Longknife

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.

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?