Longknife

I didn't watch it, but the reddit seems dived whether that Colbert was making fun of the whole thing or coming out on Anita's side. The name 3 thing was hilarious though, if it happened as described. Just an FYI, Comedy Central used to post all episodes of the show up the next day after it aired. I think they still do. I'd watch myself but foreign IPs got blocked from doing so a couple years back. So yeah you might be able to see it for yourself tomorrow on their website.

I had the same question but was pleasantly surprised the group seems AT LEAST very level headed, check their website yourself and the "about" tab to read their goals and philosophy on changing things. Mind you, how exactly that money gets used and if every dollar donated sees proper use is still (and is always) a good question given the relative low-budget costs of doing what they propose, but I see no reason to go on a witch hunt against these guys. Seems more like a situation where they could very easily and accidently end up with more cash than they could ever need for such minimal efforts rather than a flawed system that encourages them to pocket the money.

Again I just wanna say this not so much in regards to this issue, but a little (important) life knowledge: there ARE cities where it's typically a bad idea to respond to a stranger saying things as simple as "how are you." I'm not talking a guy with some flyers to pass out or someone obviously trying to promote a product or whatever, but some random person chatting you up. This applies to both men and women. There's sadly some unstable people out there and you simply don't know what'll trigger them, so it's best to ignore them. No eye contact, no vocal acknowledgement, no nothing. Just keep walking and if you feel followed or in danger, head towards someplace you feel safe. While I actually do have respect for the modest and humble efforts by that Hollaback group, I also think it's still a truth that this issue cannot universally be weeded out so long as mentally unstable people walk the streets. I would dare say those men who followed her (and maybe one guy that was dressed very odd) do not count as good evidence of "harassment" in my mind solely because I question their stability. They could've easily acted weird towards anyone, but attractive people unfortunately attract crazies as well and thus have to cope with them more.

Apparently Anita was on the Colbert Report? I'm familiar with the Daily Show and Colbert Report, and unfortunately you cannot watch their show online if you're outside of the US. Anyone mind summarizing what was said, or know a way I could find the interview? All I've been able to dig up is apparently Colbert asked her to name three sexist games right now and all she did was stutter before making a stupid blanket statement that the audience applauded. EDIT: Also apparently now Anita's promoting some #CancelColbert movement?? Let me clarify I'm not reporting news here, I'm inquiring. I can't find much details or info on this myself cause I seem locked out on most of it. Was hoping someone could explain what all of this is about. EDIT2: NVM at least found a date, the hashtag was months ago, so someone just showing off the alleged hypocrisy.

Actually I don't really have another post. Looked into the HollaBack group to fight against this, and they're reasonable in their goals and aims. They seem to acknowledge that all they really can do is try to communicate that women don't like this. That's fair enough, because again I would argue that the world is NOT going to drop what it's doing to help some woman who cries "bawwww help me I got complimented," so women should just grow thicker skin with this, merely because the reality is it won't change. Was worried Hollaback might be very delusional or possibly scam-y in tone and expecting serious cultural changes, but they seem to understand that all they're capable of doing is trying to let men know what kinds of things annoy women.

It's suffocating. Try to imagine yourself constantly being talked to or acknowledged by others. You'd feel as though you can't get a moment alone, and if you're shy or anxious by nature, then strangers would surely worry you. It's not that those guys saying "have a nice evening" are harassing, it's just they're so used to the harassers that now simple acknowledgement like that gets them stressed again. It shouldn't, but it does. Sec, I got another post to type up about this, but I eating a sammich. I'mma finish it then finish my thoughts.

Also, this does a lot to explain why you oppose GamerGate. You're so worried about self-proclaimed morally correct people thinking poorly of you that their say and their opinions seems to have immense sway and pull on you. Just sayin', don't be afraid to draw your own conclusions and not give a **** what others think. Doesn't make you a monster, makes you a person and an individual. As for your greeting people, it highly depends on your culture and your location. NYC is a city. Cities tend to be unfriendly and inpersonable, so everyone's a little on guard about friendliness. And rightfully so. Born in San Francisco myself and was taught very young and from multiple people that you do NOT respond to a stranger saying hi, because they might be a crazy person who could react a number of ways to acknowledgement. Best to ignore and keep walking. Here in Germany, it's just not in the culture. While my fellow Germans often marvel at how friendly american culture is comparatively and love it, I think I would get funny looks if I said hi to a stranger on the streets -here-. Guys would laugh, girls would be weirded out potentially. (or not cuz I'm fukn hot) Finally I've lived in Oklahoma for a time. 30,000 people, so small town in the middle of nowhere. There people say hi as they walk by. Nothing strange about it. Dunno where you live, but if others greet each other, then nah you're not bothering anyone. If you're the only one then it might stand out a bit. I'd gauge how people react and go from there on if you wanna keep doing it or not.

Lazily copy-pasting what my youtube comment says:

Another vaguely relevant (aka mostly irrelevant) video that's more for chuckles. This came up in my recommended vids, probably cause of all the GamerGate stuff: Not looking to make any political statements about this (though I could) I more or less wanted to share it because somewhere in the video there's a comment by a guy that made me go "LOLRLY, YOU CALL THAT HARASSMENT??" I wanna see if people can spot it and if their reaction is just like mine.

How on earth could they possibly have been "forced" when Bethesda approached them, offered to license it to them so they could make a game, and Bethesda would've clearly explained the conditions in advance? I just don't see how this could be realistic in the slightest since anyone with half a brain could've expected Bethesda would've wanted a title similar to Fallout 3 in style.

http://plebcomics.tumblr.com/post/101006353689/gamergate-in-a-nutshell

....Does this explain THIS tweet?: https://twitter.com/gitgudgg/status/527419777183408128 lolololollolololololool

Our favorite radical said this: https://archive.today/sDV11 He actually pulled it and it's only available in archive form now. GGers are basically reacting with "yeah sure dude, you were only PRETENDING to be retarded." Regardless of whether it was sincere tweets or not, I find the reaction pretty hilarious. It's either a radical being called out on his weird **** or a lesson in why you don't "troll" by purposefully acting like an idiot.

I was also going to link this vid for dem feels, but realized while the first portion is incredibly on point, the second part would be the part the SJW's cling to and think "YEP THAT'S ME I'M A REVOLUTIONARY:"

I kinds doubt that. Opinions don't tend to die out as easily. Let me rephrase that: One side would undoubtedly become the "radical" view that most of society conciously disagrees with and would lose it's ability to call anyone that disagrees with it a sexist, at which point it would largely lose the ability to demand the floor at any given time just based on that claim alone. They'd become a more "extreme" viewpoint that wouldn't be given the time of day they're all given now. Despite this I would still argue both would benefit from this because internally, both would discover less debate amongst themselves and thus be able to decide on and focus on what they wish to focus on while being able to move forward with their ideals.

Seeing that you didn't directly quote the section you're responding to I honestly have no idea what I'm supposed to be countering. Well this is not true. A conservative can be an atheist and pro-choice. Despite the prevalence of religiousness in the American right-wing it is by no means inherent. Their defining stances would be their economic views and the role of the state. Opposition to sex based oppression and equal rights and/or liberation for the female sex. Lol, yes there are, it just sounds like you're ignorant of them. That would be the third-wave, liberal "sex-positive" feminists. Likely the second-wave, radical-feminists. You've done an excellent job of misunderstanding my points. If attaching quoted segments you've made to numbers in a list I provide is too hard for you, then sorry, but I can't be assed to segment this quote on a friggin' ipad (**** Apple, seriously) so I'm sticking to the numbers: 1) Those were merely examples, and even so you've done nothing to prove me wrong in that regard. That's exactly what I said: we as individuals do not conveniently fall into categories or political stances 100% and a conservative can support liberal stances on various issues. This does NOT however change that there are liberal stances and conservative stances. This merely means people are complex individuals who support different ideologies on different issues. Feminism however lacks defined stances, which therefore leads to a lot of the constant hysterics and slander that goes on when opposing a feminist. They are free to claim that whatever their personal subjective opinions and stances are are infact the stances of feminism, and therefore if you oppose their personal opinion then you must be sexist. This is problematic and leads to very unproductive discussion. You can see it for yourself in that half of the GamerGate discussion is now about our opposition to the feminist clique within the industry rather than against the corrupt journalists. The feminists would argue this is because GamerGate is truly about misogyny, but I would argue that until they clearly define what misogyny is, they have no right to be slinging that word about so liberally. On the contrary, them using the word so liberally is in my opinion what's made portions of GamerGate be so antagonistic towards them, because those kinds of claims offend them, and the fact that the feminists do a terrible job of backing up and reinforcing those claims rather than screaming "misogynist" and conveniently disappearing when questions start coming in only makes the anger towards them that much worse. It's not misogyny, it's anger towards a childish, unjustified and unproductive form of discussion that feminists employ. Defined stances would remedy all of this. 2) "Opposition to sex based oppression and equal rights and/or liberation for the female sex." Congratulations. You have now named your opinion on what feminism is. Just like every other person who supports or opposes feminism. The problem is that without defined stances regarding what feminism is about, your opinion is as valuable as those opinions opposing them. Fact of the matter is that regardless of how obvious and straightforward you may consider your above opinion, feminists who hate men and consider them problematic exist, and this contradicts your opinion. And no these feminists are not alienated by the collective; at best they're ignored while they continue to carry the title. 3) I'm sorry I didn't clarify there. I am indeed ignorant about the exact types of feminism, and only had a hunch different types exist. However, in practice I do not know their names. And what does that tell me...? It tells me that despite the attention I give to Anita and Sommers, I haven't learned these subsets, which would mean they either do NOT name the subsets they belong to or are very vague about doing so. (aka terms as loose as "traditional" and "modern," which sure enough differ from the terms you just used. Even the terms to describe the different kinds seem to vary...) My point was that when asked who they are, every single one identifies as "feminist." They all answer feminist. They may all adhere to different subsets, but they all wish to claim their subset is the "correct" one and thus don't even bother naming their subset. This is a problem that ultimately hurts them, because they end up associated with the very types of feminism they oppose. Likewise, you cannot fault a man who wishes to adhere to feminism, encounters a feminist who tells him a woman who appears sexy is empowering and thus he begins encouraging scandidly clad women to continue dressing provokatively, and lo and behold a feminist comes along and calls him sexist. He's only trying to please, and yet he's trapped in a scenario where regardless of what he does, he will be named a sexist because he cannot possibly adhere to both. And therein - again - lies the problem with feminism. The collective name of "feminism," regardless of which kind you follow, functions as a blanket belief that reserves the right to accuse anyone of being sexist. If person A believes women should dress provokatively to utilize the form of strength they were born with whereas person B believes women should dress conservatively so as to not demean themselves to only one "talent," and both views fall under one form of feminism or another, then feminism is capable of referring to both person A and person B as sexist and an enemy of equality whenever it so pleases. This is not ok, because it affords anyone under the title of feminism to be a blantant hypocrite and fails to define rules and guidelines for people who DO wish to adhere to feminism. In that sense, feminism only hurts discussion and productivity, both because any discussion involving feminism will be subjected to ridiculous and exaggerated claims such as "the entirety of the opposition is sexist" whereas feminism itself is incapable of growing because it's members are incapable of coming to a consensus. A consensus would allow the movement to grow. Yes, it would scare off people who don't agree with the consesus, but it would also allow new people to correctly identify the group and realize "aha, I do support this." This would undoubtedly split feminism in two, one side would die out, one would live on, and the one that would live on would be the one that holds values the majority of the population agrees with. Overall, feminism and society would be better for it. Feminism, because it's allowed to move forward, and society as a whole because at the very least, this would help us realize which portions of feminism we do and do not like, AKA do we prefer women dress conservatively and try to downplay their sex appeal or do we want them to dress in more revealing attire, embrace their sexuality and not be ashamed of or fear being called a slüt? (SPOILER ALERT: The answer is the latter) My position stands. Feminism needs to do a better job of defining what it does and does not stand for, and those who find themselves in the minority opinions should adopt a new name....for their own good. Until then, feminism has no right to scream and act outraged about people opposing it or about people being sexist, because feminism is neither the judge that gets to decide that, nor can it even make up it's own f***ing mind on what misogyny is, and typically it boils down to misogynist = someone who doesn't like my opinions.

Then what is the point of the hissyfit that is Gamer Gate? You demand that the "SJWs" shut-up and only influence through consumption yet the GG side can piss and moan and launch a 'campaign' demanding a change in games journalism. So you made it up? No ****ing ****. There's disagreements with feminism just like there's disagreements in liberalism, conservatism, socialism, etc. 1) Because while I'm certain GamerGate will win out, I'm uncertain people will actually learn from this and remember it. I for one enjoy pushing this further because the higher up this goes, the more people that'll potentially become aware of the story, thus the more people that will believe and know "yes, that really just happened." I think it important to understand just how petty and pathetic people are capable of being in regards to all the excuses and propaganda being spouted by journalists. 2) No, it's called logical deduction and critical thinking. GamerGate and the SJWs disagree on multiple points, both are voicing their opinions and concerns on the matter, yet advertisers continue to pull support while not a single company has come out in support of the SJW side. Companies are logical by nature, therefore they will side with whichever side has the most support and thus can provide the most customers. If you have a counterpoint as to why I'm wrong, I'd love to hear it. 3) The difference is that liberalism and conservatism still have defining stances. Outlawing abortion is considered a conservative stance, whereas allowing it without restriction is considered liberal. Stricter regulation and enforcement of halting illegal immigrant efforts is considered conservative, whereas relaxing the very same regulations is considered liberal. The difference is that I myself as a person can identify on the whole with one side more than the other while still disagreeing with my side on an issue. Each side has a "ticket" in which if you're 100% for it, you support the respective stance on EVERY issue. This also means that the two have defined stances for every issue, of which YOU as an individual are free to choose on which issues you'd label yourself a conservative or liberal. Feminism fails to do this. There is no defined feminist ticket on where the majority stands, nor are there names for subsets of feminism (for example "Sarkeesian feminism" or "Sommers feminism" or others like this do not exist as subsets) and their various views. Within feminism, you can find views that DIRECTLY OPPOSE EACH OTHER and yet they both use the same name to describe themselves, causing absolute confusion and difficulty with actually properly discussing it. Great example: there are feminists who would argue a woman who looks and acts sexy is empowering as being able to utilize her attractiveness is a form of empowerment that women are exceptionally good at, whereas other feminists would argue that's exploitation and reducing a woman to nothing but her appearance. BOTH of these desire to call themselves feminists, and thus very quickly you end up with situations where basically anything and everything gets labeled as misogynist thinking because both sides of that coin have the liberty to be able to point at their opposition and say that person opposes feminism and is therefore likely a misogynist. And while I'm at it, while this isn't exactly a fundamental flaw with it's methodology (or lack thereof), feminism has this terrible habit of resorting to hysterics. Please cite a feminist who responded to a statement from a guy by referring to it as "inadvertedly limiting and reflecting poorly on the capabilities of women" instead of blatantly calling the statement misogynist or sexist. It's shock value used to try and garner support, and big ****ing surprise it leads to it becoming a rarity where feminism actually has a say in an issue without the issue becoming absolutely bats*** insane with everyone calling each other communists and nazis and every other word people like to fling at each other without understanding their meanings and utilizing them properly.

This is why I refuse to take feminism seriously until they define things.Maybe I'm so opposed to it because I studied law and we define literally EVERYTHING (you could argue a law degree is largely about learning legal interpretations of words like "stole" or "pressure"), but I firmly believe you cannot be expected to be taken seriously if you cannot concisely organize your thoughts. Feminism to me feels like a term that attracts a lot of women who think "well it's about women and I'm a woman so it must be good for me," and then what happens is you have a lot of women who one day decide they're hungry and that their husband should give them his last slice of cake, and when he doesn't it's misogyny because feminism = "whatever I want" and she happens to want that cake at the moment. It seems to be something that WAAAAAAAY too many people are applying subjective interpretations and views to, which makes it very difficult to productively discuss or take seriously because it's definition is constantly changing. I would even argue that calmer feminists such as Sommers or Emma Watson desperately need to get off their asses and work to DEFINE feminism clearly and concisely if they truly care about it. The above is just another example of how subjective feminism can be. It turns out both the creator and lead producer of Bayonetta are both women who created what some feminists consider a misogynistic character. Meanwhile Wu creates similar characters but that's A-OK because she supports the agenda of the feminists attacking Bayonetta. This does not have the qualities or characteristics of an ideology. This is self-interested. An ideology or philosophy should have defining rules and guidelines to explain what isn't and is ok according to it, but the lines are so blurred with feminism that you would absolutely STRUGGLE to name a single example of feminist activism where there was not internal disagreement between two or more feminists. GamerGate is just another example, with Sommers and Sarkeesian on opposing sides. For any feminists who might happen to read this, kindly define your stances, because at this moment in time, it lacks them and thus is hard to take seriously. Urge prominent feminists to come together and sit down and write up a codex of what feminism does and doesn't mean. Until that day happens, we're bound to encounter spoiled little girls using the name selfishly as a shield and tarnishing it's name.

What's that? Sorry? You've got a bad connection, you're breaking up.

Can't you tell the difference? Clearly an overly sexualized protagonist and clearly designed by a male. Short black hair, nerdy style glasses? These are staples of the stereotypical image of a sexy vixen. Her boobs are also bigger than mine and therefore this is misogynist. God I wish men knew how to realistically depict women, stupid inferior men... Perfect. Not a hint of sexualization at all! See what great things you can accomplish when you allow women to make games? And my god, look at those amazing graphics! These must be the best graphic designers in the industry, and what a surprise they're all women!

My God, what a HEINOUS attack! Brianna Wu is a developer, right? What has she made? I'm not asking to be derisive, I honestly don't know and am curious. Funny you should ask. After being appalled and disappointed to see Zoe's "game," I was just looking Wu's game up. This is it. Better than I'd expect, I'll admit, but just click through different parts of the video. The gameplay either looks incredibly dull and boring or frustratingly slow at times. The majority of it is Quicktime Event: the Game: And before you go looking, don't bother with Metacritic. It's exclusively bias reviews both for and against the game: 10's and 0's. What led me to this trailer was a guy who rated a 0 calling out the bias in reviews and saying people should watch this and judge for themselves. Overall, this is a mobile game for the iOS made on a budget of $12,000. This at least qualifies as a game (whereas Zoe's is debateably a book), but again this is definitely what you'd call a small fish game and hardly a focal point of the industry. I also fail to see any issues with the all female cast, both positive and negative. I honestly fail to notice it at times and don't have any problem with it, while I also fail to see how the game is supposedly better or more artistic for employing an all female cast. That's of course because gender doesn't matter, I just mean I fail to see why THIS is soooo important for the feminists within this issue. I could not give less ****s about the gender ratio of the characters, I care about how dull the quicktime events look.

This guy has to be the world's most dedicated troll and a triple agent so deep undercover that not even the organization he serves remembers him or knows he's allied to them. That's the only rational explanation.

Gosh, that's quite specific. Source? And yet their half-baked undergrad 'critiques' are apparently a monstrous abomination worthy of this ridiculous campaign. Can't we all just be good little free-market consumers and simply not consume their journalism or even better "make your own". This vocalization seems to blaspheme the wisdom of the free-market. How are we not doing that? Those websites are being actively boycotted while other websites such as Techraptor are now being given a shot by the community. As for the "source" on what people care about, just look around you. That list isn't even my own preference as I'd dare put story before gameplay in some ways, personally, but that sure seems to be the general concensus of the market. Can we just take a second to take a step back, remove any little predispositions to GamerGate from the picture and focus solely on Brianna as a person, and all agree that she's an outrageous idiot? It's obvious she's only in the limelight because she took a chance and ran with it and enjoys this drama filling her otherwise vapid life. While that's understandable, what's NOT understandable is that no one on her side had the sense to kindly ask her to keep quiet, cause omg is she a liability for the anti-GG side... Another sidenote, I find it hilariously ironic that David Pakman has to be the one to ask the questions. Some backround information on my experience with the guy, his videos have come up in my recommended list before and I've clicked to watch. While I do like the stuff he covers and his reporting, this is all trumped by how hilariously bad his show can be. When I say bad, I simply mean poor in quality on the presentation side of things and not that he's bad at his job or anything. Basically, many of his videos have him speaking with his co-host, and while David might go on a 3 minute monologue about an issue, he'll ask his co-host for his thoughts, the camera then switches to the co-host, who always has the expression of a deer in the headlights before giving brief answers like "ya, I think it's bad Dave." David then continues with his reporting as though there were NOTHING out of the ordinary with his co-host's way of responding, and you're left laughing and thinking "that just happened" and how awesomely bad it looks that they don't acknowledge how poor the co-host's content is. Not hating though. It's hilarious and makes his show entertaining and memorable. 10/10, would not change and would write love letters to his terriawful co-host. This DOES however speak volumes about the journalism industry. Pakman is clearly limited on resources (lack of quality in presentation in some regards, though not because of lack of skill on his part or a lack of professionalism), and yet thusfar he's one of the best at actually acting like a journalist. Crazy world, huh?

And Gawker has promoted leaked celebrity nudes. And drove people to look at Tarantino's leaked script. And doxxed every gun owner in New York.Allying with Gawker and claiming moral superiority is...strange. Nothing strange about it, it's just evidence that this isn't about protecting women or fighting misogyny, it's about a selfish promotion of one's self and one's own ideologies. The only surprisingly damning thing about this is that it really highlights that the group of people associated with Silverstring media (loosely or directly) really don't care all that much about their ideology and are nothing but children. Once again, they lose the battle before it even starts by not adhering to their own moral code. They claim a desire to fight misogyny, but in doing so, ally themselves with and promote a group guilty of the exact same things they claim to be fighting. Even if GamerGate were to die out tomorrow, the elements they claimed to have hated so much would still be alive and kicking...and by their hand. In the end this is just a group of spoiled children working with a corrupt media market in a symbiotic relationship where the spoiled children might potentially see their own goals furthered with the help of the media while the media gets to use them and their claims of misogyny as a convenient shield.