BruceVC

Really? You don't think active slavery is another appalling decision of ISIS around there implementation of fundamentalist Islam It definitely doesn't endear them in anyway

Anyone who would believe Hunter's claim which makes no sense, came from a rumor he misunderstood, and hasn't the slightest shred of evidence for is definitely a willing dupe. Haven't you realised by now Namutree, Vals is the only one who knows the truth about how the world really operates. The rest of us just bumble along in a state of blissful benightedness

http://www.wired.com/2014/10/trolls-will-always-win/ Guys here is a long but informative read about the pernicious outcome and organised strategy that Trolling has. It also covers the abuse that women receive online when they are perceived to threaten the status quo.

You make this sound like a bad thing. Does Gorths comment resonate with you Malc, I imagine you can identify with that type of troll personality

It interesting you make that point because I normally firmly believe the " book is always better" , like Game of Thrones TV series vs Game of Thrones books But in the case of The Strain I wonder of the books will be better because if you read the books you will more than likely become more critical of the TV series and the excitement will be ruined. So I would also hold back on reading on the books for the moment

This will be my first vote, I say the end of February 2015

I also think people sometimes throw around the word "Troll " when convenient or when they don't share a certain perspective So in other words, " I don't understand how user X can say that, he must be trolling "

Who the HELL said this? Outside of this thread? Only a lot of people. You'd be shocked how many people are willing to say this out loud, type it on the internet for everyone to see, and act like it's normal. It's sickening. Inside of this thread? it's the phrases like "the industry needs to stop doing X and think of what it is teaching society" kind of nonsense. This convo suddenly reminds me of that time I challenged a SJW to name a game developer, gaming journalist or strong GamerGate proponent who's said something sexist. Lo and behold, no one can actually name one beyond pointing at anonymous Youtube comments on videos about Anita or Zoe Quinn. Your observation or point wasn't relevant back then and its still not relevant I did explain this to you when you asked the question. No developer who cares about his job is going to publically say " I don't think women have a place in gaming or there is no point considering what appeal my game may have for gay fans " Obviously not, this open bigotry would more than likely lead to that person being fired. So there is no point asking "show me an example of a developer saying he doesn't like women" But its more what people don't say or rather there lack of interest in relevant transformation that should be a concern

I was researching the history of The Strain because I really enjoyed the series and its based on a series of books. So if the series continues to gather support then we should be seeing about 5 seasons to cover the whole story. Which is good news

Fair enough, I apologize for assuming the " shut the hell up " was directed to me I have already acknowledged that the virtual abuse is from both sides, there are extremists with there own agendas within each camp But my question is really "what does civil society outside of this debate think is more serious or is worse abuse" If you look at the link that was posted http://www.businessinsider.com/gamergate-death-threats-2014-10 This is a business website and then add to that the CNN coverage I would say the GG camp should be more concerned about the perception that exists around there objectives and how people outside of gaming think about them?

Sorry I wasn't aware you asked me a question about South African travel restrictions, I am unaware of them to be honest. I haven't heard anything official but there are definitely travel bans from other African countries where if you have travelled to any of the 5 affected countries in the last 2 months you will be denied entry But I don't believe the USA needs to implement such changes. Also the impact around the USA doing that and a country like Mauritius would be very different? The required steps from the USA doing it would create much more logistical issues. Especially considering the fact the USA is now really committed to stopping the spread of Ebola in Western Africa and is actually the only country in the world that is prepared to send troops and make other resource commitments So it's OK for you guys to be safe, but we don't need to be? So what if a few people get infected and die, that's assuming that an outbreak can even be contained. So far all I see is incredible hubris, and no actual logical analysis. The only way the rest of Africa is going to avoid an epidemic is to restrict travel, yet the WHO is opposed to even that. Edit: Here's an analysis of how air travel increases chances of an outbreak: http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/10/13/6959103/ebola-spread-international-epidemic-china-india-europe Thankfully China and India seem safe for now, the West deserves our higher chances because we're evil. I'll be honest from a South African perspective our health ministry claims that " South Africa is ready to deal with Ebola" IMO this is just not true, we have good intentions but we don't really have processes in place to address this virus. For example every person who flies in from Western Africa has to complete a questionnaire and what is suppose to happen is after landing in the country you are suppose to be contacted and a follow-up around your health is suppose to happen But the follow-up is not happening. And due to the 3 week incubation period I have to ask "how do we know as South Africans that someone landing from Western Africa doesn't have the virus" The reality is we don't. So our measures to prevent contagion I feel are wholly inadequate, I just hope we don't get a spread of the virus because it will show our measures as lacking

http://gamergate.giz.moe/2014/09/random-gamergate-supporters-being-doxxed-and-harassed-in-real-life-at-least-one-lost-their-job/ And if you don't consider Twitter posts from people being harassed as valid, keep in mind that is the only proof publicly presented so far in Wu's case. Thanks, this is an interesting link. I do consider this relevant It's the exact same point, just directed towards the other side of the story; someone with the same views as you did something bad, now shut the hell up and end all this bcrap or you can't blame people for thinking everyone with the same views/hobbies are of the same character calliber as the worst 1% of them. Also, "forced to leave her house" is a BS statement, as far as I'm aware no actual attempt at harming her has been made, so your point is that is that none of our people have fleed their home when the internet started spilling into their real life in a horrible way? So you're saying those people are being less abused just because they didn't run crying like whiny little girls or abuse it to get more donations (like Zoe did)? Didn't some gamergate supporter recieve syringes and white powder in his/her mail anyhow? What about the various people who are being called up at work by random strangers trying to get them fired? No I won't shut the hell up, I asked a valid question around a real issue. Several people opposed to GG have received death threats and have felt so uncomfortable about the state of there security that they left there homes, a home is suppose to be a place of safety. This has now reached CNN and was on the international news. This is a valid talking point and frankly I don't care if you and others don't think its relevant. Because it is relevant

Yeah. Constantine's supposed to be a con-man, trickster and probability warper, not an exorcist. Edit: also, there's the issue of making him straight and non-smoking because REASONS. I watched the pilot after realising it was out, and all I can say is its.....really bad....like really bad I'm not sure if its the writing, or the acting. But all I can hope is the main series is better

This article makes some good point from an outsiders perspective. I also laughed at the comment below "Yet here we are: Apparently, it needs to be said. GamerGate also underlines one very sad aspect of the gaming scene. The stereotype of a "gamer" is a lonely young man who has replaced his social life with a set of animated avatars on a screen, and now has difficulty relating to women: The angry male virgin nerd, in other words. Let's assume this stereotype is grossly unfair. Gaming is bigger than that. But if you wanted to convince the outside world that gaming is dominated by angry male virgin nerds, then these tone-deaf responses to critics of gaming, and the death threats that have come along with them, are a pretty good way of doing it." The way this whole thing is going on and on and some of the reasons for some of the outrage does make this quote relevant to some gamers, or at least that's how they come across Let's put the shoe on the other foot and say that Yet here we are: Apparently, it needs to be said. Anti GamerGate also underlines one very sad aspect of the feminist scene. The stereotype of a feminist is a manhating selfobsessed lying greedy bitch or an **** trying to abuse labels and his media access to manipulate the general public into supporting his probably corrupt actions: The feminazi or the corrupt politician/journalist/randomguylookingtoexploitpeople, in other words. Let's assume this stereotype is grossly unfair. feminism is bigger than that. But if you wanted to convince the outside world that feminism is dominated by feminazis and corrupt journalists trying to get people to look the other way, then these tone-deaf responses to GamerGate, and the death threats that have come along with them, are a pretty good way of doing it. All you need to do is switch one label from another to make something telling everyone to stop voicing their disapproval because someone went to far apply to one side of an argument instead of the other, think about how easily the core message of a statement applies to what you support (feminism up there could just as easily be replaced with sjwing as well) before telling everyone how great the statement is. If there is a moral high ground, it's on the gamergate side anyhow, simply because it's less organized, and the people who are harrassing people on our side of the fence are actively being condemned by the closests they have to spokesmen, whereas harrassment is generally being condoned, supported, claimed to be falseflags, or at best, ignored, by the media spokesmen of the media/sjw coalition. Sure you can easily reverse words in that quote if you want, but it wouldn't really be relevant because that's not the point the author is making I see that the online abuse that Brianna Wu received that forced her to leave her house has now got to CNN. Since the argument seems to be that the abuse is equal from both sides how many founders or major contributing members of GG have been forced to leave there homes due to abuse from the anti-GG crowd? Can you guys post the links around this

This is a good and reasonable read, I suggest everyone interested in this debate reads it

This article makes some good point from an outsiders perspective. I also laughed at the comment below "Yet here we are: Apparently, it needs to be said. GamerGate also underlines one very sad aspect of the gaming scene. The stereotype of a "gamer" is a lonely young man who has replaced his social life with a set of animated avatars on a screen, and now has difficulty relating to women: The angry male virgin nerd, in other words. Let's assume this stereotype is grossly unfair. Gaming is bigger than that. But if you wanted to convince the outside world that gaming is dominated by angry male virgin nerds, then these tone-deaf responses to critics of gaming, and the death threats that have come along with them, are a pretty good way of doing it." The way this whole thing is going on and on and some of the reasons for some of the outrage does make this quote relevant to some gamers, or at least that's how they come across

Yeah it was the end of season 1, but there are several new exciting events to wait for in the next season. Like finding out more about the ancient Vampires

I am extremely excited, can't wait actually

I found this post interesting as it raises some relevant and philosophical points around this discussion I'm not sure I completely understand all you are saying but do you equate people who want equality in games as the same as people who think a classic painting can't be admired anymore because its inherently racist ?

And who made this decision? The Patriarchy? A huge free market. Thousands of competing game designers and you're telling me no looked into exploiting a market that is ripe for the taking because it is not occupied by anyone else. They all got together and said "nope"? You need to read that article, smaller companies didn't go against the trends. The big publishers dominated the industry and they made the decision to target male gamers. That's the only reason we have males dominating the industry as fans today. Don't think its because us males are more insightful or technically minded than females around our understanding of games. Its just because we became the demographic that was deemed the best target to buy games

There is no dissonance there. Women should have the opportunity to make games and have games be made to target their tastes. Denying them this is sexist. This however should be a matter of the free market and does not guarantee that women will take an equal stake to men in the dedicated "core" gaming space. And if this does not happen, it is not sexist. There is no need for some arbitrary representation number that has nothing to do with the choices people make. Why are most romance novel readers female? it does not matter. It just is. And doesn't require men in a bigger proportion to be "fare". If I were to speculate I would say game systems were niche technological gadgets and games were more mechanics based. And that is something men gravitate to more than women imo. This is why it evolved as a male hobby primarily. Now gaming has evolved since. Will AAA gaming attract women en mass in the future? Maybe. But there isn't any need for some arbitrary "equality" there. And certainly is no need to strong arm developers into that. It's an interesting question though as to what could get women into AAA console and PC gaming in those genres that that are "the issue". I'm sceptical it will be what people usually complain about in matters of gender representation. I am not convinced GTA (which caused much outrage) with a female lead would attract many women that aren't already into it. According to Bioware's own stats the vast majority played male Sheppard despite all the wonderful representation in Mass Effect mentioned here. I don't think it's Lara Croft with a hatchet that will get women to game more. You are mistaken about something fundamental, the only reason that games seem to be a male hobby primarily is because of the intentional design of these of games to males only at the publishers, that's the main reason. In the 1980's a decision was made to make games to target male gamers, it could have gone a different way where that same decision could have said " lets make games for males and females " and we wouldn't be even asking " why are males the greater gaming demographic " Please read this link below that I have posted several times, it explains the reasons behind the whole " gaming is a male dominated business" and it explains how we can fix it http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/12/2/5143856/no-girls-allowed

People worry about creators being shamed and dragged through the mud when they don't appeal to all demographics. Because they don't have to. I agree, I don't think the solution is to shame developers. Because we then see blow back and people becoming completely opposed to any recommended changes around transformation. There needs to be sustained pressure but raised in a certain way that doesn't alienate people. But the reality is you will also always alienate some people because they are opposed to any changes. As I have said not every person who believes in transformation agrees 100 % with Anita. There are several areas we don't agree on, for example Isabella is a good example of this. But that doesn't mean we dismiss everything she says. That's the difference.

You honestly don't see how **** like "why do there need to be more women in video games? It's a boy's hobby" is flat-out sexism? Bryy is correct but I want to add something People seem to object to changes for a variety of reasons, but what is the final product that people who believe in equality want? Its not unrealistic and the changes that AAA studios can make are already being implemented by some companies. Look at your typical Bioware game, they offer male and female character selection, you can choose your race and you have same-sex Romance options. There games are already inclusive and most people are fine with that. So I am not sure what people are really worried about when we talk about " changes to games that appeal to the entire fanbase" The problem is the perception that exists when people like Anita make videos around these changes, she is automatically dismissed and reviled because of the history around her comments. She is the poster child of hate for most people who support GG. And that is unhelpful when we have these discussions because we need to find middle ground in this debate

Sorry I wasn't aware you asked me a question about South African travel restrictions, I am unaware of them to be honest. I haven't heard anything official but there are definitely travel bans from other African countries where if you have travelled to any of the 5 affected countries in the last 2 months you will be denied entry But I don't believe the USA needs to implement such changes. Also the impact around the USA doing that and a country like Mauritius would be very different? The required steps from the USA doing it would create much more logistical issues. Especially considering the fact the USA is now really committed to stopping the spread of Ebola in Western Africa and is actually the only country in the world that is prepared to send troops and make other resource commitments

Except aiming and hitting your enemy it seems. It was sort of an accident, and it wasn't in battle - but.. I've been shot at by multiple 7.62mm rounds. And I suddenly understood why you essentially never create a battle-plan, even in the most experienced unit, that relies on returning accurate fire when you're suppressed. It's simply not going to happen. Ground battles are messy, and that's that. So all and any military forces train for and expect to hit the enemy in an ambush, or on the offensive, while moving. If that fails.. Well, you don't want there to be anything after the first hit. There's just no good plan that works then. Things get messy. The best you train for in a withdrawal is continuous fire, not accurate fire. ..In a well-defended position, you make sure you can hit first while the enemy has to move, and so on. But even then it's a bad place to be if the bullets start flying, or the enemy doesn't take the hint when they see the nests and keep away. They know where you are, and even a busted ak will hit reasonably close up towards 3-400 meters. But I guess saying that wouldn't make for a great recruitment speech. Very interesting post, did you do some sort of military training?