Blarghagh

Dunno if anyone posted this before, but it's new to me. 99 Red Balloons covered using only Red Balloons.

That cartoon tries to diminish the act of rape, its in very bad taste and offensive. I don't think that's what it's doing. As mI interpret it, it is saying rape is a big deal and counts as a scathing and vicious condemnation of the radfems who have been saying it. The problem is that it paints women who want inclusivity as these radfems. Bruce, have you looked into the social media around these subjects? This is the response to a man who came out as having been raped by a woman: http://gamergateharrassment.tumblr.com/image/96862041112 Again, can't post the thing because of language. But these are real messages. I've had to resort to using the image because the actual thing got taken down, but I saw these being posted. I would not hesitate to condemn this cartoon if it wasn't for the fact that this is a very real and prevalent attitude among those harassing gamers right now.

Not a big fan of that cartoon myself as it does misrepresent women as all being hardline fems who would say something like that. I appreciate what it's trying to do but the punchline is pretty rude and unhelpful. I much prefer this one as it is much closer to what I've seen a couple of hundred times in the last few days: http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/823/986/b4c.jpg Not posting the picture itself because of language rules.

Been surrounded by some negativity recently but thankfully Mike Doughty's new single has been kicking it down with his lovely message of positivity. Light will keep your heart beating in the future.

Non-human pond scum, then?

I'm afraid you're terribly mistaken, I show no tolerance at all. I do humbly apologise if my meaning has been misconstrued. If it's any comfort, I have done some further research and I don't much care for the hysterical rage-screeches of the lumpen mockeries of femininity on the other side, either. Both sides of the argument seem to be dominated by utter laughable embarrassments of people. It is my unshakeable conviction that the worst offenders from either side get locked in an arena and forced to fight to the last person standing, who should then be shot. If only one side's withered-up husks could be persuaded to mate with the desperate onanists of the other, perhaps the situation could be salvaged. Alas. Well, my apologies for... uh. Actually, I did read you wrong but I guess if you're not tolerant I don't know what I can apologize for. I'm sorry I misread you? A clear video debunking the idea that #NotYourShield is an astroturfing endeavour originating from 4chan (though I'm not sure why the rap analogies): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfEnFHZ0JX0

Yes. Just listen to it if brevity is your problem, it's a few minutes and Hale's voice, as always, is a joy to listen to. Props to Hale for coming out in defense of the greater game community. I am really saddened that she was nervous about what the small group would do to her, though.

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check it out. I saw Edge of Tomorrow, which wasn't bad but the plot was pretty convoluted. Tom Cruise was actually convincing in the role, surprisingly. I hadn't seen any trailers so I was very surprised with the sci-fi Groundhog Day element.

You're actually right, but the side you're describing is the other side than you think it is. At the same time, nice show of tolerance there with he fat shaming.

Bruce, that article was on the first google page of the search term "death of the gamer", when many of the journalists' articles, even the one titled that exactly, didn't even show up. I think google's sorting algorythms are a fairly good representation of notability. It also perfectly illustrates my point of that these journalists should have redefined gamer in advance instead of in retrospect and whether or not they spoke out of malice or ignorance at this point is irrelevant, as their original articles have spawned this viewpoint and they need to own up to that. You can't make a public connection between gamers and misogyny and then play takeback. Anyway, if you had wanted an article with different credentials, you should have qualified it better. Because if you don't qualify, you're going to get what you asked for, such as when you forget to qualify that by "gamers" you mean something else. Which leads me to the Rock Paper Shotgun article, which you say actually supports your argument, however long it doesn't. My original point about takebacks not being viable aside, they never once actually state that they do not mean all gamers. They point out, hey, video games aren't just for gamers. Never once do they redefine gamer as something else than a gaming enthousiast and they never once own up to the fact that gamers are being harassed because of their careless demonisation. Oh, they point out gamers are being harassed in this section: But they are quick to qualify it that it is their side that is being harassed the most, which is simply and by far not accurate and also implies that the gamers who are being harassed are the ones on their side, not the ones that critique. I'd also like to point out this section that they claim is a description of their situation: Right here in the article it may retrospectively claim that no, not all gamers are misogynists, but then it goes on to state that all gamers supporting #GamerGate, such as the #NotYourShield and #AgainstHarrasment movements, are people who have consciously decided to stand beside a group of manipulative misogynists. No effort is made to bring up our campaign on change.org, or the diversity campaign that is #NotYourShield, or the fact that all of these movements have openly condemned misogyny, racism and homophobia at every turn. No, they go out of their way to qualify that "by the way, if you're not with us, you're with them" when that simply isn't true. In fact, they go out of their way to undermine the credibility of these gamer based movements by claiming they are astroturfing and continue to marginalise and demonise the voices of every individual supporting #NotYourShield, who are exactly the people they are still pretending to be championing. As I've already described, here again they cloud the issue. They obstinately refuse to give concrete numbers and refer to the misogynists that these movements has condemned as "many of them", i.e. a significantly large portion of these movements. Never once is it acknowledged that these movements have publicly and intensely condemned these misogynist actions and have, in fact, been taking action against them. This isn't honest debate, this is thinly disguised propaganda. Again, no effort is brought up to discuss the actual problems that have been brought up. Issues such as high profile competetitions being rigged to generate money to generate money for the creators of the contest cannot be handwaved by saying "so, people know each other" and neither can issues such as games journalists grading games based on who their advertisers are rather than the content of a game. Not honest, just "our side is the good guys and since this is our website we can ignore what we want". Here, they do it again. By virtue of language, they make a connection. It might as well say "We don't hate gamers, but we object to, and will fight, their harassment and abuse" and then they take it back again. You cannot have it both ways. Then it goes on to say that people who are harassing and attacking are the ones who object to how the games press works while, again, conveniently ignoring the fact that these movements have seen as much public harassment as they have. It plays the victim card to try and give their words weight while marginalising and demonising the other side. Then under the following heading: "Well, you still won’t engage the other side of the debate. Why isn’t that represented on RPS?" This subsection begins with qualifiying what their side is. "Because we are this side. Our own side." Okay, fair enough. I can live with that. But then they continue on qualifying their side as this: "We’re against sexism, we support feminist arguments of various kinds." Considering they qualified this as being their side, it qualifies the other side (whether all gamers or all gamers who have taken a stance behind the GamerGate, NotYourShield and AgainstHarassment movements is irrelevant as they are both diverse groups containing many different races, genders (including the various states of trans-, pan- and a-sexual) and orientations) as not being against sexism and not supporting feminism, which is again dishonest. And this is without ignoring the fact that all the questions they posed are complete strawman arguments. I can't imagine more than one or two idiots have claimed "they are doing it for sexual favors". They are misrepresenting the other side, both their people and their arguments to make it easier to attack. I think that's the very definition of a strawman, if there's any confusion. Misrepresenting the argument again. These movements have, at every turn, condemned the actions of the vocal minority of harassers and taken action against it. This once again posits that gamers have their heads in the sand and as I have pointed out very clearly several times is that since far before this, the reasonable gamers were busy removing toxicity from the communties (multiple, as the assessment that the gamer community is a single entity is also a fallacy). Awareness was being raised without lecturing and guilting call-to-arms messages. Game developers were acquiescing such as Riot Games constantly updating and changing their honor systems to attempt to battle discrimination and toxicity among players. Gamers know what is going on and never at one turn have we let others speak for them. Which is why gamers are banding together under NotYourShield to say, again, these journalists and their hatemongering (intentional or otherwise) do not speak for us either. The crux of the misrepresentation, claiming the gamers opposing them are doing it for these things. It's ridiculous. And I'm not even going to begin to touch the area that comes after this, where they begin to condescendingly lecture the readers, with the intended audience of this article containing many NotYourShield supporters whose very existence proves that games are already for everybody, that games should be for everybody. It is not a good article. It isn't even a reasonable article. It is a thinly veiled, hostile misrepresenting their opponents. And even if it wasn't, it's still just a halfhearted "takeback" without taking responsibilty for what they said before and the harassment those words have caused. Semantics about what the word "gamer" means are meaningless because they failed to redefine the word before attacking it. Whether that was intentionally malicious or unintentionally ignorant doesn't matter. They need to own up to it.

Actually, Muslim is very easy to distinguish from Muslim Extremist. Gamer is not easy to distinguish from Gamer. Then I'd also like to reiterate that plenty of messages I have seen on, for example, twitter, that literally state that they mean all gamers. Here's one that I read just off the top of my head: "If you self identify as a gamer you are a pathetic human being." They don't mean white misogynists, they mean EVERY gaming enthousiast that exists. You can speak for them all you want, it doesn't change the fact that some of the people you are defending don't agree with it themselves. Essentially and ironically, they are #NotYourShield. Speaking of which, I'd ask you to look into that before saying journalists and those on their side are the ones being pro-inclusive when gamers have only been supportive of inclusivity. Then again, I recall in the last thread you qualified it by saying "show me one that isn't some radfem abuser" because they didn't count (by the way, I did and you ignored it), yet you seem to object and dismiss when Longknife asks you to do the same thing. While I don't agree with Malcador and Orogun simply dismissing you and resorting to ad hominem as I know they are better than that, I can certainly say you can't complain as your more polite dismissals are still dismissals all the same and you too are better than that.

There's always that option.

Yep. It's actually not out of character for them to attack Christina, however, as she is most known for writing the book "Who Stole Feminism" condemning female chauvinism and promoting real gender equality. I highly recommend it.

Don't feel ashamed, Woldan. It is perfectly normal - a good friend of mine lost his mother to a long, drawn out battle with lungcancer and he confided in me that he didn't feel anything, just numbness. It lasted up until the moment the casket was lowered into the hole - when he had a brief cry, and then went back to not showing anything. Who knows, maybe you will feel something at the funeral, but even if you don't, it's not out of the ordinary. Emotions are different for everyone and nobody should be pressured into faking them.

I just found out that well known equity feminist Christina Sommers is getting harassed for speaking positively about gamers. That's ridiculous.

No, Bruce. A gamer is a gaming enthousiast or somebody who identifies as a gamer. Any other use is a misuse, when these journalists use it or when others use it. Yes, words change over time. They do not change overnight. If these people consider "gamer" to only mean what you say, they clearly do not understand what gamers or gamer culture are. Regardless, whether or not they spoke out of malice or ignorance they are accountable for the actions of their followers. But hey, here's this article: "Gamer identity is tainted, root and branch, by its embrace of consumption as a way of life. If gamers suddenly became completely inclusive, if all of the threats and stamping of feet went away and the doors were flung open, conspicuous consumption would still be the essential core of their identity. The mythical gamer who does not exist to consume is not a gamer. A raisin is not a grape, and no amount of rehydration will turn it into one." https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/09/death-to-the-gamer/ This is a former game developer and journalist who very, very clearly states that gamers, defined by him as all people who self-identify as someone who consumes games, would still be worthless even if the group became completely inclusive simply by nature of them being gamers.

Walking Dead S2 Finale. Dem feels.

The narrative that video game journalists and their supporters have created to be picked up by mainstream media (for an example, see here: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/03/gamergate-corruption-games-anita-sarkeesian-zoe-quinn) states "self-identifying gamers", as in every single person who self-identifies as a gamer.

I've been assured by people supporting the journalists that this is not the case, which is the problem. These journalists carry weight and have reach - the moment those articles went up, the connection has been made and some of their readers went on the attack. No half-hearted retraction such as the one from Rock Paper Shotgun is going to matter. It is a tactic many people have used against SJWs and feminists, which is why I'm surprised you would make that argument. You discredit the group without redefining the word and make the connection, and then when you get called on it you go "oh no, when I say [group], I mean something else". It's an easy way to marginalise and demonise people without having to take responsibility for what your words do. At this point, I have seen more anti-#GamerGate people be abusive than I have ever seen gamers be abusive in my entire life and I hold the careless call to arms of these journalists responsible. It doesn't help that the gamers who are against harassment or are minorities themselves are being harassed and marginalised now and none of these journalists, even the ones going "oh we don't mean ALL gamers" have owned up to the fact that their generalising smear campaign has caused harassment, doxxing, sexism and racism (from the supposed people who claim to be supporting inclusivity) when the gamers have been quick to own up to the fact that yes, some gamers are awful people and we condemn their actions. If you look into the hashtags on Twitter, for example, you will find thousands of gamers messaging for tolerance and peace or showing they are minority gamers who have not been discriminated against as a gamer, and you will find supposed "feminists" dismissing them as "sockpuppets" or "slaves", claiming their profiles are fakes and they do not exist, and generally dismissing them entirely. These are the people supposedly claiming they support equality and inclusivity. It should be telling that the pro-#GamerGate people are communicating through #NotYourShield and #AgainstHarassment while the anti-#GamerGate people are communicating through #AGamerInFourWords and #KillAllMen. I wouldn't support them, as they give me and you a bad name.

Actually, I'm left handed and I still use WASD.

Shallow: Don't forget that this specific someone who he will die in a duel for has condemned men trying to save damsels in distress on multiple occassions. He insults who is trying to defend. While I hear you no ill will TN, I don't really want to hear about your asphyxiation fetish. I didn't even mention the fact that I enjoy it. Err, I mean, I don't have that fetish!

Does that mean I'm going to choke my girlfriend in a fit of rage? Because it's much more likely that she'll choke me. I make her angry a lot. Anyway, here's an interesting article by a webcomic author about how dumb it is to attack your audience: http://kazerad.tumblr.com/post/96965701323/indie-addendum-or-why-i-benefit-from-gamergates

That is a terrible article. It glosses over and ignores so many things. Never once does it own up to the fact that gamers are being harassed and persecuted now as a direct result of the hateful articles they posted, and never once does it stop implying that aligning yourself with #Gamergate and spinoff groups like #NotYourShield and #AgainstHarassment is becoming a misogynist. Venting Rant Incoming: I am getting quite sick and tired of a bunch of irrelevant journalists who have fought a lot less hard for social equality than I have pretending they aren't setting feminism back twenty years with their ignorant hatemongering. Gamers don't have their head in the sand and we never did, we were making progress. Women were raising awareness through websites like Not In The Kitchen Anymore and Fat, Ugly Or Slutty without lecturing or antagonizing anyone. Usage of report functions was up by I don't know how many percent. Game developers were implementing things like honor systems to encourage positive behaviour and identify and remove toxic players. Equality, and more importantly, tolerance among gamers was winning. It was working. And bam, in one fell swoop these guys decide to turn the entire community against social issues. If people didn't already dismiss people who talked about equal rights for everyone as "SJW" they certainly will now. People with actually good intentions, not this #KillAllMen and white knighting bull, will now have an infinitely harder time trying to talk about social issues by association with these sad, irrelevant journalists. The only way for them to damage feminism and the fight for social equality more is if it was a coordinated campaign, which I'm not sure it isn't. I mean, if you make freaking MADDOX seem more tolerant than you... I mean, look at this Greg Costikyan guy, Gamasutra blogger and Game Dev. He literally goes out and says he is prepared to use lethal force against every single person who attacks Anita Sarkeesian to "defend her honor" because, and I quote "Good men defend women, they do not attack them". Now, condemning abuse and speaking out against it is one thing. But this guy, this journalist and game developer, is literally saying Anita Sarkeesian is a damsel in distress and he's there to protect her. When she made not one, but two widely publicized videos about making women into damsels in distress being bad. I can't believe you can attack feminist ideals and insult a feminist so badly while pretending to be defending her without it being intentional, and to threaten physical harm at the same time? How can someone be so wrong and still pretend to be the good guy? At this point, it becomes not just impossible but irresponsible for any rational person, especially one who supports equality and women's rights, NOT to align themselves with #GamerGate and #NotYourShield and #AgainstHarassment against people like this. And if I am the one saying that, as someone who Malc is quick to point out is an SJW, then you know the line has been crossed. Of course, maybe I'm still white knighting. It could be that I'm pissed because when my girlfriend tweeted in support of #NotYourShield some ignorant white cis male decided to respond with "even if ur too dumb to c thru ur internalizd sexism well still fight for u : - )" as if he had the right to speak for her or any woman. I will never stop advocating equal rights for everyone, but I refuse to align myself with these so-called "feminists" just as much as I decided to support these movements to make it clear I refuse to be compared to harassers. These people are making it really hard to even keep discussing the same issues they claim to champion...

I actually feel bad that they solved it. Makes it a less interesting story.

Thanks, that was extremely informative. Although the most shocking thing to come out of it, to me, is that Fez took so much money to make.