Stop it.
" continuing to try and tell me what content is appropriate for me to see in the games and change them to suit their agendas. "
Telling you the game contains sexist attitudes is not telling you it's not appropriate. It's giving you informaiton so you can make the decision as to whether or not to play the game.
So is sexism appropriate or not? Seems to me by saying "it's not inappropriate" you're essentially saying "it's appropriate". Which is it?
I asked two - they both disagreed with *your* physicist.
What precisely did you ask them (it's meaningless if your question isn't the same) and what precisely did they answer?
I asked if they would consider a place where someone wore that shirt a hostile workplace - they both said they wouldn't. FWIW, I know a few biochemists and computer scientists too and plan to ask them as well.
Most sane people realise that victim-shaming because of your choice in clothing is not a good thing and makes you a stupid and bad person!. Ref: see Slut Walk.
How the fuck do you equate "these clothes are offputting to a significant fraction of the population" to "yeah she deserved to get raped for wearing slutty clothes".
Straw man. I never equated those two things - Slut Walk, as declared by the founders, is to remove the negative connotations of the word "slut" ("reclaim", I believe) and allow women to wear whatever they wanted to without criticism. I believe you're criticising someone for their choice of clothing. I'd actually like to refer you to the fact that this shirt was designed by a women who saw nothing wrong with it, worn in front of women scientists (his team leader) who also saw no reason to complain. The complainers, in this case, are not even qualified to work under the man, much less as his peer. None of his peers the world over have complained; only feminist activists.
Are you really as dense as you appear to be or do you have the mother of all axes to grind?
I'm afraid my egalitarian outlook does indeed make me seem dense. I find it highly inappropriate to push for further "protection" of the demonstrably and measurably most well-off demographic in the world. There are demographics who are much worse off but who get a fraction of the publicity that these rich white women get. Seriously, there was a time when trust-fund crybabies were ignored regardless of gender.
I think I would have fell out of my chair in trying to get up and cheer... and so would most other men.
Please don't lump me in with you.
I actually went and asked a female physicist about it.
I asked two - they both disagreed with *your* physicist. My anecdotes trumps yours (double the data points). Most sane people realise that victim-shaming because of your choice in clothing is not a good thing and makes you a stupid and bad person!. Ref: see Slut Walk.
See, as much as I love Occham, it's not at all necessary here. That post proves nothing even if it ISN'T shopped, and as far as I'm concerned it's irrelevant to ZQ.
Beyond that, you point out metacritic and mention 0/100 scores... but there's only one professional review on metacritic (50/100), and a user reviews on every other side. I'm SURE none of the scores could possibly be related to the gamer gate nonsense.
I'm sorry. The game just isn't any good as a game. This game wasn't greenlighted on steam on its first attempt. On it's second attempt ZQ then took to twitter after the doxing to ask other SJW (I was surprised to find out that that was actually a thing) folk to help get it through steam to show those virgins at wizardchan who harassed her (there's a tweet from her about that too). At that point the game, in its second attempt at greenlight on steam, was in its eighth day with almost non-existent support. After her tweet urging people to support it because of the harassment, it went through.
Sad to say, but that game would never have stood a chance on it's own merits (there's a popular ZQ tweet complaining about meritocracy in gaming:-)), it needed the publicity of "misogyny in gaming" (a thing which we have yet to see). It took the combined effort of a politically-aligned group of people to actually get it on steam. After that, users downloaded it and lambasted it to hell and back. Hence, the media blackout.
This just reaffirms that ZQ is irrelevant to the discussion, especially when it should logically be about NG.
Logically? Logically it should be about the media blackout which caused this whole thing to cascade. Hell, FCOL, wizardchan don't even have a gaming subgroup! The only reason this took off like it did was due to the en masse banning of people and threads who said that the "game" sucked. This sentiment was expressed before any reported harassment took place, btw. The reported harassment occurred only after it was evident that the game sucked.
[1] Depression quest might just set a new record for worst game ever, at the rate it is going. Games which didn't even start without bugs got higher scores on metacritic (Big rigs:over the road - listed as one of the worst games of all times got a score roughly five times higher than depression question, in spite of all the publicity that DQ got).
Still talking about Quinn... did you have a point to any of that aside from making me waste time on twitter?
Well, yes, the blackout can't exist while *you* are talking about it. Anyway, I very rarely do other peoples homework for them as they never change their mind anyway, but here you go - before it was recalled/cancelled/etc from twitter. This, and other links, have already been posted in slashdot comments so I expect you've already seen evidence but dismissed it with "photoshopped!", notwithstanding Occams Razor.
FWIW, that above footnote points out that, while DQ got rave reviewers from all of NG's friends, from actual players who never met the man or his mistress, it got tanked and almost universally panned. Who cares about the dev - the game is broadly acknowledged as a 0/100.
Her game wasn't mentioned "in the list" - it was singled out for specific positive publicity before the list even started.
There was no "months later", it was a few weeks later IIRC. I suppose that changes it from "trading sex for publicity" to "trading publicity for sex". Whatever. Still not good.
The strongest evidence against her is not any of this, but this is always what the anti-GG folk trot out. You expect no response to this?
She, personally, doxxed many of the prominent indie reviewers who disagreed with the blackout (the main thing). Once again, you can look up her twitter account.
The problem is not even with ZQ, mostly, she's simply the straw that broke the camels back. The game reviewers have no problem with material gain in exchange for favourable reviews. Look at depression quest, for example. It's got one of the lowest user scores ever on metacritic[1] (deservedly - I've seen better results from 8 year olds using the same software that ZQ used - she isn't a techie at all and knows no programming language as far as anyone can tell) but was hyped up for special mention by NG.
By all user reviews, this game is a piece of brown smelly stuff. Yet the journalist who singled it out for special mention in a positive light just happened to receive sexual favours from her not much later? Many gamers are neither naive nor stupid. When they pointed this out the media blackout occurred. Let me reiterate: The threads and users that were banned en masse were not those that sent death threats, but those that pointed out a shitty game got a positive spin by a journalist who a mere few weeks later slept with the game "dev"
So far, that media blackout isn't working - gawker alone lost around 10 or so advertising contracts, including BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Adobe and other prominent businesses. The Streisand effect, FTW:-) The important thing in all of this is to continue ensuring that the media blackout (and collusion to blackout/blackball) doesn't work. So far, so good:-)
[1] Depression quest might just set a new record for worst game ever, at the rate it is going. Games which didn't even start without bugs got higher scores on metacritic (Big rigs:over the road - listed as one of the worst games of all times got a score roughly five times higher than depression question, in spite of all the publicity that DQ got).
If a member of your test team is a journalist who then publicises the software without disclosing his material interest in your software, then yes, you have a serious ethics problem. That is no different than the ZQ/NG ethics problem.
Well, I classify anyone who sabotages charities and then boasts about it as a despicable person, regardless of gender. Most people do. Just because this particular person says the right words and has the right politics does not make it right, regardless of who she slept with for material gain.
Your moral compass may be a little off if you think that charity sabotage is okay if you have the correct political affiliation.
She's done a lot more than domestic abuse. Look up what she did to the FYC; no "alleging" - she freely admits to what she did. Sabotaging charities, in most peoples books, makes you a despicable person regardless of whether one is a male or a female. This particular female is peculiarly toxic. Calling her out on it doesn't make one a misogynist.
Actually, calling out particular females and their actions as despicable doesn't mean that one hates all females. Only the misguided anti-GG argument say's that attacking a select few females means that you hate all females. That is certainly irrational.
Correction: an indie developer having sex with people potentially involved with the review of her games
But the person never reviewed her games. So why is this even still being brought up?
"potentially"? You keep making the argument that their relationship only started after she was positively mentioned by the journalist (which isn't true, if you'd only bother to read the credits of her "game"), so it could not have been "trading sex for publicity" as they never had sex until after she received the publicity. That still leaves open "trading publicity for sex", which is not much of an improvement ethics-wise.
So why isn't the fight about a few extremist gamers, why is it instead "anti-gamer"? Why is every gamer who speaks up on this being accused of misogyny? This is nothing more than an anti-gamer backlash. Why would anyone send rape and death threats to prominent members of gamergate? There are some sick sick women out there and they've being apologized for and criticism being deflected away from them.
Even if all the accusations were true, which they are not, this should still be the smallest of all the small scandals.
(See how that works)
In any case, a couple of points that you probably did not know:
More gamergate folk than anti-GG folk have been threatened (syringe in the post, etc).
The person sending threats to AS was found and identified by gamergate, but apparently AS refuses to take action (make of that what you will).
1) They weren't invented crimes. They did happen, she openly admitted to banging 5 guys while in a relationship. Using her own definition of rape, she raped her current partner that she was in a relationship with.
Having consensual sex with someone is a crime? On what planet? Oh and [citation needed] for claim about what she claims is rape.
Unfortunately you are on the indefensible side here - Zoe Quin is a classic textbook domestic abuser. She is a horrible person, a "game dev" with not e single technical skill who somehow managed to convince millions that she was a techie. She lies, is deceitful, hurts other people for fun and is thus a really terrible, terrible person.
None of the above is misogynist in any way - if she were a he it would all still apply - yet we are getting told that it is wrong to point out all these things about her because attacking her for her deceit is the same as attacking all women.
It's not suspicious, even if there were a relationship. And there actually was not a relationship it was just sour grapes from an ex boyfriend trying to get revenge.
I see this repeated a lot - where do you get your information? The rant from her ex-boyfriend (quite a long rant - she admits to cheating on him with five other guys) specifically states that he did not think that she traded sex for reviews. Why does everyone keep saying that he said that?
Sorry, no. Their relationship existed prior to that as he is mentioned in the games credits... he was listed as a beta tester. You've been told now; now are you still going to go around saying "The relationship only started after"? Cause if you do, that will be total, bald-faced lies - the very thing you are accusing other people of doing.
You asked for evidence, you got given it. You can't very well complain that the volume isn't sufficient: you didn't specify a threshold that would satisfy you.
It's become obvious, when reading comments in the weekly "men are bad women are good"/. articles, that there have been polite and measured response to all of the anti-GG posts (like the above, for example). Mountains of evidence of collusion and media blackout have been presented. Advertisers (the people who actually have a stake in this) have pulled out en masse from gawker.
So, lets be honest - no matter what evidence is presented it won't meet your threshold. You, and others like you, have already made up your minds that GG is all about misogyny in gaming, nevermind the #notyourshield efforts.
When the hell did it become misogynist to refuse to support a domestic abuser like Zoe Quin? Actually, when did it become misogynist to attack a female because of the things she's done? I fear most of the anti-GG don't know what misogyny means.
Hatred of particular women != hatred of all women.
Bennett isn't doing a survey. He isn't doing science. He isn't even doing journalism.
Hardly. His effort, this one time, was a lot more thorough[1] than the numerous womens studies "research" that we routinely get here on slashdot. What exactly can you fault him for above, other than using MT? What would you do different?
[1] IOW, He didn't start with a conclusion and then try to find evidence to support it. He started with a question ("Is this about race or context?") and attempted to honestly find an answer using the cheapest method known to man. Could he have done this better? Sure - if he had more money to run a proper survey. In contrast, the numerous womens studies we've been seeing here have all been of the form "It's all mens fault - now to look for proof" which is not how science is done.
Or that states with high gun ownership have about the same rate of non-gun murders, but more than twice as many gun murders?
I assume that you are talking about US states? Everywhere in the world it is generally accepted (empirical data, and all that) that you're *less* likely to experience murder in areas with high gun ownership. I haven't seen stats for US states, but would welcome (not facetiously but seriously) a link to those stats as they seem out of line with all other recorded data.
Anyone who knows what EITHER of these systems are is not going to be confused.
Trademarks are not for people who already now off the system. It's not to protect the trademark holder but the consumer. In this case it's not only possible but probable that the consumer would be confused. For example, if groupon named their PoS system "Windows", that'd have gotten them sued, so why did they try that move with "Gnome"?
The difference being the women are attacked because they are women, and the guys are being attacked because they're assholes. If you can't see the difference, you are part of the problem.
What makes you think that the women weren't attacked because they were assholes?
Yeah, that's all well and good, except for the fact that Facebook has reached a critical mass; resistance may not be futile but it's damn hard:
1) I have friends all over the world; literally, on every continent. Is there a better centralized method of communicating with them? Should I send out a broadcast e-mail to all of them every time something noteworthy happens in my life? (Noteworthy actually means noteworthy in my world, I'm not logging check-ins every time I go to the grocery store....)
Group chat doesn't work on your phone?
2) I have friends that only communicate via Facebook. They won't talk on the phone, they don't text, and they rarely check/answer e-mail.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm afraid that those aren't friends.
3) Ever tried dating in the modern world without Facebook? It's instantly assumed that you're hiding something, which to be fair is frequently the case for people that refuse to share Facebook with would-be mates.
Actually, Yes. I have dated in the modern world (four to three years ago when facebook was at its peak). When denied facebook details (username, whatever) potential mates became more interested in me!
There's a very good reason for this - women looking for a stable relationship are frequently turned off by attention-whores. Telling women that I don't do facebook merely increased my desirability as long-term partner.
You do realise that women face around double the risk of domestic violence, including rape, from the other women in the relationship, right? At this point, there have been more women who have raped their intimate partner than there have been actual physical violence resulting from #gamergate trolls.
Where's the mods when you need them - parent is right on the money. This whole uproar is over something that may happen, but which, as far as I can tell, has never actually happened. When the odds are that low it seems a bit of a tempest in a teacup.
Slashdot Mirror
Stop it. " continuing to try and tell me what content is appropriate for me to see in the games and change them to suit their agendas. " Telling you the game contains sexist attitudes is not telling you it's not appropriate. It's giving you informaiton so you can make the decision as to whether or not to play the game.
So is sexism appropriate or not? Seems to me by saying "it's not inappropriate" you're essentially saying "it's appropriate". Which is it?
I asked two - they both disagreed with *your* physicist.
What precisely did you ask them (it's meaningless if your question isn't the same) and what precisely did they answer?
I asked if they would consider a place where someone wore that shirt a hostile workplace - they both said they wouldn't. FWIW, I know a few biochemists and computer scientists too and plan to ask them as well.
Most sane people realise that victim-shaming because of your choice in clothing is not a good thing and makes you a stupid and bad person!. Ref: see Slut Walk.
How the fuck do you equate "these clothes are offputting to a significant fraction of the population" to "yeah she deserved to get raped for wearing slutty clothes".
Straw man. I never equated those two things - Slut Walk, as declared by the founders, is to remove the negative connotations of the word "slut" ("reclaim", I believe) and allow women to wear whatever they wanted to without criticism. I believe you're criticising someone for their choice of clothing. I'd actually like to refer you to the fact that this shirt was designed by a women who saw nothing wrong with it, worn in front of women scientists (his team leader) who also saw no reason to complain. The complainers, in this case, are not even qualified to work under the man, much less as his peer. None of his peers the world over have complained; only feminist activists.
Are you really as dense as you appear to be or do you have the mother of all axes to grind?
I'm afraid my egalitarian outlook does indeed make me seem dense. I find it highly inappropriate to push for further "protection" of the demonstrably and measurably most well-off demographic in the world. There are demographics who are much worse off but who get a fraction of the publicity that these rich white women get. Seriously, there was a time when trust-fund crybabies were ignored regardless of gender.
I think I would have fell out of my chair in trying to get up and cheer... and so would most other men.
Please don't lump me in with you.
I actually went and asked a female physicist about it.
I asked two - they both disagreed with *your* physicist. My anecdotes trumps yours (double the data points). Most sane people realise that victim-shaming because of your choice in clothing is not a good thing and makes you a stupid and bad person!. Ref: see Slut Walk.
Because you are slow, I will repeat the important bit from the poster you are replying to:
"women are more likely to be displayed in roles perceived as *de*grading, whereas men are portrayed with attributes perceived as positive"
Maybe you need smaller words until you can pass 6th grade comprehension?
You state that like it's some kind of fact. You have any study to cite?
Travel broadens the mind.
Possibly one of the funniest things I've ever heard - it never gets old :-)
See, as much as I love Occham, it's not at all necessary here. That post proves nothing even if it ISN'T shopped, and as far as I'm concerned it's irrelevant to ZQ.
Okay - how about a tweet where she boasts about harassing others? Nevermind her for now, what about the rest of the GG folk that were doxxed - here's a start.
Beyond that, you point out metacritic and mention 0/100 scores... but there's only one professional review on metacritic (50/100), and a user reviews on every other side. I'm SURE none of the scores could possibly be related to the gamer gate nonsense.
I'm sorry. The game just isn't any good as a game. This game wasn't greenlighted on steam on its first attempt. On it's second attempt ZQ then took to twitter after the doxing to ask other SJW (I was surprised to find out that that was actually a thing) folk to help get it through steam to show those virgins at wizardchan who harassed her (there's a tweet from her about that too). At that point the game, in its second attempt at greenlight on steam, was in its eighth day with almost non-existent support. After her tweet urging people to support it because of the harassment, it went through.
Sad to say, but that game would never have stood a chance on it's own merits (there's a popular ZQ tweet complaining about meritocracy in gaming :-)), it needed the publicity of "misogyny in gaming" (a thing which we have yet to see). It took the combined effort of a politically-aligned group of people to actually get it on steam. After that, users downloaded it and lambasted it to hell and back. Hence, the media blackout.
This just reaffirms that ZQ is irrelevant to the discussion, especially when it should logically be about NG.
Logically? Logically it should be about the media blackout which caused this whole thing to cascade. Hell, FCOL, wizardchan don't even have a gaming subgroup! The only reason this took off like it did was due to the en masse banning of people and threads who said that the "game" sucked. This sentiment was expressed before any reported harassment took place, btw. The reported harassment occurred only after it was evident that the game sucked.
[1] Depression quest might just set a new record for worst game ever, at the rate it is going. Games which didn't even start without bugs got higher scores on metacritic (Big rigs:over the road - listed as one of the worst games of all times got a score roughly five times higher than depression question, in spite of all the publicity that DQ got).
Still talking about Quinn... did you have a point to any of that aside from making me waste time on twitter?
Well, yes, the blackout can't exist while *you* are talking about it. Anyway, I very rarely do other peoples homework for them as they never change their mind anyway, but here you go - before it was recalled/cancelled/etc from twitter. This, and other links, have already been posted in slashdot comments so I expect you've already seen evidence but dismissed it with "photoshopped!", notwithstanding Occams Razor.
FWIW, that above footnote points out that, while DQ got rave reviewers from all of NG's friends, from actual players who never met the man or his mistress, it got tanked and almost universally panned. Who cares about the dev - the game is broadly acknowledged as a 0/100.
Her game wasn't mentioned "in the list" - it was singled out for specific positive publicity before the list even started.
There was no "months later", it was a few weeks later IIRC. I suppose that changes it from "trading sex for publicity" to "trading publicity for sex". Whatever. Still not good.
The strongest evidence against her is not any of this, but this is always what the anti-GG folk trot out. You expect no response to this?
She, personally, doxxed many of the prominent indie reviewers who disagreed with the blackout (the main thing). Once again, you can look up her twitter account.
The problem is not even with ZQ, mostly, she's simply the straw that broke the camels back. The game reviewers have no problem with material gain in exchange for favourable reviews. Look at depression quest, for example. It's got one of the lowest user scores ever on metacritic[1] (deservedly - I've seen better results from 8 year olds using the same software that ZQ used - she isn't a techie at all and knows no programming language as far as anyone can tell) but was hyped up for special mention by NG.
By all user reviews, this game is a piece of brown smelly stuff. Yet the journalist who singled it out for special mention in a positive light just happened to receive sexual favours from her not much later? Many gamers are neither naive nor stupid. When they pointed this out the media blackout occurred. Let me reiterate: The threads and users that were banned en masse were not those that sent death threats, but those that pointed out a shitty game got a positive spin by a journalist who a mere few weeks later slept with the game "dev"
So far, that media blackout isn't working - gawker alone lost around 10 or so advertising contracts, including BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Adobe and other prominent businesses. The Streisand effect, FTW :-) The important thing in all of this is to continue ensuring that the media blackout (and collusion to blackout/blackball) doesn't work. So far, so good :-)
[1] Depression quest might just set a new record for worst game ever, at the rate it is going. Games which didn't even start without bugs got higher scores on metacritic (Big rigs:over the road - listed as one of the worst games of all times got a score roughly five times higher than depression question, in spite of all the publicity that DQ got).
If a member of your test team is a journalist who then publicises the software without disclosing his material interest in your software, then yes, you have a serious ethics problem. That is no different than the ZQ/NG ethics problem.
Well, I classify anyone who sabotages charities and then boasts about it as a despicable person, regardless of gender. Most people do. Just because this particular person says the right words and has the right politics does not make it right, regardless of who she slept with for material gain.
Your moral compass may be a little off if you think that charity sabotage is okay if you have the correct political affiliation.
She's done a lot more than domestic abuse. Look up what she did to the FYC; no "alleging" - she freely admits to what she did. Sabotaging charities, in most peoples books, makes you a despicable person regardless of whether one is a male or a female. This particular female is peculiarly toxic. Calling her out on it doesn't make one a misogynist.
Actually, calling out particular females and their actions as despicable doesn't mean that one hates all females. Only the misguided anti-GG argument say's that attacking a select few females means that you hate all females. That is certainly irrational.
Correction: an indie developer having sex with people potentially involved with the review of her games
But the person never reviewed her games. So why is this even still being brought up?
"potentially"? You keep making the argument that their relationship only started after she was positively mentioned by the journalist (which isn't true, if you'd only bother to read the credits of her "game"), so it could not have been "trading sex for publicity" as they never had sex until after she received the publicity. That still leaves open "trading publicity for sex", which is not much of an improvement ethics-wise.
So why isn't the fight about a few extremist gamers, why is it instead "anti-gamer"? Why is every gamer who speaks up on this being accused of misogyny? This is nothing more than an anti-gamer backlash. Why would anyone send rape and death threats to prominent members of gamergate? There are some sick sick women out there and they've being apologized for and criticism being deflected away from them.
Even if all the accusations were true, which they are not, this should still be the smallest of all the small scandals.
(See how that works)
In any case, a couple of points that you probably did not know:
More gamergate folk than anti-GG folk have been threatened (syringe in the post, etc).
The person sending threats to AS was found and identified by gamergate, but apparently AS refuses to take action (make of that what you will).
1) They weren't invented crimes. They did happen, she openly admitted to banging 5 guys while in a relationship. Using her own definition of rape, she raped her current partner that she was in a relationship with.
Having consensual sex with someone is a crime? On what planet? Oh and [citation needed] for claim about what she claims is rape.
Unfortunately you are on the indefensible side here - Zoe Quin is a classic textbook domestic abuser. She is a horrible person, a "game dev" with not e single technical skill who somehow managed to convince millions that she was a techie. She lies, is deceitful, hurts other people for fun and is thus a really terrible, terrible person.
None of the above is misogynist in any way - if she were a he it would all still apply - yet we are getting told that it is wrong to point out all these things about her because attacking her for her deceit is the same as attacking all women.
It's not suspicious, even if there were a relationship. And there actually was not a relationship it was just sour grapes from an ex boyfriend trying to get revenge.
I see this repeated a lot - where do you get your information? The rant from her ex-boyfriend (quite a long rant - she admits to cheating on him with five other guys) specifically states that he did not think that she traded sex for reviews. Why does everyone keep saying that he said that?
Where was the conflict of interest? The guy mentioned her in a couple of articles before they even had a relationship.
http://kotaku.com/in-recent-da...
Sorry, no. Their relationship existed prior to that as he is mentioned in the games credits ... he was listed as a beta tester. You've been told now; now are you still going to go around saying "The relationship only started after"? Cause if you do, that will be total, bald-faced lies - the very thing you are accusing other people of doing.
You asked for evidence, you got given it. You can't very well complain that the volume isn't sufficient: you didn't specify a threshold that would satisfy you.
It's become obvious, when reading comments in the weekly "men are bad women are good" /. articles, that there have been polite and measured response to all of the anti-GG posts (like the above, for example). Mountains of evidence of collusion and media blackout have been presented. Advertisers (the people who actually have a stake in this) have pulled out en masse from gawker.
So, lets be honest - no matter what evidence is presented it won't meet your threshold. You, and others like you, have already made up your minds that GG is all about misogyny in gaming, nevermind the #notyourshield efforts.
When the hell did it become misogynist to refuse to support a domestic abuser like Zoe Quin? Actually, when did it become misogynist to attack a female because of the things she's done? I fear most of the anti-GG don't know what misogyny means.
Hatred of particular women != hatred of all women.
Look, let's be honest here.
Bennett isn't doing a survey. He isn't doing science. He isn't even doing journalism.
Hardly. His effort, this one time, was a lot more thorough[1] than the numerous womens studies "research" that we routinely get here on slashdot. What exactly can you fault him for above, other than using MT? What would you do different?
[1] IOW, He didn't start with a conclusion and then try to find evidence to support it. He started with a question ("Is this about race or context?") and attempted to honestly find an answer using the cheapest method known to man. Could he have done this better? Sure - if he had more money to run a proper survey. In contrast, the numerous womens studies we've been seeing here have all been of the form "It's all mens fault - now to look for proof" which is not how science is done.
Or that states with high gun ownership have about the same rate of non-gun murders, but more than twice as many gun murders?
I assume that you are talking about US states? Everywhere in the world it is generally accepted (empirical data, and all that) that you're *less* likely to experience murder in areas with high gun ownership. I haven't seen stats for US states, but would welcome (not facetiously but seriously) a link to those stats as they seem out of line with all other recorded data.
Anyone who knows what EITHER of these systems are is not going to be confused.
Trademarks are not for people who already now off the system. It's not to protect the trademark holder but the consumer. In this case it's not only possible but probable that the consumer would be confused. For example, if groupon named their PoS system "Windows", that'd have gotten them sued, so why did they try that move with "Gnome"?
Groupon were being dicks, and it backfired.
The difference being the women are attacked because they are women, and the guys are being attacked because they're assholes. If you can't see the difference, you are part of the problem.
What makes you think that the women weren't attacked because they were assholes?
Yeah, that's all well and good, except for the fact that Facebook has reached a critical mass; resistance may not be futile but it's damn hard:
1) I have friends all over the world; literally, on every continent. Is there a better centralized method of communicating with them? Should I send out a broadcast e-mail to all of them every time something noteworthy happens in my life? (Noteworthy actually means noteworthy in my world, I'm not logging check-ins every time I go to the grocery store....)
Group chat doesn't work on your phone?
2) I have friends that only communicate via Facebook. They won't talk on the phone, they don't text, and they rarely check/answer e-mail.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm afraid that those aren't friends.
3) Ever tried dating in the modern world without Facebook? It's instantly assumed that you're hiding something, which to be fair is frequently the case for people that refuse to share Facebook with would-be mates.
Actually, Yes. I have dated in the modern world (four to three years ago when facebook was at its peak). When denied facebook details (username, whatever) potential mates became more interested in me! There's a very good reason for this - women looking for a stable relationship are frequently turned off by attention-whores. Telling women that I don't do facebook merely increased my desirability as long-term partner.
You do realise that women face around double the risk of domestic violence, including rape, from the other women in the relationship, right? At this point, there have been more women who have raped their intimate partner than there have been actual physical violence resulting from #gamergate trolls.
Where's the mods when you need them - parent is right on the money. This whole uproar is over something that may happen, but which, as far as I can tell, has never actually happened. When the odds are that low it seems a bit of a tempest in a teacup.