Insofar as they apply to gamergate as a whole and not some assholes we ban on sight, your harassment claims are false, but if they were true that still wouldn't make your spreading hate speech about autistic people okay. That said, your behavior is echoed by the outlets Gamergate is boycotting, which is the main reason I've gotten involved in the advertiser writing campaign to begin with.
Why is Gawker Media describing Gamergate as composed of "angry Sonic the Hedgehog fans"? (We didn't organize on a sonic forum, it's not a best-selling game or franchise this decade, it hasn't been involved in a censorship controversy - but there is a stereotype that Sonic fans are autistic!) Why is "neckbeard" used to mean misogynist in anti-gamergate circles? Why were the gamers are dead articles filled with stereotypes of nerds that just so happen to describe people with aspergers'? Why are 4chan terms okay when applied to people on the autism spectrum but not to women or people of color?
That's not the status quo. Right now it's the Game Journo Pros clique "deciding" all that and then getting oh so angry that gamers don't take kindly to being called "dead".
The status quo in game journalism is laughably corrupt writers taking money for reviews and writing puff pieces on their buddies, and Gamergate are the only people I see making any effort to change that.
Know of any other groups doing that? I'd be glad to join them, although I'm sure the gaming media will tar them with the same guilt-by-association and misogyny allegations that worked so well on gamergate.
While the male developer's company is facing a massive boycott and advertiser writing campaign for closing ranks around him among other things. The death threats to Quinn predated the Gamergate hashtag, and if you go to any Gamergate site they'll talk about how they're trying to sink Kotaku.
So why is the OP assuming it was the alleged death threats against Gamergate critics being investigated and not the ones against supporters (i.e. Mike Cernovich being allegedly SWATted) or the alleged blacklisting of certain journalists coordinated through GameJournoPros or similar threats by IGDA about developers who speak out in favor of Gamergate?
Using the asperger's spectrum as an insult while accusing us of being intolerant? Wow you're an asshole and a hypocrite.
You'd fit right in at Gawker Media - you know, that company whose editor-in-chief uses "neuroatypical" as an insult.
Who's "we"? The oligarchy are making out like bandits already, and the rest of the population by and large need some of those social programs to get by.
Poor people are prevented from providing for themselves at gunpoint through a system that gives a small portion of the population exclusive use over most of the production in society and the right to profit from other people's labor through control of land and capital - i.e. property. The least we can do is balance it out with welfare.
you want to handle skyrocketing debt by slashing revenue? That's like saying "I run up the credit card, time to quit my job".
America lags on tax collection, not social services.
With the Republicans controlling the house, and soon to take the senate (though I imagine this will get passed in the lame duck session, if at all) it's not China's compliance I'm worried about.
And that's what American "elections" are turning into. The tools of the moneyed class aren't going to be what breaks the moneyed class's grip on political power.
When you define "paranoia" as "excessively long paragraphs" I suppose I may be paranoid. However, given the usual definition, I am not.
You're conflating morality and legality again. I'm well aware of what the first amendment does and does not protect according to current judicial interpretation (although I personally hold that operating under a government-granted charter should make one subject to the same conditions as one receiving federal funding) stating that this leads, practically speaking, to a condition where people can not actually speak freely.
The first amendment says that "congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" which has prevented governments from doing so. The fact that it does not say that "businesses may not abridge the freedom of speech" does not imply that it is impossible for a business to prevent people from exercising that right, merely that it is constitutional for them to do so.
I am not suggesting that free speech is a right to employment, that's a strawman. There's nothing wrong with a business dismissing a critic for poor performance. There's something extremely wrong with a business dismissing someone for joining a union or being active in the socialist party or even writing a mildly critical blog.
Censorship and social control are *wrong* even when done by the private sector. If a person is faced with a choice of doing X or being able to make money, that person suffers a very real loss of freedom. If "X" is "do your job", of course, this is acceptable - people need to work to keep society functioning, after all. But if "X" is "criticize one's employer on one's blog" or "drink alcohol" or "organize a union," it is a dire restriction on individual liberty - the fact that it is put in place by the private sector does not change that fact.
If you want to make the counterargument that only people who operate businesses or can live off their savings have rights, go ahead, but stop sticking your fingers in your ears and attacking your opponent as paranoid.
"Big business has plenty of power of its own" makes me Captain Paranoia in an age when the MPAA is writing copyright law?
I suppose the Hollywood Ten weren't censored, then, and neither were blacklisted union organizers. Employers have a long, long history of firing people for exercising their first amendment rights. It's the same idea that's behind "cut your hair and get a job" - employers have a great deal of control over their employees, and while maybe an individual or even an industry is occasionally free of it, it remains the norm.
If the bartender tells everyone to fuck off while on duty, sure. If the bartender writes a somewhat-critical blog about life at the bar while honestly identifying himself, though? Do you think that's right? Do you think that's anything *but* censorship? Do you think he can just walk down the street and get a job at another bar while still speaking freely? The business world will hire or exclude people based on things other than proven ability levels, and they generally think the same way about what these black marks are.
It's much worse for a CNN employee than a bartender, though - how many TV media companies are there? And even if he does find a job, he'll probably lose money because of the lack of bargaining power, and quite possibly pull down his blog to improve his chances of being hired after employers google his name?
I'm not talking about men in black helicopters. I'm not saying the employers are acting based on any massive, evil conspiracy - but just the same, employers take their own prejudices and standards and stuff into hiring decisions, and often don't approve of people speaking ill of them, and when this is left legal it leads to a practical condition of censorship.
"don't say X or you lose your job" sounds like coercion to me. Sure, it's not the government doing it, but big business has plenty of power all its own.
The derivation of a word is not the same as its meaning.
For instance, the South African equivalent to "nigger" is "kaffir", an Arabic word roughly akin to "infidel" - yet when Afrikaaners used it, they certainly weren't referring to their darker-skinned countrymen's lack of faith.
The Massachusetts statute regarding virginal 16 and 17-year-olds says "unlawful sexual intercourse", not "sexual intercourse." Doesn't that imply that the law's regarding prostitution, not consensual sex?
(I grew up in Mass convinced the age of consent was 16...)
Was not the government involved in expanding electrification and other similar projects? We've left it up to the market for a decade and its proven woefully inadequate in many areas(and not exactly expanding there, either) so I say we give the public sector a chance. It'd promote the general welfare, IMO.
Because more taxes offer the government the ability to provide more services.:)
(If they're tying the new tax to expanding broadband nationwide, I'm fine with it; I'll pay more if it means getting others online. If they're doing the kind of crap they usually do with taxes, my general view is "hands off the internet."
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not talking about "my intolerance" I'm talking about using terms like "sperglord" and "asperger's patient" as insults you ableist piece of shit.
Insofar as they apply to gamergate as a whole and not some assholes we ban on sight, your harassment claims are false, but if they were true that still wouldn't make your spreading hate speech about autistic people okay. That said, your behavior is echoed by the outlets Gamergate is boycotting, which is the main reason I've gotten involved in the advertiser writing campaign to begin with.
Why is Gawker Media describing Gamergate as composed of "angry Sonic the Hedgehog fans"? (We didn't organize on a sonic forum, it's not a best-selling game or franchise this decade, it hasn't been involved in a censorship controversy - but there is a stereotype that Sonic fans are autistic!) Why is "neckbeard" used to mean misogynist in anti-gamergate circles? Why were the gamers are dead articles filled with stereotypes of nerds that just so happen to describe people with aspergers'? Why are 4chan terms okay when applied to people on the autism spectrum but not to women or people of color?
Autistic people are not your shield.
That's not the status quo. Right now it's the Game Journo Pros clique "deciding" all that and then getting oh so angry that gamers don't take kindly to being called "dead".
I know that. I even meant that. This is what I get for not proofreading. Sorry.
Oh, so you're just a dick.
Wow, that's real inclusive of you.
The status quo in game journalism is laughably corrupt writers taking money for reviews and writing puff pieces on their buddies, and Gamergate are the only people I see making any effort to change that. Know of any other groups doing that? I'd be glad to join them, although I'm sure the gaming media will tar them with the same guilt-by-association and misogyny allegations that worked so well on gamergate.
and fuck, I meant male journalist's company. Don't see an edit button.
While the male developer's company is facing a massive boycott and advertiser writing campaign for closing ranks around him among other things. The death threats to Quinn predated the Gamergate hashtag, and if you go to any Gamergate site they'll talk about how they're trying to sink Kotaku.
So why is the OP assuming it was the alleged death threats against Gamergate critics being investigated and not the ones against supporters (i.e. Mike Cernovich being allegedly SWATted) or the alleged blacklisting of certain journalists coordinated through GameJournoPros or similar threats by IGDA about developers who speak out in favor of Gamergate?
Using the asperger's spectrum as an insult while accusing us of being intolerant? Wow you're an asshole and a hypocrite. You'd fit right in at Gawker Media - you know, that company whose editor-in-chief uses "neuroatypical" as an insult.
Who's "we"? The oligarchy are making out like bandits already, and the rest of the population by and large need some of those social programs to get by. Poor people are prevented from providing for themselves at gunpoint through a system that gives a small portion of the population exclusive use over most of the production in society and the right to profit from other people's labor through control of land and capital - i.e. property. The least we can do is balance it out with welfare.
you want to handle skyrocketing debt by slashing revenue? That's like saying "I run up the credit card, time to quit my job". America lags on tax collection, not social services.
With the Republicans controlling the house, and soon to take the senate (though I imagine this will get passed in the lame duck session, if at all) it's not China's compliance I'm worried about.
And that's what American "elections" are turning into. The tools of the moneyed class aren't going to be what breaks the moneyed class's grip on political power.
When you define "paranoia" as "excessively long paragraphs" I suppose I may be paranoid. However, given the usual definition, I am not. You're conflating morality and legality again. I'm well aware of what the first amendment does and does not protect according to current judicial interpretation (although I personally hold that operating under a government-granted charter should make one subject to the same conditions as one receiving federal funding) stating that this leads, practically speaking, to a condition where people can not actually speak freely. The first amendment says that "congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" which has prevented governments from doing so. The fact that it does not say that "businesses may not abridge the freedom of speech" does not imply that it is impossible for a business to prevent people from exercising that right, merely that it is constitutional for them to do so. I am not suggesting that free speech is a right to employment, that's a strawman. There's nothing wrong with a business dismissing a critic for poor performance. There's something extremely wrong with a business dismissing someone for joining a union or being active in the socialist party or even writing a mildly critical blog. Censorship and social control are *wrong* even when done by the private sector. If a person is faced with a choice of doing X or being able to make money, that person suffers a very real loss of freedom. If "X" is "do your job", of course, this is acceptable - people need to work to keep society functioning, after all. But if "X" is "criticize one's employer on one's blog" or "drink alcohol" or "organize a union," it is a dire restriction on individual liberty - the fact that it is put in place by the private sector does not change that fact. If you want to make the counterargument that only people who operate businesses or can live off their savings have rights, go ahead, but stop sticking your fingers in your ears and attacking your opponent as paranoid.
"Big business has plenty of power of its own" makes me Captain Paranoia in an age when the MPAA is writing copyright law? I suppose the Hollywood Ten weren't censored, then, and neither were blacklisted union organizers. Employers have a long, long history of firing people for exercising their first amendment rights. It's the same idea that's behind "cut your hair and get a job" - employers have a great deal of control over their employees, and while maybe an individual or even an industry is occasionally free of it, it remains the norm. If the bartender tells everyone to fuck off while on duty, sure. If the bartender writes a somewhat-critical blog about life at the bar while honestly identifying himself, though? Do you think that's right? Do you think that's anything *but* censorship? Do you think he can just walk down the street and get a job at another bar while still speaking freely? The business world will hire or exclude people based on things other than proven ability levels, and they generally think the same way about what these black marks are. It's much worse for a CNN employee than a bartender, though - how many TV media companies are there? And even if he does find a job, he'll probably lose money because of the lack of bargaining power, and quite possibly pull down his blog to improve his chances of being hired after employers google his name? I'm not talking about men in black helicopters. I'm not saying the employers are acting based on any massive, evil conspiracy - but just the same, employers take their own prejudices and standards and stuff into hiring decisions, and often don't approve of people speaking ill of them, and when this is left legal it leads to a practical condition of censorship.
"don't say X or you lose your job" sounds like coercion to me. Sure, it's not the government doing it, but big business has plenty of power all its own.
The derivation of a word is not the same as its meaning. For instance, the South African equivalent to "nigger" is "kaffir", an Arabic word roughly akin to "infidel" - yet when Afrikaaners used it, they certainly weren't referring to their darker-skinned countrymen's lack of faith.
The Massachusetts statute regarding virginal 16 and 17-year-olds says "unlawful sexual intercourse", not "sexual intercourse." Doesn't that imply that the law's regarding prostitution, not consensual sex? (I grew up in Mass convinced the age of consent was 16...)
This is a TROLL to you monsters? Is thinking about civilian casualties that terrible? This poster raises a ton of good points - mod parent up!
Tell Goldman and Debs about that "freedom" the US fought for in WWI.
Sierra Leoneans, Liberians, and probably lots of other people as well.
Nigeria may be corrupt, third-world, and flirting with theocracy, but at least it has oil wealth and hasn't been devastated by civil war in some time.
Was not the government involved in expanding electrification and other similar projects? We've left it up to the market for a decade and its proven woefully inadequate in many areas(and not exactly expanding there, either) so I say we give the public sector a chance. It'd promote the general welfare, IMO.
Because more taxes offer the government the ability to provide more services. :)
(If they're tying the new tax to expanding broadband nationwide, I'm fine with it; I'll pay more if it means getting others online. If they're doing the kind of crap they usually do with taxes, my general view is "hands off the internet."