Longknife

Never ceases to amaze me what they get away with saying.

I also just want to point out that side-by-side is irrefutable proof as both of those people have awful hair and a vacant expression.

The working theory is that she used to be some guy that was called John Flynt. I for one am in utter shock people actually can't tell it used to be a dude.

Like what? I sat and watched the series the other day (I was procrastinating) and found it to be the most painfully inoffensive thing I've ever seen. The fact that this excruciatingly moderate critique that constantly feels the need to coddle the viewer (e.g. this does not make the game itself sexist, this does not make the game creators themselves sexist, enjoying these games does make you sexist etc) garnered this much backlash is a testament to how reactionary the so-called "games community" is. Been a while since I watched her stuff, but lemme see what I recall. 1) Misrepresentation of Fallout New Vegas. The game is one of many featured in the "women as backround decoration" videos where she basically rants about how women in video games are not characters with depth, but rather nothing more than something pretty to look at. She then proceeds to rant how unfair it is to do this to women exclusively and not make women as detailed as men, and amongst the other games featured, she shows footage of the hookers in front of Gomorrah, while failing to simply walk inside the Gomorrah and say "oh look, male hookers." She later talks about how these same backround decorations are meant to allow the player to commit violence against them as part of some male power fantasy where you can kill a woman off. She eventually offs the crier for the Atomic Wrangler after quite literally stating such actions often have no reprocussions or punishments, and the clip CONVENIENTLY ENDS with the woman's head exploding, not showing how Freeside begins to light her the **** up for commiting murder. It also fails to address the "You've lost karma" notice, or the fact that ANYONE in the game regardless of gender can be killed. And while it's not quite in line with the video...though sort of is...the fact of the matter is New Vegas is filled with women who are anything but backround decoration. There's TONS of female characters in that game with loads of depth and character, just like the male characters. It's a game that received critical acclaim from Mormons, feminists (other ones, obviously) and LGBT alike, with all of them more or less stating "they represented my people right by presenting us as people with flaws and strengths rather than defining us solely by our gender/religion/orientation and treating that as our personality." It's blatantly dishonest to portray such a game as misogynist, and if anything all this does is highlight that Anita is NOT interested in changing games "for the better," because he's a game that does exactly what she wants and she reduces it to nothing but fodder and ammo to use in making her case rather than acknowledging it, praising it and citing it as an example of a good game that upholds values she likes. To me it says either: A) Check the series, it is ABYSMALLY far behind schedule according to what the Kickstarter promised. It feels as though she's a lazy college student who knows their term paper is sub par and full of holes, but is submitting it anyways just to make the grade. In her case, she's submitting it and using ANYTHING as an example just to avoid any potential to lose those donations for not meeting her end of the bargain, knowing damned well people may not check up on it, or even if they do and they're unsatisfied with the work for being inaccurate and misleading, it still meets her end of the bargain and she keeps the 160k. B) She is so bias she is absolutely incapable of viewing things with a fair and critical eye. C) The time she spent actually playing these games is an absolute bare minimum, and thus no actually attempt was made to research and find actual problems within games media. On that note, I should note Thunderfoot posted a rant video in response to the very same videos, cept he was defending Hitman Absolution. As I recall Anita portrayed a Hitman mission involving a brothel as if going through the dressing room were mandatory and as if there were no reprocussions for hurting the strippers (much like there were "no reprocussions" for killing a hooker in New Vegas). In actuality the game actively discourages you from doing so and the dressing room is one of many paths the player could take, that one being considered one of the worst and least safe to avoid being caught. 2) She has a video on the Bechdel test. (I'd link, but upon searching she has like three on this) While the video itself is educational in the sense that the Bechdel Test as a concept is interesting, she proceeds to apply it in questionable and narrow-minded ways. For those that haven't seen, basically the Bechdel test challenges you to watch a movie and find a scene with two women conversing with one another where they do NOT converse about men or "cute boiz." It's meant to highlight that men in movies are often the "movers and shakers" and women are only there to admire them or be a target of a man's desires. That itself sounds cool. The problem? As I recall she applies it...very liberally. An example was I do distinctly remember it being applied to Big Bang Theory by her. I found this a tad odd as - to me - the show is about nerds, and a staple of nerd culture is being socially awkward, and people typically imagine a male nerd who can't get a girl rather than some female nerd who can't get a guy. Why? Because while both men and women can be outrageously awkward, the fact of the world we live in is a woman will have an easier time managing a boyfriend than a guy a girlfriend. Likewise, anyone here aware of the male-to-female ratio within physics and engineering? Spoiler Alert: Many universities are lucky to have a female who studies those. To me, the male cast felt fitting to the actual theme. It was also made at a time when the Bechdel test no longer applied; maybe to the first season, sure, but by the time the video was made, female characters got as much screen time as males. She also spoke a lot about how the Bechdel test highlights that women have no character depth or personality, but Penny from the Big Bang Theory is anything but that. In a nutshell it felt as though the Bechdel test was being applied so liberally it lost meaning. It'd be like applying the test to the Shawshank Redemption or The Green Mile, which both hold settings where female characters would not really be expected, so passing the test would be difficult. You could argue her logic is sound and there's nothing misleading there, and I suppose that's got some truth to it, but I argue that this video of hers highlights one of the reasons feminism and I don't see eye-to-eye: she's essentially asking some movies and TV shows to force female characters into settings where they feel unrealistic. It feels like feminism acknowledges "art imitates life imitates art," and thus they wish to change art in order to change reality. But in doing so, they're censoring art, and I'm not ok with that. If we were to apply the Bechdel test as liberally as she did, then we'd see a LOT of TV shows and movies with women not only being the sole characters of the movies, but also being in positions that simply feel awkward as the movie fails to imitate real life. And something I should've done at the start of this part, watched the videos again lulz: Check the movies she shows. Mother****ing Wall-e is being criticized by her for not featuring two female characters conversing with each other, and being included in a list of examples of sexist elements in the industry. I'm sorry, but there's criticism, and then there's being absolutely ****ing ridiculous. And like the above with New Vegas, this highlights how she has little interest in clarifying technicalities or important details behind her examples, but rather reduces a lot of things to nothing more than ammo to try and make her case. And of course, there are others. Shawshank Redemption did infact make it, and the entire Austin Powers Trilogy (which is largely a spoof of James Bond and - as a spoof - has limited say in what gender it's characters are; it's going to get funny looks if the spoof has a female in James Bond's role). The vast majority are also movies with three major characters: two men, one woman. The conundrum being that were they to adhere to the test, a similar test asking for two men to converse with each other in a meaningful way would fail. You get my point, I hope. It's a fairly neat little test implemented in a rather poor way in many of her examples. 3) Her questionable history with video games. I assume this one's known enough to not need clarifying. In a nutshell she'll say she's been a gamer since she was a kid, in others she'll claim she cares little for games and only recently (when her videos started) started looking into them and covering them. I can get a source for you if you'd like, though this one's been thrown around so much I assume it's common knowledge, and personally I must admit I'm not fond of bringing this up as many people falsely claim "she's not actually a gamer and therefore can't criticize." Me personally, I'd rather criticize the way she criticizes than the ad hominem bull****. But on the topic of does she lie and mislead the public? Oh yeah, this qualifies. 4) The same infamous Christmas song video I've cited before: This one has two offenders in that. The first being the inclusion of "I saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus," the second being "Baby it's Cold Outside" which she presents as a song promoting rape, and a song that I later discovered gets covered by women as frequently as men; once happened upon a skit from a (I assume) Christmas special that went back and forth between a man singing it to a woman and another woman singing it to another man. To me this is misleading because that detail - as well as the fact that I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus has jack all to do with gender - seem blissfully looked over. I take offense to I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus being in there as she states all over the video that this is a video about sexist songs, and while the song is never labeled sexist when it's turn comes up, it's just kinda...there. Part of my point is the presentation and explanations are often intentionally poor or left with holes for the person to fill in or for defense. It presents a tone of "this is sexist" without explicitly stating it that leaves you thinking "wtf was that about?" You may say "that's you reading too much into it," I say my point is that if she wishes to be taken seriously as a critique, it's her job to explain this stuff. It's her job to answer when I say "why do you leave out the equality-based parts of New Vegas" and it's her job to answer why that song is just conveniently dropped into a list that cites every other song as sexist. 5) She stole art, remember? Bare with me, this isn't lying to or misleading her audience, per se, but it is dishonest. I could be mistaken here as it may have been resolved without my knowing, and if it was feel free to point that out, by all means. But to my knowledge, she stole some girl's artwork for a logo of hers, the girl simply wrote a letter and attempted to reach out to her just for an apology or a statement or anything, and Anita actively ignored her while clearly being active on social media. Again, this is not a lie, but it IS dishonest, and I would personally refer to her NOT responding as a "half-lie" in the sense that she's avoiding admittance of jacking someone's artwork by simply not responding period and pretend she has no idea this person is attempting to contact her. 6) And while this is ultimately my SUSPICION with no proof, by GOD is the suspicion overwhelming: please go look at how many videos Anita posted pre-Kickstarter, now check how many she's posted after. Please note the frequency of then and now. She promised, as of June 16th 2012, to produce 12 new videos of her show. It is now November 2014 and she has produced a grand total of six videos. At this rate she will uphold her end of the bargain to her kickstarter backers presumably by 2016. What the **** is going on. Why is a little web series that used to be more frequent suddenly taking as long as a presidential election? And just for clarity, by no means is this an example of dishonesty, per se. I simply list this as "suspicious," and given the other five points above, yes I see very good reason to be suspicious like this. Ultimately, it's simple: she presents herself like a professor giving a lecture. And seems to want to be taken as seriously as one too. Is that so? Then act like one. Stop leaving these blatant holes in your research and presentation that may lead people to think Wall-E or Fallout New Vegas are laced with little sexist elements; claims that if anyone bothered looking into, they'd know are full of ****. If she wishes to be taken seriously and wishes for her criticisms to carry actual weight, then present them in such a way that they can stand up to scrutiny. Present them in such a way that they're true and lack any misleading presentation. Present them in such a way that counter-arguments are all but impossible, and if those counter-arguments come up, ****ing address them. She doesn't though. She sits there with comments locked screaming about all these sexist games while showing out-of-context non-sexist examples, then wonders why gamers don't take her seriously and think she's full of ****. A true critic would be able to admit when they're wrong and dish out criticism only when justified, a slimeball interested in money is going to criticize for the sake of criticizing and for the sake of trying to validate their "job" and their existence as a critic. She's the latter, as she woefully exaggerates and hyperbolizes issues while completely overlooking examples of "success" within the games industry. Likewise, a true academic thoroughly researches their information and presents facts. She doesn't do this, and like any university student who writes a paper without a single citation, should not be taken seriously until she does so. Look at her history and you'll see nothing but misleading presentation, blatant lies about her history or who she is, very questionable application of her little guidelines and absolutely suspicious activity. I see no reason to trust this woman. EDIT: Just for clarity, I haven't watched her other new videos. After the misrepresentation of FO:NV in the Women as backround decoration ones, I see no reason to take her seriously and haven't watched. Will not be surprised if someone pops in citing dishonesty in another of her new videos.

They're ants. /thread

Target: Gawker Advertiser: Hulu Evidence against Gawker: Gamers are Dead article: https://archive.today/YlBhH Sam Biddle's tweets about bullying The Presence of a number of journalists from Kotaku on Game Journo Pros - http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/21/GameJournoPros-we-reveal-every-journalist-on-the-list Email and Phone Number: http://www.hulu.com/help/articles/59671835 - look towards the bottom of the page - note phone is only available from 6AM to 8PM Twitter: https://twitter.com/hulu/with_replies?lang=en Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hulu Wait, they don't list the article calling readers fascists when sending those? WTF guys, I thought that article was like -THE- most damneding example. That's the one I spread.

Yeah, Oliver Campbell had the source in the government that claimed that people were sending threats to themselves. Kingofpol claimed Totilo gave him the screencaps of the Nick Denton facebook posts, which turned out to be fake. Thats my understanding at least. I got my leaks all mixed up. I think the e-mail goal gets put up once USA wakes up. Let's just email Gaben in the meantime and ask when the Spy vs. Engie update for TF2 comes out and how on earth he expects the Spies to stand a chance when the Pyros have sworn allegiance to the engies. Yknow, in the meantime. C:

This has to be the worst kept secret on Earth. Like ok, being real here I have no proof of any of it. But as it's been discussed: 1) The Bay Area ain't cheap. If she lives in SF directly, then holy balls. 2) Feminist Frequency beat it's donation goal from Kickstarter by a clear mile. She then proceeded to upload less videos than ever before. Clearly that money really helped. 3) I fail to see how a Youtube program should ever be registered as a "charity." 4) We all know she lies and/or presents misleading info. Just watch her vids. Some are fine, others are blatantly full of ****. 5) Why on earth does this woman or this show need repeated donations...? She got like 160k for her show via kickstarter, I'd imagine she gets paid quite well for any speeches she gives, and her youtube videos DO get decent views, which itself is a modest sum of cash going her way. (assuming she's partnered, but I don't see why she wouldn't be) There's no reason she shouldn't be self-sufficient now. To be honest I'd be more surprised if it turned out Anita wasn't involved in any shady dealings. And on the subject of this drama with KingofPol, can we all agree we don't give a ****? Seriously, I haven't bothered reading a single thing about inner-conflicts because it's all irrelevant. It's basically the same soap opera drama of when we sit here fascinated that a guy called his customers fascists and he still has his job, except this is far less fascinating because it's just people fighting about who gets to be the most special leader cause egos. We've all seen that before, it's nothing special, it's just stupid. Only time I would bother looking into it is if the revelation that he lied somehow damaged Oliver's claims to the FBI.

We also need to choose GamerGate's theme song. That's a top priority. I vote this:

Again, why are you all more focused on whether or not internet "celebs" are terrible people or not... ...Rather than focusing on figuring out how the Powerpuff Girls stopped Mojo Jojo, as that could very well be the key to ending this drama.

Why are we all caught up in this stupid drama of he-said, she-said? We need to be focused on figuring out how the Powerpuff Girls stopped Mojo Jojo in that episode so we can use the same tactics here.

This city's sleeping like a soldier trapped inside of an iron lung!! Machines can keep you breathing but what happens when you find a new war's begun?!! Flip a switch and turn it off: you won't be able to breathe! ...So either way you're a casualty...

So how did the Powerpuff girls finally stop him?

I can say without a shadow of a doubt that if different university majors all appeared on a spectrum that traced various patterns of thought prominent amongst the majors (for example analytical, calculating, logical, creative, etc.) that it would seem SJWs study things that are quite possibly the polar opposite of a law degree, and if I had the power and influence I would try to create a law that says it's illegal to call yourself a SJW and make a claim about where the burden of proof lies at the same time. They are clearly incapable of using the claim responsibly. By this same logic, if I accuse you of being a murderer, the burden of proof is on you to prove you're not a murderer, you fantastically incompetent f***tards. It doesn't work that way because if you named Person A as someone I murdered and I proved I didn't, you could then say Person B, then Person C, then D, etc etc etc and it'd never end. It's impossible to prove a negative ("I am not a murderer;" you can never know this with absolute certainty), it's possible to prove a positive. ("He is a murderer") Therefore, the burden of proof is on them. This is basic stuff...

Also am I the only one disappointed by the fact Chu's interview accomplished nothing and could've been summed up by a "notice me senpai" gif image in regards to his obsession with Zoe?

https://twitter.com/oliverbcampbell/status/529848217689538560 Nothing really to comment here as the proof is yet to come forward, but dude has been credible in the past so we'll see what happens. If there's any truth to what he's saying, s*** is going to hit all the fans. All of them. God will write a strongly worded letter to Earth asking us to please keep our s*** to ourselves as it's starting to get stuck to the bottom of his floorboards and stink up the place.

In other news an adorably foreign man found his way into a block list for GamerGaters and posted it on YouTube:

My guess is this happens because the claim was initially that she slept with journalistS for coverage and it turns out Grayson is the only one where that seems very very likely, which has also led to other examples of Grayson's bias which people who considered the first claim debunked probably didn't bother checking into.

Dats cuz both azn and gamurgate iz racist haet groop

Another slightly relevant issue to Pakman... The guy he was speaking to in that progressive video is from the Rubin Report. I'm familiar with all of these shows cause they're all part of the TYT (The Young Turks) network, a news network I used to watch regularly but now don't so much because they've kinda devolved into a lot of the same tactics I'm unfond of. Misleading titles, news reports with a clear agenda, lots of focuses on either race or feminism when it doesn't neccesarily need that kind of spin alongside a lot of youtube commentators who are also the opposite problem and don't like race-based or gender-based stories even when appropriate and react disgustingly, lot of "gossip news" sort of stuff amounting to little more than "Sarah Palin said a thing." Cenk himself is still ok and covers interesting subjects when reporting alone, but aside from him...? Not really anyone that brought good stories to the table except for David Rubin. If Rubin were to cover GamerGate, that'd also be good. I trust the guy to be fair, level headed and open minded about it. I've noticed that while TYT itself only barely touched GG by stating "hey cmon guys, harassment is wrong if it's happening," a lot of people in the TYT network want to cover it. Another group I'm unfamiliar with did a livestream on it a couple weeks back. Funny how the network itself is hands off on the subject but the individuals working for it or supporting it or wishing to be affiliated with it are tackling the story harder than any other group that I'm aware of...

I'd like to take this moment to remind everyone the creator and the executive producer of Bayonetta are both females.

Far too much. Uh, not according to the link KP put up. You couldn't get me out of bed for most of those salaries, and I'm an underpaid educator! An average for freelancers is $26k? Yikes. I can see why they all suck. No legitimate journalist would go near those numbers. It was suggested part of the issue with corruption is that the earnings can be so abysmal that OF COURSE these people give into the bribes. How to go about fixing the wages though...? I don't know, and some have suggested that gaming journalism itself might be an obsolete industry as anyone can review a game in this day and age.

Ah. And, as I see it, the "feminist group" was not "dumped" into games media. Games media finally openly acknowledged what is blindlingly obvious-- that it was no longer acceptable for the community of "traditional gamers" to blithely tolerate those who heap scorn and abuse on anybody with the temerity to point that mainstream games regularly trade heavily in cheap titilation and casual misogyny. Calling out this kind of stuff in other media has been a prominent and accepted element of critical responses since the 60s, and the time has come for games to stop being the exception. Did some writers consipire with one another to do so? Sure, and understandably so-- it helps a lot to have open support from other like-minded individuals when you're stating agreement with a position that has gotten many others abused and harassed. Is this at all unethical? It is the most ethical thing that games media folks have ever done. (The conduct of some of those like-minded folks in the industry since then, less so.) ....And again, there's nothing wrong with that scrutiny. I welcome it. But that scrutiny does not get to dictate the narrative, which is what it's doing (or in some cases attempting to do) now. :U And yes, I would be inclined to question how they got here because those guys aside, our game journalists have been corrupt for a while now. No one even denies this. What I see now is a symbiotic relationship between the two where journalists use the feminist clique as a convenient shield for any corruption allegations while the feminists utilize their corruption and the heat they're receiving as a unique opportunity to spread their voice and their opinions to a degree they'd likely never see via transparency. So yes, I will question how much of that scrutiny is deserved and to what degree it's "neccesary." Neccesary as a part of our community the same way EVERY opinion has a place, absolutely, but as the MAIN opinion that gets preached and that we're all expected to listen to...? I see no justification for this, especially since people don't seem to want to listen and especially since ultimately the people will dictate what gets read and what doesn't, whether the journalists like it or not. Even if you wanted to make a case this is neccesary, the methodology is ridiculous, both for how it denies people from having discerning opinions and in how it denies that this is a case where the free market WILL dictate things in the end; I'm not blathering about the free market cause I'm some obsessed libertarian who thinks all government intervention is a pest and the free market is flawless (definitely not), I'm saying this because it's the reality of the gaming industry. If they wish to go scream at DoA Xtreme Beach Volleyball for sexism, by all means. But getting on Tomodachi Life's case for not including gay marriage...? Or Bayonetta 2 for the fashion choice...? Sorry but I don't see it, so no I'm not going to keep clicking and reading articles going on political rants about a game that takes itself as seriously as this:

Yes I did and I don't think the judge is a complete idiot There is obviously evidence we don't know about that helped make the judges decision So nothing to see here Volo... "move along now " Holy BALLS dude you are impossible. Even if you wanted to disagree....I think a reasonable person would question the integrity of the article altogether if they wanted to disagree. You? You take an article that suggests NOTHING but complete guilt from that woman and you cling to the ONE measely defense she provided and - without evidence - proclaim it must be true. As someone who studied law, let me just say this: there is absolutely no reason whatsoever she should walk away without any charges against her. Even if we were to assume - for argument's sake - that everything she said is true and that he was guilty of domestic violence, this does not excuse the fact that she was willing to hire a hitman. They could and would both probably walk away with charges against them. What makes this worse is the 19 year old girlfriend of the guy and how she said it was no problem if she gets in the way and "gets taken care of" too. No first world country's legal system, no university and no practicing lawyer is going to tell you that this is not a clear crime. You cannot excuse potentially commiting 3rd degree manslaughter (at least in Germany) with "oh I was under stress from my abusive husband." That right there? Her defense would fall through and she'd still be charged with 3rd degree manslaughter even IF she managed to get away with killing him based on defenses of abuse causing fear and desperation. And while you may sit there and say "well the judge must know something we don't!!" ....Then why was the father given full custody of their child after the trial? That right there highlights how absolutely bats*** insane that trial is and how justice wasn't served. The legal system is typically bias towards mothers, so if a father gets full custody, there's a problem. If a father accused of domestic abuse gets full custody...? This is absolutely unheard of, and while the implication would be that he never actually commited any domestic violence, this does not explain why those very same claims played a meaningful role in her defense. Finally, her father was an accomplice in all of this and he wasn't charged either. Again, her father lacks the defenses she proposed and cannot claim duress. He was never put in a situation that would allow for that. And on the subject of duress, let's talk about duress. I looked up what duress might be under American or Canadian law. Let me clarify in advance that I'm by no means an expert of Canadian law and this is a lazy wikipedia quote. All I can say is I have needed to search for legal comparisons between German and American/Canadian laws in the past, and our systems often seem very similar in how we define things and in the past lazy wikipedia quotes have led me in the right direction: Kindly tell me how the **** she qualifies for any of those circumstances. Only one she addressed is step one. This court ruling has more holes than swiss cheese. It's shocking is what it is, I mean this is stuff that you'd learn in Semester 1 or 2 about; it SHOULD be basics. And yet it happened. What the HELL. I will definitely be consulting some lawyer friends of mine to ask if they've got any input into how this could've happened, cause I got nothin'. It seems 0% justified. My best guess...? They really should've just had him testify, even though they felt (and were right) that the defendent failed to make a case for duress. Ideally it shouldn't need to happen, but apparently the judge is an idiot who'll listen to any claim made unless a counterclaim is presented. PERHAPS the prosecution got really lazy, who the hell knows. Aside from this I just wanna say two things: 1) Let's not turn this into another gender issue. This does not mean women are overprivileged and get off scot-free in society and get special treatment. This? This means a judge needs to be disbarred. IMMEDIATELY. 2) Bruce, there was a time I did not understand the wisdom or true meaning of the phrase "if you're too open-minded your brain will fall out." Then I met you.

This made me laugh a bit. I mean, you're essentially setting an impossible burden for anybody who wants to be a games reviewer. They're supposed to know exactly who the consumers of a game will be, weigh the factors they consider in reviewing it based on the desires of those consumers (which, again, they are supposed to know innately), disclose all those factors and their weights, and still write a review that people are going to want to read? That's something that nobody has done or seriously asked for in reviews of any media. What I'm really hearing is the unrealistic expectation that any reviewer whose opinion is affected negatively by a game's disturbing portrayal of women is and should remain "niche," and that the reviewer should warn everybody when they come out of their corner so that you won't have to be challenged by their opinions. Because they haven't "earned" the right to express that opinion based on your impression of what the free market for games media is or should be. ...No, I'm saying the free market is a logical system with a "survival of the fittest" mentality, and that the website that would become most popular under an environment of full disclosure would be without a doubt the most popular website amongst consumers. If they wish to make a review site catering to a niche group, they're welcome to do so, and I'd hope that such idealists would be happy with running a website they themselves are proud of ideologically, even if it didn't turn out to be the most popular website of the bunch. I'm not expecting them to know and to cater directly to us, I'm saying every website should do whatever the hell they want and be honest about it, and we the consumers will naturally "choose" which ones we agree with most. That they would remain niche? That's merely my suspicion. Hell, I could be wrong. And no, I'm not asking for disclosure every time; if a website like Polygon openly stated somewhere that their journalists review things while considering feminist principles then there you go. Likewise....what the flying f*** are you talking about? I couldn't make it any more clear that I have nothing against their opinions existing or even having websites dedication to them. And if I didn't want to be challenged by them, I would never have - for example - watched Anita's videos. Have you seen them? I have, because I actually like challenging my own opinion. Some of her stuff holds merit, some is blatantly misleading or dishonest, hence why I have the opinions I do today. As I've said: my only concern is that we currently have a system where the feminist group was just kind of dumped on us all of a sudden by befriending an already corrupt journalism industry, and I consider GamerGate a sign that their opinions are unpopular and don't represent the interests of the average gamer. It's not rocket science: it's like if a politician becomes influencial, powerful or gets elected while neutral on an issue like global warming or considered it a serious issue to address, and then out of nowhere after they get their power, they start talking about how it's all a hoax and he intends to promote all sorts of industries that increase carbon emmissions, then people are understandably upset because they never heard any of these stances when they elected him. There wouldn't be ANY problem or any outrage if he had simply been honest and straightforward about their stance on the issue....but perhaps he never would've been elected had he been honest. Sucks for him, yes, but for the society as a whole this is better because the society and the vast majority of the people are getting what they want without being misled. That's essentially what's going on here: people want more transparency so that our natural actions will promote the most fitting businesses, but the journalists don't want transparency cause hella corrupt and the feminists now latched to those corrupt journalists don't want this because of a sneaking suspicion they'd never become the voice of the most popular journalism websites if this happened. Yknow what? Tough ****. Stop being a spoiled brat. You're welcome to have your opinions and your ideologies, and I would gladly defend those same ideologies were the tables turned and we somehow had some story of people trying to run ANY feminist views or publications out of the industry, but expecting everyone to adopt your moral code is the very definition of being an extremist. They do it because they think it's the right thing to do and we don't know what's good for us. I'm sure that's what the Spanish Inquisition thought to, as did every single person ever who ever tried to force their religion on someone and convert them. It's also not far off from arguments that led to the treatment of Native Americans, and how taking their lands was a good cause because we were civilizing these poor savages. No, live and let live. Everyone go make a games journalism website they wanna make, the one that happens upon what consumers want will get the most power and influence, and the others I would hope the job would be it's own reward in that they must be passionate about inserting their own subjective views into their reviews and therefore must be more than happy to keep them running, with or without the legion of fans that opposing ideologies might have. What they're doing is essentially saying "democracy (the majority voice of the people) is wrong this time" and trying to force their opinions onto everyone. You'll struggle to name a time when this pleases anyone, no matter what issues we're discussing.