Blarghagh

I think that's unfair because Sterling did support a lot of causes #GamerGate holds dear. Sterling really did get a lot of **** from GGers simply for not "coming out and openly supporting", as did Boogie. It's sad really.

I really appreciate how today has gone. Looking through the hashtag, I'm seeing a lot of GamerGate "service announcements" of what to do if you see harassment and a couple of examples of people actually going out of their way to find, report and encourage others to report harassers, including someone who threatened to kill Anita Sarkeesian at GDC'14. Seeing GamerGaters defend someone who has so thoroughly condemned them gives me hope, even if some of them must be doing it to solve a PR problem. It's not going unnoticed either. Brianna Wu (the developer who got harassed out of her house this week) reached out to Adam Baldwin and Milo Yiannopolis to discuss and try to calm the situation down. Even more positively, most GamerGaters lobbied for them to accept. Adam Baldwin declined but Milo is hosting her on his show next week. Calls for discourse from so many sources makes me really happy. It makes me sad that I can't do much more than retweet and signal boost these people. Ah, we are all heroes. You and Boo and I, hamsters and rangers everywhere! Rejoice!

I got serious motion sickness five minutes in, but it was so cool that I'm totally willing to take that.

Continued version of the What Are You Wasting Your Precious Time And Money On thread. Haven't gotten around to gaming in a few days other than a few ten minute games of Speedrunners.

NEw part coming up. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68966-what-are-you-playing-now/

He's the white cis male who puts Anita Sarkeesian's words into her mouth.

Damn, I think this is the first time I've ever approved of selfies.

That's my point, though. That hypothetical shows that the narrative played out by games media of "we're totally innocent and you guys are sexist nerds" can't be anything other than complete and utter nonsense, because none of it makes sense.

No, it's because KotOR 2 discussion, rants or otherwise, belongs in the appropriate forum. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. I checked the box to leave a link in C&C but either that's already gone off page or never showed up.

I'm going to take a step to a few pages back: http://daddywarpig.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/how-to-kill-gamergate-in-2-easy-steps-which-kotaku-polygon-and-the-verge-wont-even-try/ I don't like retreading old ground, but this keeps weighing on my mind. I originally posted this article because, well, I found it funny. But the more I think about it, the more this guy has made a point much more profound than even he knows. I need you guys to help me out here. Why not do it? I mean, I'm trying to think about this from the perspective of games journalists who are against #GamerGate. For sake of argument, let's make the following assumptions: 1 - I am the editor of a publication of Games Journalism such as Kotaku or Polygon. 2 - I have not adopted an ethics policy, but nevertheless my publication has never posted anything nor have my employees ever done anything that could be seen as unethical. 3 - #GamerGate is a conservative, misogynist hate group concerned only with keeping women out of gaming. 4 - #GamerGate uses false accusations of corruption in my publication to give false crediblity to their cause and snare gullible supporters and it grows enormous. 5 - #GamerGate begins to harass and harm women, developers and everyone who disagrees with them using my lack of transparent ethics policy as an excuse. Okay, got those assumptions down? Here goes. Why would I not implement an ethics policy and adhere to it? I've got some thoughts on why I would not, but none of them truly make sense. Why not do it? Well, I won't give in to that hate group. I haven't done anything unethical and I do not need to change. Except, since I haven't done anything unethical, it doesn't mean I would have to change. I'd just keep doing what I was doing already. It just means a little effort to create a blurb that confirms my publication won't do anything unethical and specifies what I feel is unethical. Since I know clearly what is unethical by nature of being certain I have never done it, this is easy. Why not do it? Well, if I give in to their demands I validate their existence. They don't deserve that. Except, taking away their one credible demand doesn't so much validate as completely invalidate their existence because if they don't have a credible demand nobody can or will take them seriously and people who only sides with them over this false conspiracy theory will drop them like a hot potato. Why not do it? Well, screw that. I have my pride. I'm don't owe anybody anything. Except, good people are being harmed and harassed by this group over my lack of transparent and enforced ethics policy. I have the power to stop it without effort, yet I will allow it to continue for my own personal satisfaction? I can't do that, because I don't do things that are unethical. Why not do it? I'm scared of the mob and I'm just going to ignore it and be silent about the whole ordeal and never mention it. Except, good people are being harmed and harassed by this group over my lack of transparent and enforced ethics policy. I have the power to stop it without effort, yet I will allow it to continue for my own personal satisfaction? I can't do that, because I don't do things that are unethical. Why not do it? Well, I'm angry at them and for that I am going to antagonize them even further at risk of causing more harassment. Except, good people are being harmed and harassed by this group over my lack of transparent and enforced ethics policy. I have the power to stop it without effort, yet I will allow it to continue for my own personal satisfaction? I can't do that, because I don't do things that are unethical. Why not do it? Well, I'm sorry but attacking them through clickbait articles gives me a lot more advertising money and lets me feel good about how progressive my smart followers think I am. EXCEPT, GOOD PEOPLE ARE BEING HARMED AND HARASSED BY THIS GROUP OVER MY LACK OF TRANSPARENT AND ENFORCED ETHICS POLICY. I HAVE THE POWER TO STOP IT WITHOUT EFFORT, YET I WILL ALLOW IT TO CONTINUE FOR MY OWN PERSONAL SATISFACTION? I CAN'T DO THAT, BECAUSE I DON'T DO THINGS THAT ARE UNETHICAL. Why not do it? Well, I haven't really considered it this way. I guess I was just being really, really dumb before. Except, you do not build a halfway succesful publication by being dumb as a brick. There is no way this hasn't occured to me. Why not do it? Well, I want to leave the door open for possible unethical behaviour in the future? ... Why not do it? Help me out here, guys. If I am even a halfway ethical publication in the face of this situation, what reason would I have not to adopt a transparent and enforced ethics policy? The only reasons I can come up with at all are either illogical or unethical. If I do not find any other reasons that the publications involved in #GamerGate will not do this, I have to come to the conclusion that they are not innocent of unethical behaviour. In fact, I am prepared to come and say right now that, assuming these things are true, not implementing an enforced ethics policy is inherently unethical behaviour. Help me out here guys. I must be missing something.

Haha, he's got you there Wals.

Fair enough. Thanks for your answer!

What do you smell like on the internet?

I actually had to debate myself whether or not I wanted to ask this question because you can be so fanatical about physical fitness, but here goes: How did you fix it?

The false reasoning is the "old and historical" bit, and this damnation is what I was referring to. Like I said, I completely understand not having time. I barely posted last week because I had the flu, myself. The lack of response to that single post is not my reasoning, but the content of your responses and what things you choose to respond to. I want you to understand that. Trying to debate with you on this subject simply doesn't seem to have any point to me and it is aggravating, so I am doing this for my own peace of mind most of all. As demonstrated by how compelled I am to continue defending my decision despite my claim I wasn't going to respond to you anymore (I'm somewhat hypocritical that way), I have a hard time ignoring posts but I feel this is going nowhere, so I have to stop.

Wow I'm sorry you feel that way but since you are being honest I'm going to be honest. Firstly in most cases I don't really mind if certain people say "they won't debate with me" because the reasons they give are normally irrelevant and just more about the fact they can't accept my views or are annoyed with perceptions around my posting style. But you are one of those peoples opinions I do care about because I do respect you. You are also a reasonable person who means well. So it concerns me that you don't want to debate with me and I would like to explain a few things before you decide this Firstly yes you are right I didn't respond to your entire post but as I explained I have been busy the last 2 days and since Thursday I haven't been on the forums for long periods. I can easily respond to Volos point and others because the truth is they don't need much detail because its just a quick one liner or so. I read that article but I didn't study each paragraph and its obvious you read it properly and made a very impressive and detailed post about it. It now means in order to respond to you properly I need to go and spend much more time with detailed responses. And this was time I didn't have the last few days But I really admire the effort you put into your posts where you explain your issues with an article. I can imagine its both annoying and frustrating to spend time creating a detailed post and them someone doesn't respond, you can almost think " whats the point, this person doesn't appreciate my efforts" But that's not the case in this example. I do genuinely read most posts and try to respond when I am able . All I can ask is you can make your posts not as detailed, maybe less examples that require responding as my issues sometimes are about the time I have and how lI can respond accordingly In summary I'm sorry for not responding to your post and the other one but it was purely a time factor It's not the lack of response that bothered me at all, Bruce. Truth be told, you were correct when you say I didn't expect one. I can respect not having time as well and I wouldn't have made this decision if you had only said that. What did me in was two things: - The rationalisation of "old and boring, historical and irrelevant". Since those posts are barely two days old and two pages in, we're still discussing the same subject and it's still very much relevant it showed me that you are willing to ignore something out of convenience or false reasoning, especially since you have responded to older posts before. - The damnation of all of GG over a threat made on a source that you yourself made the value judgement about of not being credible at all, without looking into its credibility at all (as has been pointed out, that account has not posted any GamerGate related tweets nor does it mention GamerGate). I can respect not having time, but I cannot respect not having all the facts, ignoring points, measuring by double standard and still making value judgements about it. I also want to make clear, I am not saying I'm going to completely ignore you but in the context of this subject, I am pretty much done with you.

How interesting that you consistently do have time to respond to Volo but not to anyone actually making points. You're right, I don't expect you to respond. In fact, I'm hoping you won't because at this point it would just be aggravation instead of debate. But since Twitter messages now seemingly do carry enough weight when they are reason to be AGAINST #GamerGate, I'm going to assume all my Twitter messages about harassment from the Anti-GamerGate side are now validated as well because anything else would be hypocrisy of the highest order. Here's a huge load more: http://gamergateharassment.tumblr.com/ What classy people you have representing the anti-GG side, Bruce. You must be so proud. I think this is the last time I'm going to be responding to you, Bruce. You've consistently proven yourself to be two-faced and more concerned with proving you have some nebulous "progressive stance" like a badge rather than actually caring enough about progressive issues to think and debate on it and I'm sorry I didn't see it before. I'm not going to be ridiculing you for it like some of these guys, but I'm not obligated to acknowledge you either.

Can't really judge that without reading some of it.

Has anyone ever taken like a cliché, standard fantasy world with elves, dwarves, orcs, etc. and dumped a Mad Max style apocalypse on it?

I think at this point, the lack of validity of that article is entirely unquestionable. I am not sure what the original point behind quote is, but that article that is linked in the quote laments the fact that people dismiss girls in geekdom by using "fake geek girl" stereotype. Meaning that article's writer don't claim accuse anybody to be "fake geek girl", but instead ask people not to use such term as she feels that it's term used by elitist jerks. Although article refers to one article from Forbes written by one of their female contributors that has tittle that seems to attack girls that fake to be geeks, but even it is more general lament about fact that geeky things are in this days popular and accepted by society and people embrace term geek instead of be branded by it. But anyway said article don't seems to be great for any point of view that quote reflects. EDIT: As article is about usage of term "fake geek girl" among comic book reader so it is weak reference for such thing happening in gaming circles. And I don't see why article that laments about people dismissing girls by using term "fake geek girl" loses it significance just because it is written by a woman? I'm pretty sure Kain was referring to the article by Tara Tiger Strong piece. The article on The Verge links to this article as the support that Gamers, meaning white male misogynists, hate and revile women as Fake Geek Girls, yet the only source in this article that refers to fake geek girls in a negative manner is the Tara Tiger Strong piece about "Fake Geek Girls, Go Away", written by a woman. Verge's article don't directly link on that article, but it links this article(that focuses on ranting about how bad "gamers" [what ever that means] behave), written by Peter Frase from Jacobin magazine that links to that mary sue article. Jacobin's article uses that Mary Sue article as reference about "gamers" (what ever that means) dismissing women by stereotyping them as "fake geek girls", in which as I previously pointed that particular Mary Sue article is quite weak reference as it focuses on comic book geeks and geek stereotypes in comic book circles, but it seems to reference article as whole not any particular piece of it (like for example that reference to Tara's article, which don't actually call anybody as fake geek, but instead seem to held notion that these days doors to geekdom are too wide open and geekdom should be more elitist society). Jacobin's article concludes that problems in withing gaming do actually have little to do with gaming itself and more with wider political agendas (right wing agendas more precisely and capitalism (which make me think that Jacobin is probably politically left leaning publication). Verge uses Jacobin's article to reference that Gamergate has right-wing flavor all over it ("there’s a reactionary right-wing flavor to all of Gamergate’s desperate yelling."). Verge's article has several references how gamergate is right-wing or conservative movement that opposes progressiveness. So in short it was not Verge's article that referred to Mary Sue's article, but Jacobin's article, which used Mary Sue's article as example how male "gamers" call women "fake geek girls", even though Mary Sue's article is about usage of "Fake Geek Girl" term in comic book geekdom, Verge used Jacobin's article to refer how gamergate is actually about right-wing agenda and all three articles make my head hurt. Now my head hurts. Oh, I see where I went wrong. I mistakenly believed Kain meant the same article I did, but he had moved on to another. Wait... did he? I'm confused now.

Well, crap.

I think at this point, the lack of validity of that article is entirely unquestionable. I am not sure what the original point behind quote is, but that article that is linked in the quote laments the fact that people dismiss girls in geekdom by using "fake geek girl" stereotype. Meaning that article's writer don't claim accuse anybody to be "fake geek girl", but instead ask people not to use such term as she feels that it's term used by elitist jerks. Although article refers to one article from Forbes written by one of their female contributors that has tittle that seems to attack girls that fake to be geeks, but even it is more general lament about fact that geeky things are in this days popular and accepted by society and people embrace term geek instead of be branded by it. But anyway said article don't seems to be great for any point of view that quote reflects. EDIT: As article is about usage of term "fake geek girl" among comic book reader so it is weak reference for such thing happening in gaming circles. And I don't see why article that laments about people dismissing girls by using term "fake geek girl" loses it significance just because it is written by a woman? I'm pretty sure Kain was referring to the article by Tara Tiger Strong piece. The article on The Verge links to this article as the support that Gamers, meaning white male misogynists, hate and revile women as Fake Geek Girls, yet the only source in this article that refers to fake geek girls in a negative manner is the Tara Tiger Strong piece about "Fake Geek Girls, Go Away", written by a woman.

I don't think you are because the 90% straight white men among game journalists statistic has been lampooned several times in this thread. At times I think the projection of angry white guys who get their toys taken away is a projection, as YouTubers supplanting these games journalists at a rapid pace means they are angry white guys getting their toys taken away.

I get your point too. I just prefer to try and respect everyone's opinion and be polite, whether they have merit or not. Lord knows I've lost my temper on this board myself before, but I don't think that should be the accepted default. The internet has enough rude jerks as it is without me adding to it. In fact, a lot of this debate has taught me that keeping a level head is important. It's the TotalBiscuits that are going to get out of this with dignity and respect, not the Thunderf33t. EDIT: Another thing regarding the validity of that The Verge article by that guy with no qualifications, education or factual observation via Erik Kain. I think at this point, the lack of validity of that article is entirely unquestionable.

I get what you are saying. Let's say, for sake of argument because I don't really care to make that value judgement about him, that Bruce isn't interested in serious debate. Does that mean others should sink to that level? Is it helpful to abuse him? If he's not interested in serious debate, do we show him to be better by showing him not being interested in serious debate either? I just don't like people being ridiculed because they're not perfect. So far he seems to be only be guilty of harming people's patience.