Longknife

They can give Gamesutra credit for gamergate's accomplishments if they like. As long as the corruption goes away it doesn't bother me. My thoughts exactly, so reason I bring it up is apparently they DO care who gets credit as there's no attitude of "but it doesn't really matter anyway so long as there's positive change." There's also no mention of how the simple fact GG shows interest in it says that GG does infact care about ethics. Just kinda bothers me cause, as I've said before, I think any debate, conflict or issue between two sides works better when the sides don't treat each other like the devil and are capable of admitting to good points from the opposition.

So I wanted to see how GamerGhazi reacted to the FTC issue since I've visited there before and they seem incapable of ever being nice or reasonable to the other side. What do they think of the FTC policy changes? That Gamasutra is responsible for the changes, not GamerGate. Apparently GamaSutra wrote articles months ago about how Youtubes need to disclose when taking money for positive coverage of games.

Stamper needs to post an update on what happened to his foxes. I wanna know :C

I had a dream about GamerGate somehow. Odd since I haven't really been paying attention to it that much the past few days. Some journalist was lecturing a classroom on whether or not a game was good, then out of nowhere a time traveler shows up and says the test he was about to give everyone is now null and void. The journalist questions him as to why and he explains that the company that made the game is being exposed as corrupt and may have helped funded the class for positive coverage, and at any rate our area of study (video games?) is about to fall through completely. He then begins drawing visuals to try and explain the complex space-time continuum and attempts to show that we are now right on the doorstep of a major consumer revolution that'll lead to the destruction of the "major" and all of the journalist's knowledge won't hold value in the future. Then I woke up and ate a sandwich and checked the news to see Arthur Chu has been doxxing people.

Just in regards to if doing something with a drunk girl counts as rape according to German law... Under German law, Rape is as followers (incoming rough ghetto translation): I also looked up cases and hopefully these two will help highlight how unclear such situations can be: In one case a sober man happened across a drunk girl who left a dance club and offered her a ride home, and without utilizing any threats or violence, he instead did NOT bring her directly home and he and the woman ended up having sex. She later tried to charge him with rape but the case was thrown out fairly quickly because the man did not meet the circumstances of rape: there was neither violence nor threats, she was fully consentual while drunk. (also for those wonder what 3) means in regards to the above law citation, that one is pretty much for situations like "If you don't have sex with me my friend will kill your husband who he has tied up in Chicago right now" or the like) Another case, incredibly similar, involved a girl encountering 3 guys after leaving a dance club and it led to sex with her fully consenting (while drunk, anyways). The next morning she "felt raped" as she got in serious trouble with her father and was worried about now being known as the town s***. Even though there was no threats or violence involved, she constructed a story about rape and the three guys ended up spending a couple months in juvenile whatever-it's-called-in-the-US.(German case, just so we're clear, I just dunno the name of the "prison" for teens in the US) So as you can see, while it'd be lovely if law were consistent (and boy does it ****ing try to be), even here the issue is a little unclear. Still, I would advise anyone that wishes to claim "if the woman doesn't consent/is drunk it's rape," that may be your own moral opinion about things and it's great you've got a moral vibe you like, but in a practical and legal sense, do not end up surprised if your case is thrown out. Same advice goes for any guys who would think "cool a drunk girl, I can have sex tonight," though I'd hope there's no one like that on these forums.

This is a bit difficult to explain but this is standard stuff for the legal system, at least in Germany and very likely in the USA aswell. Basically, the legal system has multiple laws specifically addressing how people who are not in a clear state of mind cannot be charged for crimes, offenses or treated as though they're consenting to their end of a contract. This is to prevent, for example, a crazy person or an incredibly drunk individual from signing a contract that basically gives someone else their house. In this sense, yes what you said was correct, but it can get very sloppy. How? Well a typical case of a law protecting someone who isn't in a clear state of mind would be that a drunk person who drives under the influence and ends up killing someone would be charged with negligent homicide rather than manslaughter or murder. Makes sense, no? The person is simply outrageously careless to the point where their carelessness and lack of responsibility can cost lives, but they are not a cold-blooded killer or someone who doesn't value human life. This is why these laws exist; why it has to be a law instead of simply saying "well they lacked intent so it can't be murder and it's neglect" would take a little longer to explain and involve a lot of the ins and outs of the general legal system. BUT that was a typical example, and the thing about that example is that when the police or ambulance arrive, they will likely give the person a sobriety test. The problem here is that nobody is doing a sobriety test to both the guy and the girl, nor is anyone monitoring how or why a person drinks at a party. If a guy straight up drugs a girl with ecstacy or spikes her drink with alcohol in the interest of trying to sleep with her later, dude's gonna get slapped with charges should someone find out. If a guy is purposefully trying to get a woman drunk (pressuring her to drink) in the interest of later utilizing that to have sex with her, then yes, you could have a very good debate about whether or not this guy should get in trouble. You could also have a decent debate about a sober guy walking by a totally drunk woman who hits on him and taking the chance; something like that CAN end up in court and the result could vary. (I could look into this if you guys like. This isn't really an area or example I've ever covered much, but I'm curious now) But say two people are both drinking and the guy simply thinks that's a good chance to make his move. Say you have a crush on a girl but you're shy, and then when you're both at a party and both consenting to drink, and your advances are successful? Nah, this is fair game. BS to anyone who claims otherwise. It's fair game both because she fully consented to drinking on her own knowing the risks and you yourself were also not in a clear state of mind. There is no such law as "negligent rape" or "negligent sexual harassment" so you would simply be absolved of intentional ones, and at worst you could be hit with a drunk and disorderly charge, but ideally should you be? Not at all. The issue is that in a practical sense, no one is watching how this goes down or monitoring alcohol levels. No one knows how drunk you are or how drunk she is, and people probably aren't paying attention to how you both got around to drinking (own initiative, peer pressure, drugged, etc). She cannot really feasibly claim you were not drunk yourself, nor can anyone attest to how drunk she was. The bottom line is that if you go to a party as a woman and you plan on drinking? You need to be aware of the risks of being drunk. Unless someone is maliciously trying to get you drunk as all hell for the explicit purpose of taking advantage, then no, the guy has just as much defense as you do, so it can likely end up as "sad day for you." Yes, there are laws in place to protect drunk people to an extent, but the intent behind those laws is not to fully absolve you of responsibility, but rather recognize and properly assess the very specific level of intent (or lack thereof) that one has while in an inebriated state.

Holy **** how did we miss this and why is this not satire?!: http://archive.today/o63iI Pages 2 and 3 are as follows: Also, I like this girl's take on things: I always found Zelda as a "damsel" to be particularly odd. Like, Zelda is by no means helpless by any means and is more often than not equally as pivotal as Link....she's just not YOU, the player, so eventually there comes a point where you and her have done everything that needs to be done and the only way to advance the storyline while keeping drama high is for Ganondorf to forcefully hold her captive. That feels more like a way to advance the plot in a way that suits the gameplay (imagine if the entirety of every Ganon's Castle was an escort mission or if they had to code companions solely for that snippet) What's more, think of it from a storyline perspective. Half the time Ganon takes Zelda, it's not a "mwahahahaha I've taken ur GF and I will hurt her unless you save her!" No, it's a "yo I need all three of us to gain access to the Triforce, and I'm gonna make this happen." Link is the Triforce of COURAGE; it's easy to play him as a pawn by simply kidnapping her and waiting for him to come on his own free will. Zelda on the other hand is the Triforce of Wisdom, and were the tables turned, might think "MMMMMMMMMM dunno if charging into his castle to try and save Link is so smart, ijs!" It also blatantly ignores multiple iterations of Zelda which are anything but helpless. Wind Waker's Zelda is practically the opposite of this, and you'll struggle to name a modern Zelda game where Link takes down Ganon without her aid. Zelda always felt like an equal to me, never a "prize." FFS, she and Link don't even have a relationship going on, and I actually had this theory when I was a kid that Link was Zelda's sister in Ocarina of Time, seeing as how the Queen of Hyrule is non-existent while Link's (Hyrulian) mother is confirmed dead after fleeing with him to the Kokori Forest.

Don't give us that bull****, we all know you were born and raised in Winterhold shortly after the Great Collapse! Your prejudice towards wizards and all things magic is plain as day!!

Page 13 has a detailed breakdown: 6.6% experienced complete forced penetration, 2.5% attempted forced penetration, 3.4% completed alcohol/drug-facilitated penetration; 9.8% was pressured in nonphysical ways (abusing influence/authority, threats of ending a relationship - this probably should've had a more detailed breakdown), 6.4% experienced unwanted sexual contact (fondling, forced kissing, grabbing body parts). Someone should crunch the numbers there.

I have tried thrice now to post and each time this ****ing piece of **** iPad has crashed on me. Seriously, can we talk about how much I ****ing hate apple? Overly flashy piece of **** OS that lacks in practicality BUT BY GOD I CAN SLIDE THE SCREEN OVER WITH A TOUCHSCREEN SO ITS THE FUTURE AND I GOTTA HAVE ONE. No **** off Apple, there's no reason trying to cite something should put me at risk of crashing. Anyways: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/21/rape-study-report-america-us_n_4310765.html I wanted to link that as it explains some of the methodology behind some of the numbers in the wiki article. The 1 in 316 number appears to be the most generous number by experts for 2010, and you can specifically read what does and doesn't qualify as rape according to each group. Different definitions appears to be the reason for DRASTICALLY different claims and results. I still say the thing to take away from this is to be objective. With all due respect I can't help but feel like people name their "1 in x" statistics for shock value to an extent, but it seems we simply don't know and it would be disingenuous to regard any of those numbers as a certainty. I'm kinda with Meshugger in that if I were to poll the women I know, the rape rate is AT LEAST above 1 in 50, so those 1 in 10 stats always come off a bit ridiculous to me. If I were to consider how many female friends I know who've been coerced into a kiss while drunk into the "rape" number though? (And no I didn't do it, I'm not a jerk) Yeah it drops a decent sum, but I think treating some drunken crap as full on rape kinda diminishes the impact of full on rape. I don't think my friends who've ACTUALLY been raped would appreciate it. Regardless, it's still an issue and a serious one, but I think the one thing to take away is that we should tone down any claims of definitively knowing rape rates. We don't. Now if you'll excuse me, I have an iPad to chuck out the window.

I EDITED MY ABOVE PLS GO CHECK C: But yeah the wiki article has the rate ranging from 1 in 10 for sexual assault cases to 1 in 1000 for pure reported rape incidents to 1 in 316 as the only estimate provided purely for rape that I'm seeing. Someone double check my math though on the one in 10 post cause I can occasionally brain fart with maths, and double check that the 1 in 316 isn't the only estimate strictly focusing narrowly on rape.

[citation needed] Pls dun make me try copy pasting with this stupid Apple BS. :C http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#United_States It's in there, I promise. EDIT: USA centers for disease control provides a total number which puts the rate at about 1 in 316 given USA population, while it does look like I misread the one by the NCVS; mistook the .5 for a .5 in 100 rather than a .5% of all women in the US.

From the very same article: "According to the American Medical Association (1995), sexual violence, and rape in particular, is considered the most under-reported violent crime.[9][10] The most common reasons given by victims for not reporting rapes are the belief that it is a personal or private matter, and that they fear reprisal from the assailant. A 2007 British government report says "Estimates from research suggest that between 75 and 95 percent of rape crimes are never reported to the police."" Edited to respond to the edit: I'm pretty sure that graph is showing the number of reported rape cases, given that it comes from the Bureau of Justice. Right, and continuing on with the same wiki article, there's also a lot of scrutiny for many studies using overly broad definitions of rape, for example is cites one where they say "1 in 6 women will be victims of an attempted or completed rape" with things such as sex while under the influence of alcohol qualifying as rape. If you take the numbers provided by some of the more respected organizations for monitoring crime rather than university studies, then they suggest rates are more like 1 in 200 or 1 in 300 ( in the USA). That is significantly more than 1 in 1000 and also correlates well with some of the claims that the overwhelming majority go unreported, but it's still quite a long stretch from 1 in 10 or 1 in 6. Sorry I can't quote the article directly, I'm on an iPad atm and I friggin hate these things for copy-pasting and editing in general. But if you read the Wikipedia rape statistics section on the USA (on the page offering stats for various countries) you'll find the examples of 1 in 200 and 1 and 300. (Albeit one is as a .5 rate and one is simply showing the total estimated rapes in a year including unreported ones, which amounts to 1 in 300 with the USA's population roughly factored in)

Bulls***. To everything. Especially the last part. Where did those numbers come from anyway? Gromnir and I discussed this in another thread were we exchanged studies. The most recent CDC study was closer to 1 in 10 than 1 in 5, which is of course still ridiculously much and it's a real problem. Here's a catch though: That CDC study was about sexual violence and classified rape and other violence as different things. It also didn't classify anything other than the perpetrator using a male sexual organ as rape. If adjusted to also allow for "forced to penetrate someone", i.e. a woman raping a man in their definition of rape rather than calling that "other sexual violence", 1 in 10 of both women AND men reported being raped in their lifetime. I'll try and find the study. EDIT: Had to use different terms for board language filter reasons. EDIT EDIT: I believe this is the study: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/cdc_nisvs_ipv_report_2013_v17_single_a.pdf http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#/image/File:Rapes_per_1000_people_1973-2003.jpg wat EDIT: oh and yes that's a lazy Wikipedia data graph citation lulz. I was merely throwing it out as a suggestion that "perhaps some of these rape rate claims deserve serious discussion cause there's ones claiming as low as 1 in 1000." I'm quite busy at the moment and admittedly did not look into the validity of the above graph but figured one of you might have fun with it. :/

Can we please calmly and objectively acknowledge a potential rape case without making outrageous claims like "a famous person was convicted of rape, THEREFORE WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY THAT ACTIVELY CONDONES RAPE ALL THE TIME." Before someone says "that's not what he said!" No, but he did basically word things in a way that suggests this is just one example of a larger, ongoing problem. Even if you agree with him, I do not think such hysterics in speaking is a good way to objectively address problems. FFS, what is "rape culture?" Anyone gonna bother to define that or is it just one of those words we throw around? Because if the definition is "a culture where rape can occur," congrats, you just defined the entirety of Planet Earth since forever. If you think doing away with rape entirely is possible, congrats on being adorably naive. And if you think the USA somehow has higher rates of rape in the world than the average...? Actually, statistics suggest countries like Japan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have the lowest rates while the USA and other modern countries are average. CALL ME CRAZY, BUT SOMETHIN' TELLS ME THERE'S MORE TO IT WHEN IT COMES TO THOSE "RAPE-FREE" COUNTRIES REPORTIN' LESS RAPE... Be objective. Define things one step at a time. Do not resort to exaggerated hysterics. Discuss things factually and civilly. That is how you bring about change.

No idea if anyone is interested in the above post or gives a damn, but again before I forget: "Ubisoft flew me and some others out to San Francisco to play an early build of their game." At the risk of sounding tin-foil hat-ish I really am beginning to wonder if Ubi does not have some deeper connections with someone like Silverstring media. :D

Personally when I say "art," I consider that "a form of expression, typically one where the creator felt so passionate about something or a part of life that they wanted to dedicate a work to it" and this at the very least usually does wonders to seperate good art from "bad" art. Good art makes me think and reflect on life in new ways or have a deeper understanding of habits and my lifestyle as it already was, bad art often comes off as pretentious or like it's trying too hard to feel important, OR it's obvious the creator was interested in money, not expression. Basic example, I consider New Vegas art because the themes and motifs of war, of moving on but respecting history and various other little side-issues the game touches on? Those ring true and can be seen repeatedly throughout every step of gameplay. Skyrim by contrast? It's riding on the efforts of a series that was art before it arrived, but that chapter itself is nothing but pandering to the biggest cash cow audience for the sake of profit. It makes little to no effort to express itself in any particular way and just provides content for the sake of content. There's also obvious cash cows like Call of Duty that have no interest in artistic expression, they just wanna make a buck. Ironically, many of the games that aim to be art...? I consider them pretty weak, because oftentimes it just feels like the person made a movie...but instead it was a game. In that sense, it being a game serves absolutely zero purpose, other than the creator doing it to be edgy or for "shock value" (wrong word but you get the idea).

I think you fundamentally misunderstand their point: the problem is that "knights-in-shining-armor with vaginas" (wouldn't it have been easier to just call them "female fighters in reasonable armor"?) are currently not represented in gaming, or at least not nearly to the extent sexualized female characters are. If you could provide links with actual quotes - quotes that mean the same thing in the wider context of the source, if possible - where they're asking for all sexualized female depictions to be immediately replaced with chaste nuns/vaginas in a tin can/whatever, I'd be more than happy to admit that I've been proven wrong. And as I have pointed out, the theory has a solid foundation in the fact that pregnant women are comparatively vulnerable, but "pregnant women need protection, men won't give protection to pregnant women if they're not absolutely sure that said woman is carrying their genetic material, therefore ****-shaming is biologically determined" is a hypothesis that can't be considered to prove anything not just because it's making a few logical jumps I find questionable, but because there is no way of setting up an experiment where it can be scientifically tested. Just quoting these two cause to your first, my point was more or less that I don't think such an obscure website and it's definitions are fantastic reference material and I think we can all agree on this, cause EVERYONE within the thread here seemed to find the site odd. Likewise - and I could be mistaken - but I do believe the redpill terminology is something various people toss around with varying definitions, as I've seen it from both sides now (albeit just in random comments and such, but at least shows some degree of variance). And to the last point about studies, my point was more that my last experience of a debate involving two studies that contradicted each other simply resulted in both sides clinging to the study that supported their views while pointing at the other and saying "no ur wrong." It turns into a situation where neither one of us is able to prove the other wrong and just becomes a stupid "stalemate." Having said that: This would be a tad difficult as admittedly a lot of the context involved with that point is basically articles throughout the years or even little twitter snippets from the same groups of people. Also difficult when I'm boycotting some of the websites that would likely voice such opinions. For an example of what I mean by "difficult," my gut instinct was to google "Zero Suit Samus sexist," "Metroid Other M sexist" or "Lara Croft sexist" and see what came up. As examples I get these, but I don't know who these guys are. They only suggest the controversy was real: http://dispatches.cheatcc.com/855 http://www.apixelatedview.com/zero-suit-samus-sexist/ There also seems to be a kotaku article complaining about Samus' heels in the new Smash Bros by Kotaku. I don't really archive often but give this link a try: https://archive.today/GgrqO There's also the coverage of Bayonetta 2: https://archive.today/UGKCS Give it a read, there's a point where they just rant about how the camera can provide the player with cleavage shots or ass shots. And another article to reinforce that complaints about sexualized female protagonists exist, here's a Forbes article that acknowledges long-standing criticism about Lara Croft as a sex object: http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolpinchefsky/2013/03/12/a-feminist-reviews-tomb-raiders-lara-croft/2/ (yes not directly from the innermost industry, but simply linked to show this idea that sexualized female protagonists are seen as controversial is not new) Another game that comes to mind....the name escapes me atm. It was some hack and slash game where you could play as like a witch, a paladin, an archer or...something else, a mage? The female witch character (the main character, I believe, though I'm unsure) had outrageously large...back problems. Wish I knew her name or the name of the game atm but I don't. Sorry to say I've had a lot on my plate lately. But if anyone knows the game I'm talking about, I'm sure you could find plenty of comments on that with a google search of the title and "sexist." Now yes, to be fair none of these are proof that they are 100% opposed to sexualized female protagonists, and if you disagree there then fair enough. But I hope you'd also agree there is at least decent reason to suspect the more gender-neutral and conservative female look is the one that'd get the most praise, that'd get the most promotion and is the one such websites wish to see. After all, the complaints about Bayonetta and Samus would be void if they never wore revealing attire. Sexualized female protagonists still come under scrutiny, even when the sexualization is nothing beyond an outfit. And I believe that were this little feminist clique to run the show, we would eventually see the sexualized versions of these characters disappear completely. Mind you I personally don't consider that a terrible loss, but I simply name that because the fact is there are women who actually like that kind of look, so ultimately it's just opinion vs. opinion, and as I said both existing would be for the best. I mean great example? Surely we all know about the questions surrounding boobplate or chainmail bikinis in Pillars of Eternity. They said they'd skip that, but once again this acknowledges the long-standing issue, and I funded the game with my only commentary on that matter being "include one set of chainmail bikini armor that gives an additional +200% sexiness while making the character take 400% extra damage" for an easter egg. I don't mind either way, I just mind when one opinion seems geared towards drowning another out. And on that note let me again clarify I'm not against, for example (and I've said this before) Anita has a very basic and kinda cliche video game story idea on her channel (which I actually hear has been done before) and I think it'd be great if she just made the damned thing. In an ideal world everyone would just make games that suit their opinions and let's see what gets popular. Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case, and it seems as though we have an industry that will first complain about no female protagonists and then complain about the appearance of female protagonists. Merely wanted to clarify that what seems interesting is that you seem to be citing a different study from the one I saw altogether, as you seem to be implying the Selfish Gene theory (believe that's it's name?) played a role in the study you saw, whereas it didn't in mine. Mine simply stated sex was a form of bartering and in that sense could be used in exchange for added protection during the pregnancy, but fell through when the area had a ****. And while we cannot prove or disprove it and science is constantly correcting itself, I merely meant to name it as an example of how some things are not going to be as simple as "changing the culture" for various reasons, in this case instinct. Even without that argument though and for argument's sake if we disproved that study tomorrow without a shadow of a doubt, there's still the issue of overcoming thousands of years of history and art with a clear gender bias. The initial discussion here was that I consider feminism to be a pipe dream even IF we were all in agreement it needs to happen, because there's a number of things that would make changing the culture difficult, from art to history to potentially instinct. Hell, it's still kind of difficult to argue instinct doesn't play a role as it's not so farfetched of an idea for **** shaming to be instinctual (women have superior hearing for certain decibels as well as better eyesight (colorblindness) for reasons tracing back to caveman times, iirc) and while we both agree claiming every woman is submissive is ludicrous, there's also no real denying that the majority of the female population is. On a side note, since you study biology and quite frankly I'm VERY busy lately, it'd be quicker just to ask you: I could be mistaken but is there not some form of instinctual mechanic still in place to a degree where women can feel attraction after a "power display?" I'm hesitant to word it that way cause lord knows every guy who's ever tried to impress a girl by drinking too much, getting into an unneccesary fight or by having a fancy car has blatantly missed the picture, but I do think I recall there being some truth to a hormone in place that encourages attraction after a display of power. I also tried googling for this just on the off-chance I'd hit something. Not quite but did find this: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/14/women-sexual-preference-ovulation/5434071/ I'd be interested in your opinions on it (and sorry in advance if I'm slow to respond in the future) but yeah, overall my point with that was more or less that I consider it very very naive to try and rework gender roles when there's elements of history, art and biology all at place to make that all the more difficult. Things like pay equality or equal rights across the board are more common sense and I struggle to name anyone who'd oppose those, but when I hear a feminist claiming that we need just as many stories of women saving men or that society is what's keeping women from being physicists...that's about the point when I start to find it very naive.

Let me at him. I will **** on his rug. Even if the rug really ties the room together? Yes. And btw I got this youtube comment notification literally about a minute after Kaine accused me of writing walls of text: http://i.imgur.com/f8G35Kv.png Yes I included the video I was watching solely in the interest of showing you all how valuable my freetime is.

Let me at him. I will **** on his rug.

What annoys me most, and I know I've said it before and I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but if I were asked to name a game I consider a work of art and not just a cash cow, I'd name Fallout New Vegas. And all that got it was a mention in a lazy montage of "women as backround decoration in video games..." I also really hate how sometimes it seems there's this correlation between how much praise something gets for being artistic and how pretentious the creator is when discussing their art or how they convey their message in their creation. Prime example would be all the half hour "games" which function more like movies that all of us have already forgotten cause they're boring as **** as games and still second rate as far as movies go...still got praise though "cuz it's art."

Oh, before I forget. This is largely fluff and meaningless, it's just something that caught my eye and felt worth mentioning as something odd/funny. A while back I posted a video of Roundabout: I posted it to point out how, because of the whole SJW clique in the gaming media and particularly amongst indie devs, I was now questioning if a female lead with a lesbian relationship (if you can call it that since the game is odd and never acknowledges Georgio's gender) was an initial choice of the creators or one they felt inclined to make due to the situation of things. I believe TrueNeutral pointed it out as a good point but said he thought it was unlikely to be the case since the game was made by the SomethingAwful crowd and they just screw around. Fast forward, I believe I've heard a number of things about Zoe Quinn once being involved with SomethingAwful, as well as SomethingAwful posting a youtube vid passively mocking Gamergate (I could find it I think if someone wants). Likewise when Anita appeared on Colbert? Something caught my eye: the actress who played Georgio was estatic and excited for Anita, being one of the first to respond when Anita tweeted a picture of herself in Colbert's seat. Again fast forward, one of Ubisoft's writers has been ****ting all over GamerGate and calling it a terrorist group. Far Cry 4 releases and I watch Vinny play it AS I WAIT FOR ANOTHER TOMODACHI LIFE EPISODE COME THE **** ON VINNY I WANNA KNOW WHAT HAPPENS TO WALRUS AND TWO-FACED, and something again catches my eye. One of the first instances of NPC dialog involves an NPC telling Vinny that a prominent member of the game's "Golden Path" faction made it so that women can serve in their militia, which was a controversial decision at the time. The name of the woman who made that choice? Amita. This is also interesting because it would appear much of Far Cry 4 is recycled assets from Far Cry 3, yet Far Cry 3 lacked female enemies or fighters period. This would mean somewhere in development they decided having female militia was a worthwhile effort. In contrast to that, let's be clear Amita is an actual Hindi (think it was Hindi...?) name and not just something lazily made up. But yeah it jumped out at me because likewise, Far Cry's writers have always seemed pretentious. as. f**k. to me, with the writer for 3 trying to explain it like it was some complex work of art (it was god awful ****) and if you look up the endings to Far Cry 4, one of the endings is noticeably very very boring compared to the others as if they were trying to make some kind of artistic statement. Just seemed like the kind of attitude I'd expect from SilverString media or something. As I said, none of this can be proven or anything and I know it can sound a little conspiracy-theory-esque, I just find it all kind of funny because...well let's say I'm noticing things that AREN'T just coincidences, then this would show just how deep the Kool-Aid bowl is. Too bad we can never know, cause I'd be curious to know if such design decisions were on the initiative of the developers themselves or by request of this very same clique of thought.

And now to respond to the rest of that post as promised: While I don't disagree with this since I was just asking for clarity, I also want to ask why do you specifically go and visit some obscure minority-voice website no one's ever heard of and go "omg outrageous radical views!!!" Ya no ****? I only ask because the attitude seems akin to when through the course of GGs discussion, people point at statements made by anonymous youtube trolls with minimal upvotes and call it representative of the community. It seems to have become a discussion where only extremes are discussed rather than the...yknow, objective groups and opinions actually at hand. The furthest I've gone to purposefully explore opinions I disagree with was r/gamerghazi, and that was to just see if I could educate myself on how they feel about things or find anything insightful. While that may or may not be true for feminism as a whole, I don't believe that opinion is the type of opinion we're dealing with HERE with GamerGate. Take Bayonetta for example. She's hardly "just eye candy" as she's the main character, the protagonist and the character with more detail and backstory than anyone else in the entire series, and yet she's being given **** for the sexualized outfits. That's my point: the feminism GG is dealing with seems quid pro quo, where yes the women who want knights-in-shining-armor with vaginas would be quite pleased, but the women who consider sex empowering would not be pleased. I would be all for both co-existing, but I do not get the vibe that that's what the people of Polygon, SilverString media and others want to see happen. In a more generalist commentary on feminism as a whole, I've commented in the past on how I find it counter-productive they all provide themselves the same label despite often opposing views; no need to revisit that. At no point did I suggest a "historical depiction" with cavemen with giant clubs dragging women around by their hair or the like. I suggested a pregnant woman completely alone in a wild and hostile environment probably wasn't a good idea, thus some protection is of value. I would cite the same fact of biology as being the cause for most early armies being composed of men: because they are capable of reproducing while remaining strong and physically intimidating. As for if you encountered a study debunking that study (or not and you have them confused), I don't see any value in us comparing the two studies as, for example, I once found myself in a debate about if animals (such as bears, dogs, dolphins and mammals in general) had emotions where one Texas university study suggested they did not whereas Berkeley had a study suggesting they did. Overall I think the take-away is "it's something to think about." (not in the animal case, in this one. I found the idea animals lack emotion to be absurd. ;P )

What a scrub. He didn't even use the opportunity to get people to donate to his Patreon.