BruceVC

Syria has had a drawn out war because outside forces (like the west) chose to support the rebels. Had we done nothing they would have been crushed and the war would have been over almost as soon as it began. If not for the atmosphere created by intervention there would have been no civil war at all to be honest. The rebels went into the war expecting aid, and got it. What aid did they get ? They received some arms through a proxy county like Saudi Arabia. But they asked the West to destroy the airpower of Assad and his heavy military machinery, exactly the same as the Libya rebels asked for. The fact that Assad has access to this weaponry gives him the obvious advantage in the civil war And they didn't get this help only because of the veto from Russia and China

Is it? Or is it easier just not to care? It doesn't mean you need to get depressed and lament the state of the world but I would say its abnormal to hear about a real crisis or event around the world where people are suffering and not show any empathy? It's actually perfectly normal because it is hard to be empathic if you do not identify with the victim and identification requires familiarity. I assume you've read a lot of different things about this occurance, seen the perpetrators face, seen the victims face, seen the place where it happened, seen footage of it, heard about who the victim was. You have a lot to identify with. If I learned more about it, I'm sure I would be more empathic. But I've pretty much only read about it in dry facts. I agree to a certain degree, you do identify more with victims of a tragedy when it becomes visible. But weren't upset when MH17 was shot down over Ukraine, most of the victims were Dutch citizens. Didn't this fact make the tragedy even worse for you on a personal level even if you didn't know anyone on that plane? Not really. I'm not particularly nationalistic, the fact that they were dutch didn't make it any worse or better for me. I was about as invested in it as I would be in any other crash. I was angry that saving some jet plane fuel was apparently worth going through dangerous territory at the great risk of human lives, though. Not the same thing as empathy. Is it? Or is it easier just not to care? It doesn't mean you need to get depressed and lament the state of the world but I would say its abnormal to hear about a real crisis or event around the world where people are suffering and not show any empathy? It's actually perfectly normal because it is hard to be empathic if you do not identify with the victim and identification requires familiarity. I assume you've read a lot of different things about this occurance, seen the perpetrators face, seen the victims face, seen the place where it happened, seen footage of it, heard about who the victim was. You have a lot to identify with. If I learned more about it, I'm sure I would be more empathic. But I've pretty much only read about it in dry facts. I agree to a certain degree, you do identify more with victims of a tragedy when it becomes visible. But weren't upset when MH17 was shot down over Ukraine, most of the victims were Dutch citizens. Didn't this fact make the tragedy even worse for you on a personal level even if you didn't know anyone on that plane? Not really. I'm not particularly nationalistic, the fact that they were dutch didn't make it any worse or better for me. I was about as invested in it as I would be in any other crash. I was angry that saving some jet plane fuel was apparently worth going through dangerous territory at the great risk of human lives, though. Not the same thing as empathy. Okay that's your view and I respect that. I also think that's abnormal, most people are automatically more concerned and empathetic when they find out that citizens of there own country have been killed in some tragedy and the media of that country normally reflect this understandable view and emotion

Bruce... I think you are being very careless with the use of the word "legitimate". Who exactly are entitled to declare something "legitimate". 99% of cases I see the word used, it's used to describe personal bias. I don't like leader x, therefore his rule is not legitimate. By the same token, You would be dancing around the table and celebrate the Chinese armys Liberation of the poor Tibetan people from the totalitarian and completely illegimate rule of their former dictator, Dalai Lama, who was never elected by the Tibetan people. Besides, the war in Libya was never about democracy. It was about payback and a settling of scores between clans. Ever wondered why the rebellion used the flag of the old king Idris as their gathering point? The "West" saw an opportunity to get rid of an old bogeyman (and only reluctantly at that) while scoring some cheap PR points. Prolonged war would hurt the oil production after all. Edit to add: Main antagonists being the Qadaffis and the Senussis (because i couldn't remember the latters name from top of my head). I don't understand why you and Namutree have an issue with the definition of the word " legitimate " Its quite obvious to me, you have a free and fair Democratic election and a political party and person gets voted in to govern the country. How is this not best way to say this is the best way to reflect a legitimate leader?

Unfortunately Libya is always used as an example of " look what happens when the West intervenes in regime change" when in fact they should be saying " look how the West can effectively implement regime change " The West gave the new Libyan government the opportunity to run there own version of Democracy and system of leadership. They can't be held responsible for the sectarian violence that now threatens the overall stability of the country. The West can help liberate countries but it shouldn't be also expected to now run the new governments Seriously? Really? Are you for real? I hope for your sake you're just trolling. What part of what I said do you disagree with, please in future explain what part of what I said you don't seem to like ? Is it the fact that the West help to liberate Libya from Gaddafi? Or is it the fact that West didn't stay on in Libya and tell the Libyans how to run there new government? The idea that the west isn't responsible for what happens after they overthrow and assassinate heads of states should particularly offend anyone capable of basic thought, it's like saying "I'm not responsible for this building collapsing, I just broke the foundations!". And they can be held responsible for the sectarian and tribal violence, because they helped take away the guy who was keeping things under control. The west shouldn't go in and "liberate" countries, when we all ****ing know it'll only make things worse. Either Libya burns in eternal fire, a guy who is just like Sisi is put in charge of things, or we get ourselves a grand new wannabe caliphate of North Africa. Also, it's not some big great secret that the west can go screwing around in third world countries, Gaddafi himself predicted that the west would eventually get on with replacing the other arab leaders after Saddam was offed, everyone already knew that, we certainly didn't need Libya to show us that. I just want to focus on Libya as that is what we are discussing, I have always maintained that Libya is how the West can get involved in legitimate regime with relatively little impact around committing resources. This is not the same thing as now the West being responsible for actions or inactions of the government that follows So first point is Gaddafi wasn't some sort of legitimate elected leader of Libya, he was a dictator who never had a free and fair election once in his country, I'll repeat that for maximum impact. He never held a free and fair election in 30 years . He ruled the country through control of the army and police. So before I make my main point I fail to see how anyone can say "he was illegally removed from power " ...being a dictator who came to power through a military coup doesn't make you legitimate When the Arab spring started and people started questioning certain governments in the Middle East Gaddafi had the choice to negotiate and address the concerns of the protestors, like the Saudis did where the king of Saudi Arabia basically gave $30 Billion dollars to transformation projects that the protestors were asking for. But Gaddafi decided to use the full might of his army and police to crush any opposition to his dictatorial rule. A civil war started but the military advantage was on the side of Gaddafi because he was quite prepared to use every single military resource he had. His forces surrounded the Libyan rebels in a town call Misrata and this battle was known as the Siege of Misrata and is very significant because its why the West intervened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Misrata Gaddafi was prepared to commit genocide against his own people by levelling the entire town to the ground and the UN security council voted to allow NATO to directly intervene and prevent this massacre of tens of thousands of people. NATO did end the siege through surgical air strikes but then continued to aid the rebels by destroying Gaddafi's tanks and airpower. Now you can argue they over stepped the UN mandate but my point is " so what ". They helped remove a dictator from power and didn't need "boots on the ground". Why do we care if someone like Gaddafi is removed from power due to the efforts of his own people? The West wouldn't have been able to do this without the Libyan rebels and Gaddafi was executed by the rebels. So this wasn't some sort of assassination plot Once Gaddafi was defeated the Libyan rebels didn't want the West telling them how to now run there new government because there was and still is resistance to any attempts by perceived Western "imperialism ". So the West obliged the Libyans and allowed them correctly to run Libya the way they saw fit. Its not the Wests fault that there is now sectarian violence in Libya caused by disenfranchised tribes. This is something that the Libyans need to resolve for themselves, they are now charge of there own destiny. Its the exact same thing that happened in Iraq where the new Iraqi government decided to not incorporate the Sunni minority in the new political dispensation And if you are of the view that the West should just have not got involved at all and the act of genocide doesn't concern you then you need to take a look at Syria and all the consequences that the protracted civil war has had. Because Syria nowadays is exactly what happens when the West isn't allowed to intervene due to the Veto of Russia and China in the UN security council So in summary the West did the right thing in removing Gaddafi from power, it can't be held responsible for the decisions or actions of the government that followed First off, as I said earlier, we already know the west can take out any third world country should it put its mind to it, just because you can do that doesn't mean you should. I don't recall saying he was illegally removed from power, you rule by the sword, you die by the sword, however, killing him off only hurt the nation, we should've left him be. When you put a group of people in charge of something, you are as responsible as those people for what they do, just because you stepped back it doesn't change the fact that you empowered these people. You can't put incompetent people with limited power and authority in charge of bringing together a bunch of fractured people and expect miracles, you are responsible for what happens latter down the road when you start the chain reactions. One quick brief genocide is better than a lengthy bloody civil war and the ensuring lengthy bloody civil wars that follow. The reason Syria is going down the way it is is that a bunch of foreigners entered the nation, Assads main opposition, ISIS, mainly consists of random people from all over the world. Libyans were way better off under Gaddafi, I'm fairly sure your happiness polling would agree with me if they did surveys within the proper timeframes. You insist on forcing western style democracy on people when it clearly doesn't work for them, there are three ways you can deal with fractured tribes that work, silly western democracies aren't one of them: 1. A strong dictatorship 2. Forcing the tribes to mingle, forcing the tribes to shatter and banishing various people to various parts of the country, then doing everything possible, including forced adoption, to break tribal ties. 3. Institute a heavily decentralized government, one whose central authority has essentially no power, one that gives each group their own military, and control over their local natural resources. Personally I'd prefer 1 or 3, but 2 is the only one that could possibly work if you eventually want to force things into a western democracy mold. Western democracy isn't perfect, it has several benefits, but it is crap for fractured societies, different governments are needed in different environments, western democracy isn't superior at everything, though it is suburb for casual people who just want to go about their life without doing that much of anything. Also by your genocide standards Ukraine was committing genocide against Donetsk and Luhansk, initiate the nato airstrikes at once! You are missing something important, the West never put those people in charge. The Libyan rebels existed before the West got involved and had there own leaders So you need to realize that the West had no influence on the people who managed the new Libyan government. And the reason that Syria is in such a state is not because foreigners came to Syria to fight Assad, this is just a consequence of the war being drawn out for so long. Islamic fighters do generally flock to countries to fight jihads. But this takes time, if the West had been allowed to end Assads rule then there wouldn't have been the environment that allowed the creation of ISIS because there would be no drawn out civil war. So that's on Russia and China as well, they are indirectly responsible for the creation of ISIS And no the siege of Misrata was not the same as the artillery attacks against Donetsk and Luhansk. Gaddafis attacks were much more indiscriminate and he didn't care about any civilian losses. I suggest you read about the Siege of Misrata to understand the difference. The attacks on Donetsk and Luhansk weren't sieges, they allowed aid convoys to go through and there was concern about the civilian population, so the two are not the same and didn't require NATO intervention

Is it? Or is it easier just not to care? It doesn't mean you need to get depressed and lament the state of the world but I would say its abnormal to hear about a real crisis or event around the world where people are suffering and not show any empathy? It's actually perfectly normal because it is hard to be empathic if you do not identify with the victim and identification requires familiarity. I assume you've read a lot of different things about this occurance, seen the perpetrators face, seen the victims face, seen the place where it happened, seen footage of it, heard about who the victim was. You have a lot to identify with. If I learned more about it, I'm sure I would be more empathic. But I've pretty much only read about it in dry facts. I agree to a certain degree, you do identify more with victims of a tragedy when it becomes visible. But weren't upset when MH17 was shot down over Ukraine, most of the victims were Dutch citizens. Didn't this fact make the tragedy even worse for you on a personal level even if you didn't know anyone on that plane?

Oh, I don't understand? It's clear to me Bruce, you're the one who doesn't understand. And it's clear to me you don't care about the standards of people from these gaming media sites and don't hold them accountable at all. And there is no expectation to have a discussion about the standards of these gaming websites that GG has brought up? And these sites like Polygon and RPS and Gawker Media have shown that they will stop at nothing to throw insults at their audience and their sponsors. And you're all for that and don't hold them accountable. You're more interested in holding GG up to a higher standard and ignoring these gaming media sites and their hypocrisy. And why shouldn't the gaming media sites want to discuss all topics about the purpose of good behaviour, honesty, integrity, the gaming industry, good and the bad? The onus is on these media sites to get a clear message across about what they really stand for and distance themselves from the extremist element. But then you say this is not the role of websites like Gamasutra and Polygon?. So you're okay with bullying and harassment from these sites? Good to see where you stand. You're all for bullies and having bullies throw insults at minorities, women, all sorts of people. And these gaming media websites are fine with the fact that they don't care about the issues GG has brought up with them throwing insults at their audience and sponsors and they are prepared to deal with the consequences? Good to see you're championing their cause for bullying and harassment. These gaming websites should be asking "how can we get people like Hiro to support us". And that first step is a cohesive approach that allows proper debate. And twitter could never achieve that. But these editors and reporters from these websites still use twitter as a means to want to bully and harass people on the internet. But you're okay with all this bullying and harassment from Gawker media and it's affiliates because you're more concerned about GG than the hypocrisy of the gaming media. You have every right to feel offended by the perception that certain gaming websites have created about the word " gamers " or how you feel they have treated the GG movement. Personally I think that your outrage is completely misplaced and unnecessary but I won't tell you how you should feel if you truly feel aggrieved But you have no right to expect certain websites to automatically support GG or even to post favourable articles about the movement if that's not what they think You can choose to boycott those websites which many of you have already done, but I fail to see why I should expect the likes of Polygon to expose the corruption that apparently exists in it own community? Because many people like me don't believe the gaming industry is fundamentally corrupt, yes there are issues but not to the degree some people on GG would have us believe. And there are many people who agree with me because sites like Polygon are still very much alive and kicking And finally yes, these websites should try to bring people like Hiro back to them. But what more can they do? What do you really expect them to do. There was a time where websites like RPS went to great lengths to explain there view on GG and it wasn't all critical. But you can't keep repeating a certain stance on a particular subject. Some people refuse to understand certain things and will only see the negative so irrespective of what RPS says it won't change Hiro's mind because he has convinced himself about a certain narrative around RPS

Both those operate in the real world. Internet is chaos. So for internet based consumer revolt no leader is needed. If you really believe the Internet is just chaos and somehow that chaos can achieve a result then you are gong to be very, very disappointed when GG amounts to nothing There are many areas on the Internet that are very organised and have real standards and rules that work. Almost every company in the world has website that is organised, you can place online orders and post real issues that get responded to by the company concerned . There are whole divisions in large companies whose only job is to confirm the image that exists on the Internet and how the company can create more Internet visibility. The Internet has often mobilised people and effected change. But its not done with nameless Twitter comments. You need a website and some sort of effective manageable hierarchy that represents the movement or comments in a way that is not bedlam with no accountability Yes there is chaos on the Internet, this whole GG furore up to now has proven that but that definitely doesn't mean the Internet is all chaos and therefore ineffective at causing real changes

Unfortunately Libya is always used as an example of " look what happens when the West intervenes in regime change" when in fact they should be saying " look how the West can effectively implement regime change " The West gave the new Libyan government the opportunity to run there own version of Democracy and system of leadership. They can't be held responsible for the sectarian violence that now threatens the overall stability of the country. The West can help liberate countries but it shouldn't be also expected to now run the new governments Seriously? Really? Are you for real? I hope for your sake you're just trolling. What part of what I said do you disagree with, please in future explain what part of what I said you don't seem to like ? Is it the fact that the West help to liberate Libya from Gaddafi? Or is it the fact that West didn't stay on in Libya and tell the Libyans how to run there new government? The idea that the west isn't responsible for what happens after they overthrow and assassinate heads of states should particularly offend anyone capable of basic thought, it's like saying "I'm not responsible for this building collapsing, I just broke the foundations!". And they can be held responsible for the sectarian and tribal violence, because they helped take away the guy who was keeping things under control. The west shouldn't go in and "liberate" countries, when we all ****ing know it'll only make things worse. Either Libya burns in eternal fire, a guy who is just like Sisi is put in charge of things, or we get ourselves a grand new wannabe caliphate of North Africa. Also, it's not some big great secret that the west can go screwing around in third world countries, Gaddafi himself predicted that the west would eventually get on with replacing the other arab leaders after Saddam was offed, everyone already knew that, we certainly didn't need Libya to show us that. I just want to focus on Libya as that is what we are discussing, I have always maintained that Libya is how the West can get involved in legitimate regime with relatively little impact around committing resources. This is not the same thing as now the West being responsible for actions or inactions of the government that follows So first point is Gaddafi wasn't some sort of legitimate elected leader of Libya, he was a dictator who never had a free and fair election once in his country, I'll repeat that for maximum impact. He never held a free and fair election in 30 years . He ruled the country through control of the army and police. So before I make my main point I fail to see how anyone can say "he was illegally removed from power " ...being a dictator who came to power through a military coup doesn't make you legitimate When the Arab spring started and people started questioning certain governments in the Middle East Gaddafi had the choice to negotiate and address the concerns of the protestors, like the Saudis did where the king of Saudi Arabia basically gave $30 Billion dollars to transformation projects that the protestors were asking for. But Gaddafi decided to use the full might of his army and police to crush any opposition to his dictatorial rule. A civil war started but the military advantage was on the side of Gaddafi because he was quite prepared to use every single military resource he had. His forces surrounded the Libyan rebels in a town call Misrata and this battle was known as the Siege of Misrata and is very significant because its why the West intervened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Misrata Gaddafi was prepared to commit genocide against his own people by levelling the entire town to the ground and the UN security council voted to allow NATO to directly intervene and prevent this massacre of tens of thousands of people. NATO did end the siege through surgical air strikes but then continued to aid the rebels by destroying Gaddafi's tanks and airpower. Now you can argue they over stepped the UN mandate but my point is " so what ". They helped remove a dictator from power and didn't need "boots on the ground". Why do we care if someone like Gaddafi is removed from power due to the efforts of his own people? The West wouldn't have been able to do this without the Libyan rebels and Gaddafi was executed by the rebels. So this wasn't some sort of assassination plot Once Gaddafi was defeated the Libyan rebels didn't want the West telling them how to now run there new government because there was and still is resistance to any attempts by perceived Western "imperialism ". So the West obliged the Libyans and allowed them correctly to run Libya the way they saw fit. Its not the Wests fault that there is now sectarian violence in Libya caused by disenfranchised tribes. This is something that the Libyans need to resolve for themselves, they are now charge of there own destiny. Its the exact same thing that happened in Iraq where the new Iraqi government decided to not incorporate the Sunni minority in the new political dispensation And if you are of the view that the West should just have not got involved at all and the act of genocide doesn't concern you then you need to take a look at Syria and all the consequences that the protracted civil war has had. Because Syria nowadays is exactly what happens when the West isn't allowed to intervene due to the Veto of Russia and China in the UN security council So in summary the West did the right thing in removing Gaddafi from power, it can't be held responsible for the decisions or actions of the government that followed

That made me laugh, I appreciate how you are adopting all the considerations around Romance, we will make a proud promancer of you yet

I may not agree with that sentiment but I can understand it. So one of the objectives of GG is to basically close down websites that have been very critical of the movement. That's fine, but once again how do you think that will be achieved? The obvious answer is to get various companies to pull there sponsorship. But don't you think this would have already happened by now ? Like we saw with Intel and Gamasutra? So if sponsors were going to all pull there advertising based on this GG objective why hasn't it happened? I can give you my reason why but I would prefer you gave me your view

You expect this site to open up a forum for all parties to have a reasonable discussion? How about sites like Polygon opening up their site for a forum to all and to have a reasonable discussion to raise concerns in the gaming industry? Wouldn't that have been a logical and reasonable way to get the gaming media to discuss the issues. Or don't you hold them up to the same standard as GG? And wouldn't you agree that the next step for the gaming media is to evolve with certain standards that all can agree with. You know like honesty, no bullying, no harassment and all this sort of stuff that different parts of the gaming media should be doing. No Hiro, its clear to me you don't understand the role of gaming websites and there role in this GG furore There is no expectation that any gaming website has to have discussions around the good and bad around GG. Many of these website like Polygon and RPS have been the targets of the GG outrage and since these websites are independently owned I can completely understand why they chose to not support GG. But the reality is I haven't seen any links that directly say " we at RPS don't like GG" they have just decided to not post any stories around them or encourage discussions on there forums because they feel everything has been said that needs to be said That's not the same thing as me saying "GG needs a website where we can discuss all topics about the purpose of GG, the good and the bad". The onus is on GG to get a message across about what they really stand and distance themselves from the extremist element. This is not the role of websites like Gamasutra and Polygon. These websites are fine with the fact that GG doesn't like them and they are prepared to deal with the consequences GG should be asking "how can we get people like BruceVC to support us". And that first step is a cohesive approach that allows proper debate. And twitter could never have achieved that. So I really do support this new GG websites because of the positive steps that can come from it I didn't mean "This isn't your idea, other people also thought of it, stop trying to take the credit.", I meant "This isn't really the same concept as the one you were suggesting.". Also, it doesn't really seem as if you understand it, but the whole anarchyish leaderless uncontrolled rabble is a pretty integral part of this whole thing for a decent amount of GGrs. Acceptance by mainstreamers also isn't the most important thing, most of the older ones of us have gone through periods of being accused of satanism/otherwise being deeply disturbed by regulars, back then it was mainly more conservative/evangelical people, but being alienated by leftists really isn't that different, they just call you different forms of morally corrupt. If mainstreamers don't want to accept us, basically, f*** them. Okay I see what you meant, yes I did misunderstand you. And you right I don't understand how GG expects it going to achieve real meaningful change if it follows this whole " anarchyish leaderless uncontrolled rabble" because that's not something we can measure. You need some sort of real group that exists of real people who will stand by what they say and be prepared to engage in debate. This is why the website is such a good idea Nameless Twitter vitriol will never achieve anything and in fact it just creates a dichotomy and resistance between what changes GG wants to make and what it can realistically implement and effect Now you might say " If mainstreamers don't want to accept us, basically, f*** them" but that's not going to get publishers and people that matter to take the GG objectives seriously because that kind of comment is just seen as radical and will be dismissed by many people outside of this whole debate as " how can be engage with people who are so pugnacious "

You right Barti, so for me when I say "death threats and rape threats " are never acceptable I am referring to how people need to conduct themselves in real life, not just the Internet and forum discussions And the problem is people think that " acceptable" Internet etiquette like I want to "rape you" is really not acceptable for anyone who operates in the real world. And when people get judged, like this Dev, for what he thinks is normal comments there is this surprise from some people that he "was judged, how unfair. He wasn't really going to kill anyone, its just the Internet" That whole argument that there is no need for accountability for what you say on Internet becomes less and less relevant as time goes on especially when it crosses into real life

At last my suggestion to add credibility to the GG movement has been implemented, well done for whoever created this. The site isn't official in any way, it's a nice enough site and all, but it isn't official, and everyone can still use the hashtag regardless of whether they approve of anything the site says. The site itself even states that gamergate is a leaderless mob and thus it isn't pretending to be any real form of authority, it isn't really your idea as much as it's just some random progamergate people deciding to make a website about gamergate. Of course its not really my idea, many people have suggested it I just meant I raised this exact concept on this thread when people asked "how can you make the GG movement more credible " Now the next step is a forum on this website where we can have a reasonable discussion about the good and bad about GG I can't stress enough how this is a logical and reasonable way to get GG to evolve to the next level of it being accepted by mainstream gaming publishers as a real medium to raise concerns in the gaming industry. You could never achieve this type of acceptance through Social Media as it is not tangible

Its alpha, not much to do right now, one or 2 small quests and archery. However it seems its not game for you, no monsters to slay... No monsters to slay ? Unacceptable !!!! The developers need to be sent to jail for misleading the KS fans, how is there implementation of Romance going? Pease tell me they will have Romance in this game?

Unfortunately Libya is always used as an example of " look what happens when the West intervenes in regime change" when in fact they should be saying " look how the West can effectively implement regime change " The West gave the new Libyan government the opportunity to run there own version of Democracy and system of leadership. They can't be held responsible for the sectarian violence that now threatens the overall stability of the country. The West can help liberate countries but it shouldn't be also expected to now run the new governments Seriously? Really? Are you for real? I hope for your sake you're just trolling. What part of what I said do you disagree with, please in future explain what part of what I said you don't seem to like ? Is it the fact that the West help to liberate Libya from Gaddafi? Or is it the fact that West didn't stay on in Libya and tell the Libyans how to run there new government? The idea that the west isn't responsible for what happens after they overthrow and assassinate heads of states should particularly offend anyone capable of basic thought, it's like saying "I'm not responsible for this building collapsing, I just broke the foundations!". And they can be held responsible for the sectarian and tribal violence, because they helped take away the guy who was keeping things under control. The west shouldn't go in and "liberate" countries, when we all ****ing know it'll only make things worse. Either Libya burns in eternal fire, a guy who is just like Sisi is put in charge of things, or we get ourselves a grand new wannabe caliphate of North Africa. Also, it's not some big great secret that the west can go screwing around in third world countries, Gaddafi himself predicted that the west would eventually get on with replacing the other arab leaders after Saddam was offed, everyone already knew that, we certainly didn't need Libya to show us that. Now you have raised something I can actually respond to. You have made some interesting points and I'll respond later, I am in our weekly sales meeting so I can't comment in detail at the moment

At last my suggestion to add credibility to the GG movement has been implemented, well done for whoever created this.

Yes so we have to look at the context and the culture when it comes to death threats Another issue around death threats is the view from gamers, and this applies to the Dev who had his game removed , about what is acceptable comments in relation to the gaming industry For example its become normal and acceptable for some people who support GG to make rape statements and death threats against feminists. So why wouldn't a person who thinks this is normal also think its not normal to say they will kill someone at a publisher like Valve? Of course its unacceptable but that doesn't change the reality of how some people think

I thought you were going to say " you missing hot chicks with sticks "

You want someone who disagrees with you that you can have an actual debate with? This is just a weak and irrelevant point that I was accused of during the interminable " Drama in the gaming industry " thread You don't like what I have to say so you think a proper response is something like " Bruce doesn't like to engage in debate " I try to answer all realistic responses, I have responded to you several times. But once again you don't like my answer so all you can say " Bruce doesn't like to engage in debate" Your comment doesn't reflect the reality of my posting etiquette The problem with debating you in this instance is that you've such a minority opinion in this case that it'll be unfair. There'll be 5+ different people ready to leap at any mistakes you make, and attack your position in different ways. That's true, there is only one of me and I have limited time. So I can't respond to everyone all the time. But sometimes one response addresses several disagreements, so for example if several people say " how can you say people in Western countries are happy with the state of government service delivery" I can say " there is a report that the UN used to create this benchmark of happiness and it incorporates a wide range of factors" I shouldn't have to respond to each person with the same comment?

Is it? Or is it easier just not to care? It doesn't mean you need to get depressed and lament the state of the world but I would say its abnormal to hear about a real crisis or event around the world where people are suffering and not show any empathy?

You want someone who disagrees with you that you can have an actual debate with? This is just a weak and irrelevant point that I was accused of during the interminable " Drama in the gaming industry " thread You don't like what I have to say so you think a proper response is something like " Bruce doesn't like to engage in debate " I try to answer all realistic responses, I have responded to you several times. But once again you don't like my answer so all you can say " Bruce doesn't like to engage in debate" Your comment doesn't reflect the reality of my posting etiquette

Unfortunately Libya is always used as an example of " look what happens when the West intervenes in regime change" when in fact they should be saying " look how the West can effectively implement regime change " The West gave the new Libyan government the opportunity to run there own version of Democracy and system of leadership. They can't be held responsible for the sectarian violence that now threatens the overall stability of the country. The West can help liberate countries but it shouldn't be also expected to now run the new governments Seriously? Really? Are you for real? I hope for your sake you're just trolling. What part of what I said do you disagree with, please in future explain what part of what I said you don't seem to like ? Is it the fact that the West help to liberate Libya from Gaddafi? Or is it the fact that West didn't stay on in Libya and tell the Libyans how to run there new government? At times that's an accurate observation, but also there are many people who are misinformed about certain events and topics. And when I present a different but accurate perspective they automatically disagree because its not what they want to hear For example take this thread. People don't want to know that the West offers its citizens the best quality of life compared to other systems of government. The reasons for this will vary but many people who disagree with me actually live in Western countries and currently are disillusioned with how there current governments operate, so the thought of acknowledging that Western governments are the best in the world is anathema to them. But that doesn't change the facts, and the facts are simple. The West has the happiest citizens and the governments of those countries and there ability to deliver services are directly related to this happiness. Therefore how can you not say " the Governments of the West are the best run governments in the world " Maybe someone could give examples of governments that have happier citizens than the West? I asked for this several times and people despite disagreeing with me couldn't produce a single link disputing what I have said J

No Volo, you are still one of the few people who believes that and that type of perspective is just ignored by people who try to have this debate in a meaningful way

Unfortunately Libya is always used as an example of " look what happens when the West intervenes in regime change" when in fact they should be saying " look how the West can effectively implement regime change " The West gave the new Libyan government the opportunity to run there own version of Democracy and system of leadership. They can't be held responsible for the sectarian violence that now threatens the overall stability of the country. The West can help liberate countries but it shouldn't be also expected to now run the new governments

Because it shows how unimportant having a western government is when you're one of these dumb brown countries who don't tow the line and completely submit to the will and exploitation of the superior "western governments". You've made the mistake of looking at the supposed greatness of the "western governments" without addressing the reality of how they're maintained. I agree, I doubt the people of Haiti will care about this survey. But that doesn't change its significance