Longknife

I heavily doubt you can read that Tropico review (f'rex) and have no idea why it has gotten a low review score. So, yeah, that problem can be easily solved: read the reviews. ("But the feminism! IT BURNSSSS USSSS!") Okay, I'm not really getting the point you're trying to make here, but it might be the fact that it's around 1:30 in the morning here. I'll look back later, possibly. In other news, this is hilarious: Tropico...? I'm not familiar with this game. The sample game I was referencing was Bayonetta 2, where no we don't know how much of it's final score was swayed by an ideology and yes I did read the review. I'm also not quite sure I can rephrase or re-explain the post for you. :U The jist of it is that currently, not only is our games media corrupt, willing to take bribes, endorse friends without disclosure and partake in all sorts of unethical practices, but we also now have a little feminist clique who have a disproportionate and unearned (unearned in the sense feminism is not the dominant narrative amongst journalists because the free market chose it, but because it seems to have slipped it's way into the media by knowing journalists a year or so ago and only now are we noticing) representation by the media. The solution is simply full disclosure and that if you want to be a website that colors it's reviews with feminism, state so. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a website that would like to provide feminists with reviews catered to their politics, but there is something wrong with feminism wanting to control the MAIN media websites and not disclose what exactly is going on or how much a game score was effected by a subjective ideology. If we merely had disclosure and if we had websites like Polygon clarifying how many points Bayonetta 2 (for example) lost because of the skin tight outfits, then no one would mind and the free market would be able to choose if they value such opinions or not, and thus website like Polygon would receive proper influence proportional to what consumers as a collective actually want. The way things currently are, it's as if both journalists and this feminist clique that's appeared are trying to game the system and force their political stances to be the standard, completely disregarding what the consumers actually want. It may happen consumers DO want these feminist ideologies in their games, but that's yet to properly be put to the test. And as for the blatant corruption....? I don't think anyone wants that.

Wow, that's some pretty overdeveloped victim complex there. "No, no, no, you don't understand! Feminist analysis on games shouldn't be a thing, they might call me bad names!" I don't think he's saying he's not open to critique. If he is then he's in for a wakeup call. Again, as I've said before: I don't think anyone has a problem with niche gaming journalism websites. That Christian Gamer one has gotten nothing but praise for how objective they present both critical reviews and subjective christian outlooks on games. But the different between websites like the Christian Gamer one and websites like Polygon on Kotaku is: 1) They lack transparency when it comes to letting people know about their political agenda, or just how much influence that holds over a game's score. These websites do not state themselves as holding specifically feminist agendas, nor are we aware of how much this effects the overall scores of games like Bayonetta. Yes, if you give a game a 7.9, we'd like to know what % of those docked points are attributed to political indifferences because frankly not all of us agree with their politics, and we have every right to disagree. Their attitude suggests their politics and ideologies are morally superior and factually correct, but this is not so. As such, those of us who don't adhere to them want to be able to read a review and adjust it to match our own political stances, AKA increase or reduce the score based on what portion of that score is based on politics alone. I don't want to read reviews for example where Obama vs. Zombies gets a 10/10 because "OBAMA IS THE GREATEST PRESIDENT EVER." Good for him, how is he as a video game protagonist and how is his game? 2) These websites hold a significant amount of influence within the market and thus the pressure they apply to devs is more capable of being on par with coercion. Sadly these games did NOT come to power due to the consumers loving the SJW way of viewing things; that just kind of seemed to slip it's way in somewhere along the way and no it's not popular. Transparency would allow these games to be judged by the consumers and the free market appropriately, receiving the proper amount of traffic and influence that the people wish to provide them with; if they would STILL hold significant influence after that, so be it, but I sincerely doubt they would. 3) The above is if we're looking at gaming journalism as though it isn't corrupt, AKA it's just those two kinda coerce a dev into adopting certain political stances for coverage....but it IS corrupt. I don't see how anyone can feel fairly rated and reviewed when they know no matter how good their game is, EA can swing their **** around, drop fat stacks of cash and convince the world their next half-assed title is 9/10 front page material.

Eh. I've never really cared about Brianna Wu. I only care because this tells me bad hair days are a lifetime habit for Wu and that's fascinating. But yeah other than that who cares.

FURST!!!11!!

Speaking of death threats, I was on my way to do groceries today, and I heard a conversation between a grandpa and a 6 year or so old little boy today. "Grandpa?" "Yes?" "I'm going to shoot you dead." "Oh, oh. That's... nice." They should arrest the little bugger. But that kid needs some lessons on acceptable public statements? I never use to say things like that at that age, just the thought I could shoot my grandfather dead would be inconceivable ?

This: http://imgur.com/93B5uz2 This is the tactic people need to use versus SJWs. The fact of the matter is that the "debate" tactics we've seen from SJWs thusfar is to provide hysterical twists and exaggerations onto things he opponent has said and try to label anything as misogynistic. The fact of the matter is though that they do contradict themselves, for example violence against women and a female protagonist can quickly collide. All it takes is a habit of quoting a SJW, attributing the comment to a GGer and then admitting to the lie only after they provide an opinion on it and viola, you've highlighted how hysterical the SJW's mentality actually is, how they're not actually thinking for themselves and forming concrete opinions on issues and how they're quick to label anything that isn't within their "side" as misogynistic, all while not even listening to what's actually being said.

You give them too much credit. It's the equivalent of trying to drive a 12 foot tall tractor trailer through a doggie door.

I was considering making it a thing to respond to everything anti-GG does with a games-relevant quote... But I quickly discovered that aside from the above quote, the vast majority had this quote as the most appropriate response to them:

Yep. It's like an ironyception. Pakman is by far my favorite person involved with all of this. He's so naive, so innocent, so honest and so ACCIDENTLY HILARIOUS in his involvement with it all that it's just the best thing ever. Another topic, anyone checked out the GamerGhazi subreddit? Strange place.

https://twitter.com/davidpakmanshow/status/528577755039141888 What a BOSS

Damn straight. Only mentioned it cause I think I recall reading somewhere that at the very least Anita lives in SF.

Just to clarify though, there are multiple little satellite areas around SF itself that allow you to commute to it daily. I myself was born in San Francisco and commuted to it daily, but lived in Berkeley or Richmond. These places are STILL more expensive than what people are used to, but not millionaire expensive. Point was more that it does not appear as though Anita, Wu or Zoe are exactly working their asses off, yet they all manage to survive in that area (I assume, again I don't know where Zoe lives). That suggests to me that they're getting significant aid, which kinda puts a dent in the whole "my life is so hard" narrative. I'm very proud of being a San Francisco native, despite the fact these loons are from there too. San Francisco is boss at producing and housing unique individuals, and they can't all be winners. And whenever I come across someone who's visited the city, they ALWAYS loved it and have nothing but praise to say. But yeah, of course if there's nothing but praise, then it'll be an expensive place to live cause demand is high. When I lived there, that was a time when my mother working for Whoopie-****ing-Goldberg. They were neighbors wanting to make it big who agreed the first one to make it big would give the other an assistant job, Whoopie lucked out. And my dad? He worked on exhibits at the Exploratorium. These are by no means "commoner" positions with modest pay, and despite this, both lived fairly modestly when they lived there. Well, you can guess that neither lives there anymore. Mom stopped working for Whoopie to spend more time with me, and bills became a problem until she left the area. Dad works irregularly (needs to be contracted) which doesn't really work well for that area so he moved on too. The only contacts I still have there are a guy who inherited a lot of money and hasn't had to work much at all in life, and he still lives on a modest little houseboat last I recall (though to be fair, he thought a houseboat would be kick ass so he chose it), and another childhood friend who is fortunate enough to have her parent's place (again, not directly in the city itself), so she can manage to work as a waitress or other basic job and still get by. It's just not exactly an environment that encourages modest income, so seeing the work these guys do I can't help but wonder where their money comes from. It kinda makes me wish I'd paid attention to the doxx'ing so that I'd know their exact addresses and have an idea what kind of neighborhood they're in.

Real life = Super nice Internet = Very blunt I cannot stomache upsetting people. I'm just not good at it, so when someone's ****ing up, I tend to not say a word. If you wanna know when I'm criticizing you, it's when I'm not speaking and answering with "mmmhmm" and trying to avoid eye contact. (cause I'm also a bad liar) But I've always had respect for people that speak their minds. Which is nicer: lying to a friend about their terrible singing or telling them the brutally honest truth about how bad it is? I'm a big fan of the truth, I just can't handle upsetting people very well. Here though, this is the internet. I'm both shielded from their reactions and I assume people are like me and don't take things people on the internet say to heart. Thus, I speak my mind and I'm incredibly straightforward.

Thank you, for some reason I kept thinking Microphonelady.

Random little thing that occured to me.... The Bay Area is expensive to live in. Source: I was born there. This got me wondering - and I've no idea where she actually lives, nor can I find it on google searches despite the doxxing - but if Zoe Quinn manages to live there and doesn't really do....well, ANYTHING except small projects like Depression Quest, then something's up. While googling for where she lived (no not to send her knives ;P just to know if it's the Bay Area), came across this on wikipedia: I hate to say it but a lot of the claims that I would consider typical slander you'd see in any fight like this, specifically the ones calling these people spoiled trust fund babies who've never had a day of honest hard work in their lives, seem to actually hold a decent amount of merit. By no means is the Bay Area a place that everyone can afford to live in, and there was some thread on reddit just today saying Wu is allegedly getting $3,600 a month in donations alone. It all seems very warped to me, to see a staple mudslinging insult ("my opponents are spoiled rich kids with no grasp of reality) actually hold merit, and it's equally as warped to watch the nonstop accusations that GamerGate is a bunch of white guys when the vast majority of anti-GG is exactly that. They have an entire asian, multiple white guys and - if we sat down to do a headcount - GG might include more notable women than anti-GG. (The three women from the huffington post interview, Christina Sommers, that one lady who looked into IGF's immoral connections who's screenname escapes me atm vs. Zoe Quinn, Wu, Leigh and Anita) Whole thing won't ever stop feeling surreal.

I like how Pakman is now considered a hero for doing his job.

As funny as this should be it kinda pisses me off cause they're screaming at a totally, undeniably innocent party and treating him like the devil.

I'm realizing my opinion of Feminism is at an all time low thanks to a Youtube video. Before reading on to the rest of the post, please watch the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRc_Kh_kYsA So I watched that video thinking this is some comedy sketch regarding feminism, and I thought it was pretty funny and had some truth to it, perceiving intentions and harassment where there was none with things like "did you just cough AT me?" Turns out that no, this is not a comedy sketch about feminism. And no, this is not someone taking someone else's comedy sketch and applying the title to it for comedic effect. This woman is legitimately insane, and once had a youtube channel of her going around Boston believing herself to be stalked by anyone and everyone. That video is a video someone saved before her channel got taken down. It's a very sad day when I can legitimately confuse a crazy person being crazy with a satirical sketch imitating a feminist.

My opinion on the whole thing? Making fun of them does give them fodder. No debate there. ON THE OTHER HAND... GamerGate is this magical little activist movement where we basically DON'T have to act. I believe GamerGate can succeed where other movements have failed, simply because GamerGate has a solution to basic human laziness. All GamerGaters have to do to win is NOT visit the sites run by and promoting horrible people. Pretty easy right? Yes we're doing more and that's good. We write letters to advertisers, we discuss the issues, we try to spread our message and our story, and all of that is very very good. But I think a day will come when people get sick and tired and burnt out on writing letters. Why? Because people are lazy and people want entertainment. As crude as it is, making fun of how ****ed up these people are, in my opinion, helps keep the movement active. It gives people a form of entertainment and a reason to stay involved. In that sense, I don't really worry about it too much. Either side is fine. Consider it a flame that heats up both GG and anti-GG. When we make fun of them, we feed the flame and things heat up for both sides. I would dare say us making fun of them leads to some of their crude comments aswell. When we don't make fun of them, the flame is smaller as interest and general activity is smaller. But either way it burns, and it'll eventually burn them, whether slowly or quickly, and with or without catching other things on fire too. But I'm pretty "let it be" about the whole scenario cause I know GG will win no matter what.

Why would you go to war with them dude, they seem to be doing a pretty good job of going to war with themselves. Being Queen of Victimtown is srs bsns.

My reaction looks more like this:

"Oh no you didn't! The throne is mine!!!" Yo I got $20 on the stupid one with the f***ed up hair, any takers?

TRIPLE LOLOLOLOLOL WE GOIN ALL THE WAY TONIGHT https://archive.today/bvacS

Demonstrates their mentality perfectly. "You asked to interview me. You're pressuring me." Should have just skipped a beat and claim harassment and oppression. When I first saw Pakman's ghetto-ass low-budget show years ago in my recommended list, and laughed my butt off at how worthless his co-host is to productive discussion and how this is completely ignored and never acknowledged, I NEVER would've expected this guy would end up being my ****ing hero in a story about mass corruption in the journalism industry. Always respected his show because despite the low-budget aspects and his hilariously worthless co-host (who is entertaining btw, don't get rid of him), it's always done good reporting, but I NEVER would've expected we'd need to resort to him to actually get our story covered.

Gamergate raises money for a suicide help group and a Bullying prevention group. Anti-GG will raise money for rich white women. Glad to know who supports privilege. How dare you try to invite prominent anti-gg folks onto your show to find out why they don't want to engage. Hit piece! On the plus side, we have examples of then making asses of themselves. I feel soooooooo bad for Pakman though cause he must be at his little studio going "WTF JUST HAPPENED?!?" with a confused expression on his face.