A female game developer was accused of having a relationship with a journalist in exchange for a good review of her game...
Nope. Not a positive review, but positive coverage. Ask anyone in GG and they'll correct you.
...as well as a lot of other very nasty stuff her ex put out on a blog post. That was shown to be untrue...
Citation, please.
Later the harassment spread to other women involved in video games. The most high profile victim was Anita Sarkeesian, but there are many others.
I have no doubt that Anita has been harassed, but she likens the real criticism she also gets as "harassment". People sending her death threats and people saying that she's a sexist misandrist are not the same thing.
IRC logs show that this wasn't just a few random idiots, it was a prolonged, focused harassment campaign that lasted for years.
Citation, please. At this point in time, really for the past couple of years,/r/KotakuInAction is the main GG hub. There are offshoots and it's discussed elsewhere, but there has been no sustained harassment campaign, at least from places like KIA. You need to show exactly where the "focused harassment campaign" came from. Hint: There isn't. Like the answer above, you lump in real harassment with criticism.
GamerGate is even associated with the rise of the alt-right. People like Milo Yianoppolis became involved and used it as a gateway into nationalism and white supremacy.
GG is not bound by any one political party. There is a wide range, from liberal to conservative, in GG. People like Milo gave GG a platform, and when you're being blacklisted by most other media outlets, well, you support where the truth of your story is being told, even as someplace as lowly as Breitbart. Not everyone, or even a vast majority of people, in GG are right; most are on the left, though we do have a number of libertarians. I partly don't blame this one on anyone lying; if you go to KIA, you'll see a number of posters talking about Trump, but it's allowed. I have nothing good to say about Trump, but people are allowed to be part of GG, even if we don't agree on everything.
and that law enforcement was largely ineffective. The FBI, for example, gathered a lot of evidence and some confessions, but didn't take any action.
The FBI determined there was no one that was a credible threat, at least as far as Anita. Are you saying there was evidence they ignored or something?
The whole thing got as far as the UN, but most of the positive change that resulted was a grassroots effort.
It was mostly Anita complaining that people said "you suck". Which isn't fun day-to-day, but when you're a critic, you open yourself up to criticism. What exactly was the "positive change"?
So now when you see hundreds of near identical 1 star reviews on a movie like Black Panther, or you hear people claiming that the other side is just as bad as the Nazis, when populists organize on the internet and get elected, you know where these ideas came from and how they work.
Mass downvoting, whataboutism, and violence happens on all sides, don't pretend it's purely on "the side you disagree with".
Agreed. It's a huge problem with the progressive movement. Regressives are really good at shaming and shouting out progressives, and getting other people to believe that they're on the side of good (I think they're just really good at lobbing accusations of "racist" and "sexist", which nobody wants to have happen to them). Hopefully their momentum will die down soon and we can get back to actual progressiveness.
The difference between progressive and regressive (SJW).
A progressive wants to improve life for all, usually with a focus based on class. A regressive wants to mainly focus on those ranked higher on the "regressive stack" (based on things like skin color and sexuality); if something is detrimental to someone lower on the regressive stack, but it benefits someone higher on the regressive stack, then it's okay ("the ends justifies the means").
A progressive tries their best to be "color blind" (as in, all people should be treated the same, everyone should have the same opportunities). A regressive believes that things like skin color and sexuality are more important than values or content of character.
A regressive will place those higher on the regressive stack on pedestals; you cannot joke or criticize these people, but you can joke, criticize, or wish death upon those lower on the regressive stack.
A regressive thinks in black-and-white terms with little nuance. You are either 100% with their cause, or you are 100% against. There is typically very little middle ground in their mind.
A progressive uses "privilege" to make people think about their position (i.e. "You (male/female) never have to think about which bathroom you have to go into. Other people would like to feel that way too."). A regressive uses "privilege" to shame and guilt, much like bad religious institutions (i.e. "Check your privilege!").
A regressive is fine with segregated spaces, but only for those higher on the regressive stack (such as black-only college dorms); anyone lower must 100% not have any space only for their group.
A progressive might respect culture but understands it can be fluid and not everyone celebrates all aspects of cultures the same (especially in melting pots such as the US). A regressive believes cultural appropriation is everywhere and that there is an inherent "cultural copyright" that only members of said culture can participate or allow others to participate in (while being uneducated about the origins of certain things, such as dreadlocks, or believing that only Mexicans can wear sombreros).
A progressive believes that even though people have done bad things in the past (or even present), blame is not to be put upon those that are part of those groups that did not take action in those things. A regressive believes in original sin (particularly for those lower on the regressive stack) and that blame and responsibility should be shared across generations and groups.
A progressive believes that, even if what one says is terrible and disgusting, people have the right to express their views. Bad ideas should be exposed so that they can be critiqued and shown why they are bad. A regressive believes that anything they deem bad should be suppressed at all costs; violence and censorship are perfectly fine to use ("no bad tactics, only bad targets").
A progressive seeks allies; the progressive and the ally may not agree on all things at all times, but will generally share a base set of values. The ally is an individual and is respected as such. A regressive seeks servants, under the guise of seeking allies; servants are not allowed to question anything the regressive says or does, and must always defer/be quiet/give up things or spaces to those higher on the progressive stack.
The problem is that many pro-2A people agree that there is a problem (kids getting shot in schools). However, the things proposed solutions usually fall into either 1) unhelpful security theater (i.e. banning bump stocks) or 2) a dismantling of the 2A.
I can only speak for myself. The 2A isn't going away, and trying to chip away at the 2A is going to be met with resistance. I don't even own again and I'm against all the attempts to weaker the 2A.
I know it's sarcasm, but probably not. They've identified the developer as a "troll" (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/evkp3a/active-shooter-removed-from-steam-by-valve).
If a non-troll dev tried the same thing...maybe it would fly?
Clinton bought her support at the DNC. You may not care about that kind of corruption, but more than a couple people do. This is an organization (a private one!) that has the power to choose one of two candidates for POTUS. Sounds like you're an apologist for this type of corruption.
But that's not really an apt comparison. You're not buying a blind box where who knows what type of CPU you're getting. You're getting a minimum amount of CPU for the money you spend, as advertised.
To have the same comparison to trading card games, you'd have to get something that's advertised, with the potential to get something something extra. Like...there's a booster pack where you definitely get a Charmander, a Squirtle, and a Bulbasaur. You may or may not get a few extra cards beyond that.
I do realize that with some words these days, it can be hard to point to a concrete definition. It's true, that some people will simply use "SJW" as "anyone to the left of me" or "anyone on the left". But there is a divide between progressives and regressives. I hope what I wrote help explains what I see, at least.
I look at it using the definition I see on Wikipedia, which includes, "As a philosophy, it is based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition." Which your definition seems to agree with, though I think it's less authoritarian than then examples you gave. I don't think that's an "obvious next step" for the government to become a brutal regime.
I know what a "progressive" these days is extremely murky; it's hard to pin down a concrete definition when so many people misuse it (regressives saying that they're progressive is probably the biggest part).
Freedom is still an important aspect, which I know people would argue is not necessarily a tenant of progressivism. Not sure what else I would really call the political stance that I wrote about other than progressive.
Slashdot Mirror
Their only responsibility is to the shareholders.
[citation needed]
A female game developer was accused of having a relationship with a journalist in exchange for a good review of her game...
Nope. Not a positive review, but positive coverage. Ask anyone in GG and they'll correct you.
...as well as a lot of other very nasty stuff her ex put out on a blog post. That was shown to be untrue...
Citation, please.
Later the harassment spread to other women involved in video games. The most high profile victim was Anita Sarkeesian, but there are many others.
I have no doubt that Anita has been harassed, but she likens the real criticism she also gets as "harassment". People sending her death threats and people saying that she's a sexist misandrist are not the same thing.
IRC logs show that this wasn't just a few random idiots, it was a prolonged, focused harassment campaign that lasted for years.
Citation, please. At this point in time, really for the past couple of years, /r/KotakuInAction is the main GG hub. There are offshoots and it's discussed elsewhere, but there has been no sustained harassment campaign, at least from places like KIA. You need to show exactly where the "focused harassment campaign" came from. Hint: There isn't. Like the answer above, you lump in real harassment with criticism.
GamerGate is even associated with the rise of the alt-right. People like Milo Yianoppolis became involved and used it as a gateway into nationalism and white supremacy.
GG is not bound by any one political party. There is a wide range, from liberal to conservative, in GG. People like Milo gave GG a platform, and when you're being blacklisted by most other media outlets, well, you support where the truth of your story is being told, even as someplace as lowly as Breitbart. Not everyone, or even a vast majority of people, in GG are right; most are on the left, though we do have a number of libertarians. I partly don't blame this one on anyone lying; if you go to KIA, you'll see a number of posters talking about Trump, but it's allowed. I have nothing good to say about Trump, but people are allowed to be part of GG, even if we don't agree on everything.
and that law enforcement was largely ineffective. The FBI, for example, gathered a lot of evidence and some confessions, but didn't take any action.
The FBI determined there was no one that was a credible threat, at least as far as Anita. Are you saying there was evidence they ignored or something?
The whole thing got as far as the UN, but most of the positive change that resulted was a grassroots effort.
It was mostly Anita complaining that people said "you suck". Which isn't fun day-to-day, but when you're a critic, you open yourself up to criticism. What exactly was the "positive change"?
So now when you see hundreds of near identical 1 star reviews on a movie like Black Panther, or you hear people claiming that the other side is just as bad as the Nazis, when populists organize on the internet and get elected, you know where these ideas came from and how they work.
Mass downvoting, whataboutism, and violence happens on all sides, don't pretend it's purely on "the side you disagree with".
Agreed. It's a huge problem with the progressive movement. Regressives are really good at shaming and shouting out progressives, and getting other people to believe that they're on the side of good (I think they're just really good at lobbing accusations of "racist" and "sexist", which nobody wants to have happen to them). Hopefully their momentum will die down soon and we can get back to actual progressiveness.
Here's what SJW (regressive) means:
The difference between progressive and regressive (SJW).
A progressive wants to improve life for all, usually with a focus based on class. A regressive wants to mainly focus on those ranked higher on the "regressive stack" (based on things like skin color and sexuality); if something is detrimental to someone lower on the regressive stack, but it benefits someone higher on the regressive stack, then it's okay ("the ends justifies the means").
A progressive tries their best to be "color blind" (as in, all people should be treated the same, everyone should have the same opportunities). A regressive believes that things like skin color and sexuality are more important than values or content of character.
A regressive will place those higher on the regressive stack on pedestals; you cannot joke or criticize these people, but you can joke, criticize, or wish death upon those lower on the regressive stack.
A regressive thinks in black-and-white terms with little nuance. You are either 100% with their cause, or you are 100% against. There is typically very little middle ground in their mind.
A progressive uses "privilege" to make people think about their position (i.e. "You (male/female) never have to think about which bathroom you have to go into. Other people would like to feel that way too."). A regressive uses "privilege" to shame and guilt, much like bad religious institutions (i.e. "Check your privilege!").
A regressive is fine with segregated spaces, but only for those higher on the regressive stack (such as black-only college dorms); anyone lower must 100% not have any space only for their group.
A progressive might respect culture but understands it can be fluid and not everyone celebrates all aspects of cultures the same (especially in melting pots such as the US). A regressive believes cultural appropriation is everywhere and that there is an inherent "cultural copyright" that only members of said culture can participate or allow others to participate in (while being uneducated about the origins of certain things, such as dreadlocks, or believing that only Mexicans can wear sombreros).
A progressive believes that even though people have done bad things in the past (or even present), blame is not to be put upon those that are part of those groups that did not take action in those things. A regressive believes in original sin (particularly for those lower on the regressive stack) and that blame and responsibility should be shared across generations and groups.
A progressive believes that, even if what one says is terrible and disgusting, people have the right to express their views. Bad ideas should be exposed so that they can be critiqued and shown why they are bad. A regressive believes that anything they deem bad should be suppressed at all costs; violence and censorship are perfectly fine to use ("no bad tactics, only bad targets").
A progressive seeks allies; the progressive and the ally may not agree on all things at all times, but will generally share a base set of values. The ally is an individual and is respected as such. A regressive seeks servants, under the guise of seeking allies; servants are not allowed to question anything the regressive says or does, and must always defer/be quiet/give up things or spaces to those higher on the progressive stack.
The problem is that many pro-2A people agree that there is a problem (kids getting shot in schools). However, the things proposed solutions usually fall into either 1) unhelpful security theater (i.e. banning bump stocks) or 2) a dismantling of the 2A.
I can only speak for myself. The 2A isn't going away, and trying to chip away at the 2A is going to be met with resistance. I don't even own again and I'm against all the attempts to weaker the 2A.
I know it's sarcasm, but probably not. They've identified the developer as a "troll" (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/evkp3a/active-shooter-removed-from-steam-by-valve).
If a non-troll dev tried the same thing...maybe it would fly?
http://www.wweek.com/portland/...
Oh yeah, in Oregon, if it's the same thing I'm thinking: http://www.wweek.com/portland/...
Pretty much. The 4th amendment is shit on a lot. Civil forfeiture alone...
Sounds like a violation of the 4th amendment, just with extra steps.
Thanks for pointing that out. I should've RTFA.
I think their point is that a human should be behind any kills a drone makes.
Here you go. Article by Donna Brazile: https://www.politico.com/magaz...
You misspelled Seattle, WA.
Clinton bought her support at the DNC. You may not care about that kind of corruption, but more than a couple people do. This is an organization (a private one!) that has the power to choose one of two candidates for POTUS. Sounds like you're an apologist for this type of corruption.
But that's not really an apt comparison. You're not buying a blind box where who knows what type of CPU you're getting. You're getting a minimum amount of CPU for the money you spend, as advertised.
To have the same comparison to trading card games, you'd have to get something that's advertised, with the potential to get something something extra. Like...there's a booster pack where you definitely get a Charmander, a Squirtle, and a Bulbasaur. You may or may not get a few extra cards beyond that.
There is no expectation of privacy in public, though.
Not sure if I should be more disappointed by that fact or that you seem to delight in that scenario...
Punching someone for taking your picture sounds like a great way to get into trouble with the law. Also good luck if the person is bigger than you.
Your comments seem to indicate that you are not a believer in equality.
I had never seen "Goofus and Gallant", but yeah, seems like I have a similar format. :)
A bit. One doesn't have to be crazy pious or anything...
I do realize that with some words these days, it can be hard to point to a concrete definition. It's true, that some people will simply use "SJW" as "anyone to the left of me" or "anyone on the left". But there is a divide between progressives and regressives. I hope what I wrote help explains what I see, at least.
Don't Libertarians not believe in social programs? I think that's a part of being progressive, since not everyone is born into equal circumstances.
I look at it using the definition I see on Wikipedia, which includes, "As a philosophy, it is based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition." Which your definition seems to agree with, though I think it's less authoritarian than then examples you gave. I don't think that's an "obvious next step" for the government to become a brutal regime.
I know what a "progressive" these days is extremely murky; it's hard to pin down a concrete definition when so many people misuse it (regressives saying that they're progressive is probably the biggest part).
Freedom is still an important aspect, which I know people would argue is not necessarily a tenant of progressivism. Not sure what else I would really call the political stance that I wrote about other than progressive.
Thank you, I really appreciate that. :)