BruceVC

Nonek what term do you prefer, subhuman or knuckle dragging cavemen ?

I think Zoe needs to make a full statement around this, the reality is I hope this link is wrong because this will effect her credibility even more. But more important it will negatively effect the various causes she espouses as some people will dismiss the cause or the movement when they should be judging the person.

If this turns out to be true... well. You can't take the moral high-ground and be a scam artist at the same time. Edit: That said I'd wait for more info on this before getting too riled up. This looks to me like more anti-feminist propaganda, are there other links that support this?

That looks amazing and terrifying...but I'm not sure I would play that game stoned

I hear you, I just don't believe in denialist or revisionist history People need to acknowledge there part that countries played in events , I see it as part of the healing process. You don't see me denying how terrible and dehumanizing Apartheid was?

Good news, I can see it appears that Russian troops have started to withdraw from Ukraine http://news.yahoo.com/russian-withdrawal-ukraine-tiny-first-step-us-214931730.html;_ylt=AwrBT8k5YRFUWPoArWdXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTExcTdidDdsBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1VJQzFfMQ Not sure how that's possible considering the fact there were no Russian troops in Ukraine to begin with

Too bad you didn't stop the Croatian genocidal tendencies, but hey I guess you need to pick a side in every conflict. Sure, we know that the Croats and Bosniaks committed atrocities as well. No one is denying that, but the Serbs committed many more as is evident by the number of Serbs compared to the other groups facing war crimes charges in the Hague

Yes I said this before, this link is ridiculous and represents the insanity of the radical feminist perspective. I reject it utterly for a number of reasons. But basically how can consensual sex ever be considered rape ?

But aren't "Protect women, be a gentleman, be sensitive, treat women with great respect" and true equality not incompatible, I mean there are perfectly polite things you'd (in the general sense, I don't know you and thus can't judge you) do for women that you wouldn't do for men, which is perfectly normal, but isn't gender equality. I'm not trying to imply you're some crazy MRA or believe all men should be put in concentration camps, I'm merely asking you to reflect on whether true equality is what you're looking for, to me that doesn't appear to be the case (not that there's anything wrong with that, this isn't intended as an attack on you, or your values, please don't take it that way). I hear this argument fairly often, basically people can't say you believe in gender equality if you seem to favour one gender over the other. Just to be clear, I don't favour one gender over the other. I believe the genders must be equal in the eyes of society and in the eyes of the law and this must be reasonable. I don't believe for example that you should have men and womens full contact sports teams playing against each other in areas like rugby or football But the reality is that even though there have been huge advancements in society the genders are not equal. There are still countries and cultures that don't allow women to work or drive and where there are very few women politicians that represent governments. There is still a salary disparity in certain companies where a women is doing the same job as a man but doesn't receive the same remuneration

Depends who the person is, some people take themselves, their race, their nationality, their ideology, their sexual orientation, and their gender more seriously than others, and as I said, while the comic does mock a certain style of feminist, I don't believe it seriously makes fun of actual rape, and for the record, I'm all for rape jokes when entertaining enough and not uttered with malicous intent, so I'm not saying I don't believe it makes fun of actual rape to make me feel good about laughing. Resonate positively isn't exactly clear terminology, but I certainly do believe a decent percentage of women would find it funny, same way I believe a decent percentage would be overly offended. Do you consider yourself a feminist? Your values always seem more in line with the "Protect women, be a gentleman, be sensitive, treat women with great respect" SJW and whiteknight style of ideology, instead of the more feminist schools of thought., not that there's anything wrong with not being a feminist but still being SJW, merely think you should reconsider whether the feminist movement really is something that coincides with your viewpoints. For the last part, a woman who has been a victim of rape probably won't enjoy the humor, but women aren't the only ones with horrible things leaving lasting scars, I fully disapprove of intentionally shoving things that could make someone mentally scarred feel bad into their face, whether they're women or anyone else, but if you never said something that someone somewhere in time or space would have a very good reason to feel offended by, you'd never speak. Odds are most of us here have at at least one point read a joke that, due to a some tragedy, made us feel very bad, odds are for some brief moments we were offended and felt the need to tear it down, but hopefully, we realized the person making such a statement meant no harm, it was a wellmeant joke meant to give someone a laugh, or just something offhand never really meant to hurt anyone, and then we carried on with whatever we were doing beforehand. No I don't consider myself a feminist because I accept that the word has a negative connotation nowadays and its unhelpful if you try to convince people about what feminism stands for. People only seem to focus on the radical feminist perspective which not what the majority of feminists believe So I believe in gender equality and your description "Protect women, be a gentleman, be sensitive, treat women with great respect" SJW and whiteknight style of ideology " is more what I try to practice and what I believe

Okay those comments from the feminist are offensive, I apologize for not saying that earlier But you make an interesting argument that we need to grow thicker skins, but then why all the outrage from people around the usage of the word " gamers" and what they say this word means? Why all the outrage from gamers who don't like being called misogynistic? Surly the logical answer would "guys grow thicker skins and stop taking offense to what you think gaming journalists are saying" So what is it? When it comes to dismissive comments about rape and how many people find that offensive must people just "grow thicker skins" but when it comes to what gaming journalists say about gamers those comments must be considered " hurtful and unacceptable" I hope you see the contradiction in the argument " grow a thicker skin" because it just gets applied selectively

Of course it does, the punch line positions the comment from the women as a response to how she is being verbally attacked. So she says " stop raping me " and the immediate response from some people who read is " look she is playing the rape card as a response to criticism" This makes light of the heinous deed of rape and how we react to it. I'm surprised you can't see it? The meaning it is trying to get across isn't l0lz femz claimz rapz, it is A. that there are plenty of strong female chars in games, and B. that some feminists like to redefine rape to whatever they disapprove of, such as consentual yet arguably violent (piv) sex, or cheating, it's also appears to be hinting of mocking people on your side of the fence trying to apply words like mysogonist and harrasser to anyone who refuses to bow down to the feminazi agenda/who are evil servants of the patriarchy hellbent on oppressing the superior gender. So then the cartoonist should have used the word " stop being a misogynist " or something similar. It would have conveyed the same message Let me ask you a question, how do you think any female member would feel logging onto these forums and reading that cartoon and also seeing how many people found it funny? Do you think that type of cartoon would resonate positively with any women? What if there was a women who had really been a victim of rape and reads that, how do you think she is going to feel?

Of course it does, the punch line positions the comment from the women as a response to how she is being verbally attacked. So she says " stop raping me " and the immediate response from some people who read is " look she is playing the rape card as a response to criticism" This makes light of the heinous deed of rape and how we react to it. I'm surprised you can't see it?

Yes the punch line is exactly what I find offensive. You make some good points in a reasonable way. But end of the day this whole Zoe Quinn incident and this furore around people being selective around the definition of the word "gamers" is just about gaming and the gaming fanbase. Its not an issue that is significant outside of gaming communities But rape is something that is an appalling and serious crime that permeates our society in the real world. We need to differentiate between jokes that are applicable and jokes that are never funny and never acceptable irrespective of the message they are trying to get across. This cartoon is one of them

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 sure what is relevant about this link to my point that any cartoon that diminishes rape is unacceptable. And yes those comments you posted from feminists are extremely rude and also very insensitive

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. TN you spent a lot of time on this email and proper debating etiquette demands that I respond to you. But the truth is I'm tired of responding to comments in this thread. Do you mind if I skip responding this time? I will respond if you insist as I am a man of integrity and believe in the importance of the institutions that govern places like these forums. But as I mentioned I would really prefer not having to respond due to the complexity of your email

Hi Cant "waves" Nice to see you posting again

@ Monte and Kroney Don't get too upset yet because the No vote may still win. Lets be positive

That cartoon tries to diminish the act of rape, its in very bad taste and offensive.

Am I the only one who finds this cartoon offensive?

I have to say you have a way with words " a literal ton of fat, sweaty, socially inadequate man-flesh wobbling in rage over women" Don't you have some grandstand against offensive language? I think you have mentioned multiple times how bad offensive language is. But I guess it is only bad when it is against someone who you agree with. Please don't make Volourn right and reveal yourself to be a bigot. Of course I do, I generally am opposed to offensive language. But I am also a flawed person and I find things funny that I know I shouldn't Oh and don't worry, Volos opinion about me is one the opinions on these forums that I care very little about ( sorry Volo, just being honest )

I have to say you have a way with words " a literal ton of fat, sweaty, socially inadequate man-flesh wobbling in rage over women"

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. Thanks for the detailed response TN I'll need time to go through it but I can't now as I am at a customer so I'll respond later

Feminists are fat, lazy, hate men, and are lesbians. Oh, but don't worry. When I say "feminists" I am referring to a certain types of feminists, not the majority who don't fit into my narrative. Can you understand why I take offense BruceVC? I wouldn't be offended if you said that is your opinion about a subset of feminists that have a certain perspective, I would be offended if you said this applies to all feminists Once again "gamers" doesn't apply to all gamers. This discussion boils down to semantics and I don't think we are going to agree on that despite links I have provided that highlight what gaming websites, like RPS, really mean when they say "gamers" But this is the underlying problem. When the journalists and you say gamers, you mean a very specific subset of gamers. When EVERYONE ELSE says gamers, they mean all gamers, because that is how the word was used in every circumstance ever until now. People got upset because people hijacked the term to serve their agenda. If they didn't know using it in that context would offend 99% of gamers, its because they are that out of touch with their readership. We understand that that's what they mean in this context. The issue is that they are dumb and corrupt and by using the term that way they pissed off the people who they make their money from. Fair enough, you make some good points. And yes we mean a subset of gamers. Whats your opinion on the link below that I posted https://archive.today/CeWxy

Typical response when you don't agree with someone... "lets play the old troll card" instead of engaging in debate Bruce you don't properly engage in debates. You ignore vast parts of post or altogether skip them. Maybe it's because you're a lone SJW (and only have so many tentacles), but when you ignore/skip posts that counter your views, but respond with "this is a very well reasoned post and people should read this" to every post that share your viewpoint, you look like a troll(or are trolling). It's not because Malc and others don't agree with you that they call you a troll. It's because you exhibit troll behavior. Intentionally or not. As you mentioned I cant possibly respond to every single comment, but also most of the comments don't require separate answers because the points are basically the same " I am offended by the characterisation of the word gamer. I don't like what they are saying about me" If 5 people say the same thing but use different words to express there outrage I don't need give 5 different answers, I just need to say " no guys gaming journalists aren't saying that about all gamers" and then post a link to support my view like I did with the RPS article But yes I am limited due to time by how much I can respond, its not a deliberate attempt to ignore anyone