BruceVC

That's 2, and no not initially. Poland was liberated by a joint Polish-Soviet effort, which was followed by a series of agricultural reforms wherein land was redistributed to the peasants which proved to be extremely popular. Furthermore Poland also received “15,000 tons of petroleum products, 2 million tons of iron ore, 569,000 tons of aluminium, 250,000 tons of manganese ore, and 155,000 tons of cotton which naturally encouraged Soviet support and helped redevelop the nation. Of course as we all know relations eventually soured. Haha, no. You post a Wikipedia link of a single event and assert this is proof that every state was in a permanent state of occupation and wanted no part of it. I assert relations between the Soviet states were dynamic and gradually changed. I am exhausted by this disscusion. Final word on that - ask people in post soviet block how they feel about them - 90% of people will tell you how much they sux, how they have to hide their own opinions, how families were persecuted because some member was in english/american/french army. How there secret police control your every move. How shops got empty shelfs. How Soviets destroy economies of working countries. How you were unnable to travel. How everyone was poor. How commies stole property from farmers. Its hard to argue with someone who cant see it. But yeah we got petroleum. Huzah Its amazing how people who live in the USA and were born there tell you how great the USSR was. Yet you live in an ex-communist country. You think you would know more about life within the USSR

You never thought to ask that question did you my friend ? I bet you feel very guilty now, imagine if she didn't sleep with anyone. Imagine the bad karma you have inflicted on yourself for all the nasty things you said about her

If you're trying to point an inconsistency or hypocrisy, you're going to need to dig it up at a poster level - so find where everyone saying journalists selling out now said something bad about them back then. Else this is just a convenient fiction. Also I think people here have gotten on RPS and EG's case for their editors deciding their work must have meaning and write for The Cause. Also, could have those that suspected in the past glad to have proof, be it real or otherwise and see this as a chance to ram the spear in to the "journalists". No Malc I'm not going back and doing all that cross-referencing, you can do it. I dare you But yes I'm saying the outrage directed towards gaming journalists is exaggerated by many people

Epic post Volo...epic post

To be fair, Bruce, this isn't a mathematical formula; people can see the same things and draw vastly different conclusions because we are, ultimately, vastly different cognitive entities who will draw on vastly different life experiences to analyze situations and data. Really? Perhaps you'd like to take it up with Merriam-Webster - 1: a player who is game; especially : an athlete who relishes competition 2: a person who plays games; especially : a person who regularly plays computer or video games Maybe the OED? A person who plays a game or games, typically a participant in a computer or role-playing game. How can you explain that a word doesn't mean its definition, per the dictionary, but instead means the arbitrarily constructed label that is now being used? I understand the living language changes, but that change is by common usage, not forced usage. Don't worry, we'll keep trying to get you to see the truth, Bruce. We have faith in you. I want to ask you two questions Amentep and anyone else is also welcome to answer When I started the feminist thread I used two English dictionary definitions of the word Feminism to explain what the word actually meant. I did this because several members on these forums kept saying the word meant " a hatred of men "," advancement of women at the expense of men", " a world where men had no place and were redundant " and other similar false definitions. But despite what the dictionary said I was told repeatedly by several members that the definition nowadays has a connotation and it " doesn't matter what the dictionary says because that's not what the word means". I don't remember you or Nonek jumping into that discussion and making the point that the dictionary definition should always be relevant. I believe Nonek actually disagreed with me around what the word means nowadays. In fact at the end of that discussion I actually agreed the dictionary definition wasn't accurate anymore around feminism and decided to say I cared about gender equality going forward.So which is it? Do we believe dictionary definitions or do we accept that certain words in a certain context don't mean the literal meaning in the dictionary?. I have often mentioned on these forums I get my game reviews from several sources that include websites like Gamespot, Eurogamer and RPS. The response was almost universally comments like " heh, you think gaming journalists have any integrity" or " you can't trust any gaming website for accurate reviews". So most of the people on this thread had very little respect for gaming journalists from 2 years ago. But yet now we hear comments like " gaming journalists have betrayed our trust", and " gaming journalists have comprised there integrity ", and " gaming journalists have sold out there fans". But most people thought this about them anyway. So why all this outrage now? Surly it shouldn't feel like a such a crusade against gamers if you didn't value there opinion anyway. So where is this anger and disappointment really coming from?I look forward to the responses that follow

Guys fearabbit is making some excellent points, you should probably consider what he or she is saying

....yeah probably a good idea

OMG, I'm so excited about my dinner tonight, I'm making myself a cheese fondue I have two authentic Swiss Cheeses, Emmenthal and Gruyere and an excellent and easy recipe. So its going to be a cheese feast !!!

Does this mean you'll flounce out of this thread ? Does this mean you'll flounce out of this thread ? No, chances are he will stay on his soapbox and preach and do mental gymnastics to paint gaming press in a good light. Malc that really made me laugh The truth is I was getting fatigued in this discussion, it felt draining. Part of me was thinking " why do I bother " ..but then I read Alan's post and I now feel invigorated. But I won't be as active as I normally am as I want to focus on other discussions for a while

I think it's a bit far-fetched to say that they could have added these updates years later. In fact, they often update their articles minutes/hours after publishing them. Also it's not like the articles praised the games in any way. They're not reviews, they just inform you that these games exist and feature a strange idea or silly premise. I don't see the scandal here. @kirottu: That article was written months before they even had the affair. Again... all the facts are entirely made up and there really is no scandal. You won't come right with people on these forums who criticize the stance gaming journalists have taken around Zoe Quinn. They refuse to see reason or use logic. Most people are debating from a perspective of outrage because of the usage of the word "gamers". Despite the fact the word doesn't apply to all gamers they chose to ignore this and take it as a personal insult. I have tried and people just want to believe what they want, irrespective of the explanations given But good luck getting people to see the facts

Prime we need some other details Why did you move to Denmark? Who are you staying with What are your hobbies Why are you staying outside of Copenhagen, I assume its work related?

So you would support full contact competitive rugby between men and women? So, after few pages of feminist-boys claiming that women are physically if not equal than superior we are bashed for wanting equality in sports because apparently women are not physically fit to compete with men...guys get your sh*t together and form some coherent view of what you are fighting for. No, no, no...you misunderstand Firstly the people on this thread who are supporting feminist ideals don't have the exact same views on all topics related to feminism. I have never supported the idea that men and women should play full contact sport against each other because if I look at the South African rugby team and the women's team its obvious that the mens team have the physical advantage and the game would be very unfair

If I can suffer through Sarkeesian's nasal voice and the smirk etched on her face or Stirling's voice (strangely only he and Rob Ford make me homicidal just by seeing them on screen for 30 seconds), you can take some cussing Cuban guy. Yeah true, and that's why I did watch the whole video

Yes I did Bruce, and to me it was an apologist statement for the hate mongers, bought into their demonisation of gamers as the problem, and handwaved away game journalists and developers bearing any responsibility or having any basic journalistic integrity. Okay then I give up trying to convince you that you have an overly negative outlook on this whole matter. I'm not saying you are wrong in everything you say because I know there are extremist views on both sides and I do understand how you think you are being treated with contempt by gaming journalists. I don't agree with it but I understand that's how you feel But question, how is that people like me and many others don't see the negative description around the word " gamers" , we know it refers to certain gamers only? Why is it you feel its an attack on all gamers despite all the explanations given?

You know me Malc, I am not opposed to listening to a different argument. But its got to be done in a reasonable way or it loses emphasis for me The guy in the video just started annoying me after about 40 seconds but I did watch the entire video

So Gorgon, Chris92 and Ros all live in Denmark that I know of . I'm sure they will comment soon

Nonek did you read Alans post earlier? If not I recommend you do, it may change your opinion on this matter

Was expecting more from you than that. Why do you think it is dumb? Malc if you want insight on this matter read Alan's post, that's something that looks at this whole development holistically and logically But why is that video dumb IMO. Lets see... He uses constant profanity to make his point. He is obviously pandering to people who think the word f***k is cool and clever He offers no new insight into this matter and just regurgitates the same argument we have heard over and over again from people opposed to any understanding around what equality means in gaming He makes blanket generalizations about gaming journalists and how much he detests them for not doing there job ( funny thing is before this Zoe incident I didn't think people like him cared much about gaming journalists...now people are so disappointed with there lack of integrity) And he does what many people do when they intentionally choose to misunderstand the meaning of the word " gamers". I get why people do this, it gives a good excuse to vent and demonstrate outrage against these "evil feminists that are undermining our way of life" I can give more reasons but this is just what I remember

I don't take any offense to an article such as Leigh Alexander's reference to "gamers" (and the quotes is significant) because I know she's not talking about me. She's not talking about a lot of people that do play video games. Plenty of people are against games with more diversity. I've seen them on BioWare's boards. I've seen them on this board. I see them on Youtube. I see them on twitter. The issue here is, as Bruce points out, there's a very loud group that is very, very particular about the title of "Gamer." I literally had an exchange today on Twitter with some asshat that got defensive because I commented that I didn't care if someone that loved Candy Crush or other casual games self-identified as a gamer, and in fact welcomed it. What I got was some exceptionally narrow retort about how it waters down the term and is (his words) "I wouldn't buy a steak from someone who see's beef flavored noodles on the same level as prime rib." For him, the application of the term "Gamer" bestows some level of cultural capital and he is adamantly against those that do not fit his particularly definition applying the term to themselves. There's a group of people that are very, very resistant towards outside influences that it resembles the proto-fascism that existed in Munich 1918. That is, if outsiders join the group and try to assimilate, their credibility is questioned ("Fake geek gamer girls"). If they come in with their own ideas, then they are alien and ruining the purity of gaming as it is. Both cases rely on some mythical, idyllic concept of purity that I question ever actually existed. But they are loud and can be militant. I see it on BioWare's message boards all the time. Heck, with some of the announcements we've made it's all about the "corruption of the SP only experience" and attacking anyone that expresses an enthusiasm or interest in the idea of DAI having multiplayer. The very idea that not only are we deviating from What Gaming is All About™ but that other people have the incredulity to actually support this? Oh my god the sanctity of SP gaming is being eroded and I need to call to arms my brethren to ensure that this doesn't happen! I identify as a gamer. I have no issues with anyone that games, regardless of what they play, identifying as a gamer. I like casual games because I know that some of those casual gamers will end up playing games that I like. And hey, when I'm waiting in a doctor's office it's nice to play something simple that I can stop at any time and not care. There's a symbiosis here that I have no issues with. I like gaming. I like gamers. I want more people to become gamers. But, to me, it was pretty clear whom the media was referring to when they said "gamers" and the particular identity that an insular, don't come into my club group of individuals are. I can't really estimate how many of these people there are... but in my own anecdotal interactions they do appear to be well represented in a lot of online discourse. From videos that go off all about how "why can't we make games that heterosexuals like" (we can) and all sorts of other bizarre points of view that I frankly didn't glean from any of Anita's videos but other people are insistent that she is saying in them. For me, someone like Anita comes across as a pretty tame critique of what I do (and I have literally worked on games she has called out). Basically "Hey guys, you tend to use a rather narrow range of tropes a lot of the time, and those tropes are kind of sketchy towards women... how about we mix it up a bit?" But that certainly isn't the impression a lot of other people get. This isn't even touching on the people that tweet me (or just come right onto the forum) to tell us (and others) how we aren't interested in "just making fun games" anymore and are more interested in pushing a PC agenda or whatever. And it happens all the time. Like almost any topic, the extremists get over represented, and I see someone like Leigh pointing the gun at the "Gamers" who are extremist and insular. The over representation they have IS bad for the image of gamers to the rest of the world. So I can understand the articles as being an explicit distancing from those extremist through alienating dialogue and so forth. The idea of stating to people "these people do not represent us." Whether or not alienating is better than "taking back the term" is up for debate. I lean more towards trying to be more proactive as a relative moderate to add my voice to those other moderates. Though if non-extremists don't join me, I suppose it'll end up being futile. As for this all being about corruption in games journalism and whatnot. Honestly I'm skeptical. There's plenty of ammunition against games journalism already out there, and the arguments that many people make are rooted in aspects that are completely irrelevant to gaming journalism and instead founded upon the idea of discrediting someone like Zoe or Anita in the hopes that the well will be poisoned and people will find them irrelevant and no longer listen. Every time someone mentions that Zoe considers cheating to be rape, they are making an argument that is irrelevant towards game journalism. They're making a personal attack on her character to undermine her character. Zoe sounds like she could be a pretty awful person, but that is pretty irrelevant. And I have no real issue with places like Reddit and the likes shutting down the discussion because (as I know by helping out on BioWare's forums) the idea that people would ONLY discuss the relevant bits and NOT start going into her personal stuff is nil. Unfortunately for those that wanted to discuss the corruption, their reddit forums for discussing were undermined by those that just couldn't wait to stick it to Zoe. And those existed. The idea that Zoe is already polarizing among some, in particular 4chan, isn't new. With the Wizardchan controversy the seeds of animosity were already sown. All it took was an upset ex-boyfriend to deploy the narrative that they wanted to see, and they ran with it. Confirmation bias is easy to manifest, and hardly unique to 4chan or anyone else really. Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable thing and the idea of hearing things that already support our views is pretty powerful and reaffirming. Factor in Anita, a figure that is already quite polarizing in the discussion (hi Chaz!), and you have a group of very outraged individuals that perceive two targets as not only painting gaming as some awful, misogynistic feeding zone (I do not get this impression, but c'est la vie) but that they appear to be profiting off of it as well. Damn skippy you're going to get some irrationally hateful individuals coming up out of that mess. As for her having sex with people. I think that that goes back to the problematic idea that some people have which makes sex a currency. So no, I don't consider it equivalent to giving someone like Grayson actual funds. People focus too much on the sex aspect and I agree with the notion that it's irrelevant and a complete non-sequitur. Unless your goal is to shame and discredit. But that's my 2 pennies on the subject and I'll return from whence I came! It's late so I probably didn't make any sense anyway! EDIT: I have no issues with Jim Sterling either, and he is frequently taking the company I work for to gears as well. I don't really consider him an extreme SJW, and agree with him that the term is overused (same with MRA as a pejorative). That said, in response to his criticism I don't threaten him or harass him online either! Hi Alan "waves" Excellent post, really good work. Great insights positioned in a way that is reasonable and isn't belligerent. I miss your insights on SJ matters. Hopefully you'll be posting more regularly but I imagine with DA:I imminent release you are quite busy on BSN

Nice...oh wait you probably talking about that awful feeling when you come down after being on Cocaine for 24/7

Guys does no one have a comment about this video? Ok fine, I don't like Jim Sterling. Is not his arguments, I just don't like him and he tends to have problem voicing his stance on internet medium since he leans towards short grandiose statements that can only be interpreted as support or condemnation. It may be that people just don't like him or his persona. Yeah I hear you, I just think in this case he makes some good points. But it can be hard to distinguish the person from the point, especially if you have bad opinion about someone

Do we think we could get a chucky doll who care about the importance of SJ issues? "Hi, I'm Chucky, and I'm your SJW to the end "

Not true, Ukraine in first place wanted to get out of Russia influence. Doubt that military intervention will make them sooo happy that they no longer gtfo from Russian influence - actually probably even more. Well to be fair there are definitely areas of population in Ukraine that would prefer to be part of Russia. But this still doesn't give Russia the legal right annex another country

If you see a random pretty person on the street or TV and you go, "Wow." Do you then flog yourself you don't know who they are as a person? No I don't flog myself. I often notice attractive women and even try to talk to them if they in a line at a supermarket. I also go to strip clubs and watch porn. But what does your comment about me noticing an attractive women have to do with the objectification of women in games? I'm saving this post and showing it to all your SJW friends, they will shun you and you will finally come to the Dark Side. I don't like certain definitions and labels. For example I don't see why I can't I go to strip clubs but also care about gender equality. I don't see how they are related ?

I'm going to address your points by numbered instead of bullet...points(is there something you're passively aggressive trying to get across by using bullet points instead of numbers? ) 1- I agree about representation of women in games but I don't see the problem to be misogyny so much as bad writing, which we have discussed before along with the matter of how production costs affect target demographic and the product. 2-With bloated production costs publishers tend to go after the biggest paying demographic, if you would remember when everyone seemed to be after the CoD demographic that's a good example. Meanwhile they are unwilling to commit the same capital towards other target because of the expected return, they couldn't simply roll back to lower cost because of technology and gamer's expectation. The big companies are going to be making less games in the coming years because of this, if you pay attention to game releases you can compare how the number has declined since 2009 to now were the were no major AAA releases this summer. They don't seem to have an intention of changing their strategy. 3- Feelings are very subjective and opinions vary from person to person, tolerance usually means that we agree to everyone having some basic rights even if they don't deserve them or misuse them. You can't legislate feelings (although I'm sure one of our resident lawyers will tell me of some instance or bring up Hate Crimes) so I would argue that they don't have merit since they can't be conductive towards anything other than themselves. 4- They have approached this matter with inflammatory rhetoric, it is no surprise that this starts flame wars. Had they quelled their burning zeal they could have voiced their concerns with care. Both sides seem to be stuck on name calling but the onus of the cause lies on feminism since they are trying to change the status quo and the failure to change the status quo lies with feminism because they are stuck name calling gamers. 4 years since the Tropes vs. Women and what are they still doing? So is really difficult to ascertain what side should the real feminist be; although in my opinion they should oppose those that have tainted their name, but the fact is that this is one of those issues where there are no moderates. Just the people who reasonably try to achieve their goal and those that foam at the mouth while typing. Because of the nature of it and how it has escalated it won't be solved until either gamers back down or game journalists. Gamers have numbers on their side. A special note about the usage of hate speech, while it has been on both sides of the fence the ultimate failure is because of the unwillingness of the moderate voices to sit down and debate. On any polarizing subject you will find extremists but in most subjects attention has been given to those that can voice their platform in an eloquent manner, i.e: the debates between Atheism and Religion on Creationism. None of the parties have made efforts toward such debate on an open forum, I find difficult to believe that there are no representatives in the gaming media that could have taken the opposing argument. I would speculate that it has more to do with feminists censoring dissenting arguments and hiring practices that were influenced by politics. After all, you can't go from having a heterogeneous community to an homogeneous one with out taking out a part of the population. Edit: News on Gamer Gate, Niche Gamer (a gaming journal) has tweeted a call for game developers to write anonymously their opinions about GamerGate. Hopefully, some brave souls will allow their names to be publicized but I see this more of an attempt from Niche Gamer to become the alternative to corrupt media. I'll respond in detail later to this. I am at a customer now and can only make quick comments