Slashdot Mirror
SXSW Cancels Panels On Harassment Due To Harassment (sxsw.com)
New submitter rMortyH writes: Two panels on online harassment in gaming scheduled for the upcoming South by Southwest festival have been cancelled due to online harassment and threats. According to a statement from SXSW Director Hugh Forrest, "... in the seven days since announcing these two sessions, SXSW has received numerous threats of on-site violence related to this programming. ... If people can not agree, disagree and embrace new ways of thinking in a safe and secure place that is free of online and offline harassment, then this marketplace of ideas is inevitably compromised."
People are tired of the politically correct narrative, and this is their way of rebelling.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
This is one of those things that's gotten too far out of hand. Now is not the time to have a rational conversation, that's impossible, now is the time to sit on it for a while so that we can come back to it later without quite so much yelling.
When you define disagreement as harassment, there is no way to have discussion.
Within game journalism. Hosted by The Open Gaming Society. Lynn Walsh was slated to speak.
Had nothing to do with harassment, unless the fact that Gawker apologists keep sending them bomb threats and trying to portray them as some kind of anti-women terrorist group counts. They pulled the same shit at an SPJ meeting, crickets from the press.
FWIW, the cancelled panels and some info from Googles cache:
SavePoint: A Discussion on the Gaming Community
We are attempting to organize a panel that we’d like to hold at SXSW 2016’s Interactive (Gaming) conference. The panel will focus heavily on discussions regarding the current social/political landscape in the gaming community, the journalistic integrity of gaming’s journalists, and the ever-changing gaming community, video game development, and their future. We will encourage honest critique and open dialogue between panelists and audience members, and will attempt to create a space where we can all speak on the social-political issues.
Speakers:
Lynn Walsh
Mercedes Carrera
Nick Robalik
Perry Jones
Level Up: Overcoming Harassment in Games
A panel from experts on online harassment in gaming and geek culture, how to combat it, how to design against it, and how to create online communities that are moving away from harassment. The panel will dive into data around abuse in larger gaming communities. One of our panelists will talk about about ways to actually develop the social aspects of games - including UI decisions and how they can influence accuracy and usage of reporting abuse. Another will dive into UX design choices to stymy harassment in social media spaces.
Speakers:
Caroline Sinders
Katherine Cross
Randi Harper
towards their critics, they might, just might, have a tiny bit of an ethics problem. But clearly this is too absurd a notion for /. to entertain.
Was run by someone who passes around blacklists and tells people to set themselves on fire. Tells you everything you need to know about these "harassment" accusations.
http://www.ship2block20.com/hidden-face-hypocrisy-randi-harper/
Meanwhile Savepoint had a journalist and a game dev on board.
From what I've seen there was 1 panel for each side. #SavePoint by the open gaming society Level Up panel organized by Randi Harper Both sides were harassed. Both canceled. OGS statement here: http://www.theopengamingsociet...
Sadly you don't even need to disagree. A statement of fact taken the wrong way counts as harassment.
I have no doubt that it is the people who insist on Safe Spaces, that are making the threats. Their ideas are old and week and don't stand up to any refutation.
So, GamerGate's first large meetup in Washington, D.C. was disrupted by a bomb threat.
Then, GamerGate's panels in Airplay were disrupted by several bomb threats, despite precautions taken against possible bombs by the SPJ at the venue.
Now, their panel at SXSW was cancelled due to threats of violence and harassment.
The fact that they cannot seem to peacefully assemble, which is defined as a basic human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations (among many other human rights documents), should be concerning no matter what your position on GamerGate is.
"Gee I wonder what this Slashdot comment thread will look like...."
No, being overrun by Zerg is the point of online gaming. Shit talking is how teenagers manage the resulting grief.
I think all you people are on camera, writing the script for free.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Loved the humor you two a/cs, even if the moderator is too PC, I laughed. Also GGP is not a -1, troll, people are sick of the politically correct narrative and it is their way of rebelling.
This reminds me of my sister in law. I was teasing my brother, and he was smiling and happy, and she misunderstood the teasing as insults. She came screaming across and had a go at me. The smile on my brothers face dropped, like "oh no not again", and he tried to calm her down, explain that we were joking and he was having fun.
She insisted we spend the holiday apart after that, she couldn't simply admit she was wrong, it had to become a PC thing.
She doesn't interact in social situations much, and isn't use to the concept of ragging or teasing for fun. So she doesn't know how to behave in groups among friends, and they try to avoid her.
In short, she's a real cunt who can't admit she's wrong and makes REAL problems from her IMAGINED issues. For us, we had to find another hotel at peak season, which meant walking 2 miles with heavy bags on a hot summers day with no water. Fucking cow.
I see the same things here with these people. They don't interact much with real people in the real world, and so don't get to develop the thicker skin needed to be happy in social situations.
So the take actions which do serious harm, in order to be protected from the most minor imagined slight. As if their slight is more important than the real harm to free speech they're doing.
It's the left wing politicians who victim-blame over the mohammed cartoon deaths. Their answer? More 'multicultural' 'tolerance.'
It's interesting that SJWs are almost always use name calling, including the use of 'intolerant' slurs and generalizations.
Thinking of just a recent example, some feminist (Laughing Witch) started and participated in a letter-writing campaign in order to get a particular anti-feminist (Thunderf00t) fired from his job. This letter contained several falsehoods and embellishments, and sought to leverage laws that could potentially lead to an unwarranted arrest. Pretty damn low.
In response to this, Thunderf00t found out where Laughing Witch worked and initiated a campaign to leave negative reviews of that business, since she was one of the company's officers. Answering the call with cult-like obedience, several of Thunderf00t's followers left fake, negative reviews of the business, and also tried writing letters of their own to get the woman fired. They reasoned that anyone else who happened to work for the business simply should have known better than to work alongside such a woman. Just as low.
Out of curiosity, I tried to point out how unethical the actions of both Laughing Witch and Thunderf00t were. Talk about bonkers. On the SJW side, Laughing Witch was of course justified, and any criticism of her tactic was somehow victim blaming. On the MRA side, any employees who would be harmed were just acceptable collateral damage in a round of karmic justice. On both sides, reasoned argument was something no longer considered of any use; instead, silencing the opponent (somewhat viciously) was considered the only option.
Both sides of this thing now view the debate as a war, and both sides are resorting to ever more despicable tactics.
"Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
The "panel" included Randi Harper - one of the most notorious trolls on the internet. I can only guess she's considered an expert because she has engaged in so much abuse that she can spot it a mile away.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...
This person is a horrible human being who should not be given any kind of soap box from which to speak.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Not if the ideas aren't worthy of respect. The two definitions of respect: that it is deserved as a default vs earned on merit are part of the core ideological conflict between right and left.
"People are sick of the politically correct narrative! SJWs won't stop playing the victim card!"
THIS WAS A PRO-GAMERGATE PANEL YOU NUMBNUTS. MERCEDES CARRERA WAS ONE OF THE PANELISTS.
I'm not even IN it anymore and I knew that, but people here see "panel about harassment in gaming at SXSW" and they go full fucking cultist. Incidentally, this kind of dumb shit is WHY I'm not in it. The longer any given group exists on the internet, the more likely it will turn into a bunch of howler monkeys that get triggered and assblasted by words they're afraid of. The fact that tumblr SJ trash did it first and loudest doesn't make this any less idiotic.
It's not as if SJW hadn't wished "death to all men" before...
Curiously when Christina Hoff Sommers get threat from SJW, to the point where she need police protection, it doesn't make it to /. ...
Do they mean shit talking? I thought talking shit was part of the appeal of online gaming? What am I missing here?
People having varying personalities and approaches to social interactions. Some people (male and female) enjoy trash talk, as friendly competitive banter. Others find it aggressive, stressful, immersion-breaking, and plain annoying.
Plus there is trash talk, and there is plain insulting, discriminatory aggressions (racist, sexist, homophobic, ageist and ableist, notably), sexual harassment, and real-life threats and stalking (and there are sometimes 'real' consequences to this, with 'doxxing', 'swating', harassing family or co-workers/bosses, etc.).
There's also a matter of time and place. Starting to insult a complete stranger after he crushed you, flooding the chat with stupid binds, calling cheat and starting a voteban, isn't "friendly banter". You're just an annoying sore loser brat. Same with bragging about 'winning' a round, in a completely unbalanced game because of stacking or pros going pub-stomping, with people leaving, or going spectator to join the 'winning' team, even after having been switched to the 'losing' team as part of autobalancing.
And there's also the problem of griefing and cheating in multiplayer games, not just trash talking. They are often linked.
Of course, this is mostly a mirror of society (and kids imitating adults), it has absolutely nothing to do with computers, Internet, and gaming in particular, although the sense of anonymity and distance sure make it easier for people to 'slip'.
In some cases, people don't use smileys when they should too, particularly with strangers. There is a huge difference between a "Go die! :P" and "go die". Even when the person might actually have the exact same state of mind.
One important thing to note is that trash talkers in a carebear world, would just find things boring. While the opposite situation can lead to depression and suicide. A good society has to take the side of people more sensible and vulnerable to aggression, even if in many cases, this is actually just 'friendly' (albeit often clumsy) trash talk.
To summarize, you can trash talk all you want with your friends who enjoy it, particularly when you're on your own server, or isolated from strangers. But you're supposed to tread lightly with strangers, until you know they're receptive to friendly banter. And finally, many aggressive behaviors are just plain annoying, and I'm sure you are of the exact same opinion, most likely very openly. So, when we are talking about these problematic behaviors, just don't take it personally, right? 'Cause that's precisely what you're trying to argue is an error on the part of more sensible persons... Yes, there is overgeneralization in many news articles about it, like on most other subjects. That's not a reason to throw everything out in reaction.
Dear SXSW:
Grow some balls.
O, u mad.
The Slashdot comments on any story related to women in gaming, or women in tech more generally, always bring Lewis' Law to mind.
Dammit.
/. admin.
What really pissed me off about this is that my submission about the thorough debunking of the UN cyber violence paper was deleted by a
Could you please be less obvious, Slashdot? No one with three brain cells is missing the bias here, but I want to pretend I'm missing it. It dulls the blatant insult to my intelligence.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
"The two definitions of respect: that it is deserved as a default vs earned on merit are part of the core ideological conflict between right and left."
That is no part of any established political theory that I've ever heard of.
The right is just as likely to respect people who have not earned respect as the left. The pro-life/anti-abortion right, for example, would say that they respect foetuses, and want foetuses to be treated with respect. Many conservatives would say that those in positions of authority ought to be respected, as should the elderly, irrespective of individual actions.
Life may be simpler if you just caricature the views of the people with whom you disagree, but it's like a filter on the world that strips out everything bar primary colours: it is impoverishing.
SJW are not trying to "have a conversation", they are in a pseudo-righteous fight to get more female privileges through pseudo victimization, in an already gynocentric society. They want to eradicate everything which does not conform to their moral standard. To some extend, they belong to the liberal / progressive faction very much against freedom and what it stands for. They have successfully banned men-focused association from campuses, and restrict everything which does not conform to their pseudo-egalitarian agenda.
that being said, freedom of speech only restrict the government to restrict its citizen's speech, action between private parties are not concerned by it and are free to interact as they wish. Though, to some extend, it could be argued that SJW have already successfully made the US Government to restrict speech on campus through Title IX regulations, which basically remove any form of due process to complain. Universities are financially compelled to be prosecutor, judge, and jury in and discrimination cases, might a female be "triggered" by anything said on campus...
They don't give a shit about their own female folks in the islamic world. All they want is easy gain and power to satisfy their ego.
btw, some of them have even suggested to put all men in concentration camps, and nobody condemned them... http://www.infowars.com/top-fe... [ed. and don't tell me either InfoWar or me went for the Godwin point, the original quote is from Julie Bindel, a prominent feminist & journalist ]
Tolerance is the default. Respect is earned.
I tolerate religious people. There is no way I could respect willful ignorance, though.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I will continue to play violent game because its fun. No body will tell me what I should or should not play.
Not a native english speaker, I presume?
No one is telling what you should play. Let's take Anita Sarkeesian. The people she's actually criticizing are game DEVELOPERS for overusing tropes.
That's it.
But YOU are taking her criticism of GAMES and developers personally.
"She's saying I'm a bad person when she says the games are bad."
But she's not saying the games are wholly bad, she's criticizing the tropes. That's it. Your problem is that your identity is too tied up in the games. In other words, you need to grow up.
Freedm of speech, as a principle rather than a law extends further than government though. SXSW has a choice of whether to offer a platform or not, and clearly wants to do so. It's pretty reprehensible of the protesters preventing them from doing so.
But SJW want to import the Australian model in the US. This is the reason of the fight. Heck, even Hillary Clinton is quoting Australia as a model for gun control, which is truly a gun confiscation. Game developer are merely developing games for a target population, producing content for a demand. I want more games where I can pay a stripper to dance for me in-between fragging space aliens, because it's fun. Would I do that in real life ? Of course not, even though I enjoy S&M. By criticizing the tropes, she is putting a moral value judgement on those game, with the target of making them socially unacceptable, and the banning them. That being said, I'm still waiting to a widely successful game [ie. not Depression Quest] made by an SJW.
I want to keep my action games, and I want to keep my guns, because doing a mag dump on an old computer, after a week stress is a hell of a fun time. Call me a redneck if that's making you hard, but because I don't spend my free time trimming my beard, wearing flannel shirt, smoking weed and drinking beer does not make me morally wrong.
Randi Harper's panel was about technology design to combat internet harassment. GamerGate was not mentioned.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Philosophically, I agree. Practically, SJW shall be silenced.
... and by "silenced", I meant not given any air-time to spread their FUD.
Really, even Randall Munroe would have to work very hard to beat this one :)
In a country where law enforcement seems quite eager to use lethal force agains perceived threats, why are death threats like those mentioned numerous times here not at least investigated by relevant law enforcement agencies?
In all seriousness, violence or threats of the same are not part of 'debate'. If anyone is laboring under that illusion, it's high time grownups stepped in, preferably with law enforcement of the anti-terrorist kind in tow. In civilized countries, death threats could easily lead to jail time.
-- That grumpy BSD guy - http://bsdly.blogspot.com/
The review does not exist. If it does, I'm sure you can post a link to the review or a reputable archive such as the wayback machine. Two things to note, in order to pre-empt a bunch of non-review links I've been given before:
a) two words is not a review.
b) A mere mention along the lines of "Zoe Quinn (who you may remember from such games as Depression Quest) is doing something else which I'm now talking about" is also not a review of the game.
Now as I'm sure you're an honest, upstanding chap, I'm sure you will have no trouble providing me the evidence for what has essentially been the rallying cry.
I also fully expected to get modded down for this because it seems nothing is quite so trollish as actually demanding hard evidence. I've got Karma to burn so bring it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"I'm going to take my ball and go home" is the response to bullys. Withdrawing the SXSW panel is just reinforcing the behavior. What they needed to do was up physical security, and still have it.
Do you have an example of a men-focused association that was banned from a campus because of SJWs or feminists? I mean banned for no good reason, not because they were found to be harassing people or being misogynists etc.
I'm calling bullshit on this one. Years ago when I was at university there was a male nurses groups, and they didn't seem to have any problems. They didn't excuse women either, mind you.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Quoting anything from Breitbart speaks volumes about agendas and attitudes.
Don't click the sjw article, don't click the sjw a
You know the gaters got their panel canned as well. Does this mean gaters are SJWs?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Do you understand how childish and petty you look to everyone else? You must understand that you have very little support outside of your reddit groups.
Also you are not involuntarily celibate. It is completely voluntary, stop being shit to women and treat them like people and maybe just maybe, if you take a shower and take a modicum of care for your self, you'll find someone willing to sleep with you. But that will never happen until you show them some respect. In the process maybe you will earn some respect too.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
If people can not agree, disagree and embrace new ways of thinking in a safe and secure place that is free of online and offline harassment, then this marketplace of ideas is inevitably compromised.
That just sounds weak, all of the complaining about "online harassment" sounds weak.
Stop using "social" media if all you get out of it is bullying and ignore people that are trolling, grow up.
If people are doing it in person, then call the cops.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I have no doubt that it is the people who insist on Safe Spaces, that are making the threats. Their ideas are old and week [sic] and don't stand up to any refutation.
Personally I would take resorting to threats of violence as stronger evidence that a position is weak.
As for "Safe Spaces", anyone is free to set up any kind of ground rules they like for conversations they are hosting; if you don't like that then don't participate in that conversation. Set up your own conversation with rules that are more to your liking.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Not when posting as a coward and trying to portray your self as a tough man sorry.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Sarkeesian actually starts every video by making the point that it is possible to enjoy video games while still criticising them. Just like it is possible to enjoy Star Wars while pointing out that the Ewocks were quite annoying and silly, or that parsecs are a unit of distance not time.
SJWs are too busy being outraged to notice, apparently.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Nobody does. Although I admit a ton of people were killed in the name of God historically and it still happens to this day, it's really the combination of poverty, violent upbringing, and lack of education rather than religion.
That wouldn't explain the number of middle class educated fuckwits that set off suicide bombs.
Clearly there's something more than poverty and lack of education going on.
Those guys feed off each others angst and depression and eventually some of them start shooting people who they blame for their predicament.
Pretty sure that a much bigger influence on Mercer's shooting spree were his family outings with his mom, with whom he "shared a love for guns", to a shooting range.
Along with his mental issues, again fostered in great deal by his mother who talked about him and herself as having Asperger's.
And who "involuntarily institutionalized" him after he went off his medication.
And there's that thing where between them, he and mom had 14 (fourteen) guns at home. Just in case Brits invade again, I guess.
Now... I can't speak for everyone else, but had MY mother ever "institutionalized" me, there would probably be no sharp objects of any kind at home for years later - let alone would she take me to a shooting range.
Telling a disturbed kid "You're a lunatic" (by putting him in a mental institution) while handing him a gun...
That's a pretty big hammer for any kind of nail one may face out there.
Also... What other cases of "THEM feeding off of each other until THEY start shooting people" do you have to make your theory valid regarding "them"?
As in... multiple cases? Up until... well... let's say now?
Who are these "them" you are talking about?
In relation to r9k, as you've described this particular case to be.
Not in relation to his mom keeping him at home or in a mental institution "for his protection" while letting him own and keep buying multiple people-killing machines.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The game he was mentioning was Duke Nukem, but since you don't know that you completely misunderstood his comment.
In fact, I do know that the game he was mentioning was Duke Nukem 3D (nice try though, kid) and my question still stands.
Please go educate yourself before opening your mouth and revealing your ignorance again.
Please don't bother to run your suck again.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That's why it gets no coverage. No-one is falling for it
I disagree. It's because the aGG movement (such that it is) is scared in rational discourse, knows they can't back up their stupidity with facts, relies on a false narrative and uses all of that to generate funds from misled people.
Feels like a big con trick to me, and their refusal to engage in calm polite conversation speaks volumes.
your rant is particularly pathetic.
that when you are forced to blatantly lie to defend your position, that you would do better to simply crawl back into your hole and wait until everyone forgets you exist.
It's because the aGG movement (such that it is) is scared in rational discourse
It's really funny when you say that. Have you actually compared an Anita Sarkeesian video to a Thunderf00t one, for example? Sarkeesian has a well developed argument based on careful research. Thunderf00t thinks that throwing a few image macros and memes in is enough to support his arguments, and then rants on for ten minutes about stuff she never even said.
That's the level of discourse we get from GG. Ranting and memes. As part of the anti-GG movement myself, I actually really enjoy it when people post GG arguments here because they are really easy and fun to rip apart. I wish they would do it more often, but instead all we get is innuendo and ranting about feminists.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men...
Still calling bullshit, or just spouting it?
Ah, but it is bullshit. The guy set up his society, with support from the feminists: http://thetab.com/uk/durham/20...
The only objection was the overlapping areas, and when the guy actually asked the feminists about the issues he found in their documentation it was quickly resolved. Now he has the support of the much larger feminist society to help him, and he seems to be glad of it.
So in other words, far from feminists banning a male focused group, they facilitated the creation of one. You should send them a thank-you note.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Um, it is right there in the subject, literally the first thing in the post.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Check the date on that article. A week before the Telegraph article I linked.
That Tab article is concealing the fact that the SU rejected his attempt to create a society. Of course FemSoc are happy to let him act within their rules - check their fucking rules out : https://drive.google.com/file/...
To join FemSoc he'd have to "accept you have privilege over women"
That's total bullshit anywhere, let alone in a Mens Society trying to help men and reduce suicide risks.
Just how much of a fucking bigot are you to even think this is acceptable or represents equality?
I don't get it.
Are you referring ot the Julie Bindle who was banned from events by the NUS for being transphobic? Which one's suposed to be the SJW? Her or them? Or you? I lose track to be honest.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Holy fuck. You truly are a fucking idiot.
No, the situation was not resolved. He set up a group (as stated in the Tab), the SU said no, FemSoc said, "Be a good little slave and behave for us".
Learn how to read, process information and analyse it before commenting further, your interpretation is facile and false.
the biggest causes of male suicide are the ones that the feminists are trying to address
By refusing men the chance to speak on an equal basis at any FemSoc event, including their own subsidiary FemSoc-MenSoc events?
Oh please.
Fuck this, you're a blithering imbecile, I can't win an argument with someone that lacks basic skills in logic.
If Anita dislikes what is being made by the game developers, why doesn't she make her own games? People buy what the developers make, that is why they make it.
Instead of trying to tell people what they should do, why doesn't she do it herself? She is trying to tell people how to act and what to think, which is always wrong.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I'm really tired of these gamergate bullies threatening violence every time someone suggests that there are other markets and demographics for which games can be marketed. I'm really confused on why people are the least bit upset. Bringing games to a wider audience seems like a good thing for the game industry and gamer culture.
Sarkeesian has a well developed argument based on careful research.
No, she has opinions that she makes up and cherry picks. Her quality of "research" is something an ideologue does. Do you actually think her "research" would come up with something other than a feminist narrative?
There's also a matter of time and place. Starting to insult a complete stranger after he crushed you, flooding the chat with stupid binds, calling cheat and starting a voteban, isn't "friendly banter". You're just an annoying sore loser brat.
A lot of those people actually are brats. Many of the players (if not most) are teenagers. I know kids who game online who aren't old enough to read the insults you throw at them.
These are people who are still learning to grow up in the world, what is appropriate or what is not. All of us went through that stage. Don't take game insults too seriously.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Up at the top of the page it says "News for nerds".
OK, fellow nerds, let's remember our school days.
Remember how quick the thugs were to yell "He started it!"? Remember the adults who were supposed to keep things safe dismissing assaults in the restroom and saying we just needed to learn how to handle teasing? Remember how the bullies traveled with entourages who thought they were cool?
People like that are running around in adult bodies now. We all have the background to see them for what they are. We must oppose them immediately and unconditionally, or we are on their side.
Hint: the instant you start making any excuse for any threat of violence from any side of an argument, you are in the wrong.
No matter what you think of her work, you can't honestly deny that it is at least presented in a clam and careful manner, using examples and rational argument to make points. Unlike anything Thunderf00t did, ever.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
"grown ups"
"law enforcement"
Pick one
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
Well, I have an on-call fuck-friend that is more than willing to get fuck it her every hole, as much as I want. So... not really ;-)
Btw, I fully assume my support to MGTOW / anti-feminism in public, so maybe you should just SFTU.
SJW sells themselves as being liberal / progressive, but yes, they are totally conservative... and of the worst possible kind, ie. religious conservatism.
Your right, I'm a man-child. I'm grown up, and still get plenty of toys to play with (even pussies) with all the money not diverted to keep women from whining.
I'm about 9000km from my mom's basement, so really GFY.
My point exactly. The best they have come with is Depression Quest, which really nobody will play for fun...
roflmao! Thank you for that laugh.
you can't honestly deny that it is at least presented in a clam and careful manner,
Oh, yes it is very well presented and calm (assuming typo) careful manner. Not going to deny that.
using examples and rational argument to make points
And this is the hilarity. Seriously, you have to be some conspiratorial nut to follow her rational. Sexists developers make sexist games make sexist gamers. Mind you with zero supporting evidence aside from cherry picking and opinion filled fluffy dialogue. Let's also not forget using "research" as in, trying to use scientific words to give credence to her opinion pieces. Her "research" doesn't pass any level scientific scrutiny or competence.
"players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual characters. It's a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality"
About Hitman, a sandbox game where you do't have to do any of that. In fact, the game punishes you for it. Sexual arousal connected to your choice of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality when you the player chooses to be abhorrent??? Is she upset you were given the choice but then "players are meant"? How in the blue fuck is that rational?
Women are just trophies for sex because men saving them demand sex!
There are no strong female game characters!
Honestly, all she deserves is snarky youtube videos. You don't need anything else to debunk her. That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. She cherry picks evidence or makes shit up. Either way her opinion is overrated Jack Thompson 2.0.
Thunderf00t does exactly the same thing, except he has a giant neck and not an attractive liberal female feminist. I have heard Anita's ideas debunked numerous times. I haven't seen TF's rebuttals to her debunked. All I see is character assassination attempts and ignoring the ideas he presents.
Pencil neck geeks threaten violence? What are they going to do hit you with their limp wrists. Just setup a toilet and say the first person that gets out of hand gets a swirly. Problem solved.
Good money says that certain kinds of perpetual victims cancelled something for fear of hearing the truth.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
If anyone harassed anyone in that case, it was Ms. van Valkerberg. In addition to harassing her ex into silence with lawfare, she enlisted the help of her friend to make sure her story stuck.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Unfortunately links to Reddit GG boards prove nothing
On the other hand, the least reliable sources from Sarkeesian or van Valkerberg are considered unquestionable gospel. On the other hand, it's quite hard to prove something when you have a deep investment in anti-GG narrative control. The only reason it sticks is for having friendlies in online media, including reddit. Instead of trying to win by takeover and administrative action, why not try truth sometime?
Kotakuinaction
Kotakuinaction has been right more times than their narrative-defending counterparts. In the cases where it is other than right, it was a result of someone trying to sow discord amongst the community - from your end.
Explain why your side has called in more threats against themselves or towards pro-GG events. Explain why you have to push a narrative.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
There's also Milo Yiannopolous, who calls gamers "overgrown manchildren" and "terminally beta".
Yet he's been quite the thorn in the 'social justice' crowd. If anyone's terminally "beta", it's the social justice warriors that rely on pandering to diversity as well as media gatekeeping to exist. Without both of those, the social justice crowd would be sitting next to Jack Thompson.
It was still two words, as the GP pointed out, in an article providing favorable coverage to 49 other games. But at least you admit it wasn't a review.
Still doesn't excuse Chelsea van Valkerberg's harassment of her ex (and in turn, anyone that dared question her) through the unquestioning media and the courts. Oh, and she still lost her court case despite the money.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Exactly. I don't give a shit about Chelsea van Valkerberg
The 5 Guys incident, and her unsuccessful lawfare brought it to light.
I give a shit about this. I am glad that the media have been called out, that this hasn't been allowed to pass without comment, and that the media haven't won.
Even if reputable events like SXSW have to shut down panel discussions because stupid fuckwits are scared to have open honest debate about actual issues, instead of toeing the media line.
They're only scared when the venue or entity won't help them defend their narrative and cannot be destroyed. The only way they can "win" is by cancelling such events by making threats.
With that in mind, such discussions' direction can be predicted or determined by the presence or absence of threats.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Shrill fanatic makes ridiculously over-the-top statement, gets ignored. GIFs at eleven.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
And that would be nice, if she wasn't cherry-picking and/or misrepresenting (maybe unintentionally, who knows) facets of the games.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
All the public really needs to hear is the bunch of professional victims calling in bomb threats
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I used Anita as an EXAMPLE, sinche Gamergate people are often very upset by her and believe she wants to ban the games they play, as the fellow I was responding to believed.
You use quotation marks, but I couldn't find where the GP said such a thing.
HELLO! Interpretation of GG "feelings" of persecution!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If Anita dislikes what is being made by the game developers, why doesn't she make her own games?
She doesn't like the excessive use of certain tropes. Besides, why should SHE be held to a higher standard than a Film critic, TV Critic, or Book reviewer. People can criticize and review thing without having jerks tell them "if you don't like it make your own."
We need critics.
Besides, if you were complaining about a cold, do you think I should tell you "Quit whining and go to med school and become a doctor" We all have different skill sets.
Jesus christ, Gamergaters feelings of persecution are fucking OBVIOUS! It's not much of an interpretation.
All the griefers, trash talkers, and gamer gaters out there.
Very sad, since I helped create this industry in the first place.
SXSW needs to man up and hold the panel anyway.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
THESE are the people who had an issue with SXSW's decision to host a panel on ethics in the gaming press. These are the people who tried to stop it from happening. The idea of a GamerGate panel is broached - Randi is her usual charming self. https://archive.is/BIdbf The possibility of a "GG" panel is discovered by members of Ghazi and the anti-GG clique. https://archive.is/caBjo The panel is confirmed - this news is immediately "CC'd" to prominent Social Justice bullies https://archive.is/YibEN Arthur Chu takes action to cancel the "GG" panel. https://archive.is/2havB Chris Kluwe joins in with attempts to pressure SXSW, including protesting about the panel breaking rules. https://archive.is/sKLea https://archive.is/sabh5 Online petition (to cancel it) maybe? https://archive.is/e8k4K GamerGate are not tolerated in Austin https://archive.is/jiY7w You should lobby your bosses at TED to get this changed https://archive.is/ZVCMk More pressure from Arthur Chu https://archive.is/0FyIF "Women aren't safe now" https://archive.is/ZVCMk https://archive.is/O3NNp https://archive.is/oQXPm https://archive.is/loi8U https://archive.is/10WNI https://archive.is/q03Bg https://archive.is/XW05t "Terrible decision SXSW... tut tut tut..." https://archive.is/MUWPP https://archive.is/7PHZT https://archive.is/t2kiO https://archive.is/tJBes "Why are you giving a Nazi/KKK/ISIS/Hategroup a platform?!" https://archive.is/PmwRL https://archive.is/9tO9i https://archive.is/sTJWK https://archive.is/o7KjH https://archive.is/iMTxJ "SXSW is just for white cismale dudebros" https://archive.is/VyXZJ https://archive.is/tHPLm https://archive.is/dsssf "Boycott SXSW!" https://archive.is/mSa1A https://archive.is/ed9RG https://archive.is/H18jO https://archive.is/zn69U Juvenile insults (NSFW) https://archive.is/X81Pi https://archive.is/k5z4y https://archive.is/fzxWJ Anti-GamerGate are actively trying to silence women now. https://archive.is/KMJuj
I happened to notice that the article failed to mention which groups these threats were coming from. If these threats were from gamer gate I am certain that it would have been mentioned multiple times. Who else might have made these threats? Who would they be so intimidated by that they were afraid to point out who they were? Which side is it that can ruin a career in a single day with a concentrated campaign of accusations without the need for any proof? It sure as hell isn't the gamer gate crowd, but the professional victims and feminists can do this, and they do it for a living.
Do you know how to find the privileged class? You look for the group that rallies behind someone calling for genocide without any backlash from the media like several prominent feminists have done in calling for the genocide of men.
That picture being "these things are bad, and you should feel bad for playing them".
That's your interpretation, not hers.
Let's examine the commonly used "man's wife gets killed, the adventure is his roaring rampage of revenge" sometimes called the:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmw...
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmw...
Those are excessively used, so when she says it is overused, she's saying "come up with something better and more imaginative rather than using this one too much"
If someone starts using social justice weasel words like "patriarchy", "privilege", "toxic masculinity", and "objectifying women",
Those aren't weasel words, those are actual things. They exist.
it's a safe bet that they're trying to shame you for liking what you like,
Maybe a little bit of shame might be a good thing? Maybe YOU can complain to developers who keep using the same tropes over and over again.
But, if the speaker is someone who is constantly throwing social justice terms at you as an "educational" device, I'm really sorry, but it doesn't matter how disingenuously apologetic they are about it, they're still trying to indoctrinate you.
It's the 21st century, you should know about those so-called "social justice terms" already. Really, you should know about them already She's not trying to indoctrinate you, just tell you about things you should have realized or known already.
Isn't this ultimately the same thing? How can players play the games they want when developers are pressured into not developing them?
It's not teh same thing.
She's saying "You're overusing these tropes, it's the lazy way out, start making smarter stories rather than the same old 'guys wife gets killed and he goes on a rampage' thing over and over again"
Now imagine someone came along and said, these games are bad, you shouldn't play them.
She isn't doing that.
Now imagine something different. That person isn't coming along saying I can't play these game, they're going to the developers saying they can't make them. How is that not denying me the right to play these games I like?
She isn't doing that either. All she's saying to them is "Make better stories that don't rely on those old tropes."
that I never heard of any of these fame-seeking cunts.