Longknife

This was bogus. In a nutshell and to spare you guys all the details, the law it's citing is more to prevent a retailer from showing bias towards one product they stock over another. In this case Steam would not have stocked Hatred, thus it'd be irrelevant. I am genuinely surprised. Why? Steam and Valve likely aren't fully aware of the controversy surrounding the game and could very well have pulled it for other reasons, then after discussion, changed their minds. It was only a possibility GG influenced their choice. Likewise, Valve is a notoriously relaxed company in practice and doesn't really have strict rules or guidelines they follow, so I'm not surprised at all they'd go back on a decision. Volo we discussed this before, its not a good idea you buy this game for a number of reasons. Lets not bring this up again? I take offense to this because the tone of your post implies that it's factual it's not a good idea to buy this game. No, that's your opinion, and your opinion is not law. The moment you try to lord your opinion over others as though it were law, that's pretty much how tyranny is born. Likewise I don't believe we ever discussed this "number of reasons" and I would actually be very very willing to play devil's advocate and defend this game, seeing as there's just as much research to suggest such games provide an outlet that helps diminish real life instances of violence and are only truly harmful when played by younger children (12 and under).

Btw when I said it would be in Valve's best interest to justify their decision, this is part of the reason why: https://mobile.twitter.com/Eliah_R/status/544787426850267136 EU law is by no means my forte but I may check into this later as the parallels between this game and games like Postal and GTA does highlight a valid complaint and potential for bias. Sleeping soon but I'll try to check into this later.

I certainly think Valve can, though in such a scenario I do believe Valve should be required to make an official statement on the matter. Perhaps not required, but it would definitely be the right thing to do and in their best interests. Honestly if Valve would just explain why they didn't feel comfortable releasing it I'd be content. What bothers me is that to my knowledge, it's silence. This makes me question how much of this is Valve's personal opinion on the matter and how much of this is a result of SJW work or the GamerGate controversy as a whole. That may sound paranoid and let me clarify in advance I don't mean that Anita called Gabe Newell and commanded he deny that **** but rather there is potentially some "clique" within the industry pushing for this decision. And as for it sounding paranoid...? Well, that's what happens when the clique-mentality extends beyond just gaming journalists and manages to reach major news networks like the BBC and MSNBC. Suddenly at that point, yes, I do question how much kool-aid is being passed around.

Perhaps I've missed something, but I'm under the impression that Hatred isn't finished, hasn't been released (or else why would it be up for voting on Greenlight?) so how would you know that Hatred is none of those things you list? BTW, Lolita was turned down by 6 major US publishers for content concerns before Nobokov turned to France where the publisher ended up being one that mostly did pornographic novels. France banned it a year after its publication after the UK customs started seizing shipments into the country of the book. It took 4 years for US and 5 for UK publication. The UK publication ended the political career of the publisher. So pardon me if I fail to see how "merit" somehow makes something censor/ban proof... You far too clever to make such a fatuous argument that Hatred may reach the intellectual and emotional heights of Lolita, its just a violent FPS....that's it It would be silly to even entertain this notion, so let not waste each others by discussing this impossible outcome This is the second time you've basically strawman'ed the exact same point. You seem almost offended by my suggestion your niece may work in the sex industry. I'm not sure why, it was some of you guys who said being a hooker is a normal job like a hotdog salesman. It was some of you guys who said hookers don't need special consideration when it comes to there job and lifestyle...so I would think you should see my questions as asking if your niece has a normal job...that's the sex industry according to you? Now me I see it differently, I think the sex industry for many girls is degrading and exploitive. I think many of the ladies are victims of terrible circumstances and they do it for survival. And I wouldn't want to add to that misery in anyway And this is the same old story: the last two pages are filled with very valid and accurate points of debate and statements, and instead of responding to any of them, you give priority to a meaningless and petty little "argument" with Volourn about which one of you is a Nazi. This is why I do not take you seriously Bruce. Because personally, I tend to filter out the people who have nothing worthwhile to say. If I debate for why Climate Change should be taken seriously, I do not respond to the guy in the back saying "ya you just think that cuz ur a libtard **** who is too stupid to recognize a blatant lie scientists concocted to seem more important," I respond to the guy who's trying to present actual info as to why I might be wrong. You? You cling to those guys like a bee to honey. So how about we forget Volourn's niece and don't derail a good discussion to some retarded discussion of whether or not she's a hooker or a nazi or a saint, and instead we get back to that strawman you've commited twice, where you fail to recognize that people are arguing for Hatred out of principle.

There is a difference between wanting to support something out of principle and wanting to support something financially or with your purchase. I have no interest in ever buying Hatred. I only have an interest in seeing it published and sold out of principle. Just like how I have an interest in seeing the Westboro Baptist Church continue to have their freedom to spread the hatespeech that they do, but do not have an interest in supporting them. As to the rest, you blatantly ignored a point of mine and strawman'ed my post. I said Hatred is by no means a great work of art, but I said some of the most famous works of art were once controversial. You filter art or censor it period? All you're doing is limiting it's potential and stagnating it.

Fallout New Vegas. I bought it in Germany initially, then re-bought it while in the US both to try and get the english uncensored version and to support a fantastic game.

No. We can decide for our selves what's appropriate for us and what's not. We absolutely should not support this. Steam is too big and too important to let the moral police decide what choices an individual is permitted to have. Explain to me why is it necessary that your opinion gets to decide for other people? And yknow what? Devil's advocate here: Well first lemme give a disclaimer in that I know very little about Hatred behind it's goals and what the premise was, so maybe there was some news that'll debunk what I'll say, but.... Who's to say Hatred would not be capable of some profound meaning or statement? As I understand it, it's about a mass murderer going on a killing spree due to his hatred of society and goes on a "genocidal crusade." Have we seen characters like this before? Yes actually. Infact Obsidian has touched on this: Caesar and Ulysses. Caesar hates the corruption of the NCR and thinks said corruption could lead to the end of humanity as we know it. As such, he is willing to commit genocide and kill off countless lives in the name of purging the human race of those that would think more selfishly. Ulysses? Ulysses is so jaded, so crestfallen and so pessimistic about the fate of humanity and it's future that he doesn't see a future in the NCR, doesn't see one in House, and he can only bring himself to hope the Legion could succeed, though he is still admittedly very pessimistic about it working out. And what does he do? He's willing to launch a nuke because of this. And quite frankly, these are - for my money - two of the most interesting characters in the entirety of Fallout New Vegas. Should they be banned because they'll condone genocide? Over my dead body; these two are some of the most artistic characters in video games I've ever seen. Quite ironically Caesar in particular also condones a code of censorship, believing any dangerous thoughts or teachings should be forbidden or weeded out, and he would be one of the first characters SJWs would jump on due to the inequality of genders within his society and the amount of atrocities his Legion has commited. Just thought I'd bring that up too for bonus points. But yeah, point is that unless the developers of Hatred have expressed something debunking my claims otherwise, I see no reason why Hatred as a concept is incapable of having any artistic spin or merit. To claim otherwise would be nothing but blind, ignorant prejudice in the form of censorship from "dangerous" thoughts and concepts. EDIT: Looked into it a bit and found the devs basically saying "yes we want senseless violence the video game in protest of the overly politically correct tone you see in the industry today." So just for clarity, no they probably won't be making any profound statements as they chose the opposite route of protest via blatant antagonization. My point still stands however that a profound statement can arise from -ANY- concept.

Happy twist ending: the ridiculous Youtube comment I quoted? I'm currently in it's comment chain discussion (DYKGaming's vid on No More Heroes) talking about GamerGate, and people are actually very supportive and hearing me out. In a nutshell it seems like a lot of people who are neutral, on the sidelines and ignorant to much of the issue, and all they need is some more details as to what GamerGate has done and they're far more receptive to it.

Would you agree that the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Catcher in the Rye, Lolita, Sweeney Todd, The Color Purple, Heart of Darkness, and Otto Dix's "The Trench Warfare" are also controversial? (Fun fact: the last of that list was banned by the Nazis for being too gruesome) Not trying to compare this game to famous works of art, but I am trying to say that art is about pushing limits. Not purposefully pushing limits and attempting to be edgy, per se, but art knows no boundaries. Any comedian would tell you a comedian's job is to cross the line. Are jokes about the holocaust off limits? No, actually, no they're not. The ends justifies the means with comedy, so if you can make em laugh with a joke like that, by all means, but if it falls flat and offends, you f***ed up. It's simply a notoriously troublesome subject matter where the odds of pulling that laugh off are clearly stacked against you, but does it happen? Kindly look up any Epic Rap Battle video with Hitler vs. Darth Vader, I think you'll find the videos are outrageously popular despite Hitler very clearly cracking jokes about the holocaust. But comedy is not an exception here. No, comedy is just one art form, and it's not that there are no limits exclusively to comedy, it's that there are no limits to art in it's entirety. You can make art about ANYTHING. Just today, I came across that Youtube video of Egoraptor doing a "Did you Know Gaming" on No More Heroes. The video sparked GamerGate discussion because apparently EgoRaptor is anti-GG and the video provided trigger warnings for the game. And you know what...? I caught myself thinking about how No More Heroes (both 1 & 2) was a game(s) that absolutely surprised me by making some profound statements within it's brief little story. It comes across as some gruesomely violent hack-n-slash that's trying to be edgy, but no, it actually executes it's look very very well. That was a game I WOULD consider art, and you know what that game has? -Depictions of violence against women. Beautiful women, ugly women, young women, old women. -Depictions of violence against the disabled. One of those beautiful women is missing a leg. -Stories of incest and rape -Discussion of violence against women as a real-life hot-button topic. -High levels of violence in general, sometimes to very gruesome degrees. -A degree of sexualization of some of the female opponents Travis (the protagonist) must face and kill Don't believe me? My point is that if you censor art, you potentially miss out on the gems. Yes, games like Call of Duty are absolute ****. They're contrived storylines of glory in a setting where....****ing South America wages war against the USA by hijacking our high-tech orbital missles...those clearly are not art and those clearly aren't winning any awards. But we need those to exist. We need to allow for the bad so that the good can exist also. The moment we start trying to pick and choose what can and can't be, all we are doing is limiting art based on our own subjective beliefs. All we are doing is holding art back and stagnating it. No, you will not like or understand every song or every book you read, but that doesn't mean they deserve to be burned. It means you just need to leave those books to the people who enjoy them and go find something else you yourself would enjoy reading instead, and then read it. It's the same exact thing with video games.

Well it's a common logical fallacy, for one. It's the kind of thing where....If you go and murder someone at a time when murder rates are ridiculously high in your country and you try to get off by arguing "everyone murders these days anyways," even if it's true it does not absolve you of guilt. It's kind of the same fallacy as even if you expose someone as a hypocrite, that does NOT mean you've disproven any validity of their claims, yknow like the typical scenario where one's parents get furious at you for doing something stupid that they themselves were once guilty of. And yeah aside from that the laziness of the statement just amazes me. The statement either serves to A) Excuse the actions of anti-GG and name them no worse than what's normal in the world, or B) Divert attention away from anti-GG and it's crimes in exchange for pursuing stuff elsewhere, even though the person is acknowledging said crimes exist.

Happened across this gem on youtube in some comments:

Has anyone done a tally of how many women have lost their jobs due to Anti-GG? KiA has some thread about a lady from Plebcomics losing her job over Anti-GGs harassing her workplace....again. The count has to be over 10 now. It's pretty ridiculous.

GamerGhazi had a thread a couple days ago, highest voted, saying GamerGate supporters should be required to watch this video: I had expected some empty joke that drew zero parallels between GamerGate and the video to the extent that I could make it "Anti-GG supporters should be required to watch this video" and it'd carry identical weight," but what really got me puzzled was the fact that if you truly wish to read too much into that video....shouldn't anti-GG be freaked out they might be the bad guys considering a large portion of GG supporters are now running around with heart icons as their twitter pics...?

I start all my calls to my American contacts by saying "Obama," "bomb," and "assassination." Then I say "Hi NSA."

On another note.... So this bill is really more of an NSA thing, right? The government just trying to make their illegal actions legal? It has nothing to do with privatizing internet? Just trying to find SOME comfort in this. If it's about an invasion of privacy, honestly not to be cynical but I'm pretty sure they were doing that already and just wanted to legalize it. Attempts to privatize the net though are what scare me.

'TF planet do you live on...?

Okay I believe you, but that has nothing to do with the point that hookers can and should be removed from the GTA game design ? It has quite a bit to do with it, as there is nothing exclusive to GTA V and hookers. The argument is that hookers are marginalized victims and do not need to be mocked and disposed of in a video game. Saint's Row and Fallout New Vegas both have disposable hookers, so shouldn't they also be censored?

You can kill hookers in Fallout New Vegas. It gives you unique clothes for doing so that can only be gotten by killing them. And the game makes it overtly clear those hookers are being hella exploited. DUN DUN DUUUUNN!!!

http://nichegamer.net/2014/12/papers-please-censored-by-apple-for-ipad-release/ This is getting ridiculous.

Germany somehow can't figure out how2snow despite the fact that we get snow every year. The result is traffic and delays out the butt.

I want to post something supportive but I realise that you are probably disabled so f**k off xD Just some backround here: I was born in San Francisco. San Francisco is two things: possibly the gay capitol of the world and possibly the disabled capitol of the world. Not trying to argue it is for either, just getting the point across it has a lot of both. When I was born with one leg my mom freaked out not knowing what to do about it and ended up awkwardly approaching a couple in wheelchairs asking them what to do. That very same couple would later become my godparents, including Michael Winter, a man who worked under the Clinton Administration. Perhaps you can get a sense for what kind of a guy he was here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/michael-a-winter-advocate-and-activist-for-disability-rights-dies-at-61/2013/08/14/6fd5a432-0397-11e3-9259-e2aafe5a5f84_story.html But the overarching advice he provided my mom? Don't. Don't act like I'm different, don't treat me special, don't do anything different. And in my opinion, that's very sound advice. This is a city and an area (area I should say since we lived all about the bay area) where my mom once encountered and knew an almost fully paralyzed man in an electric wheelchair who thought ramming that thing into people was funny and fun, and the only words he would take great effort to try and say were "**** you." My mom caught him one day trying to run down another person, but in his haste his wheelchair went too fast, hit the curb and got knocked on it's side. My mom went over to help him up and ask if he was ok, and she got a traditional "**** you" and mean demeanor as her thanks. This to me summarizes why you don't treat the disabled special unless it's explicitly being asked for or in a situation where help would obviously be appreciated: because a person can grow to expect such treatment as though it's their god given right, and quite frankly, can develop into a total ass hole. Even so, you do not teach a person to EXPECT help; you provide it because you want to. Yes, opening a door from a wheelchair is difficult, but is it something every wheelchair user (who isn't COMPLETELY paralyzed) should know how to do? Absolutely. And yes, if there are times when my prosthetic is too uncomfortable or painful to wear, should I know how to manage to walk down the street, buy groceries and manage to get home on my own? Absolutely. There is nothing superior or inferior about being disabled, just a different set of rules in life we need to adapt to. What makes a person "superior or inferior" (strong words I dunno that I'd use), at least in certain categories, is how well they adapt to that situation. So I'm not saying there's anything INHERITLY wrong with charities for the disabled, but I also worry that many of the donors would be ignorant people wanting to do good for what they perceive as a helpless group of people, and I also cannot shake the idea that perhaps a couple of the people who receive donation support may grow to expect such special treatment, which is NOT doing them any favors. It's nothing against such charity efforts or the people benefiting from them, it's just, in my opinion, a sad reality that it won't always end ideally for both sides. There's nothing inheritly wrong with AbleGamers for example, and there my worry is more that donors may remain ignorant of how capable a disabled person can be. Honestly if someone were to offer me help with my disability, the only thing I'd want is some lobbying efforts to get better regulation of disabled issues. If I have to leave the USA because I cannot get healthcare due to privatization, that's an issue. If I struggle to find a job in Germany because the average employer considers employment laws to protect disabled workers to be "too long and confusing" and can't be assed to learn those to the point they'd rather avoid disabled employees while paying an additional tax for not hitting their quota, and to the point that both the unemployment office itself and the catholic church charity efforts recognize this issue as a sad reality and the latter organizes special efforts to try and help counteract that, there's a problem and some tweaking needs to be done. But yeah, tl;dr is that being labeled a victim can easily be seen as insulting. I do not think this attitude is exclusive to the disabled, I think that's universal. So when I read somebody labeling hookers or anyone else as "victims" that need protection without even bothering to explain or define WHY that group is a bunch of victims, yeah, I take offense and question the motives and attitude of the person making the statement. I question how much of that is the group ACTUALLY needing the assistance suggested and how much of it is just the "savior" trying to feel good about themselves and sleep better at night.

He actually makes a compelling argument and raises some cogent points Did you read the whole article because he answers your question, see below where he explains the difference between killing a hooker and killing other people "What I personally find repulsive about this game is the pleasure it offers in portraying the savaging of a class of people who are already victims, in real life. This is where GTA 5 shows a lack of judgment. I take issue with the portrayal of sex workers being abused and murdered, because sex workers are already victims, and it's just not right to take your fun in abusing victims. I know a lot of people desperately want to believe that killing a prostitute in GTA 5 is the same as killing any other character, but it's really not. Unlike gangsters or cops or business dudes or hot dog vendors, prostitutes, as a class, are despised, marginalized and abused in real life, all the time. This means that GTA 5 takes its pleasure in humiliating and abusing victims of humiliation and abuse. In what kind of world is that not worthy of debate, above and beyond the ignorant cry of "if you don't like it, don't buy it"? " He is basically advocating for Rockstar to remove the killing of hookers as they are already victims and it makes sense to me after reading that article. Its not unreasonable How do you manage to, in the course of two posts, agree with and praise someone who cites studies suggesting such video games can actually reduce violent crime as they provide people with a psychological outlet (Mercedes said this and cited it) and then in the very next post you are adamantly siding with someone who claims this is a problem as all hookers are victims? Likewise, how are hookers victims? He goes on to say that gangsters or cops or business dudes are not despised, marginalized and abused in real life, and quite frankly I'm not quite sure where he's getting that stance from as all three of those classes are pretty controversial and unpopular in today's world, what with gangsters being a bad thing, cops in the USA often being on power trips and many businessmen being blatantly corrupt. But again, how are hookers victims? I'm not saying there aren't hookers who are victims, but to mark all of them as such....? Are you aware the sex industry is constantly growing or able to survive because it often occurs that a woman will take on sex work to complete university, and then after obtaining a degree, finds out the sex work is easier and still pays better? I mean, I sincerely wonder if that's not why Mercedes left stem research to be a porn star. I promise you not all of them are victims, especially if you leave the USA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCCfgWfexHA Simple analogy here: I actually wish disabled gamers never came up as a charity effort. Why? Because I don't like being seen as a victim or someone who needs help, and I know there are plenty of very ignorant people who view it as such. It was a very uneasy feeling to inadvertedly be the topic of discussion, with people saying what a group I'm a part of would and would not want. As far as I'm concerned, being called and labeled a victim can easily be an insult, as it implies you're helpless and need saving and until some normal white dude comes along to do the saving, woe is you! Sound familiar? By the end of the day, I hate absolutes. And that's exactly what that little quote is arguing: an absolute. And as said from the get-go, I'm amazed you praise a person saying such games provide a psychological outlet and help prevent physical violence in one post and then in the very next you're praising someone who says we need to remove a form of physical violence from a video game.

You know what you're really good at Bruce? Empty statements. Empty statements that don't mean a damned. "She made good points." "This is a good post, everyone should read it." "Very good points!" "I'm impressed!" You never seem to address anything specific. Ever. Perhaps if you realize this, you would realize why I have such a difficult time believing or putting any value into a word you say. Because quite frankly, you can fully remove all of your posts from a discussion and the only thing that changes is there's a lot less "excellent post!" comments. So having said that, if you don't mind I would like to see an ACTUAL comment and point made; I would like to know why it doesn't absolutely infuriate you to realize that many of the most significant anti-GG proponents take offense to sex-positive women, sex-positive characters and sex-positive ideals, when as we all just saw, we have been given an example of a woman who is just that and - quite frankly - we all seem to be more or less in agreement that she has been one of the best speakers involved in the discussion of GamerGate thusfar. It's infuriating to me because as I said, it presents a message of "this is a person of extreme value, but let's discredit them ENTIRELY because cleavage." The very same philosophy is being provided to video games. Maybe you think video games are harmless and don't care if something like GTA V disappears off shelves because of this attitude....but what happens when it results in a speaker not being taken seriously, or not being heard out? That's just one of the reasons I support GG, and yet here you stand with an anti-GG stance acknowledging this brilliant woman, and yet you still stand in support of a side that would like her to shutup and put a shirt on, and would like any real women or games with sex-positive female characters to kindly go away or keep quiet. Why? We are clearly holding back our potential in game creation and our potential in meaningful discussion by doing so, so why do you turn a blind eye to it?

This is one of the major issues I've had with the current wave of feminism (and here's where I get a little angry over it too). Cover up the women or representations of women, they're bad because it turns men into lecherous pervs who objectify them? You like being sexy because you have internalized misogyny? That's the ****ing "put on a Burka" argument. That's ****ing misogynist. That's ****ing throwing Annette Kellerman into jail for wearing her one piece bathing suits. Women have FOUGHT for sexual independence for ****ing decades, for being able to do with their bodies what they want to do, for being able to wear whatever they want and express them in the way they want. ****ing right-wing infiltrants pretending to be "born again as progressives" like McIntosh and Miles Cheong while espousing all the exact same ****ing kinds of Nazi anti-freedom, right wing moral censorship bull**** are NOT taking this away from them. Exactly. This absolutely infuriates me to no end. I wrote this in a youtube comment but I'll rewrite this here: I have commitment issues. My mom is very obsessive, very controlling, I was an only child to a single mother, and I think it affected me in a way that I subconciously worry a relationship with a woman could feel the same. I think I've been offered sex or sexual favors by a woman I had just become acquainted with or didn't know so well a good 4 times in my 25 years of age, and whereas the average guy would accept this, I turned every single offer down. Why? Because ideally yes, I don't owe them anything for this offer of theirs and they should understand a gift is a gift and if it was meant to guilt-trip me so we become closer, tough sh** for you, and otherwise I would HOPE the offer is one of being genuinely interested in...yknow, having sex. I'm by no means trying to say all women are underhanded or something, I simply mean that when you don't know a person well, that possibility exists, and I have commitment issues to a degree where I will NOT take that risk, despite being a man and having a ****. The risk of meeting someone, having sex, and then realizing that person is taking that as an invitation into my life like I owe them is terrifying to me. As such, there's two types of women I fall for: stone-cold b****es who send a clear message they could survive without me (this one is tragic and unfortunate for me) and women that would be regarded as "slüts" by many. The first just seems detached and doesn't seem to care and in some warped way this makes me feel comfortable, the latter clearly understands sex or flirting or whatever is just for fun and does not equate to "omg we're meant to be together forever now." Regardless, I have a lot of experience talking to both. What have I learned about slüts? Quite frankly, I see the term as a compliment, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not going to toss it around and expect people to understand my interpretation of the word, mind you, but the very women who often get named slüts, you know what personality trait I think rings true in all of them....? Honesty. Honesty with themselves and with others. These are women who won't adamantly deny having sexual desires or being turned on by this or that, these are women who are very genuine, honest and straightforward about all of that. And flirting? Flirting can often lead to getting to know each other, so what you have is a woman who is comfortable just being honest about who she is and more than willing to get to know each other. I'm not trying to knock on women who ARE self-concious about their sexuality, mind you. There's nothing wrong with being embarassed about something (though I'd also tell those women they shouldn't need to feel embarassed or ashamed), I just find the honesty of the slütty crowd very refreshing. And time and time again, these very same women are treated like absolute crap just because omg they enjoy showing cleavage and they openly admit to liking attention from men. And this is a crime how...? Seriously, get over yourselves. Just this month, I've actually met TWO women who would be regarded as slütty, and you know what? They do charity work. They don't judge others. One is insanely polite and apologetic to the point I make fun of how often she feels compelled to apologize or worry about offending someone else. But no, a good portion of the community would belittle these women to nothing more than sexually-hungry animals devoid of any other personality. You're not fooling anyone, at least not me. Women love sex just as much as men and get aroused just as much as men, they just have a far better pokerface for it. And there's nothing wrong with sexual desires. It's natural, it's how we all are, and so long as you're not hurting anyone with them (without their consent....cause a lot of people like that. ), it's perfectly fine. And what's bitterly ironic? That the very people who argue those women set all women back are the true guilty party when it comes to holding women back. It's just as you said. It's the same argument as the Burka. If every speaker both for and against GamerGate were to suddenly have a debate right now and Mercedes showed up showing cleavage, you know who would be too distracted by her cleavage to actually have a productive discussion? Two groups: 1) The people who didn't have anything productive or valuable to say anyways. 2) The very people claiming she's holding women back by dressing provacatively.....though yknow this might fall into category one, too. I'm sorry, but isn't "blaming the victim" a thing? If Mercedes wears a top that gets stares, are you not blaming her for the fact that others cannot control themselves? And do you REALLY think men are that pathetic, that the mere sight of some cleavage prevents us from being able to make an intellectual comment whatsoever, and that we are capable of recognizing a woman for anything BUT her body if she so happens to have it on display? This is all fantasy, this is all fallacy. None of it holds any merit, all of it is utter bullsh*t. And why am I so mad? Because I genuinely believe Mercedes is the most eloquent speaker we've seen for or against GamerGate thusfar. By a clear mile. And yet some people will discredit her "cuz boobs," and yknow who those people are...? The very ones that take offense to sexualizing women, NOT the guys who happen to enjoy the view while having a nice intelligent conversation with her. You want to talk about holding society back? THAT is holding society back. When you've got a mental superior in the room and all you care to discuss is whether or not she should show cleavage, you can jump off a cliff for all I ****ing care. That goes for men who WOULD objectify her, and that goes for women who would refuse to look past that aspect of her as a person. As I've said before, live and let live. You want games with non-sexualized females? I'm all for it. Go make them. But if Mari Shimazaki (a woman btw) wants to make Bayonetta a sexy woman? Then Mari Shimazaki has a right to make a sexy woman. Absolutely infuriates me to know charity workers and eloquent and intelligent speakers are getting sub-par treatment because they showed some cleavage.

Oh, and on another note, get your best fake shock expression ready: Evidence suggests Brianna Wu lied about fleeing from her home due to severity of threats. Big shocker, I know. I would hope enough of us have enough common sense that there's no point in discussing this or trading the evidence, but if someone's interested I can start linking it all.