to be either victims or death threat sending *******s

And all the other side seem to be blinkered and if you even disagree even logically and intelligently you're labeled as a misogynist.

Hell I can't even begin to think how someone can condone sending rape threats or doxing someone's personal details, but again I can't understand company's bowing down to a single person who claims to speak for an entire gender or community.

This all came to a head when I read that Anita sarkeesian who I never fully agreed with her stances but understood a lot of points she was trying to bring to light

But now with her being brought in as a consultant/advisor for mirror edge 2 and saying stuff like the game should include an entirely separate control scheme exclusively for women as it would make the game easier to play

I thought the whole point of this was the make the community a cohesive unit so how does stuff like this work into that idea.

 

[The Question]

but again I can't understand company's bowing down to a single person who claims to speak for an entire gender or community.

Well, it's not true. That isn't a thing that's happening.

But now with her being brought in as a consultant/advisor for mirror edge 2 and saying stuff like the game should include an entirely separate control scheme exclusively for women as it would make the game easier to play

I thought the whole point of this was the make the community a cohesive unit so how does stuff like this work into that idea.

Anita Sarkeesian is not working on Mirror's Edge 2 as a consultant. There is no credible source which confirms that and she has not spoken about it at all on her twitter page. The source of the rumor seems to be an Onion-style fake article.

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

If so then I will hold my hands up and admit being taken in by a farce. But if it is a fake story it's being covered by a hell of a lot of legitimate websites.

 

[The End]

Are those really the sorts of publications you read, Question?

Burn, BUUUURN, BURN!

Thanks for the tumblr esque article I guess.

 

[The Question]

Are those really the sorts of publications you read, Question?

Burn, BUUUURN, BURN!

What in God's holy name are you blathering about?

Thanks for the tumblr esque article I guess.

You're welcome! Thanks for the paranoid reactionary conspiracy theories.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Are those really the sorts of publications you read, Question?

Burn, BUUUURN, BURN!

Thanks for the tumblr esque article I guess.

Put yo video game system down and fix my VCR!

 

[The End]

What in God's holy name are you blathering about?

The link you posted, with its multiple gifs of 'burn'.

I mean, I posted an article with a variety of nuanced view points, taking the issue seriously, with points like

I felt the video was kinda derogatory and viewed what happens to some women to what happens to all women. It turns me as a female gamer into a victim, and I feel it also views men as benefiting from this somehow. As if men don’t have to deal with double standards in the gaming culture that some of us female gamers take for granted. Like not being told we are lesbian if we suck at a game, or otherwise sometimes getting free stuff simply because of our gender. It’s this weird Male = perpetrator/Women = Victim mentality, and it kinda hurts both sexes. It’s a very extremist viewpoint and it does not benefit women or men to exalt men as this godly pinnacle free from negative effects due to double standards. This form of separatist behavior is far from inclusionary.

You posted, seemingly in response, essentially a tumblr page that repeats the motif of 'male=perpetrator/women=victim'.

I shouldn't be surprised because it's been your MO the whole thread. Constantly accuse those you disagree with of hating women.

Meanwhile,

Creator of '25 benefits of gaming while male', blocked this woman for this tweet

Damn, I could have a field day interrogating the **** out of that statement from McIntosh. Loaded with false assumptions about violent games and their effects, as seen with his previous statements on violent games. Seems to imply something is 'wrong' with you, if you enjoy a certain kind of video game, rather than just accepting it as a subjective and a consumer choice. He isn't a sociologist or psychologist, he comes across wholly as judgmental. Who is he to decide that escapism can't or shouldn't be dark?

It's like someone arbitrarily declaring that watching The Sopranoes isn't fun because its about a violent misogynist, or watching Breaking Bad isn't fun because its about a criminal sociopath that cooks meth.

If YOU don't find it fun, don't listen to it, or read it, or watch it, or play it. Don't sit on your high chair judging the people that do.

Another #FullMcIntosh tweet I just spotted...

'I could pull pretty much any sci-fi novel off my bookshelf at random and it'd be 20 times more interesting and nuanced than most AAA games'.

Another essentially meaningless statement. You can say the exact same thing about movies. You can't control what consumers want. I really wonder if McIntosh understands this. And so what, so what if a large amount of people enjoy the latest Transformers, or Call of Duty.

 

[Victarion]

She's dead on. Its pretty hard to mistake pixels for real life.