Longknife

What are you, gay? I love those ladies... :C

Just for some clarity. How many of you actually know a good amount of engineers and physicists? I actually do, and I can tell you I've yet to meet one that didn't dress casually unless he himself was regularly expected to speak with people rather than work as much as the others. It's a common perk of the job, to the point where yes, they can go in to work looking like **** and no one cares because what they care about is results. Realize that this same field of study on a university level is also not unfamiliar with eccentric individuals with strange habits, so the area of work is abnormal from the get go, even before it's a workplace. I would assume the "why is it morally good to question the clothing of some and not others" comment is a jab at those SJWs who were interviewed by Pakman and some other journalists who did not even bother to comb their ****ing hair. Let me be clear: I would be the FIRST person to join the "I don't give a flying **** what you wear" club because I find judging people by their clothing to be largely ridiculous. But showing up for something professional like an interview that'll go on TV or a court case wearing anything but something that at least shows an ATTEMPT to dress up (like again if you just show up to court in a cheap button up shirt rather than a suit, more power to you, as long as you make the effort), then I legitimately question your intelligence and your grasp of reality, because attending a broadcasted interview (obviously one scheduled in advance and not on the spot) or a court case without dressing up must be akin to jumping in a pool of water when you know you can't swim. Having said all of this, I find the entire story ****ing ridiculous. I legit don't care what he's wearing and when I first heard it was "misogynistic" I actually had to go find a higher quality photo of the shirt cause I couldn't tell from the videos I'd seen. My take on this? If you don't like his shirt and thus you would make the bold assumption that this guy is some massive misogynistic, woman-hating **** because he wore such a shirt rather than using Occam's Razor and assuming "he likes boobs and isn't afraid to say so," then that's your right. But you know what's in his rights? Wearing a shirt you don't like. Make your little presumptious judgement of him in silence or amongst your friends, then keep it to yourself. The entire problem with the SJW movement is that it is constantly perceiving "bullying" from others. In this case, they think he "bullied" the entire female gender by wearing a shirt with boobs on it...made by a woman. So what do they do to right this wrong? They bully him. Maybe your parents skipped this lesson, but mine didn't: revenge is wrong. You don't go acting exactly like your opposition, because "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." This case and some of the cases we've seen over the past couple months have been particularly bad because the need for any revenge or any teachings of lessons has been kind of a stretch, not to mention the time did not match the crime. It feels like SJWs are constantly trying to charge people guilty of -AT BEST- drunk and disorderly conduct with first degree murder. No, it doesn't work that way. So if you don't like someone, do it on your own time. But going out of your way to harass, bully them and coerce them via media pressure because you don't like them? If you think that's acceptable, then you're a ****ing psychopath.

Dude come on, you are being very dramatic..you can't be serious? You are taking this whole thing waaaaaaaaaaay too seriously Why don't you answer his question?

http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2m7b94/not_gg_time_and_wall_street_journal_oped_pieces/ http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2m6tav/awareness_were_so_blindsided_that_we_assumed/ Relevant to my interests.

Wtf man I don't wanna picture that. Now I'm sad... :C

Yknow something that just popped in my head...well didn't JUST pop in my head, but I feel it's worth pointing out now... We go on and on and on about the implications of harassment and "misogyny" that targeted the anti-GG crowd. However, to me GG is both a small fish and a big fish. It's small in the sense we're talking about the corruption of video game media and the world can survive with that being corrupt, but large in the sense that GG has shown more resilience and determination than other activist groups that've even voiced support for GG, such as Occupy Wall Street. It's in a unique position where being an activist merely demands NOT visiting untrustworthy or bias/corrupt news sources, and I believe it's that permittance for laziness that allows GG to remain alive and even grow. And ironically, it's that laziness that can bring about change in a capitalist market, which are the exact opponents it (and other activist groups) are up against. But for me, maybe the above hints that I think there's GamerGate, and then there's bigger picture. I want to see GamerGate go beyond just attacking corrupt video games journalism. The BBC, MSNBC, ABC. I want them to answer for this, because there's absolutely no excuse for such professional journalists to possibly overlook the other side of the story; no, it's clear they didn't care to give GG a voice, demeaning their news coverage on it to nothing but blatant propaganda. The SJWs will go on and on and on about the significance and the impact of violence and alleged sexism in video games, and how that can affect our entire culture. ....What about the impact of being blatantly lied to or misled by major news sources? Seriously now, think about the implications. If they lie to you here, what's to stop them from lying to you about the Ukraine Crisis? What's to stop them from lying to you about ANY conflict involving their own stance on things? Yknow, having a good amount of Russian friends (tons really) I think I've got a pretty good feel for Russian culture and what Putin is like, because I always always always inquire from my friends. So when news reports claimed "Russia shot down that flight" or "here's evidence of Russia kidnapping an Estonian official," it all seemed to align with what I thought: that yes, Russia truly is behind all of this even without any western bias. But now...? I have to sit here and re-assess everything. I cannot know for certain the validity of any of that. Who's lying...? Granted I still have the accounts of Russian friends to go off of so my overall opinion remains the same, but in regards to those individual stories...? Yeah, I kinda wonder now if there's any legitimacy to Russia's claims of a smear campaign from the west. And mind you, I'm older. I'm 25 years old, so I already have an established way of seeing things. But what about 14 year olds? What about the younger generation that no doubt knows at least a little about GamerGate? We're teaching this generation not to trust the media. Regardless of whether you think that's a good lesson in the sense that you believe ALL current mainstream media to be corrupt and full of lies, the impact on this younger generation is that they don't trust the media out of sheer habit, and would continue to do so even if all corruption problems were resolved. That? Yeah that's bad. But for whatever reason we don't discuss this. You think violence in video games is a travesty, despite tons of research to suggest it having the opposite effect? You want to talk about sexism in video games, when even research papers done by SJWs or Anita herself fail to highlight any significance of these? Yeah, what about raising a generation to be paranoid and skeptical as a rule of thumb; a generation that's more accepting and welcoming of conspiracy theories and how big business and the government is out to get them? That to me is the real issue. And I cannot stress enough how frustrating it is to watch that unfold.

Also if you eat cereal you're a sexist f***tard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpAQDwsJriQ&

Yeah, it says they're a bunch of history and fact-respecting idiots. Why can't everyone just learn to Listen and Believe????

http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2m42sa/2012_study_tries_to_establish_causal_link_between/ Frankly I'm not surprised, seeing how they seem to insert gender into literally everything and seem incapable of not noticing it.

My god... http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2m16oi/polygon_accepted_750000_from_microsoft_to_create/

Go ahead and give them a watch. It's a good exercise in seeing just how reasonable/unreasonable someone you disagree with is.

Just like it's perfectly normal for hurtful things to be said. So adapt to that. Hurtful things will be said and you might be hurt by them. Best to adapt to make sure you don't, because you're joking yourself if you think getting rid of hurtful comments altogether is a possibility. I'm all for positive change to try and minimalize hurtful things said, but not when the efforts towards that goal begin encroaching upon freedom. This has hit a point where we're talking censorship, which no I'm not ok with. Jerks will be jerks, so people targeted by jerks should grow thicker skin. The entire social structure and way of doing things as we know it shouldn't need an overhaul just because Anita got a word boo-boo.

That's the sweetest most adorable act of racism I've ever heard.

And in doing so, you're undermining freedom. Let's be clear here: hate speech is a right. (under the right circumstances of course) The Westboro Baptist Church marches on every funeral they can, and we allow them to because the moment we create laws censoring them, some other people who didn't do jack end up censored too. Everybody has the freedom to do as they please, so long as they aren't hurting anyone. That means that if a man is in his home or his domain, he can say whatever the hell he likes about gay people, no matter how hateful it may be. To the gay guy who would march into his domain and speak out against him, either he's a blatant idiot for purposefully going somewhere that'd deeply offend him and make him cry, or he likely knows damned well what to expect and can handle it, and he believes he can change the guy's views. But the moment you ask the government or some collective organization to censor and restrict people as a pre-emptive strike to hate speech, that's when you start getting all kinds of stuff censored. Great example is GamerGate itself. Would you call the people within this thread who oppose you members of a hate group? Would you say we post hate speech in this thread daily? Funny thing is that the Mainstream media would suggest just that, and if they had their way and had a significant say in labeling what's hate speech (and they would; you'd be naive to doubt what influence the media can have), none of us would be allowed to speak about any of this. We'd get our citations and complaints about corruption deleted and blocked as they claim it was all misogynist lies. Anarchy on the internet works. Anarchy is that thing no one dares try in real life because it won't be long before some **** decides he can shoot up a building full of people to convince a society to listen to his demands, but on the internet...? Worst that can happen is you can be called mean names or banned from a private website where people disagree with you. What the **** ever happened to "sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me?" I'm sorry, but if you expect every single word that offends you to magically disappear and for society to cater to you in such a way that it outlaws and bans any words that you find offensive, you're nothing but a spoiled and entitled little kid who's by no means fit to function in the real world. Adapt. Grow thicker skin. If you can't do that? Log off. Stop camping on twitter and reading allegedly offensive tweets obsessively. You cannot tell me with a straight face that anybody in this mess is truly hurt or offended by things that have been said because every single person on both sides remains active. The only person who potentially seems realistically upset by any of this is Boogie, and he's wisely stepped away from the issues every time it became too much for him. Are you aware there is such a thing as hypersensitive people who cannot handle stress worth a darn? Know what happens to them? Society specifically places these people in low stress environments where they can function and live happy lives. It does NOT decide "ok Katie is incapable of handling constructive criticism from the workplace, and therefore her boss needs to CHECK HIS PRIVILEGE and be more understanding on how to handle people with her disorder and thus her boss will be fired and fined immediately." No, that doesn't happen. But this idea we need to change the way we regulate the internet as we know it because some spoiled child got called a "stupid girl?" Here's a tip: stop validating their insults with your asinine suggestions and then they'll probably stop coming.

Well said. I'm not interested in their "better". furthermore, they are trying to "sanitize" the internet. I personally do not want that. I believe the internet culture is worth preserving as it is. Why? Because everything is a two-edged blade. You cannot change what is bad about it without demolishing what is good about it in the process. I do not want the internet to mimic the real world in terms of everything (standard, conventions, lack of anyonyimity, etc.) I have the real world for that. I'm quite happy with accepting the bad as a trade-off for the good. I hear what you saying but you can't separate the Internet from RL In other words its not unreasonable to expect people to behave on the Internet the same way we expect them to behave in RL in most cases So there are codes of conduct that need to be enforced on certain websites and forums and certain statements and perspectives that won't be acceptable just because they said on the Internet But variety is good. I want anarchy on my internet and I want democracy in real life. If I get sick of the anarchy, I can log off. If I want a little fun, I log on. Furthermore, yknow a problem of today's day and age? Capitalism. It can be flawed. Very, VERY flawed. Whether it be the blatant disregard for Global Warming as an issue because it's not profitable or because oil lobbyists have enough money to silence all logical arguments, or a situation like people like myself being forced to leave the US because we cannot get healthcare under a privatized system, capitalism these days can often end up with the rich pushing the poor around and using their power to ensure they never lose that power. But there's one thing corrupt capitalism has failed to touch: the internet. Despite the ease of lobbying for anything else, corporations have failed multiple times to privatize and censor the internet. The anonymity and anarchy of the internet is powerful, and mark my words, we're gonna need it. Surrendering the internet to censorship and regulation would be a grave mistake. And hell, I just might off myself if I had to watch the internet finally lose to corporations all because a ****ing lying tool cried that a man was mean to her on CoD.

This is definitely true, and unfortunately Russia fell for the same trap. I've got multiple friends from Russia and...maybe you've encountered a couple Russians who say communism was better...? There's a reason for this: Russia went ****ing ape**** with capitalism after the Wall fell. Imagine if you were in a city where the bus system wasn't government run, but privatized. Imagine the bus driver refusing to go until someone who didn't pay fesses up and either gets off or pays his fare. This is exactly the kind of stuff I've been told about, as well as an inability to realistically study at a university without some degree of money (hence why they came to Germany). And yeah again, that's exactly my point: I find it very unfortunate people seem to consider Capitalism and Communism opposites, and that if one fails, the other must be a success story. No, any form of social structure or regulation can fail if not maintained properly. The lesson never should've been a simple "communism sucks," it should've been "any idea can sound good on paper but fail in practice if it fails to recognize human error and basic human flaws."

I do hope you realize that most people associated with Prussian culture would refer to it as "that culture where parents have the attitude of do things my way or I'll beat the ever living **** out of you," so you're praising a culture with a fairly negative stigma, right? I mean, my Grandfather and grandmother are both from that prussian culture, they indeed beat the **** out of my uncle and father, and now the entire family has issues. Productive? Sure, anyone would be if they were raised on an attitude of "work or get beaten up," but when I have "friends of the family" actively advising me to not get involved with my German family because they're notorious for fighting nonstop, I wouldn't call that something worth praising. I also don't see why Germany would hold any interest in strengthening the Bundeswehr, given it's history. Germany is already an economic juggernaut and would have little need to worry about war, given it's allies and it's ability as an economic giant. Who could or would possibly want to harm or attack Germany? There isn't an enemy for miles, and even if Germany were to be attacked, it has dozens of allies that would come to it's aid. It's not stupid, it's economical. If anything, I'd be criticizing countries that continue to support having an inflated defense budget; I mean the USA doesn't need all the money it spends on defense by ANY means, and yet it's one of the wealthiest economic sectors, as if the USA is oblivious to the fact that no one can realistically attack them without there being major logistics problems. They kind live in the middle of nowhere... I also find it incredibly strange that you're accusing the nation responsible for the highest amount of casualties on behalf of your country (not trying to talk crap here or something; sorry about those casualties) of being incapable of defending itself. Germany certainly isn't as focused on military might as it once was, but I would definitely hesitate to call a country that took on the world not once but twice of being unable to fend for itself.

Am I to take this as meaning oby speaks German? And on communism...? I find it unfortunate so many people point and say "haha they were WRONG and EVIL!" and somehow seem to equivalate communism failing with capitalism and the west automatically being right. If you want my opinion? Communism in absolute theory works. But that's just it: in practice it doesn't. This can be applied to a LOT of philosophies, capitalism included (many of the people who cheer on the free market are the very same people who would slap down any government intervention to try and prevent crony capitalism...), it's just Communism is a kind of philosophy that fails especially quick in practice whereas others are comparatively slower burns or have smaller problems. Philosophies and social structures regularly fail to account for how flawed the people running those systems are, and THAT is what can lead to the failure of ANY social structure, democracy included. It's sad that communism is one of those words that, in American culture, can be tossed around blindly with people having very limited understanding of what it actually is beyond knowing that the word has a negative connotation and is therefore useful in throwing at things they wish to denounce. Really, I wish people would focus more on the flaws of their own social structures rather than the flaws of communism, as often the latter seems to devolve discussion into a nonsensical "but look at how bad communism did, that means everything we do wrong is 100% justified somehow and a neccesary evil!" Yeah...doesn't work like that.

Yknow what's sad to me is how simplified you can make everything, yet it's blown up so dramatically. For example GamerGhazi was saying Mattie's comments are "ironic sexism" or some crap where her goal is to give men the same exact treatment women receive from Xbox mic screamers to see how they enjoy it. That? That actually sounds fairly reasonable to me, yknow make us sympathize first hand with it. The problem? They're basically stereotyping an entire gender based on one **** with a mic who said terrible things. It's like this is the internet (or an online gaming community) in this case where he can enjoy being anonymous; he wouldn't say this stuff face to face or in real life. And in that same regard I wouldn't exactly call him proof society is sexist, because surely he knows better and hides that crap until he's in private with likely-sexist family or a setting where he's anonymous, so society never knows or recognizes him as a sexist individual and CAN'T complain. But yeah, point is there's no reason to treat ALL men like this just because one guy once upon a time did something similar. It's rather unreasonable, imo, and yet sadly there seems to be this attitude it's justified. Sadly that same GamerGhazi thread for example had a bit of an attitude that men are hypocrites because we can't take Mattie's treatment. No you see, that's because none of us saying "wtf" have ever acted like that before, so OF COURSE we find it outrageous. In a nutshell and at it's core, this is just overly dramatic and unfortunate stereotyping, where an entire gender is being attacked for something one person did.

This reminds me of my last trip to the USA where DiGiorno's or some oven pizza company was offering pizza WITH FREE CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKIES and I was just like "lolwhy" cause those things sound terrible together.

I can speak for myself and say the truly outrageous comments are fascinating to me, for example the article calling gamers fascist and advertisers stupid is amazing to me because it shows the level of corruption when people are allowed to say that kind of stuff to their customers without losing their jobs. And in a case like Mattie, just for the sake of explanation let's assume she's serious about her "kill all men" narrative for a second: that's fascinating cause holy balls people like this actually exist? Makes you wonder how she turned out that way. (whether she's truly like that is debateable, just suggesting a reason people might be interested) But yeah, I think that kind of stuff has gone too far lately. It's becoming problematic in the sense it's crowding out truly productive news. Doesn't matter so much here, but on KiA or the like, when I see the front page crowded with "so and so said a thing" it's like calm down guys and just keep focusing on emails.

Don't ask me. When I left it, it was all gays and lesbians and asians and disabled people and a lot of humorous attention to that crazy asian guy who protests UFOs and ****. Someone should call those guys and tell them a bunch of overly privileged white dudes making them look bad.

Said the internet to Sir McIntosh as he slew a few goblins chasing after the fair lady Anita.

Even so, what's odd to me is that KiA has plenty of people who've seen them all and still take it serious. And as you pointed out, hell it COULD be, but I'd still personally put it in the unlikely category.

Let me rephrase that. Hers sounds as though it's directly there for the very purpose of antagonizing and trolling people. Whereas comparatively, something like what you'd expect from McIntosh is him trying to make a "logical" case by explaining how A represents B and B is a serious problem with our culture as a collective. Hers sounds like she's going "oh ya GamerGate, I can't wait to do nothing but hate on men nonstop for a living. It's gonna be great" whereas McIntosh is more like "the other day I realized that Crash Bandicoot is really nothing but a clever metaphor for anti-semetic theories about why Jews are the plague on humanity" and then has several follow up tweets drawing ****ty parallels and ranting about our culture. Hers had this tone of "COME AT ME BRAH" and an expectation of getting a rise out of people while his is more like something I'd expect from @JadenSmith. Though I will say it's sad that we've reached the point where we're having a serious and very justified discussion about whether her tweets are trolling or not. Says something about the point we've reached.