JadedWolf

So I backed (through kickstarter) a novel set in the Elite: Dangerous world written by a guy calling himself T. James. Imagine my surprise when he sends out a backer mail not talking about Elite: Dangerous or his novel (which I have received ages ago but I haven't actually read yet) but about GamerGame, linking to this: http://thewordonthe.net/11/2014/gamergate-what-does-it-mean-and-should-you-use-it/ An interesting read as to how an outsider came to view the whole thing.

... Wow, that journalist is certainly not going to be asked to do anything like Hard Talk anytime soon. He's constantly going like "Oh, err, can we just err... hmm. errr."

A friend of mine would always humorously try to imitate these guys. Great way to ruin your voice.

Or Brussels.

It was more along the lines of... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_bsMGsBjWc

Had a job interview. Got told that they'd let me know if I was one of the 10 lucky ones out of the 200 that applied to go through to the second round. Yay. Regarding Halloween:

TrashMan, are you by chance from Transylvania?

He seems to equate genetic engineering from which genetically modified crops result with selective breeding. They are not the same thing.

I honestly don't think a few nutjobs say something about an entire gender, and to be fair men in general being more prone to use violence as a coping strategy really isn't something I'd question but speaking of female poisoners... May I introduce you to Maria Swanenburg from Leiden? "It was established with certainty she poisoned at least 102 people with arsenic of which 27 died (16 of those were her relatives) between 1880 and 1883. The investigation included more than ninety suspicious deaths. Forty-five of the survivors sustained chronic health problems after ingesting the poison. Swanenburg's motive was the money she would receive either through the victims' insurance or their inheritance. She had secured most of the insurance policies herself. Her first victim was her own mother in 1880; shortly after this, she killed her father too. She was caught when trying to poison the Frankhuizen family in December 1883." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Swanenburg

The sound of children. They just have a talent for getting under your skin at just the right pitch.

To be fair, there is an option on this forum to put users on ignore so you won't have to read their posts. If you find you can't ever have a meaningful discussion with someone and you only get annoyed by them, maybe that's an option to consider.

That trailer was amazing, awesome magic and its effects I want that bird !!! That's a really sexist remark, Bruce, and I am really disappointed in you. We don't refer to girls as birds anymore, just so you know!

I doubt your story. Likely it was some douche you knew her information was already online; so he posted it to make a point. It was a douche move by a douche. That's the theory I'm going with. Agreed.

And then you'd need to feel guilty about that, too.

Those are some interesting articles which show that some journalists simply don't understand the problem. There's a very interesting response from one of the posters in the article you last linked, David Ward. "These articles were proof that games media was hostile to those that consumed games media, not because we are the stereotype but BECAUSE we had thought a natural progression had already occurred where the stereotype was disproved, but our media hadn’t gotten the memo. To think we’re simply mad because we heard “Gamers are Dead” hur dur derp, anger, is condescending – we understand they’re not trying to “take away our games.” We’re hurt because we’re alienated, we’ve had stereotypes thrust on us since the 80s, and it hasn’t stopped since but we’d hoped that our media (our advocates) were the last people to perpetuate those stereotypes." I'm not a GamerGate supporter (I guess I'll have to say this a thousand times) but I still feel insulted when I hear the press' stereotypical definition of "Gamer". But, oh no, sorry guys we don't mean you, when we say gamer we only mean the sort of virgin, neckbeard, obese, cisgendered, white, male, crybaby that we immediately think of when we say gamer, and you're not like that right? Yeah, that's not at all insulting. Edit: The Felicia Day article, well, I can certainly understand how she would feel that way considering that there are people out there that do have these very negative views on anything female and that the press puts all its focus on them. It's a shame because it honestly isn't a reason to avoid people who look like gamers to her (can you really tell? Is there a secret handshake I missed?). And that's the thing really, because all the focus goes out to the toxic GamerGaters suddenly all gamers seem to be suspect.

I guess that's it. The human race had a good run up until this point, but now it's time to slaughter them all. Proof that TN is a ****roach infiltrator from the post-nuclear apocalypse future.

I guess that's it. The human race had a good run up until this point, but now it's time to slaughter them all. Look everybody, this guy is sending a death threat to the whole of humanity!

I normally wouldn't say anything to dispute this type of post but because I think my comment is constructive I'm sure you won't mind, you not suggesting that real journalism is dead? You mean gaming journalism ? Well, I am talking about a broadcast of an "investigative" news program (EenVandaag) on a public (paid for with tax money) channel. When they regurgitate news from other sources without any research of their own and they only show one side of the story, they aren't fit to call themselves journalists. And no, interviewing a couple of Dutch people from the gaming industry who then rehash the same things you could find in just any gaming news article about GamerGate doesn't count as research. Audi alteram partem seems to mean nothing to these people. The fact that for many people using the GamerGate hashtag the real issue is a perceived lack of ethics among gaming journalists isn't even mentioned, and they don't even try to find anyone who'd want to represent the GamerGate side of the story, it's all about the faceless group of angry men who dislike women having any influence on gaming. And this of course interspersed with scenes from games in which women are brutally killed. Some of which I would agree are rather tasteless, but others in which quite honestly the program misses the point. People are killed in some video games, and among those people are women. This is also true in literature, and on television. But I don't see that being reported on in such a way. It's just plain old sensationalism. It's not the outcome that irks me, by the way, it's the method of getting there. If they had concluded that a toxic portion of a loosely defined group of people calling themselves GamerGate is harassing women on the internet and that we should all condemn that after they had given a full rundown on the story including the various reasons people have for supporting GamerGate and had done interviews with people supporting both sides involved with this story, I'd be fine with it. But anyway, in general, I don't think journalism is completely dead, there are still some bastions of journalism like Der Spiegel, but a lot of news sources have seriously deteriorated in quality. Here's the piece by the way: http://www.eenvandaag.nl/binnenland/54762/vrouwen_bedreigd_in_de_gamewereld?autoplay=1

Today the whole thing even made the evening telly over here in the Netherlands. Regurgitated of course, without any original research. It's getting ridiculous. Journalism really is dead. ... Wait, no guys, no, that wasn't a death threat!

Are there any scientologist game review sites? I want to make sure my Thetans are good. And are there any Silinistic reviews? I want to be sure the Great Penguin approves.

<Joke> I would just like to chime in to say most Dutch people are scumbags. </joke> Or is it? Or is it? Bwahahaha... Side note: can't be racist to Germans as they are a nationality, not a race. So I guess you'd be nationalitist, or something.

7/10? Wouldn't award more than about 3/10 myself, and that only because he got some bites. It's a pure oby topic, just from the exact opposite direction. Initially I was going to make some snarky comment but then I thought " I am partly responsible for this polarisation on these forums " when it comes to discussions on Western culture and Western ideology . And this probably goes back to the Ukraine thread where we all drew lines and became intransigent So I want to make a concerted effort to reach out to you and get you to comment in way that is constructive. So lets take what you just said and why you said it? You have become so convinced in all the faults with the West that when I make a post that is linked by a factual link you assume I must be trolling? I'm not, the facts speak for themselves This is not a discussion about Western foreign policy, this is not a discussion about Western intervention in controversial arenas around the world and why they do it. Lets leave that for other threads This is about a simple political consideration. Western countries offer there citizens the best quality of life and have the happiest citizens. So isn't the corollary of this the fact that Western governments have the best run governments in the world? Why is this point so difficult for you to agree or disagree with? If you disagree with me then post your own list of countries with a valid link that discuss happiness factors so I can review it. If I'm wrong about what countries offer there citizens the best lifestyle then I want to know about it . But all I'm getting with some people who disagree with me on this thread is " you wrong about your list, you must be trolling " The whole question of what type of governments are the most effective is very relevant to me because in Africa at the moment there are several discussions about "what types of governments will allow effective economic transformation to the economically besieged continent " For me its obvious, Africa needs to stay the course and continue to follow Western style democracies, its the only realistic political option IMO that will allow foreign investment and ensure economic stability. The problem in Africa is not around Western style democracies but the fact that several countries have just not implemented Democracies properly. So people are asking " when are we going to see the results of this Democracy system ", when in fact they should be realizing " you won't get the proper investment we need until we correctly implement systems that will give confidence to investors and stability " You will notice I dropped the word superior I'm not a foreign policy expert or anything, but... While being able to elect your government is a good thing, I don't think the biggest problem many countries in Africa have is that they don't have a democracy. To have a democracy first you need the foundations for it. Many of the western democracies have developed these foundations gradually over time. Many countries in Africa don't have these foundations yet, and in some cases it is doubtful if they ever will. A lot of countries in Africa are no more than arbitrary patches of land thought up on a colonial congress with the help of a pencil and a ruler. Honestly you can't be surprised that these states don't manage to function, it would be a miracle if they did. You have raised several applicable points that could explain the state of economic transformation in Africa But here is something you may not know, most African countries received there independence in the 1960's. And they were given working countries and government institutions. The French and British were particular good at doing this, they also wanted the new countries to succeed and sometimes ended up supporting the dictators that followed colonialism. But what happened in the case of almost all African countries was the new governments completely mismanaged the economies, ignored the principles of Democracy, were concerned only with there own tribe and or basically enriched themselves at the expense of there own citizens By the 1980's almost every single African country was bankrupt and needed loans from the IMF to sustain the growth of there countries. Now we fast forward to 2014 and the days of your quintessential African dictator are basically over. There are maybe 2-3 African leaders who are "rulers for life " as the old dictators use to refer to themselves as. So now there is a new narrative, questions in Africa are being asked like " what is role of Africa in the world", " how do we transform our economies" and " lets create the African economic renaissance " So my concern is certain African leaders because of the dislike of Colonialism don't see anything positive from how Western countries run there governments. Yet my original point is still valid. Lets leave the emotion and perceived criticism of the West out of this discussion and acknowledge the positive that we as Africans, and others, can learn form the West. If the citizens of Western countries are the happiest citizens in the world then surly we as Africans should be learning from them and there systems of government and not trying to look to China for political guidance ? Tribalism is exactly what I meant when I said the foundations weren't there. To have democracy people need to feel connected to each other, they need to feel that they are responsible for each other's well being. And they need to feel safe even when their own preferred party isn't in power at the moment. It needs a cohesion that in many cases simply isn't there. But in Africa as you say tribalism is rooted deeply into people's lives, and this was actually very much encouraged by the colonial powers who ruled by the "divide and rule" principle.

7/10? Wouldn't award more than about 3/10 myself, and that only because he got some bites. It's a pure oby topic, just from the exact opposite direction. Initially I was going to make some snarky comment but then I thought " I am partly responsible for this polarisation on these forums " when it comes to discussions on Western culture and Western ideology . And this probably goes back to the Ukraine thread where we all drew lines and became intransigent So I want to make a concerted effort to reach out to you and get you to comment in way that is constructive. So lets take what you just said and why you said it? You have become so convinced in all the faults with the West that when I make a post that is linked by a factual link you assume I must be trolling? I'm not, the facts speak for themselves This is not a discussion about Western foreign policy, this is not a discussion about Western intervention in controversial arenas around the world and why they do it. Lets leave that for other threads This is about a simple political consideration. Western countries offer there citizens the best quality of life and have the happiest citizens. So isn't the corollary of this the fact that Western governments have the best run governments in the world? Why is this point so difficult for you to agree or disagree with? If you disagree with me then post your own list of countries with a valid link that discuss happiness factors so I can review it. If I'm wrong about what countries offer there citizens the best lifestyle then I want to know about it . But all I'm getting with some people who disagree with me on this thread is " you wrong about your list, you must be trolling " The whole question of what type of governments are the most effective is very relevant to me because in Africa at the moment there are several discussions about "what types of governments will allow effective economic transformation to the economically besieged continent " For me its obvious, Africa needs to stay the course and continue to follow Western style democracies, its the only realistic political option IMO that will allow foreign investment and ensure economic stability. The problem in Africa is not around Western style democracies but the fact that several countries have just not implemented Democracies properly. So people are asking " when are we going to see the results of this Democracy system ", when in fact they should be realizing " you won't get the proper investment we need until we correctly implement systems that will give confidence to investors and stability " You will notice I dropped the word superior I'm not a foreign policy expert or anything, but... While being able to elect your government is a good thing, I don't think the biggest problem many countries in Africa have is that they don't have a democracy. To have a democracy first you need the foundations for it. Many of the western democracies have developed these foundations gradually over time. Many countries in Africa don't have these foundations yet, and in some cases it is doubtful if they ever will. A lot of countries in Africa are no more than arbitrary patches of land thought up on a colonial congress with the help of a pencil and a ruler. Honestly you can't be surprised that these states don't manage to function, it would be a miracle if they did.