aluminiumtrioxid

I thought the original argument (which I myself subscribe to) went more like "if you have a sexy male armored practically and a sexy female in a chainmail bikini, then yes, the female model probably exists to titillate the male fanbase while the male one is a classic empowerment fantasy". I'm all for equal-opportunity objectification (say, game takes place in a climate where you'd get cooked alive in your fancy plate mail, so everybody's running around half-naked and sweaty), but being restricted to metal bikinis in an environment where they're clearly not practical (and, to add insult to injury, where male models get armor that wouldn't result in them being killed messily) is not what I'd call particularly empowering.

More Arnold K. goodness. This guy is unbelievably cool.

For some reason, I've found "homocide victims" incredibly chuckle-worthy.

Further proof that not all gamergaters are in it just to get rid of the Evul Feminists. Now gimme points for impartiality.

I think it's still an incredibly insensitive thing to say "the death threats you have received are bull****, given the fact that you're still alive". Of course, given what we know about the murder (as far as I'm aware, the murderer killed his ex-girlfriend in a crime of passion - feel free to correct me if I've gotten something wrong) it has nothing at all to do with GG (wasn't even posted on a GGer site), making ZQ/BW's reaction extremely ill-considered at the very least.

Which is exactly why I find it so hilarious when those who claim moral high ground call them reprehensible based on that, while also neglecting to even mention the actual victims. Also, when someone commits a grisly murder and jokes about it on the internet, but your biggest problem is how other people react to it, your priorities might not be in the best place. Let's have some respect, people, and try not to forget the real issue here: a person has been killed by an actual lunatic. That's the real tragedy, not how some hipster girl tweets about it. So wait, you mean to tell me that when someone uses a real life tragedy that has nothing to do with them as ammunition and a way to draw further attention to themselves, we're the bad people for pointing out how morally despicable that is and not just ignoring the obvious immoral action? Congratulations, here's your medal for mental gymnastics. I'm pointing out that if a person dies and your main concern lies with how other people react to that, maybe your priorities need re-evaluating. Doesn't make the hipster girls' actions any more tasteful, but somehow I can understand them pointing out how chan culture does have its share of killers after TB's "oh, those death threats are clearly not credible, you're still breathing after all" bull****. Edit: to clarify, I never mentioned (am pretty sure didn't even imply) any of you are bad people for finding the LWs' actions in bad taste. I merely meant to express my concern about how the outrage you people feel at their actions should not outweigh the outrage you feel at the crime that has been committed. In other, unrelated news, I laugh and laugh and laugh.

Which is exactly why I find it so hilarious when those who claim moral high ground call them reprehensible based on that, while also neglecting to even mention the actual victims. Also, when someone commits a grisly murder and jokes about it on the internet, but your biggest problem is how other people react to it, your priorities might not be in the best place. Let's have some respect, people, and try not to forget the real issue here: a person has been killed by an actual lunatic. That's the real tragedy, not how some hipster girl tweets about it.

I believe their point is "as you can see, 4chan and its ilk is visited by actual murderers, so maybe it's understandable if I'm a bit afraid when personal information, like my home address is posted there for everyone to see". Which I really find nothing objectionable about. (Well, certainly nothing more objectionable than GG's response. To quote a poster's summary from another forum:

Well, that doesn't sound very... I dunno, inquisitive? Anybody else mind telling me if there's anything factually wrong with the stuff voiced in the article? By Biscuit Senpai himself: https://soundcloud.com/totalbiscuit/a-response-to-yts-senior-curator-re-gamergate And here's the transcript for dirty foreigners like myself who have trouble understanding spoken text.

Well, that doesn't sound very... I dunno, inquisitive? Anybody else mind telling me if there's anything factually wrong with the stuff voiced in the article?

I've got to admit these attempts at logical analysis are extremely amusing, though in a rather tragic manner. Do elaborate, please. Lies, logical fallacies, blanket condemnations, unsubstantiated accusations, poor grasp of basic ethics, extremely shaky grasp on logical framebuilding, and a quite obvious bias towards the professional victims and the fascists...a rich tapestry of subject matter to laugh at. I need you to be a bit more specific than that. Quoting content you find objectionable, actually sourcing why you think it's a lie/fallacious/unsubstantiated/generally built on shaky logic would be a good start.

I've got to admit these attempts at logical analysis are extremely amusing, though in a rather tragic manner. Do elaborate, please.

Ooh, someone has taken on the task of replying to TotalBiscuit's... thingy. Summary. Whatever.

Except that didn't actually happen. From the very same link, the Gamasutra article: One out of 18! Boo hoo! (Actually, there are 2 or 3 more with a similar tone, so it's not just this one. Still, "a coordinated attack on gamers by 12 articles on the same day" it ain't.)

Actually, not even that. Well, okay, maybe 3 or 4 did out of the 18 they like to complain about.

Except that didn't actually happen.

I heavily doubt you can read that Tropico review (f'rex) and have no idea why it has gotten a low review score. So, yeah, that problem can be easily solved: read the reviews. ("But the feminism! IT BURNSSSS USSSS!") Okay, I'm not really getting the point you're trying to make here, but it might be the fact that it's around 1:30 in the morning here. I'll look back later, possibly. In other news, this is hilarious:

Wow, that's some pretty overdeveloped victim complex there. "No, no, no, you don't understand! Feminist analysis on games shouldn't be a thing, they might call me bad names!"

On one hand, it was better than the pilot. On the other hand, basically anything could've been better than the pilot. Also, "there is nothing blacker than gypsy magic". Dafuq John?

So, now most of us have 4 xp again! (1 from last session, +1 for witnessing Mankey's demise, +1 for finding out about the pond, and +1 for the pheromones.) I spend it on Ride, because even after poor Mankey II meets its inevitable demise (which was assured right from the moment we named the poor thing Mankey), I'll still need a giant mechanized dragonfly steed crackling with electricity.

Words can't express the surprise I feel at encountering straw feminist clichés from the mouths of self-professed 'equalists'.

Can characters have multiple motivations? If yes, I totally wanna have "find out why I exist" (as in, who built the mloxans and why) as one of my motivations.

Something showcasing the gonzo coolness of the Pathfinder setting.

Yeah, yeah. Still, a Constantine reciting christian prayers in anything but a sarcastic voice, and groveling before an angel isn't a Constantine I'm familiar with.

Yeah, those were cool. On the other hand, the magic's waaaaayyyyy too flashy, and John's not really the bastard I'd like him to be. Also, I find him kicking up such a fuss about a little girl quite hilarious, given that the comics incarnation has no qualms about chopping up a newborn with a fire axe.