Meshugger

I think they're hotpocketers. China has paid shills too. I look forward to trolling legions of Maoists on their ****-tier ideology. /leftypol/ has them too? damn.

Aaaah, God is truly smiling down upon us. Background info for context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZWHUnFqPhg

So? It's a qualitative study as it often is in social studies, then the amount is not important. What the hell is that even supposed to mean? The amount of what? Amount of people interviewed. But you know what? I will contact him personally and see if he responds. We leave it at that. Actually, I did, multiple times, over the course of the many, many incarnations of this thread, and I'm getting real tired of constantly repeating myself on the issue. So I hope you'll excuse me if I won't do it again, just to have some imbecile ask the same ****ing question two weeks later. These threads are archived. Read back. Oh darling, don't quit now.

What a coincidence, there's currently a huuuuuuge thread on /pol/ about paid shills. Any bets on how much Bruce and Oby make?

Leigh Alexander simply talked **** and effectively got ****. Kinda relevant: [comments disabled] Hahahahohwow

So what? The paper is flawed and Sargon used their very own material against them. You can bold your text and claim contempt as much as you like, but that doesn't change the point. Serious question: how good you feel your grasp of statistics is? Because I think you might be fundamentally incapable of understanding why this video is such a huge problem. I mean, it was my whole point that Sargon didn't "use their own material against them"; he took some statistics completely out of context and proceeded to claim that the people who are not taking them out of context are lying by omission for doing so. Which is disgustingly spineless. Aren't gamergaters supposed to be crusading against exactly this sort of "tainting [institution]* with an agenda"? Or are you seriously believing anti-feminism isn't an agenda? *in this case, science So? It's a qualitative study as it often is in social studies, then the amount is not important. One can easily assume that you do not need forced diversity based on common sense. But in the end, you have to ask him if you want to clarify his reasons. What's this with anti-feminism? We cannot even decide what feminism is. Do you know how to solve world hunger? Or to prevent wars? Are you allowed to see world hunger and wars as problems humanity faces, despite not having a solution for them? What? World hunger and wars cause death. What death does the lack of diverse representation of different minorities in video games cause? So any problem that doesn't cause deaths is now not worth talking about. Oh wait, that... includes... everything gamergate is complaining about? How does that even work? Then don't lump it together with issues that intuitively imply death. You still haven't A) given a reason why diversity in video games (instead of diverse choice of games) is important and B) how that will be enforced without turning into tyranny.

Hahaha http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04/20/anita-sarkeesian-debate-me-and-i-will-donate-10000-to-feminist-frequency-or-a-charity-of-your-choice/ Too bad it will never happen. Btw, search for the following video on Youtube: "This Kills the Milo (Postal 2: Paradise Lost)". I cannot link it since it contains brutal but hilarious violence. I wonder what would've happened if it was Anita instead.

The statistics the study relied on were sloppy, but acceptable for the conclusions it was trying to support. Sociologists have an implicit understanding that the sample sizes used generally give fairly low confidence levels. Applying those statistics as "proof" that "gamers don't need diversity" is a dire statistical error, however. When applied at that scope, the sample size gives a confidence level lower than 50%! It's worse odds than that of a coin toss, and you're not seeing anybody trying to justify their conclusions with "well, it came up heads, so I must be right"! And it's the height of irresponsibility, if not malice, to claim that the study that's simply not applicable outside of its scope due to this issue was "intentionally buried by lying feminists" because "it didn't fit the agenda". If I believed for a moment that Sargon of Akkad knew anything about statistics, I'd have to hold him in absolute contempt for knowingly abusing science to support his crusade against feminism. Thankfully, I know not to attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. So what? The paper is flawed and Sargon used their very own material against them. You can bold your text and claim contempt as much as you like, but that doesn't change the point. Do you know how to solve world hunger? Or to prevent wars? Are you allowed to see world hunger and wars as problems humanity faces, despite not having a solution for them? What? World hunger and wars cause death. What death does the lack of diverse representation of different minorities in video games cause? Get a better argument that represents the problem in itself. Diversity will come without any cabal of critics deeming what gamers should like anyway with the rise of the middle class in other countries. The Witcher is a good example, slavic folklore and culture in an AAA game, something completely new in the world western shooters and japanese rpgs. Soon we will see Indonesian, Botswanan and Nicaraguan action/adventure games. But they have to be good of course.

It's alright. It's the fate for all of us.

All glory to the spiritual successor of the Holy Roman Empire: The Russiaaaaaääääh........... . . . I'm not good at this Please send more hookers and cocaine, Putin-sempai :grin:

The statistics the study relied on were sloppy, but acceptable for the conclusions it was trying to support. Sociologists have an implicit understanding that the sample sizes used generally give fairly low confidence levels. Applying those statistics as "proof" that "gamers don't need diversity" is a dire statistical error, however. When applied at that scope, the sample size gives a confidence level lower than 50%! It's worse odds than that of a coin toss, and you're not seeing anybody trying to justify their conclusions with "well, it came up heads, so I must be right"! And it's the height of irresponsibility, if not malice, to claim that the study that's simply not applicable outside of its scope due to this issue was "intentionally buried by lying feminists" because "it didn't fit the agenda". If I believed for a moment that Sargon of Akkad knew anything about statistics, I'd have to hold him in absolute contempt for knowingly abusing science to support his crusade against feminism. Thankfully, I know not to attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. Do you know how to solve world hunger? Or to prevent wars? Are you allowed to see world hunger and wars as problems humanity faces, despite not having a solution for them? Time for bed, i'll reply later.

You do know I'm rightly cautious about accepting anything you link at face value since the whole "Sargon of Akkad fails at statistics" debacle, right? Will watch it later. When it's not around midnight. Probably. (Will also react to the other posts.) You mean when you accused him for being guilty by possible association and when the point was the "gamers do not need diversity" was bonkers you decided that the whole thing was moot since the study he critizised relied on faulty statistics? Even though it was quoted in almost every "gamers are dead"-article? And where you finally said that games really do need diversity without telling how that would be implemented without turning into tyranny? I didn't buy that argument as much then either and i sure don't now. I usually don't bother quoting Volo, but this is a good example of the bizarre behavior in this thread. I come in and criticize the tone, and then get accused of trying to brainwash. I'm encouraged to report to the authorities or GTFO. Everyone is super defensive and super reactionary. I have never seen anything like it here. Volourn is love. Volourn is life. We are all Volourn.

Do i really need to post this again? Random nobodies on the internet does better digging and journalism than any of the "gamers are dead"-writers, effectively showing how utterly corrupt the indie-scene is: But nooooooo, these goobergators were not far from being a hate group, whose opinion almost didn't deserve to be heard.

I chalk it up to the beginning of the whole thing, where the GG side was calling for dialogue and discussion while the aGG side was calling us a hate group who didn't deserve a voice. If we're talking about botched first impressions, let's not forget that "ETHICS!" wasn't really an issue for gamergaters until gamergate actually became a thing. So, based on those early days, the "beginning of the whole thing", as you put it, "hate group that doesn't deserve a voice" was actually not that far off from the truth. Sure if you equate GamerGate with BurgersAndFries, which I don't. For me, and for most of who I consider GamerGate, the first shot was the Gamers are Dead articles. Yes a lot of the BurgersAndFries people were early GG supporters, but it would have disappeared without those articles. You mean the articles that literally don't exist in the form gamergate is so fond of painting them as (Ie. "an organized attack against gamer identity by games journalists")? Because, well, "gamergaters aren't a hate group, they just failed to interpret correctly a body of texts even a high schooler should have no problems understanding" isn't really making the movement come across any better. Sories, we dumb. Consumer revolts shoulda not habbened, we shoulda died and welcome bad guise.

- Define "hate group" - Define "deserve a voice" ...Why? Because time and time again i've noticed that we have diverged into completely different domains when talking about this. Define "completely different domains". You say one thing and i retort, but only to find out by your counter-retort that you were not exactly talking about what i thought that you were talking about....because your choice of words have different meanings compared to what was originally assumed by me. So again, with lots of love and forgiveness, when you're speaking of "hate groups" and "deserving a voice", what do you really mean?

I chalk it up to the beginning of the whole thing, where the GG side was calling for dialogue and discussion while the aGG side was calling us a hate group who didn't deserve a voice. If we're talking about botched first impressions, let's not forget that "ETHICS!" wasn't really an issue for gamergaters until gamergate actually became a thing. So, based on those early days, the "beginning of the whole thing", as you put it, "hate group that doesn't deserve a voice" was actually not that far off from the truth. - Define "hate group" - Define "deserve a voice" ...Why? Because time and time again i've noticed that we have diverged into completely different domains when talking about this.

I chalk it up to the beginning of the whole thing, where the GG side was calling for dialogue and discussion while the aGG side was calling us a hate group who didn't deserve a voice. If we're talking about botched first impressions, let's not forget that "ETHICS!" wasn't really an issue for gamergaters until gamergate actually became a thing. So, based on those early days, the "beginning of the whole thing", as you put it, "hate group that doesn't deserve a voice" was actually not that far off from the truth. - Define "hate group" - Define "deserve a voice"

Of course feminism has interesting people like Christina Hoff Summers and Janice Fiamengo, but sadly they seem to have zero political influence compared to the radical man-hating ones. It seems like the buzz about Galgary Expo hasn't died down. People are contacting their advertisers that claim that they were not advertisers in the first place. Essentially, "pulling a Gawker". https://twitter.com/MyOwnGalPal/status/589697787257753601

I thought I was doing that when I read you guys the Dr. Suess book? And you see the results before you; not enough. I would suggest something more trancedental that everyone loves, like Gummi Bears or Duck Tales. But i leave that up to you.

It's probably both given the amount of substances currently in my bloodstream. Internalized something-ism There is irony in someone who is pro ignoring what he deems dumb having a problem with people for not ignoring other dumb bs. Follow your own advice. I have been an active member here for over a decade, pardon me if I don't just walk away from the community because of dumb bs. I've ignored a few iterations of this thread, but it doesn't seem like a good strategy. It reflects badly on all of us. This is absurd. These people have every right to discuss this topic, which is well within the boundaries of forum rules, just like you have every right to discuss things you find important. You could, for example, make a Firearms thread and periodically start it up again once it hit it's limit. Would someone be right to claim the pro-firearms thread needs to be shut down because it reflects poorly on all of us? No, that's unfair. If you don't wanna be associated with it, don't associate yourself with it. If you are incapable of tolerating a thread's existence in a forum you visit, that's blatantly being a drama queen and blatantly demanding all portions of a forum adhere to what you like to a certain degree, all in a belief that being a member here for 10+ years is somehow relevant and affords you some sort of superior say on the matter. No, that's not how it works. We have a firearms thread, it is delightful. People talk about guns. They aren't consistently putting up inappropriate cartoons, images, and making fun of the tweets of people who don't spend any time here. This thread has veered over the boundaries of the forum rules plenty of times. The very nature of this thread seems to revolve around being mean and shouting down people that disagree with you. It bleeds into other threads too, Monte Carlo's hilarious troll story lasted about 5 posts before it turned dumb. I would like to see this forum be a less negative place. I guess that makes me a drama queen. If you feel that people are being mean and full of hate, then you know what to do: Forgive us and fight us with love.

Either the quote system is botched or KP is arguing with himself.

If you think that mocking anyone is in any way shape or form exceptable, then there's something wrong with you. On the contrary, it works pretty well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZyGOx3AbDQ

Good. Mocking them with humor is how you show how powerless they are. Keep at it. I'm pretty sure ignoring them would be more effective. 200 pages of it on a game developer's forum seems a bit much. I would actually never come across any of these people if it weren't for these posts, so that would speak to the opposite effect. The more you spread this garbage around, the more power you give them. Nah. You cannot ignore evil.

Good. Mocking them with humor is how you show how powerless they are. Keep at it. So what? "I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately." - George Carlin True, would be more fun with some more debate. So what? He hasn't been harassed or reported either. He presents and argument like anyone else and it gets debated.

I would say that the top spot is still by Orson Welles, but for his other endeavour: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_%28radio_drama%29